(04-12-2017 09:15 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 05:26 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  Cutting sports should not be an option. Our large number of (especially) Olympic sport athletes are a credit to the institution. Even when I attended back in the Dark Ages, our most impressive students were those who competed in the non-revenue sports.

We are very ambitious in the number of sports we sponsor:

W&M: Athletes (669), Enrollment (6,214)
Delaware: Athletes (655), Enrollment (17,533)
Towson: Athletes (596), Enrollment (16,712)
JMU: Athletes (523), Enrollment (18,320)

These numbers are as of 2015.

This ambition speaks well of the College.

As some may have noticed, I am big on basketball. I want a basketball boosters club because we will need to fund basketball with ADDITIONAL donations, not by cutting other sports.

The same applies for lacrosee.

Honest question here - you say "this ambition [for fielding a lot of teams] speaks well of the college." Why? What benefit does it give us? I don't dispute that these sports bring in strong students, but we are WM. I don't for a second believe we wouldn't get equally strong students and leaders from our general applicant pool.

I've heard the argument that former athletes donate at high percentages, and I buy it. But I find it hard to believe that the money given by the former athletes in the aforementioned sports to cut is greater than the gains in contributions we would get from say a consistently competitive basketball program that makes the NCAA tourney every 4-5 years or so.

I would be legit curious for the arguments for keeping these sports (golf, tennis, track, cross country, gymnastics, swimming) aside from "it's the way we've always done it" or "it would shake things up too much." And I get that some of these win (cross country, tennis sometimes; gymnastics doesn't count because there are like 20 programs in the country), but I fail to see what them winning at the varsity level gets us that them winning at the club level doesn't.

(And yes - I understand the political and situational realities here and fully understand that none of these are ever getting cut, but I'm interested in a discussion here as to why we shouldn't do this. And secondarily - TribeinExile I'm not just picking on you - this is really a general question for everyone, just happened to grab your response.)

I believe the athletes in question are stronger students than the general applicant pol. They are more well-rounded, disciplined and accomplished. That is my honest answer to your honest question.

Further, the experience of inter-collegiate competition improves the developmental experience of the students involved.

As I said I admired those students when I was in college. My feelings on this have been reinforced by my observations of my daughter's experience at a military academy.

(04-12-2017 09:15 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  I would be legit curious for the arguments for keeping these sports (golf, tennis, track, cross country, gymnastics, swimming) aside from "it's the way we've always done it" or "it would shake things up too much." And I get that some of these win (cross country, tennis sometimes; gymnastics doesn't count because there are like 20 programs in the country), but I fail to see what them winning at the varsity level gets us that them winning at the club level doesn't.

I think it comes down to what the role of the athletic department should be. Is it there to serve the school or serve the students? Obviously there is a lot of overlap there and ideally you'd want to strike a balance somewhere in the middle but the argument for keeping as many varsity sports as possible is to allow W&M students to compete at the highest levels across the country regardless of success. That's something that club sports simply don't offer. And I realize that it's naive to believe that is the goal of today's NCAA but I think it's still very relevant to people at the College.

(04-12-2017 09:35 AM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 09:15 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  I would be legit curious for the arguments for keeping these sports (golf, tennis, track, cross country, gymnastics, swimming) aside from "it's the way we've always done it" or "it would shake things up too much." And I get that some of these win (cross country, tennis sometimes; gymnastics doesn't count because there are like 20 programs in the country), but I fail to see what them winning at the varsity level gets us that them winning at the club level doesn't.

I think it comes down to what the role of the athletic department should be. Is it there to serve the school or serve the students? Obviously there is a lot of overlap there and ideally you'd want to strike a balance somewhere in the middle but the argument for keeping as many varsity sports as possible is to allow W&M students to compete at the highest levels across the country regardless of success. That's something that club sports simply don't offer. And I realize that it's naive to believe that is the goal of today's NCAA but I think it's still very relevant to people at the College.

This framing is the question. I don't at all dispute the value of those sports to the students who play them. But at the end of the day, we're talking about 100 students in those programs at a given time. That's a lot of resources to devote to 100 students (about 1% of student body), and it gets even greater when you factor in the LARGE opportunity cost lost.

My contention would be that given the resources afforded it, the athletic department should serve the school and not students. If it was funded at a level similar to other students clubs and programs I would disagree. But each student is paying over $1600 for the athletic program per year (might be higher now). That takes its mission away from one solely devoted to the students it serves and gives it a firm responsibility to work in the best interests of the school at large. Student athletic fees get a bad rap, but I have no problem with them funding the main sports that give tangible and significant benefits to the College in numerous ways. But funding niche sports that are ignored outside of the students who are on the team, should not be part of that mission.

I agree. I never bought the "keep as many sports as possible" argument. I think its a feel-good rationalization for people who don't like to admit that college athletics at the Division 1 level, if you eliminate the profit and marketing motive, are really a ridiculous proposition. There is absolutely no reason for W&M to field more programs than JMU. I once heard it compared by a fund-raiser asking me for $$ to a "liberal arts sports program." I told him it sounded to me like inefficiency.

If men's lacrosse gives us more bang for our buck than our men's golf, track and field, gymnastics, and swimming, we should cut three of the four and go with men's lacrosse. To hell with the "politics," people will make noise for a few months and then move on to something else. The minute we host UVA or Hopkins for a Friday night game at Zable on a warm spring night - and it would happen - no one will ever question the decision again.

If our lacrosse team is only on ESPNU three times in a season, that is three more times than any of those sports are EVER on television. More students will go to men's lacrosse games than go to any events for those sports. As for conference championships, again...big picture. We could win them in men's lacrosse, and get more out of it.

Some observations from someone who knows little about lacrosse:

I think the leap that we would win CAA championships in lacrosse is a little bigger leap in reality. I would argue that the other CAA programs are able to get talent that do not have the academic qualifications to go to many other competitive lacrosse schools. We would be competing for talent with long standing programs outside the CAA, moreso than our CAA competition, and the percentage of high academic programs is far greater in lacrosse than other sports.

Richmond, I believe, had the benefit of a big donor, so, able to pay for and sustain a high level coach. With our athletic pay scales, it would be a tough sell to secure that same level of coaching.

That's not a vote for or against resurrecting lacrosse, just a reality check regarding chance of high level success. I don't recall anything in our previous program history that says otherwise. Now, it is appropriate that an original Native American school would play a Native American sport.


Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-12-2017 11:00 AM)Tribeheart Wrote:  Some observations from someone who knows little about lacrosse:

I think the leap that we would win CAA championships in lacrosse is a little bigger leap in reality. I would argue that the other CAA programs are able to get talent that do not have the academic qualifications to go to many other competitive lacrosse schools. We would be competing for talent with long standing programs outside the CAA, moreso than our CAA competition, and the percentage of high academic programs is far greater in lacrosse than other sports.

Richmond, I believe, had the benefit of a big donor, so, able to pay for and sustain a high level coach. With our athletic pay scales, it would be a tough sell to secure that same level of coaching.

That's not a vote for or against resurrecting lacrosse, just a reality check regarding chance of high level success. I don't recall anything in our previous program history that says otherwise. Now, it is appropriate that an original Native American school would play a Native American sport.


Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

These are all good points. I agree - but with one caveat. Part of the reason Richmond has succeeded is that there are just so many D1-caliber players out there right now, and only 60 D1 schools. That is why the NESCAC (Bowdoin, Tufts, Middlebury, Amherst, Williams) has won 3 of the last 5 D3 national titles and has 5 teams in the top 25. Almost every starter in that conference is a D1 lacrosse player who couldn't find a home at a better academic school in D1.

I have nothing against LAX and the part about it being for the privileged is one of the main points I've heard about the sport, not something that I necessarily believe. I agree it provides all the hallmarks of Tribe athletics, I just don't think it'll add anything significant to the College. We don't need to entice Californians to come to W&M...we have our pick of out-of-staters as it is.
LAX started at my NoVA HS in the very late 1980s...it's still 4th or 5th on my HS' radar. It's just not a big deal south of Maryland.

And, TG, if I go to a Final 4 match with you, I'm not bringing my family...I want to enjoy myself!

(04-12-2017 11:43 AM)Tribal Wrote:  LAX started at my NoVA HS in the very late 1980s...it's still 4th or 5th on my HS' radar. It's just not a big deal south of Maryland.

It was 2nd at my NoVA HS in the late 2000s. And the regional tournament drew the 3rd most attendees behind football and basketball.

Sounds like a plan Tribal.

The bottom line I can offer is that for people on this board who think we are foolish to discuss mens lacrosse, find a way to attend an ACC, Big Ten, or even CAA weekend home game.

Watch the sport, see the crowd, and imagine a game against UNC, Duke, or UVA on a Friday night under the lights at Zable in 60-plus degree weather. Then ask "would any of our Olympic or other non-revenue sports generate that kind of buzz."

That's all I would ask. Its the kind of thing you have to experience in person to understand. The sport doesn't translate that well to TV for novice fans. The speed and energy just doesn't come across as well.

Love the connection of lacrosse to Native Americans. Anything to bring back the feathers is fine by me.

I support adding lacrosse and a women's sport, but not at the expense of another currently existing sport.

Elimination of a sport does involve alienation of that sport's alumni and friends. Not a desired outcome.

Interesting timing with this discussion. Even though I no longer live in Richmond, I still try to get some of my Richmond-area sports fix by listening to Bob Black's (longtime Spiders broadcaster) radio show in podcast form.

His show on 4/11 focused on UR's addition of men's lacrosse, including interviews of some responsible for bringing the program to life. It's a good listen and I would recommend it for those here who have an interest in W&M adding the sport.

Here is the link: http://www.espn950am.com/sports-huddle-podcasts/

Our women's team has been sucking for long time, maybe we should alternate.

(04-13-2017 09:45 AM)tribeintexas Wrote:  Our women's team has been sucking for long time, maybe we should alternate.

I can't emphasize enough how dissimilar men's and women's lacrosse is.

Sent from my VS500 using Tapatalk

Its been a year, but didnt want to rehash all the same statements. If VHSL brings this up from club to varsity status, we are missing the boat. Also tough to swallow based on the other posts re: spending and # of athletes, but:

https://pilotonline.com/sports/high-scho...c680e.html

Our women's team is bad again. I don't know why they are so bad year after year.

(04-17-2018 01:00 PM)nogretheogre Wrote:  Its been a year, but didnt want to rehash all the same statements. If VHSL brings this up from club to varsity status, we are missing the boat. Also tough to swallow based on the other posts re: spending and # of athletes, but:

https://pilotonline.com/sports/high-scho...c680e.html

I had no idea HR schools couldn't have varsity lacrosse. It's had varsity status with the VHSL since 2006 and Northern Va schools have been crowning "state" champions since 1991.