Men's LAX looks like it costs D1 mid majors approx. $1M. Towson spends less than that- Hofstra spends $1.5M. What I was getting at is if JMU added Men's Lax and another Women's sport they could likely do so for $2M more in expenses. They would have a conference to play in, facilities to use, and be able to compete immediately. That is a "bone" as compared to the spending for FBS football when that actually happens (combination of conference entry, conference exit, and additional scholarship and travel fees). It would show alumni that they are committed to growing the JMU sports brand and not just waiting for FBS.

There are less barriers/excuses for not doing it. JMU isn't relying on a conference change or invite, they don't need to build an arena/stadium to compete. Even the existing CAA membership presents good potential rivals (Towson, Drexel, Delaware, Hofstra, etc.). Why not do it and then when the FBS ship comes in you re-evaluate all sports and maybe cut Golf/Tennis and some other less popular sports that aren't growing like Lacrosse is or who's championship has more teams to compete with and isn't televised on ESPN 2 like Lacrosse is.

there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.

and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

Does JMU still do its accounting differently than any other school in America?

(05-22-2017 06:55 AM)Wear Purple Wrote:  Diversity is a strength.

Thread winner.

(05-21-2017 11:12 PM)Navyduke 07 Wrote:  Growing up in the Hampton roads area, lacrosse was only for the wealthier private schools. Those kids were from well off parents who were lawyers, doctors, etc. From my experience if someone is raised from money they go to WM, UVA, Ivy.

I don't know about the rest of VA or country in regards to the lacrosse relationship but it seems lacrosse is a "legacy" sport. I have seen it personally. Mommy and daddy are alumni of a "prestigious " school and the kid is basically enrolled when they are in middle school. I just dont think we could compete with the average household income of incoming freshmen. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually after the softball game, I'm probably wrong (sorry again DD).

It is no longer just a private school sport. HR Lax in Hampton Roads sponsors it at the "club" level for high schoolers (it is not a VHSL sport). My son plays for First Colonial (he's a giant btw: 6'5" and 300 lbs; I'm only 5'10"!). HR Lax uses the HS boundaries for teams, and there are about ten teams on the Peninsula and about a dozen teams on the Southside. I outfitted my son with mostly used equipment for a couple hundred bucks, and the HR lax fees and team fees were another couple hundred. I see no reason why middle class kids couldn't play and love lacrosse. Like any sport, if you want to be great, you have to attend clinics and invest $$$, but for the recreational player it's not super expensive.

(05-22-2017 02:22 PM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:12 PM)Navyduke 07 Wrote:  Growing up in the Hampton roads area, lacrosse was only for the wealthier private schools. Those kids were from well off parents who were lawyers, doctors, etc. From my experience if someone is raised from money they go to WM, UVA, Ivy.

I don't know about the rest of VA or country in regards to the lacrosse relationship but it seems lacrosse is a "legacy" sport. I have seen it personally. Mommy and daddy are alumni of a "prestigious " school and the kid is basically enrolled when they are in middle school. I just dont think we could compete with the average household income of incoming freshmen. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually after the softball game, I'm probably wrong (sorry again DD).

It is no longer just a private school sport. HR Lax in Hampton Roads sponsors it at the "club" level for high schoolers (it is not a VHSL sport). My son plays for First Colonial (he's a giant btw: 6'5" and 300 lbs; I'm only 5'10"!). HR Lax uses the HS boundaries for teams, and there are about ten teams on the Peninsula and about a dozen teams on the Southside. I outfitted my son with mostly used equipment for a couple hundred bucks, and the HR lax fees and team fees were another couple hundred. I see no reason why middle class kids couldn't play and love lacrosse. Like any sport, if you want to be great, you have to attend clinics and invest $$$, but for the recreational player it's not super expensive.

Just so I'm following right, are you saying Lacrosse isn't a VHSL sport? Because last time I checked it was.

http://www.vhsl.org/classification

Or are you saying within the tidewater area it isn't? Just want to follow along in the conversation correctly

(05-22-2017 08:36 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.

and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

You are correct that Title IX is about opportunities, not just scholarships, however I think you are overstating the issue of adding men's LAX as it might impact JMU's current balance between men and women opportunities. If going FBS would not place JMU in danger of violating Title IX guidelines (as per the Carr report), I think there is room for JMU to add a single men's sport. JMU is already at the NCAA minimum for sponsored Men's sports, and as 97 has already pointed out, the infrastructure and conference is already in place.

One point of clarification. I think it was 97 who also suggested cutting men's golf and or tennis to cover the concerns over adding men's LAX. A move to cut two men's sports and adding one would drop JMU below the minimum 6 team threshold set by the NCAA. I wouldn't favor cutting any men's teams, but adding LAX would be a winner.

(05-22-2017 02:39 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:36 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.

and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

You are correct that Title IX is about opportunities, not just scholarships, however I think you are overstating the issue of adding men's LAX as it might impact JMU's current balance between men and women opportunities. If going FBS would not place JMU in danger of violating Title IX guidelines (as per the Carr report), I think there is room for JMU to add a single men's sport. JMU is already at the NCAA minimum for sponsored Men's sports, and as 97 has already pointed out, the infrastructure and conference is already in place.

One point of clarification. I think it was 97 who also suggested cutting men's golf and or tennis to cover the concerns over adding men's LAX. A move to cut two men's sports and adding one would drop JMU below the minimum 6 team threshold set by the NCAA. I wouldn't favor cutting any men's teams, but adding LAX would be a winner.

I don't think football has much of an impact on Title IX.

FCS has a limit of 63 scholarships. but they can do partial. And JMU does do partial.

so you are spreading those 63 'ships on a roster of 90 or so.

in FBS, you can't do partials. All 85 must be full 'ships. So the total roster (participants) isn't going to change much when we move to FBS. It's just that everyone on the roster will be on a full scholarship, and not partials.

But adding a whole new men's sport....like lacrosse....adds 50 NEW male participants. which in turn requires much more NEW women's participants. That's why its an issue

and, yes, that is correct. We cannot cut any more men's sports. to be D1 you must sponsor at least 6 men's sports. We are at that minimum right now. Football, hoops, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis. No more cutting can be done.

you guys can beat the drum for lacrosse until the cows come home....but it ain't going to happen in our lifetime. And it's not necessarily that JMU wouldn't welcome it. It's just not possible.

(05-22-2017 02:27 PM)RootinFerDukes Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:22 PM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:12 PM)Navyduke 07 Wrote:  Growing up in the Hampton roads area, lacrosse was only for the wealthier private schools. Those kids were from well off parents who were lawyers, doctors, etc. From my experience if someone is raised from money they go to WM, UVA, Ivy.

I don't know about the rest of VA or country in regards to the lacrosse relationship but it seems lacrosse is a "legacy" sport. I have seen it personally. Mommy and daddy are alumni of a "prestigious " school and the kid is basically enrolled when they are in middle school. I just dont think we could compete with the average household income of incoming freshmen. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually after the softball game, I'm probably wrong (sorry again DD).

It is no longer just a private school sport. HR Lax in Hampton Roads sponsors it at the "club" level for high schoolers (it is not a VHSL sport). My son plays for First Colonial (he's a giant btw: 6'5" and 300 lbs; I'm only 5'10"!). HR Lax uses the HS boundaries for teams, and there are about ten teams on the Peninsula and about a dozen teams on the Southside. I outfitted my son with mostly used equipment for a couple hundred bucks, and the HR lax fees and team fees were another couple hundred. I see no reason why middle class kids couldn't play and love lacrosse. Like any sport, if you want to be great, you have to attend clinics and invest $$$, but for the recreational player it's not super expensive.

Just so I'm following right, are you saying Lacrosse isn't a VHSL sport? Because last time I checked it was.

http://www.vhsl.org/classification

Or are you saying within the tidewater area it isn't? Just want to follow along in the conversation correctly

Hmmm, I didn't know that. Looks like it's mostly NoVa and Richmond schools, but I see some as far west as Roanoke. But no, Hampton Roads high schools don't sponsor it.

(05-22-2017 02:50 PM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:27 PM)RootinFerDukes Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:22 PM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:12 PM)Navyduke 07 Wrote:  Growing up in the Hampton roads area, lacrosse was only for the wealthier private schools. Those kids were from well off parents who were lawyers, doctors, etc. From my experience if someone is raised from money they go to WM, UVA, Ivy.

I don't know about the rest of VA or country in regards to the lacrosse relationship but it seems lacrosse is a "legacy" sport. I have seen it personally. Mommy and daddy are alumni of a "prestigious " school and the kid is basically enrolled when they are in middle school. I just dont think we could compete with the average household income of incoming freshmen. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually after the softball game, I'm probably wrong (sorry again DD).

It is no longer just a private school sport. HR Lax in Hampton Roads sponsors it at the "club" level for high schoolers (it is not a VHSL sport). My son plays for First Colonial (he's a giant btw: 6'5" and 300 lbs; I'm only 5'10"!). HR Lax uses the HS boundaries for teams, and there are about ten teams on the Peninsula and about a dozen teams on the Southside. I outfitted my son with mostly used equipment for a couple hundred bucks, and the HR lax fees and team fees were another couple hundred. I see no reason why middle class kids couldn't play and love lacrosse. Like any sport, if you want to be great, you have to attend clinics and invest $$$, but for the recreational player it's not super expensive.

Just so I'm following right, are you saying Lacrosse isn't a VHSL sport? Because last time I checked it was.

http://www.vhsl.org/classification

Or are you saying within the tidewater area it isn't? Just want to follow along in the conversation correctly

Hmmm, I didn't know that. Looks like it's mostly NoVa and Richmond schools, but I see some as far west as Roanoke. But no, Hampton Roads high schools don't sponsor it.

Definitely something that you'll see continue to grow in the state, but you are correct on it being mainly NoVA and Richmond area. Last year for 5A was Briar Woods and Atlee I believe for the title

Quote:and, yes, that is correct. We cannot cut any more men's sports. to be D1 you must sponsor at least 6 men's sports. We are at that minimum right now. Football, hoops, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis. No more cutting can be done.

Dang, too bad we can't trade in our men's basketball program for men's lax.

(05-22-2017 02:45 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:39 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:36 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.

and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

You are correct that Title IX is about opportunities, not just scholarships, however I think you are overstating the issue of adding men's LAX as it might impact JMU's current balance between men and women opportunities. If going FBS would not place JMU in danger of violating Title IX guidelines (as per the Carr report), I think there is room for JMU to add a single men's sport. JMU is already at the NCAA minimum for sponsored Men's sports, and as 97 has already pointed out, the infrastructure and conference is already in place.

One point of clarification. I think it was 97 who also suggested cutting men's golf and or tennis to cover the concerns over adding men's LAX. A move to cut two men's sports and adding one would drop JMU below the minimum 6 team threshold set by the NCAA. I wouldn't favor cutting any men's teams, but adding LAX would be a winner.

I don't think football has much of an impact on Title IX.

FCS has a limit of 63 scholarships. but they can do partial. And JMU does do partial.

so you are spreading those 63 'ships on a roster of 90 or so.

in FBS, you can't do partials. All 85 must be full 'ships. So the total roster (participants) isn't going to change much when we move to FBS. It's just that everyone on the roster will be on a full scholarship, and not partials.

But adding a whole new men's sport....like lacrosse....adds 50 NEW male participants. which in turn requires much more NEW women's participants. That's why its an issue

and, yes, that is correct. We cannot cut any more men's sports. to be D1 you must sponsor at least 6 men's sports. We are at that minimum right now. Football, hoops, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis. No more cutting can be done.

you guys can beat the drum for lacrosse until the cows come home....but it ain't going to happen in our lifetime. And it's not necessarily that JMU wouldn't welcome it. It's just not possible.

All this conversation has got me to thinking. Do we realize that with FBS football teams are allowed 105 players and FCS football allows 95 players? This is the reason we can easily fall under the threshold of Title IX. We are only adding 10 male athletes. I have always been thinking it was the difference of 85 vs 63, but it's not (according to the conversation that has been going on). With that being said, I do understand that the scholarship costs to JMU is greater than adding only 10 athletes, but that has nothing to do with meeting Title IX requirements.

(05-22-2017 02:22 PM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:12 PM)Navyduke 07 Wrote:  Growing up in the Hampton roads area, lacrosse was only for the wealthier private schools. Those kids were from well off parents who were lawyers, doctors, etc. From my experience if someone is raised from money they go to WM, UVA, Ivy.

I don't know about the rest of VA or country in regards to the lacrosse relationship but it seems lacrosse is a "legacy" sport. I have seen it personally. Mommy and daddy are alumni of a "prestigious " school and the kid is basically enrolled when they are in middle school. I just dont think we could compete with the average household income of incoming freshmen. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually after the softball game, I'm probably wrong (sorry again DD).

It is no longer just a private school sport. HR Lax in Hampton Roads sponsors it at the "club" level for high schoolers (it is not a VHSL sport). My son plays for First Colonial (he's a giant btw: 6'5" and 300 lbs; I'm only 5'10"!). HR Lax uses the HS boundaries for teams, and there are about ten teams on the Peninsula and about a dozen teams on the Southside. I outfitted my son with mostly used equipment for a couple hundred bucks, and the HR lax fees and team fees were another couple hundred. I see no reason why middle class kids couldn't play and love lacrosse. Like any sport, if you want to be great, you have to attend clinics and invest $$$, but for the recreational player it's not super expensive.

Lax is definitely a VHSL-sponsored sport. Perhaps your son's school doesn't offer it as it's only starting to takeoff statewide, but the majority of schools in the Richmond/Charlottesville/Fredericksburg/Fairfax areas play boys & girls Varsity LAX.

(05-22-2017 03:41 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:22 PM)capn kitt Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:12 PM)Navyduke 07 Wrote:  Growing up in the Hampton roads area, lacrosse was only for the wealthier private schools. Those kids were from well off parents who were lawyers, doctors, etc. From my experience if someone is raised from money they go to WM, UVA, Ivy.

I don't know about the rest of VA or country in regards to the lacrosse relationship but it seems lacrosse is a "legacy" sport. I have seen it personally. Mommy and daddy are alumni of a "prestigious " school and the kid is basically enrolled when they are in middle school. I just dont think we could compete with the average household income of incoming freshmen. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually after the softball game, I'm probably wrong (sorry again DD).

It is no longer just a private school sport. HR Lax in Hampton Roads sponsors it at the "club" level for high schoolers (it is not a VHSL sport). My son plays for First Colonial (he's a giant btw: 6'5" and 300 lbs; I'm only 5'10"!). HR Lax uses the HS boundaries for teams, and there are about ten teams on the Peninsula and about a dozen teams on the Southside. I outfitted my son with mostly used equipment for a couple hundred bucks, and the HR lax fees and team fees were another couple hundred. I see no reason why middle class kids couldn't play and love lacrosse. Like any sport, if you want to be great, you have to attend clinics and invest $$$, but for the recreational player it's not super expensive.

Lax is definitely a VHSL-sponsored sport. Perhaps your son's school doesn't offer it as it's only starting to takeoff statewide, but the majority of schools in the Richmond/Charlottesville/Fredericksburg/Fairfax areas play boys & girls Varsity LAX.

Yeah, I wrote on the previous page: I didn't realize it because Hampton Roads schools don't play it in HS except at the club level (HR Lax).

Yeah, it's always interesting to see who "breaks the seal" on new sports in an area. It almost always starts with a large group of schools adding sports, otherwise it would be really tough to fill a schedule unless a good portion of your Conference (or now it's back to Districts again) does.

(05-22-2017 04:19 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Yeah, it's always interesting to see who "breaks the seal" on new sports in an area. It almost always starts with a large group of schools adding sports, otherwise it would be really tough to fill a schedule unless a good portion of your Conference (or now it's back to Districts again) does.

The TCIS has lax, the schools like Norfolk Academy, Nansemon-Suffolk Acad, Cape Henry etc. Of course these are private, but the sport is definitely growing down here and is growing at the youth level. I have friends whose elementary kids play

It's just a matter of time before the 757 public schools get onboard with lax, but it will be a big group adding all at once, guaranteed. Those ADs/Principals are pretty cost-conscious about travel budgets. No one's going out on their own to start a new sport. It will be the majority of a district that starts en masse, then everyone else will follow.

(05-22-2017 02:45 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:39 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:36 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.



and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

You are correct that Title IX is about opportunities, not just scholarships, however I think you are overstating the issue of adding men's LAX as it might impact JMU's current balance between men and women opportunities. If going FBS would not place JMU in danger of violating Title IX guidelines (as per the Carr report), I think there is room for JMU to add a single men's sport. JMU is already at the NCAA minimum for sponsored Men's sports, and as 97 has already pointed out, the infrastructure and conference is already in place.

One point of clarification. I think it was 97 who also suggested cutting men's golf and or tennis to cover the concerns over adding men's LAX. A move to cut two men's sports and adding one would drop JMU below the minimum 6 team threshold set by the NCAA. I wouldn't favor cutting any men's teams, but adding LAX would be a winner.

I don't think football has much of an impact on Title IX.

FCS has a limit of 63 scholarships. but they can do partial. And JMU does do partial.

so you are spreading those 63 'ships on a roster of 90 or so.

in FBS, you can't do partials. All 85 must be full 'ships. So the total roster (participants) isn't going to change much when we move to FBS. It's just that everyone on the roster will be on a full scholarship, and not partials.

But adding a whole new men's sport....like lacrosse....adds 50 NEW male participants. which in turn requires much more NEW women's participants. That's why its an issue

and, yes, that is correct. We cannot cut any more men's sports. to be D1 you must sponsor at least 6 men's sports. We are at that minimum right now. Football, hoops, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis. No more cutting can be done.

you guys can beat the drum for lacrosse until the cows come home....but it ain't going to happen in our lifetime. And it's not necessarily that JMU wouldn't welcome it. It's just not possible.

I am probably not going to get this just right but having the proportionate amount of participants is not the only way to be compliant. At some point, a school runs out of female sports to offer. There are three ways to be in compliance. One is to have the proportionate number of scholarships. The second is to be working toward compliance. The last is to put out a survey asking your female student body what sport they would like to add. If there is no interest in adding an additional sport or the school cannot attract enough participants or there are not enough schools offering the same scholarship program for competition, the school is deemed to be meeting the needs of its female population. If a school were 60% male, then the survey goes out to the male population etc. etc. Title IX is not female specific. It is solely about gender equity. I used the word female because we are discussing JMU.

(05-22-2017 02:39 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:36 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.

and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

You are correct that Title IX is about opportunities, not just scholarships, however I think you are overstating the issue of adding men's LAX as it might impact JMU's current balance between men and women opportunities. If going FBS would not place JMU in danger of violating Title IX guidelines (as per the Carr report), I think there is room for JMU to add a single men's sport. JMU is already at the NCAA minimum for sponsored Men's sports, and as 97 has already pointed out, the infrastructure and conference is already in place.

One point of clarification. I think it was 97 who also suggested cutting men's golf and or tennis to cover the concerns over adding men's LAX. A move to cut two men's sports and adding one would drop JMU below the minimum 6 team threshold set by the NCAA. I wouldn't favor cutting any men's teams, but adding LAX would be a winner.

Thanks for pointing that out. Regarding Title IX isn't it based on scholarships? From what I can tell only 12-13 are scholarship players for D1 Lax so wouldn't JMU just need to find a woman's sport with 12 scholarship athletes? Women's Gymnastics would probably make the most sense since JMU used to have a Gymnastics team. The cost is on average $750K and has 18 girls on the team. The ECAC sponsors lacrosse and schools like Towson and W&M play in that league.

I get that travel costs and equipment are higher with more players on the team and LAX equipment can be costly but we're talking all bus trips based on conference and even the OOC D1 teams that we would play.

I think that type of add would give the Athletics program a shot in the arm and create some excitement. If FBS is dependent on other things happening and 5-10 years out it would be a good way to grow the JMU brand in the interim. JMU already spends at a high level for Sports what's $2M more really when they have budgeted for more than that when the FBS ship comes in?

(05-23-2017 06:38 AM)NJDuke97 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 02:39 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 08:36 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  there are huge barriers.

forget cost, title ix alone is a major problem. it's not based on scholarships, it's based on participants.

towson's roster has about 45-50 players. with our 60% ratio, we'd have to add 72 female participants to maintain the status quo. And that doesn't include any additional football spots (for this purpose though, let's call that a wash since the total roster as an FBS program for title ix purposes may not change from now as some current walk-ons could just be scholarship roster spots instead).

What sport would we add that could do that? We already play the major women's sports that would accommodate that many participants.

and if you do multiple new women's sports (beach volleyball, bowling, etc), you are adding other costs that further make it a cost prohibitive move as well.

You are correct that Title IX is about opportunities, not just scholarships, however I think you are overstating the issue of adding men's LAX as it might impact JMU's current balance between men and women opportunities. If going FBS would not place JMU in danger of violating Title IX guidelines (as per the Carr report), I think there is room for JMU to add a single men's sport. JMU is already at the NCAA minimum for sponsored Men's sports, and as 97 has already pointed out, the infrastructure and conference is already in place.

One point of clarification. I think it was 97 who also suggested cutting men's golf and or tennis to cover the concerns over adding men's LAX. A move to cut two men's sports and adding one would drop JMU below the minimum 6 team threshold set by the NCAA. I wouldn't favor cutting any men's teams, but adding LAX would be a winner.

Thanks for pointing that out. Regarding Title IX isn't it based on scholarships? From what I can tell only 12-13 are scholarship players for D1 Lax so wouldn't JMU just need to find a woman's sport with 12 scholarship athletes? Women's Gymnastics would probably make the most sense since JMU used to have a Gymnastics team. The cost is on average $750K and has 18 girls on the team. The ECAC sponsors lacrosse and schools like Towson and W&M play in that league.

I get that travel costs and equipment are higher with more players on the team and LAX equipment can be costly but we're talking all bus trips based on conference and even the OOC D1 teams that we would play.

I think that type of add would give the Athletics program a shot in the arm and create some excitement. If FBS is dependent on other things happening and 5-10 years out it would be a good way to grow the JMU brand in the interim. JMU already spends at a high level for Sports what's $2M more really when they have budgeted for more than that when the FBS ship comes in?

It's not based solely on scholarships, but on the equality of opportunities.