PDA

View Full Version : ACC Lax Expansion?



Thurber Whyte
05-18-2013, 09:51 PM
Johns Hopkins is in the market for a conference affiliation for lacrosse only.

Johns Hopkins to seek conference affiliation (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/lacrosse-blog/bal-johns-hopkins-to-seek-conference-affiliation-20130517,0,6873764.story)

Assessing which conference Johns Hopkins could call home (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/lacrosse-blog/bal-assessing-which-conference-johns-hopkins-could-call-home-20130517,0,1782981.story)

The ACC needs one more lacrosse member to have an automatic bid. Hopkins would bring 44 national championships and a toehold for the conference in prime lacrosse recruiting country Maryland. Hopkins wants a conference that would allow it to continue to schedule Virginia, North Carolina and Syracuse and would be comfortable with its existing ESPN relationship.

Let’s not overthink this.

burnspbesq
05-19-2013, 01:24 AM
ACC schools have never had trouble recruiting in Baltimore.

Hop's separate deal with ESPN would have to be reconciled with the ACC grant of rights, and it is anything but obvious how that would be done.

Part of the reason why Hop is interested in joining a league is to get access to an AQ. Most years, Hop will struggle to make a four-team ACC tournament. They'd be better off in the Colonial or the post-schism Big East.

Personally, I'd like to keep the pressure on BC, Pitt, GaTech, and Clemson (all of which are regularly in the MCLA top 25) to make the step up from MCLA to NCAA. Hop as a lax-only associate member relieves that pressure

BigWayne
05-19-2013, 04:51 AM
Barring some incredible unforeseen developments, the ACC and the designation of an AQ spot are not things that have a need to come up in the same conversation. There is no value to the ACC to add Hopkins and no real value to Hopkins either from a tournament qualification standpoint. In years like 2013 where Hopkins can't qualify in an at large spot, they would have to pull a pretty big upset to get the ACC AQ spot. From an AQ perspective, they would get value from joining a weaker league. However, the weaker leagues won't probably want them because they don't want to lose their AQ spot to Hopkins.

The only place I see them ending up is an existing AQ conference that loses members and can get back to 6 by adding Hopkins, i.e. the Big East.

BD80
05-19-2013, 08:02 AM
... I'd like to keep the pressure on BC, Pitt, GaTech, and Clemson (all of which are regularly in the MCLA top 25) to make the step up from MCLA to NCAA. ...

How in the world can BC be lagging behind in LAX? Geographically and demographically, I would think it could field a team of walk-ons that would be highly competitive

sagegrouse
05-19-2013, 11:10 AM
How in the world can BC be lagging behind in LAX? Geographically and demographically, I would think it could field a team of walk-ons that would be highly competitive

Lacrosse's historical footprint is limited to the stretch between Maryland and New York, excluding New England and BC. As a result, the championship is usually in Ballmer, Philly, Delaware, NJ or NY. When the Final Four was scheduled for Gilette Stadium in Foxboro MA, for example, there was much tut-tutting among the aficionados about wandering too far from that footprint.

Now, it also seems that New England prep schools have always played lacrosse (John Kerry at St. Paul's School, for example). And it is clear that the game is expanding rapidly across the country (gee, when everybody gets a stick, it's more interesting to the kids than baseball, where there is only one bat). But BC may be outside the main lacrosse area in the US.


sagegrouse

burnspbesq
05-19-2013, 12:00 PM
Lacrosse's historical footprint is limited to the stretch between Maryland and New York, excluding New England and BC. As a result, the championship is usually in Ballmer, Philly, Delaware, NJ or NY. When the Final Four was scheduled for Gilette Stadium in Foxboro MA, for example, there was much tut-tutting among the aficionados about wandering too far from that footprint.

Now, it also seems that New England prep schools have always played lacrosse (John Kerry at St. Paul's School, for example). And it is clear that the game is expanding rapidly across the country (gee, when everybody gets a stick, it's more interesting to the kids than baseball, where there is only one bat). But BC may be outside the main lacrosse area in the US.


sagegrouse

That view of the lacrosse world is pretty outmoded. New England produces D1 players in volume. To cite only one example, Duke's "starting lineup," i.e., the 19 guys who play regularly, includes twice as many New Englanders as Bawlmerans. BC had men's lax until 2002; it was dropped for a combination of reasons, including cost and facilities issues. Former BC AD Gene DiFilippo was never willing to reconsider that decision. There is a renewed push among alums and fans going on, driven to some extent by BU's decision to add the sport.

What really needs to happen is for Harvard and BU to start up an annual non-conference game and find a Beanpot to award to the winner. That'll get BC and Northeastern on board right quick.

MCFinARL
05-19-2013, 01:34 PM
That view of the lacrosse world is pretty outmoded. New England produces D1 players in volume. To cite only one example, Duke's "starting lineup," i.e., the 19 guys who play regularly, includes twice as many New Englanders as Bawlmerans. BC had men's lax until 2002; it was dropped for a combination of reasons, including cost and facilities issues. Former BC AD Gene DiFilippo was never willing to reconsider that decision. There is a renewed push among alums and fans going on, driven to some extent by BU's decision to add the sport.

What really needs to happen is for Harvard and BU to start up an annual non-conference game and find a Beanpot to award to the winner. That'll get BC and Northeastern on board right quick.

Awesome idea! I hope they are listening.

sagegrouse
05-19-2013, 02:39 PM
That view of the lacrosse world is pretty outmoded. New England produces D1 players in volume. To cite only one example, Duke's "starting lineup," i.e., the 19 guys who play regularly, includes twice as many New Englanders as Bawlmerans. BC had men's lax until 2002; it was dropped for a combination of reasons, including cost and facilities issues. Former BC AD Gene DiFilippo was never willing to reconsider that decision. There is a renewed push among alums and fans going on, driven to some extent by BU's decision to add the sport.

What really needs to happen is for Harvard and BU to start up an annual non-conference game and find a Beanpot to award to the winner. That'll get BC and Northeastern on board right quick.

I think I agreed that the world is changing. But Md., Pa, NJ, and NY still provide the preponderance of Duke players. Here is the state-by-state breakout:



NY 13
Pa. 8
Mass. 5
NJ 5
Calif. 4
Md. 4
Conn 2
NH 2
Tex. 2
Va. 2
Total 47
NE 9
MD-NY 30
Other 8


The first thing is -- wow -- who knew the lacrosse team had 47 players?

Second: the states from Maryland to NY provided 30 of these players, about 64 percent. WRT to LAX, Duke is clearly the Univ. of NY, which provided 13.

Third: New England provided nine of the 47, just under 20 percent. This is a very strong representation, perhaps fed by the NE prep schools.

The historical focus of the game (Md. to NY) is still apparent on the Duke roster, although New England, California and are strongly represented.

sagegrouse

Here is a Turtle
05-20-2013, 06:58 PM
I remember hearing a couple weeks ago that Hopkins were considering joint Maryland in the Big Ten because of the rivalry, the CIC, and the fact the the B1G is looking to form a lacrosse conference.

Duvall
05-20-2013, 07:08 PM
I remember hearing a couple weeks ago that Hopkins were considering joint Maryland in the Big Ten because of the rivalry, the CIC, and the fact the the B1G is looking to form a lacrosse conference.

Why would Johns Hopkins care about the CIC? They aren't going to boost their status as a university by sharing research resources with Iowa and Michigan State.

Here is a Turtle
05-20-2013, 07:29 PM
Why would Johns Hopkins care about the CIC? They aren't going to boost their status as a university by sharing research resources with Iowa and Michigan State.

Because getting resources from Northwestern, Ohio state, Michigan, and University of Chicago is not something you just ignore. The B1G is full of large research institutions. I'm sure they can give them something.

The interesting part is that Hopkins wants to keep its ESPN deal. That's going to clash with the Big Ten somehow. They could always let the home games happen on ESPN and let the away games be on the Big Ten Network and Fox Sports 1.

The B1G really wants a lacrosse conference apparently. They have solid teams in Ohio state and Penn State. Michigan can just throw money at programs until they succeed. Rutgers and Maryland will give them a big boost. The B1G could try to convince Michigan State or Minnesota to get back into the NCAA ranks. Hopkins could them be the sixth team.

As long as Maryland plays Hopkins every year, I'm fine with whatever conference they join.

TheTrain
05-20-2013, 10:34 PM
I think I agreed that the world is changing. But Md., Pa, NJ, and NY still provide the preponderance of Duke players. Here is the state-by-state breakout:



NY 13
Pa. 8
Mass. 5
NJ 5
Calif. 4
Md. 4
Conn 2
NH 2
Tex. 2
Va. 2
Total 47
NE 9
MD-NY 30
Other 8


The first thing is -- wow -- who knew the lacrosse team had 47 players?

Second: the states from Maryland to NY provided 30 of these players, about 64 percent. WRT to LAX, Duke is clearly the Univ. of NY, which provided 13.

Third: New England provided nine of the 47, just under 20 percent. This is a very strong representation, perhaps fed by the NE prep schools.

The historical focus of the game (Md. to NY) is still apparent on the Duke roster, although New England, California and are strongly represented.

sagegrouse

Part of the reason is because the best feeder school in Baltimore from a lacrosse/academics perspective is Gilman School. Gilman has had historic ties to John Hopkins (due to being down the street), Princeton (because it is a Princeton feeder school), UNC (because former UNC coach and current associate AD Willie Scroggs used to teach there and current coach Brooks Matthews was a Tarheel captain) and UVA (because the culture between the schools has always been comparable). Duke lacrosse has always had difficulty recruiting the top-flight Gilman players.

throatybeard
05-20-2013, 10:53 PM
Baltimore / lacrosse

3387

53n206
05-20-2013, 10:58 PM
To hell with Gillman. Let's recruit St.Pauls.

53n206
05-20-2013, 11:00 PM
OK. Gilman, not Gillman.

TheTrain
05-21-2013, 09:00 AM
Not unless you can deliver the equivalent of Larry LeDoyen, Billy Morrill, or Scott Baciagalupo. :))

MIAA lacrosse......nothing like it

Chicago 1995
05-21-2013, 09:34 AM
I remember hearing a couple weeks ago that Hopkins were considering joint Maryland in the Big Ten because of the rivalry, the CIC, and the fact the the B1G is looking to form a lacrosse conference.

Maybe it would be different for a lacrosse, but I don't think the Big 10 is looking for partial members, even in smaller sports. There are some good hockey programs, for example, that were members of the WCHA and CCHA, and the Big Ten went full members only in Hockey. I suspect that the Big 10 would rather be a non AQ conference for a couple of years until they can get a sixth school to transition from club lacrosse to DI.

sagegrouse
05-21-2013, 10:33 AM
With respect to Hopkins to the ACC (or the Big Ten): (a) Lacrosse is not a revenue sport. (b) Hopkins will not join either conference as a one-sport member. (c) It is far more likely that the LAX schools would form a one-sport conference outside the ACC or Big Ten.

Neither league, I predict, would ever contemplate the political, management, legal and financial machinations of bringing on a school, no matter how esteemed, for a single non-revenue sport. The ACC collective athletic budgets are approaching one billion dollars. Why should such the lacrosses matter be worth even ten minutes of the Commissioner's time?

sagegrouse

Son of Jarhead
05-21-2013, 01:34 PM
I think I agreed that the world is changing. But Md., Pa, NJ, and NY still provide the preponderance of Duke players. Here is the state-by-state breakout:



NY 13
Pa. 8
Mass. 5
NJ 5
Calif. 4
Md. 4
Conn 2
NH 2
Tex. 2
Va. 2
Total 47
NE 9
MD-NY 30
Other 8


The first thing is -- wow -- who knew the lacrosse team had 47 players?

Second: the states from Maryland to NY provided 30 of these players, about 64 percent. WRT to LAX, Duke is clearly the Univ. of NY, which provided 13.

Third: New England provided nine of the 47, just under 20 percent. This is a very strong representation, perhaps fed by the NE prep schools.

The historical focus of the game (Md. to NY) is still apparent on the Duke roster, although New England, California and are strongly represented.

sagegrouse


Not that I know anything much about lacrosse (and even less about math), but just looking at these numbers, do they really prove anything? The number of current players from your MD-NY area (MD, PA, NJ, & NY), 30, is roughly (though slightly higher than) three times the number from New England, 9... and the population of the MD, PA, NJ, & NY is roughly (though slightly higher than) three times that of New England, so wouldn't that mean that, on a per capita basis, the NY-MD area and New England are about equal, at least as far as this year's Duke roster is concerned? Now, you could be spot on with your general point... like I said, I don't know lacrosse, but it seems to me that Duke is getting the proper percentage of players from those two areas, based on the general populations there.

ForkFondler
05-21-2013, 01:58 PM
With respect to Hopkins to the ACC (or the Big Ten): (a) Lacrosse is not a revenue sport. (b) Hopkins will not join either conference as a one-sport member. (c) It is far more likely that the LAX schools would form a one-sport conference outside the ACC or Big Ten.

Neither league, I predict, would ever contemplate the political, management, legal and financial machinations of bringing on a school, no matter how esteemed, for a single non-revenue sport. The ACC collective athletic budgets are approaching one billion dollars. Why should the lacrosse matter be worth even ten minutes of the Commissioner's time?

sagegrouse

First, bringing in JHU as an affiliate member for a single sport doesn't have to be difficult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Conference#Affiliate_members

Navy as a football-only member is another idea that has been kicked around.

Second, lacrosse represents spring content for the ACCN

MCFinARL
05-21-2013, 02:45 PM
Maybe it would be different for a lacrosse, but I don't think the Big 10 is looking for partial members, even in smaller sports. There are some good hockey programs, for example, that were members of the WCHA and CCHA, and the Big Ten went full members only in Hockey. I suspect that the Big 10 would rather be a non AQ conference for a couple of years until they can get a sixth school to transition from club lacrosse to DI.

At the moment, the Big Ten isn't any kind of a lacrosse conference. Ohio State and Michigan both play in the ECAC; Penn State plays in the CAA. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers would give them 5 teams, but they haven't made any formal decision to begin league play.

On the women's side, there will be six teams, because Northwestern has a women's team, and B1G play will begin in 2014-15. This will be an exciting league as Maryland and Northwestern have been the two top programs over the last 10 years or so (Maryland for longer than that).

It's entirely possible the men will also wait until they have 6 teams to start conference play. What that means one way or the other about Hopkins is anybody's guess.


First, bringing in JHU as an affiliate member for a single sport doesn't have to be difficult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Conference#Affiliate_members

Navy as a football-only member is another idea that has been kicked around.

Second, lacrosse represents spring content for the ACCN

True--but as BigWayne noted above, joining the ACC might not be ideal for Hop. It solves one problem, assuring solid strength of schedule in a changing environment where more and more teams are playing in conferences, but not the other--giving Hopkins a strong chance to get an AQ in years when it is uncertain to get an at large bid. If you want to get an AQ, you might not choose a league with Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke, UNC and Virginia--five of the top programs in the sport.

ForkFondler
05-21-2013, 03:21 PM
It solves one problem, assuring solid strength of schedule in a changing environment where more and more teams are playing in conferences, but not the other--giving Hopkins a strong chance to get an AQ in years when it is uncertain to get an at large bid. If you want to get an AQ, you might not choose a league with Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke, UNC and Virginia--five of the top programs in the sport.

Even though the AQ would be harder, the strength of schedule would help with getting an at-large. If the number of teams keeps growing, the field will probably get expanded to 24. A team with 44 titles (or whatever it is) shouldn't need to worry about finding an easy AQ, because that might not work out so well either: See Detroit 2013.

loran16
05-21-2013, 03:33 PM
With respect to Hopkins to the ACC (or the Big Ten): (a) Lacrosse is not a revenue sport. (b) Hopkins will not join either conference as a one-sport member. (c) It is far more likely that the LAX schools would form a one-sport conference outside the ACC or Big Ten.

Neither league, I predict, would ever contemplate the political, management, legal and financial machinations of bringing on a school, no matter how esteemed, for a single non-revenue sport. The ACC collective athletic budgets are approaching one billion dollars. Why should such the lacrosses matter be worth even ten minutes of the Commissioner's time?

sagegrouse

Because it's not really much of a problem if it's just one sport. The scheduling remains easy - you can just take the plans they had before MD bolted and slot in Hopkins - no revenue is threatened from other sports (Hopkins would have no claim to it) - and it has the potential to increase LaX revenue, even if the sport is still a net loser. Moreover, you'd increase the conference's overall prestige with another likely year in and year out champion in a sport.

MCFinARL
05-21-2013, 05:12 PM
Even though the AQ would be harder, the strength of schedule would help with getting an at-large. If the number of teams keeps growing, the field will probably get expanded to 24. A team with 44 titles (or whatever it is) shouldn't need to worry about finding an easy AQ, because that might not work out so well either: See Detroit 2013.

Certainly a fair point. And ultimately Hopkins' decision to seek a conference probably is more about strength of schedule than AQ. The ACC tournament, even though it offers no automatic bid, has always been an important way for the ACC teams to ramp up their SoS.

Dev11
05-21-2013, 05:27 PM
Certainly a fair point. And ultimately Hopkins' decision to seek a conference probably is more about strength of schedule than AQ. The ACC tournament, even though it offers no automatic bid, has always been an important way for the ACC teams to ramp up their SoS.

Does the ACC automatically get the automatic bid once they get to 6 teams, or is there some wait/application for it?

sagegrouse
05-21-2013, 06:02 PM
Because it's not really much of a problem if it's just one sport. The scheduling remains easy - you can just take the plans they had before MD bolted and slot in Hopkins - no revenue is threatened from other sports (Hopkins would have no claim to it) - and it has the potential to increase LaX revenue, even if the sport is still a net loser. Moreover, you'd increase the conference's overall prestige with another likely year in and year out champion in a sport.

Loaran: You are taking a rational perspective from the viewpoint of lacrosse: "it's not really much of a problem." And you make a lot of sense. The other perspective is from the viewpoint of the cigar-smoking, multi-billion dollar conference fat cats, viewing a change in membership philosophy or principle to accommodate a Division III school seeking admission for one Div I sport. "Meh," they say, "We want our members compete in all sports, to be powerhouses in the revenue sports, and to be competitive in a good portion of the Olympic sports." With this view, every single university president or AD sitting around the boardroom at a conference meeting would ask, "Why are we even talking about this?"

Your point is valid, but I am afraid the reality is closer to the latter.

sagegrouse

BigWayne
05-21-2013, 06:25 PM
Does the ACC automatically get the automatic bid once they get to 6 teams, or is there some wait/application for it?

Pretty sure it takes two years of having six teams.

BigWayne
05-21-2013, 06:36 PM
Because it's not really much of a problem if it's just one sport. The scheduling remains easy - you can just take the plans they had before MD bolted and slot in Hopkins - no revenue is threatened from other sports (Hopkins would have no claim to it) - and it has the potential to increase LaX revenue, even if the sport is still a net loser. Moreover, you'd increase the conference's overall prestige with another likely year in and year out champion in a sport.
The B10 and ACC do not need a 6 team league and do not need Hopkins. The B10 has its teams in the other lacrosse only/exception leagues until it decides it wants to have its own league. Their teams are mostly still in building mode but some have recently gotten to the level of making the tournament so it made sense for them to be in an AQ league. They are at the point they could make their own conference now and not need the AQ access if they want to do so. The 4 team ACC has had 3 or 4 teams in the tournament most recent years without the AQ spot.

The only place that really needs Hopkins and most likely where they end up is the new Big East. The current Big East has an AQ spot but doesn't need it because of Syracuse and Notre Dame:

Big East
power ranking out of 63 teams nationally
Conference Overall
Team PR W L T Pct. W L T Pct.
7 Syracuse 97.53 5 1 0 0.83 15 3 0 0.83
15 Notre Dame 96.28 4 2 0 0.67 11 5 0 0.69
20 Villanova 94.74 5 1 0 0.83 7 8 0 0.47
22 St. John's 94.60 3 3 0 0.50 9 4 0 0.69
34 Georgetown 92.68 3 3 0 0.50 6 9 0 0.40
43 Providence 91.08 1 5 0 0.17 8 8 0 0.50
44 Rutgers 90.98 0 6 0 0.00 2 13 0 0.13


The new Big East will look like this:

Big East

Conference Overall
Team PR W L T Pct. W L T Pct.


20 Villanova 94.74 5 1 0 0.83 7 8 0 0.47
22 St. John's 94.60 3 3 0 0.50 9 4 0 0.69
34 Georgetown 92.68 3 3 0 0.50 6 9 0 0.40
43 Providence 91.08 1 5 0 0.17 8 8 0 0.50
52 Marquette 90.15 5 8 0 0.38

This list needs an AQ spot and a 6th team and is geographically compatible with Hopkins for the most part.

MCFinARL
05-21-2013, 07:16 PM
Pretty sure it takes two years of having six teams.

Yes, I think that is right. And even then there may be some sort of formal process--though the groups we are talking about probably wouldn't have any trouble getting approval. I'm sure if the B1G wanted to set up a 6-team lacrosse conference the NCAA lax folks would turn somersaults to give them an AQ because they would love to encourage more lacrosse in the midwest. (Of course Penn Sate, Md and Rutgers are not in the midwest but presumably a non-Hopkins Big Ten team would be, and more might pick up the sport if there were conference play.)

Here is a Turtle
05-21-2013, 07:25 PM
The Big Ten wants lacrosse.
A) The Big Ten network has more live games to play in the spring after basketball and football wind down.
B) Lacrosse is growing quickly in the Midwest and teams like Denver and Ohio State show that a good, possibly great program can come from the Midwest.
C) If the conference happened now they would have 5 teams and the women's lacrosse would have six, including Northwestern and Maryland, the two best teams in women's lacrosse.

The B1G and lacrosse need each other. For the network and Midwestern expansion of the sport.

ForkFondler
05-21-2013, 07:44 PM
The Big Ten wants lacrosse.
A) The Big Ten network has more live games to play in the spring after basketball and football wind down.
B) Lacrosse is growing quickly in the Midwest and teams like Denver and Ohio State show that a good, possibly great program can come from the Midwest.
C) If the conference happened now they would have 5 teams and the women's lacrosse would have six, including Northwestern and Maryland, the two best teams in women's lacrosse.

The B1G and lacrosse need each other. For the network and Midwestern expansion of the sport.

Maybe, but since they already have a team in MD, wouldn't Denver be better than JHU?

Here is a Turtle
05-21-2013, 07:58 PM
I doubt they take Denver. It's easier to sell JHU because they only are d1 in lacrosse and d3 in everything else. Denver would be almost like Notre Dame to me where it's all or nothing. In Hopkins case, it could be viewed as taking "all".

I think the Big Ten would be better having a team like Minnesota or Michigan State just upgrade than pull JHU since the only Midwestern teams are Ohio State and Michigan.

However, I certainly wouldn't mind a rival joining us there.

Denver would be perfect if the PAC-12 started a league.

MCFinARL
05-21-2013, 09:24 PM
The Big Ten wants lacrosse.
A) The Big Ten network has more live games to play in the spring after basketball and football wind down.
B) Lacrosse is growing quickly in the Midwest and teams like Denver and Ohio State show that a good, possibly great program can come from the Midwest.
C) If the conference happened now they would have 5 teams and the women's lacrosse would have six, including Northwestern and Maryland, the two best teams in women's lacrosse.

The B1G and lacrosse need each other. For the network and Midwestern expansion of the sport.

The women's B1G lacrosse league is already on track, with play to start in 2014-2015, as I noted earlier in the thread. http://www.insidenu.com/tag/big-ten-womens-lacrosse/

ForkFondler
05-21-2013, 09:46 PM
Denver would be perfect if the PAC-12 started a league.

OK, now that is funny. Since Duke enrollment from CA is now on a par with NC, maybe we should apply for affiliate membership. :D:)

burnspbesq
05-21-2013, 10:01 PM
Denver's women's team plays in the MPSF, with Oregon, Cal, Stanford, UC Davis, St. Mary's, Fresno State, USC, and San Diego State. When Colorado starts its women's team next year, the PAC-12 will be one short of what's needed for an AQ.

The waiting period for an AQ can be waived. It is widely expected that it will be waived in 2014 for both the ACC and the Atlantic Sun (which in 2014 will consist of Jacksonville, Mercer, Furman, High Point, VMI, and Richmond). There is an NCAA by-law that says tournament fields must consist of at least 50 percent at-large selections. Hence the debate over whether to permanently expand the field to 20 teams or have play-in games as a stopgap measure.

ForkFondler
05-21-2013, 10:17 PM
Denver's women's team plays in the MPSF, with Oregon, Cal, Stanford, UC Davis, St. Mary's, Fresno State, USC, and San Diego State. When Colorado starts its women's team next year, the PAC-12 will be one short of what's needed for an AQ.


OK, but more to the point of what I think we were talking about: How many more teams does the PAC12 need for an AQ on the men's side? They only need six more to get to six, right?

burnspbesq
05-22-2013, 12:45 AM
OK, but more to the point of what I think we were talking about: How many more teams does the PAC12 need for an AQ on the men's side? They only need six more to get to six, right?

It won't be the Pac-12, at least not initially. The Washington schools, Oregon State, Cal, USC, and UCLA are nowhere near ready to make the jump, for a variety of reasons.

The key is Colorado. If the Buffs pull the trigger, several other MCLA dominoes will fall in short order, but only one or perhaps two are Pac-12 schools. I expect that by 2016 or 2017, there will be a men's MPSF consisting of Colorado, Colorado State, Denver, Air Force, BYU, Arizona State, and either UC Santa Barbara or Stanford. If Chapman goes NCAA, which is a likely outcome if all of its traditional rivals migrate from MCLA to NCAA, the Panthers will go D3 (they are D3 in everything else, including women's lacrosse), and a bunch of other dominoes will fall, leading to a D3 western league most likely consisting of Chapman, Whittier, Claremont, Pomona, Occidental, and Colorado College.

Kedsy
05-22-2013, 12:53 AM
B) Lacrosse is growing quickly in the Midwest and teams like Denver and Ohio State show that a good, possibly great program can come from the Midwest.

When did Denver move to the Midwest?

burnspbesq
05-22-2013, 01:03 AM
One more indication that the Big Integer may be a thing: on today's ESPNU lacrosse podcast, Quint reported (first time I've heard this) that Albany is considering an all-sports move from the America East to the Colonial. That makes sense from a lacrosse perspective if (but only if) Penn State is going to pull out of the Colonial for lax.

Duvall
05-22-2013, 01:13 AM
If nothing else, adding Johns Hopkins as an associate member would make the ACC geographically contiguous again.

Here is a Turtle
05-22-2013, 01:55 AM
When did Denver move to the Midwest?

Don't miss the point. The point is that there can be lacrosse teams that can do well outside of the east coast.

MCFinARL
05-22-2013, 08:51 AM
The waiting period for an AQ can be waived. It is widely expected that it will be waived in 2014 for both the ACC and the Atlantic Sun (which in 2014 will consist of Jacksonville, Mercer, Furman, High Point, VMI, and Richmond). There is an NCAA by-law that says tournament fields must consist of at least 50 percent at-large selections. Hence the debate over whether to permanently expand the field to 20 teams or have play-in games as a stopgap measure.
Here's what seems a bit odd about giving the ACC an AQ in 2014, though--the six teams would be Duke, UVA, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and Maryland, yes? But unless some other school picks up lacrosse, the conference would be back down to 5 in 2015, so the AQ would exist for only a year. I'm not really sure what the point of that would be since, as you note, it would require expanding the tournament field because of a one-off conference AQ. Or are there other ACC teams that are actively considering lacrosse right now?


One more indication that the Big Integer may be a thing: on today's ESPNU lacrosse podcast, Quint reported (first time I've heard this) that Albany is considering an all-sports move from the America East to the Colonial. That makes sense from a lacrosse perspective if (but only if) Penn State is going to pull out of the Colonial for lax.

True--although it may make sense from the perspective of other sports (where Penn State is playing in the Big Ten) in any case. Albany might be a good fit with the CAA in basketball, and the CAA needs to find some new members given its recent losses of VCU, Old Dominion, and now George Mason.

-jk
05-22-2013, 11:28 AM
I suspect the biggest hurdle to getting more ACC schools to add D1 men's LAX teams is the intersection of big-time football and men's basketball with Title IX. The athletics/scholarship pie is only so big at each school, and to add MLax, they'll have to decide between:

1) cutting football/men's basketball,
2) digging up enough money to also add another high participation women's sport, or
3) cutting some other men's sport to open resources

Option 1 isn't going to happen any time soon: consumer demand for football and (to a lesser extent) men's basketball drive tv money and donations. And it seems that most of every new revenue stream gets sucked into the FB/MBB vortex, effectively killing option two. That leaves option three, the zero sum game - at best - between the remaining men's sports (and their alumni). 300ish men's teams have been dropped in the last 25 years in D1, with schools often citing either budget constraints or title ix, even as athletics budgets have skyrocketed. So long as FB/MBB and Title IX remain at odds, I don't see too many men's Lax teams moving up to D1.

-jk

BigWayne
05-22-2013, 11:37 AM
Here's what seems a bit odd about giving the ACC an AQ in 2014, though--the six teams would be Duke, UVA, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and Maryland, yes? But unless some other school picks up lacrosse, the conference would be back down to 5 in 2015, so the AQ would exist for only a year. I'm not really sure what the point of that would be since, as you note, it would require expanding the tournament field because of a one-off conference AQ. Or are there other ACC teams that are actively considering lacrosse right now?

It would be very odd for the ACC to get an AQ for one year. The only reason I would see it happening is if somebody at the NCAA is trying to make something else happen like the tournament expansion. There is no need or value for the ACC to have an AQ except the possibility of a weaker team upsetting the favorites, e.g. if UVA had won the tourney this year. The odds of that happening are not high enough for one year to make it worth going for the exception. I could see there being behind the scenes encouragement for a 6th full member school to add lacrosse in the long run.




True--although it may make sense from the perspective of other sports (where Penn State is playing in the Big Ten) in any case. Albany might be a good fit with the CAA in basketball, and the CAA needs to find some new members given its recent losses of VCU, Old Dominion, and now George Mason.

This is the kind of area where Hopkins could end up as these conferences try to maintain their AQ status. If Albany moves to the CAA, then America East is down to 5 teams and needs to grab an independent or a floater, e.g. Umass or St Joseph's.

CAA, at 7 teams currently, doesn't need Albany even if they lose Penn State, unless they lose one of their other floaters (Umass/St Joe).

My money is on Hopkins joining the Big East for Lacrosse.

loran16
05-22-2013, 12:14 PM
Loaran: You are taking a rational perspective from the viewpoint of lacrosse: "it's not really much of a problem." And you make a lot of sense. The other perspective is from the viewpoint of the cigar-smoking, multi-billion dollar conference fat cats, viewing a change in membership philosophy or principle to accommodate a Division III school seeking admission for one Div I sport. "Meh," they say, "We want our members compete in all sports, to be powerhouses in the revenue sports, and to be competitive in a good portion of the Olympic sports." With this view, every single university president or AD sitting around the boardroom at a conference meeting would ask, "Why are we even talking about this?"

Your point is valid, but I am afraid the reality is closer to the latter.

sagegrouse

I'm not really sure that other perspective exists other than as a straw man. You're right, that this isn't a subject that would make them want to take much time to think about. But there's not much thinking involved. The logistics are minor at best since you've already planned for a 6 team ACC for a year. It's all done already. You're not giving up any revenue here.



The B10 and ACC do not need a 6 team league and do not need Hopkins. The B10 has its teams in the other lacrosse only/exception leagues until it decides it wants to have its own league. Their teams are mostly still in building mode but some have recently gotten to the level of making the tournament so it made sense for them to be in an AQ league. They are at the point they could make their own conference now and not need the AQ access if they want to do so. The 4 team ACC has had 3 or 4 teams in the tournament most recent years without the AQ spot.

Well this is right -the ACC doesn't need an AQ or Hopkins. But it's a potential interest.

Here is a Turtle
05-22-2013, 12:22 PM
Out of curiosity, how big is lacrosse in the North Carolina area? In Maryland, it's pretty big obviously, but how big is it in North Carolina since it's just slightly outside the lacrosse hotbed.

MarkD83
05-22-2013, 01:35 PM
Lax is growing very fast here in the Richmond and southern VA area. It used to be just played by the private high schools but now the public schools are quickly moving from club teams to full varisty teams.

devildeac
05-22-2013, 02:48 PM
Out of curiosity, how big is lacrosse in the North Carolina area? In Maryland, it's pretty big obviously, but how big is it in North Carolina since it's just slightly outside the lacrosse hotbed.

I don't know the # of participants in the Triangle area but there were multiple articles/reports/scores on a regular basis in the Raleigh N&O this spring so far, including public and private schools.

BigWayne
05-22-2013, 02:54 PM
Out of curiosity, how big is lacrosse in the North Carolina area? In Maryland, it's pretty big obviously, but how big is it in North Carolina since it's just slightly outside the lacrosse hotbed.

It's growing in many places like NC, but way behind the original hotbeds. Here's a way to look at it in terms of the number of HS in each state with football teams vs. the number with lacrosse teams for the states in the east coast.

....... FB.... LAX.. %
ME....76.....42.... 55%
MA... 291... 203... 70%
CT.... 146... 88.... 60%
RI..... 43.... 29.... 67%
NH.... 56.... 46.... 82%
NY.... 642... 384... 60%
PA.... 595... 211... 35%
NJ.... 345... 187... 54%
MD... 219... 222... 101%
VA.... 360... 149... 41%
NC.... 407... 122... 30%
SC.... 232... 41.... 18%
GA.... 481... 76.... 16%
FL.... 573... 175... 31%


I got the FB data from http://www.calpreps.com/2012/ratings/ and the lacrosse data from http://www.laxpower.com/common/hs_boys.php
I'm sure there are some anomalies in how they list things from state to state, but the overall trend is probably meaningful.

You can see MD and New England are the hotbeds. Eastern VA, PA, and NY are also similar I believe, but the western parts of those states skew their statewide numbers down.

TheTrain
05-22-2013, 11:04 PM
It's growing in many places like NC, but way behind the original hotbeds. Here's a way to look at it in terms of the number of HS in each state with football teams vs. the number with lacrosse teams for the states in the east coast.

....... FB.... LAX.. %
ME....76.....42.... 55%
MA... 291... 203... 70%
CT.... 146... 88.... 60%
RI..... 43.... 29.... 67%
NH.... 56.... 46.... 82%
NY.... 642... 384... 60%
PA.... 595... 211... 35%
NJ.... 345... 187... 54%
MD... 219... 222... 101%
VA.... 360... 149... 41%
NC.... 407... 122... 30%
SC.... 232... 41.... 18%
GA.... 481... 76.... 16%
FL.... 573... 175... 31%


I got the FB data from http://www.calpreps.com/2012/ratings/ and the lacrosse data from http://www.laxpower.com/common/hs_boys.php
I'm sure there are some anomalies in how they list things from state to state, but the overall trend is probably meaningful.

You can see MD and New England are the hotbeds. Eastern VA, PA, and NY are also similar I believe, but the western parts of those states skew their statewide numbers down.

Maryland and New York are the hotbeds of the sport (as they have been since the proverbial beginning of time)
New England is more of a new arrival

budwom
05-23-2013, 10:57 AM
It's growing in many places like NC, but way behind the original hotbeds. Here's a way to look at it in terms of the number of HS in each state with football teams vs. the number with lacrosse teams for the states in the east coast.

....... FB.... LAX.. %
ME....76.....42.... 55%
MA... 291... 203... 70%
CT.... 146... 88.... 60%
RI..... 43.... 29.... 67%
NH.... 56.... 46.... 82%
NY.... 642... 384... 60%
PA.... 595... 211... 35%
NJ.... 345... 187... 54%
MD... 219... 222... 101%
VA.... 360... 149... 41%
NC.... 407... 122... 30%
SC.... 232... 41.... 18%
GA.... 481... 76.... 16%
FL.... 573... 175... 31%


I got the FB data from http://www.calpreps.com/2012/ratings/ and the lacrosse data from http://www.laxpower.com/common/hs_boys.php
I'm sure there are some anomalies in how they list things from state to state, but the overall trend is probably meaningful.

You can see MD and New England are the hotbeds. Eastern VA, PA, and NY are also similar I believe, but the western parts of those states skew their statewide numbers down.

Somehow you/they left out the East Coast's (and New England's) most important state, Vermont, which makes the case even stronger...I suspect lax programs are more numerous than football programs (arguably the worst football state
in the country).

p.s. turns out it's a 34 34 tie....and espn rates Vermont football as #50 in the U.S. How many states are there again???

BigWayne
05-23-2013, 11:15 AM
Somehow you/they left out the East Coast's (and New England's) most important state, Vermont, which makes the case even stronger...I suspect lax programs are more numerous than football programs (arguably the worst football state
in the country).

p.s. turns out it's a 34 34 tie....and espn rates Vermont football as #50 in the U.S. How many states are there again???

Well I get 29/34 or 85%, but like I said these sites may not be 100% accurate. It's just some quick stats to show a trend. I only left them out as they aren't technically on the coast, but I guess PA isn't either. Main goal was to show the people asking about other states what it looked like. Lacrosse is growing like crazy in many parts of the country that previously had hardly heard of the sport, but it's still in its infancy outside of the northeast coastal states.


Maryland and New York are the hotbeds of the sport (as they have been since the proverbial beginning of time)
New England is more of a new arrival
Long Island definitely.

TheTrain
05-23-2013, 03:30 PM
More than just Long Island in New York

Here are the Northeast Regional Rankings from Inside Lacrosse/Under Armour

NORTHEAST

1. Ward Melville (N.Y.), 17-0 (Long Island)
2. Niskayuna (N.Y.), 16-0 (Schenectady)
3. Deerfield Academy (Mas.), 15-1
4. Chaminade (N.Y.), 14-2 (Long Island)
5. Yorktown (N.Y.), 16-2 (Westchester)
6. Jamesville-DeWitt (N.Y.), 15-1 (Western NY)
7. Garden City (N.Y.), 15-3 (Long Island)
8. Fayetteville-Manlius (N.Y.), 14-0 (Syracuse)
9. Shoreham-Wading River (N.Y.), 15-1 (Long Island)
10. Northport (N.Y.), 15-2 (Long Island)
States: New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont,

CrazyNotCrazie
05-23-2013, 04:02 PM
More than just Long Island in New York

Here are the Northeast Regional Rankings from Inside Lacrosse/Under Armour

NORTHEAST

1. Ward Melville (N.Y.), 17-0 (Long Island)
2. Niskayuna (N.Y.), 16-0 (Schenectady)
3. Deerfield Academy (Mas.), 15-1
4. Chaminade (N.Y.), 14-2 (Long Island)
5. Yorktown (N.Y.), 16-2 (Westchester)
6. Jamesville-DeWitt (N.Y.), 15-1 (Western NY)
7. Garden City (N.Y.), 15-3 (Long Island)
8. Fayetteville-Manlius (N.Y.), 14-0 (Syracuse)
9. Shoreham-Wading River (N.Y.), 15-1 (Long Island)
10. Northport (N.Y.), 15-2 (Long Island)
States: New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont,

Not to get too far off topic nor offend anyone, but the name "Shoreham-Wading River" cracks me up as when I think of Shoreham, I think of the nuclear plant, so I wouldn't have much desire to wade in a river anywhere near there.

BigWayne
05-30-2013, 04:33 PM
Denver is joining the Big East to keep them at 6 teams after Rutgers leaves.

http://www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=35675

So they don't need Hopkins as the 6th.
However, the ECAC may go after Hopkins now as they will be below 6 if the Big 10 decides to become a Lax conference
and they lose Ohio St and Michigan.

MCFinARL
05-30-2013, 04:49 PM
Denver is joining the Big East to keep them at 6 teams after Rutgers leaves.

http://www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=35675

So they don't need Hopkins as the 6th.
However, the ECAC may go after Hopkins now as they will be below 6 if the Big 10 decides to become a Lax conference
and they lose Ohio St and Michigan.

Hop could also make a 6th for Big Ten lacrosse, which would otherwise have, potentially, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Maryland, and Rutgers. That might be a bit more attractive from a marketing standpoint than the ECAC.

Here is a Turtle
05-30-2013, 08:04 PM
Hop could also make a 6th for Big Ten lacrosse, which would otherwise have, potentially, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Maryland, and Rutgers. That might be a bit more attractive from a marketing standpoint than the ECAC.

There's a hold up with their contract with ESPN though. They would have to iron that out with the Big Ten.

throatybeard
05-30-2013, 08:53 PM
I'm really impressed with how much posters on this board know about Lacrosse. This is not a smartypants comment; I really am.

ForkFondler
05-30-2013, 09:29 PM
There's a hold up with their contract with ESPN though. They would have to iron that out with the Big Ten.

Just another reason why Hop in the ACC makes more sense; ND has their own contract for football, why not JHU for lacrosse? The ACCN will be an ESPN product either way.

Here is a Turtle
05-30-2013, 11:05 PM
Wouldn't the ACC boycott of Maryland hold things up for Hopkins? Maryland/Johns Hopkins is a big deal. I can't see them willing to give that rivalry up.

If Hopkins went to the B1G, I could see Hopkins keeping their home games with ESPN ,and the B1G getting the away games for the network.

ForkFondler
05-31-2013, 08:00 AM
Wouldn't the ACC boycott of Maryland hold things up for Hopkins? Maryland/Johns Hopkins is a big deal. I can't see them willing to give that rivalry up.

If Hopkins went to the B1G, I could see Hopkins keeping their home games with ESPN ,and the B1G getting the away games for the network.

I think the league only schedules league games. I think any ACC can play Maryland if they want to, but perhaps none of them do. So, I seriously doubt that a JHU-MD game would be a sticking point.

senkiri
05-31-2013, 08:58 AM
Just another reason why Hop in the ACC makes more sense; ND has their own contract for football, why not JHU for lacrosse? The ACCN will be an ESPN product either way.

But Notre Dame isn't joining the ACC in football, so it is at least plausible for them to have a separate football TV contract. Don't see how Hopkins can join the ACC in just one sport (lacrosse) and then keep its own TV contract for lacrosse -- that seems like a pretty big exception and also a very poor precedent. Currently, ACC members are all-in with respect to media rights contracts for the sports for which they are members and I think that should stay that way -- as much as I'd like for the ACC to get back into the state of Maryland with UMD leaving.

ForkFondler
05-31-2013, 11:55 AM
But Notre Dame isn't joining the ACC in football, so it is at least plausible for them to have a separate football TV contract. Don't see how Hopkins can join the ACC in just one sport (lacrosse) and then keep its own TV contract for lacrosse -- that seems like a pretty big exception and also a very poor precedent. Currently, ACC members are all-in with respect to media rights contracts for the sports for which they are members and I think that should stay that way -- as much as I'd like for the ACC to get back into the state of Maryland with UMD leaving.

JHU would only be an affiliate/associate member. ND is a full member. So I think ND is a MUCH bigger exception than JHU would be. The JHU ESPN lacrosse contact is peanuts.

Indoor66
05-31-2013, 12:36 PM
JHU would only be an affiliate/associate member. ND is a full member. So I think ND is a MUCH bigger exception than JHU would be. The JHU ESPN lacrosse contact is peanuts.

Member is member. If the sport is included so are the contractual limitations and obligations. There is no reason to add JHU if their TV rights are not included. What else do they bring? They need the ACC much more than the ACC needs them.

johnb
05-31-2013, 04:26 PM
I think I agreed that the world is changing. But Md., Pa, NJ, and NY still provide the preponderance of Duke players. Here is the state-by-state breakout:



NY 13
Pa. 8
Mass. 5
NJ 5
Calif. 4
Md. 4
Conn 2
NH 2
Tex. 2
Va. 2
Total 47
NE 9
MD-NY 30
Other 8


The first thing is -- wow -- who knew the lacrosse team had 47 players?

...

While I know that many lacrosse players are middle/working class, there are quite a few kids who play lacrosse at a high level with a goal not so much of a scholarship as an acceptance to the sorts of colleges (and, earlier, prep schools) that play lacrosse. In regards to title IX, how many scholly's does lacrosse get to divide among the 47? I ask because I know plenty of schools have added women's bowling and softball and eliminated men's sports in an effort to maintain legal parity. I have a daughter, and am all for this legislation, but in an era of belt tightening, how likely is it that the ACC schools without lacrosse will be willing to pony up the money for, say, a dozen lacrosse scholarships as well as a dozen scholarships for a woman's sport, when neither is likely to make money. Further, are there enough strong lacrosse players who want to attend, say, Clemson without a scholarship that they wouldn't simply get slammed when they competed against Duke and Virginia? And if all they're going to do is lose, why bother?

In regards to Hopkins, I'm a big fan of competition, but, leaving aside practicalities and cigar-chomping football administrators, why do we need to add yet another top ten team to the conference? If we did, the conference--top to bottom--seems like it would be stronger than the NCAA tournament.

Bluedog
05-31-2013, 05:31 PM
In regards to title IX, how many scholly's does lacrosse get to divide among the 47? I ask because I know plenty of schools have added women's bowling and softball and eliminated men's sports in an effort to maintain legal parity.

The scholarship limit for men's lacrosse is 12.6, while it's 12.0 for women. That actually was somewhat of a surprise to me as most of the men/women sports (cross country, soccer, tennis, and golf, for example), offer more scholarships for women. Note that lacrosse is an equivalency sport for NCAA scholarship purposes, so partial scholarships can be awarded (up to 30 per team in NCAA Division I) to meet the limit per school. 47 is not the "limit" of a roster though; there is no explicit roster limit that I'm aware of.

BigWayne
06-01-2013, 01:29 PM
The scholarship limit for men's lacrosse is 12.6, while it's 12.0 for women. That actually was somewhat of a surprise to me as most of the men/women sports (cross country, soccer, tennis, and golf, for example), offer more scholarships for women. Note that lacrosse is an equivalency sport for NCAA scholarship purposes, so partial scholarships can be awarded (up to 30 per team in NCAA Division I) to meet the limit per school. 47 is not the "limit" of a roster though; there is no explicit roster limit that I'm aware of.

Title IX compliance is a murky and messy topic with biased factions on both sides. Depending on who's counting, the scholarship limits are not the only factor. Total amount of participants also comes into play depending on what the university's compliance strategy is. For example, check page 9 here: http://www.uncw.edu/iarc/documents/UNCWIARC_Recommendations.pdf

Also, about a third of the way down in this one, you see how they are adding and subtracting roster spots unrelated to scholarship counts. http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2012/10/01/ur-caught-in-a-web-of-controversy-over-lacrosse-decision/

greybeard
06-01-2013, 05:27 PM
LAX began out West in the 70's as a club sport, stayed that way for a number of years, and then evolved into a semi "official" school program with a league comprised of similar teams. Through that period teams were privately funded through all type of methods. Google Mickey-Miles Felton to get a feel for how it happened.

Today, LAX is the fastest growing sport in the nation by far. There probably are more boys playing lax than soccer; I don't know about girls. Fund raising outside the box of school financing should bring in more than enough dough for schools like Clemson to get a program going, outside the realm of ACC play. I think many schools will, if they haven't already. Given the growing popularity, the ability of fans to relate to it, the fact that there is no such thing as a non-skill position (linemen in football), and the health costs that lawsuits portend for football programs, this game might well be coming to the collegiate level big time.

Given these facts, and the ability of a university like Denver to field a team notwithstanding Title IX and vie for a national championship in just a few years, I think that we are looking at a place at the big table for lax in the not to distant future. Furthermore, precisely the same rapid success was replicated on the women's side at the University of Florida.

Finally, an ever growing amount of the cost of these programs will be picked up by the product manufacturers. Right now the product companies in this thing are small relative small timers, as was the case during the early years of American soccer, with companies like Lazsara (owned by the Malone brothers (Paul's son played with my kid). But those companies will soon be pushed aside by the big guys like Nike and Adidas. If travel stays regional among start up conferences, those out West and say the Big 12, this thing will cost far less than one might expect. And, if the Ivy League's success is any measure, and you'd have to say that that is quite a measure, no one will need scholarships to build a big time program. These kids want to play.; they live for it.

Deslok
06-01-2013, 05:46 PM
Today, LAX is the fastest growing sport in the nation by far. There probably are more boys playing lax than soccer; I don't know about girls.

While it is growing, this is not close to being true. For examples of numbers at the high school level, check the National High School Sports Federation (http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3282) web site.

Olympic Fan
06-01-2013, 05:51 PM
Sorry, I haven't read this whole thread, but now that it's back to the top, I'm a little baffled.

There is absolutely, positively NO chance the ACC would bring Hopkins in as a one-sport ACC member. It's not going to happen.

And while it might make the ACC eligible for an automatic NCAA lax bid, is that a problem? When was the last time the ACC champion did not get as bid to the NCAA Tournament?

MCFinARL
06-01-2013, 09:11 PM
Sorry, I haven't read this whole thread, but now that it's back to the top, I'm a little baffled.

There is absolutely, positively NO chance the ACC would bring Hopkins in as a one-sport ACC member. It's not going to happen.

And while it might make the ACC eligible for an automatic NCAA lax bid, is that a problem? When was the last time the ACC champion did not get as bid to the NCAA Tournament?

Addressing the latter point, which has been discussed either earlier in this thread or in another one (too tired to check), no, it's not really a problem for the ACC. Many years every ACC team has made the tournament. This year, Virginia was left out, and arguably, the AQ might have made a difference if they had beaten UNC in the ACC final--but probably, beating UNC in the ACC final would have gotten UVA into the tournament anyway. The problem is really a larger one for the NCAA lax tournament as a whole--if the ACC has 3-6 teams (3 this year, 4 many years, 5 or 6 possible/probable next year) that should qualify for at large berths and the NCAA is awarding 8 AQs in a 16 team tournament, that doesn't leave a lot of room for other at large teams. But as long as there are only 63 D1 men's lacrosse teams, the NCAA will be loath to expand the tournament field.

In defense of the thread, there has been a fair amount of discussion of other,non-ACC options for Hopkins, which has announced it is seeking a conference affiliation for lacrosse.

greybeard
06-01-2013, 10:16 PM
While it is growing, this is not close to being true. For examples of numbers at the high school level, check the National High School Sports Federation (http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3282) web site.

I don't know why you chose a limited sample, high school sports, but the weight of the evidence is that lacrosse is indeed the fastest growing sport and that that has been the case for close to 10 years. see http://shine.yahoo.com/team-mom/lacrosse-fastest-growing-sport-us-203700673.html#!ftbfo; http://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-growing-sport-in-america-2011-9;http://spotlightsportsmag.com/sergei-oleg; http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1110862/; http://www.rjssports.com/lacrosse-is-the-fastest-growing-sport-in-the-us/; http://insidelacrosse.com/ilgear/news/2013/04/15/lacrosse-participation-tops-720000;

As for the paradigm I suggested for how the sport might grow on the college level, here's an example. http://www.ulm.edu/universityrelations/news/mar13/lacrosse.html. Contrary to the view expressed in this thread, not only does the Ivy league stand as positive proof to the contrary, but also the growth of the sport in small colleges, where fielding a team would be impossible but for the low cost that doing so entails. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/sports/21lacrosse.html?_r=0. Moreover, it is not difficult to understand the widespread appeal that the sport has to today's youngsters, and then to family and friends. http://www.pennpoints.net/?p=47422. And, the growth of the sport in areas of the country that had barely heard of it before the beginning of the new century speaks to the fact that we have just become to see the potential for growth that the next handful of years portends. See, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/sports/21lacrosse.html?_r=0.

By contrast, football poses an untenable danger of serious injury that the public, parents and soon high schools, are just now coming to comprehend. That portends dramatic changes that will take away what makes the sport so smashing, and that would be violence. We are talking way beyond concussive hits; the long term effect every time a hit causes the head to snap back, or to have considerable backward momentum, is yet to be measured but the process has begun and the technology to measure damage to the brain at the end of each season already exists. How long? Not long? And, the gratuitous smash mouth hits that make the replays and ESPN programing when a much less impactful hit would have done the job, come on. How long? Not long. I could go on, but I think that the glamour of football will be on the decline and it will really take hold from the bottom up. What the NFL does will become inconsequential, especially now that the rampant use of pain killers to field teams has been laid bear.

Do I think that lax will soon eclipse basketball as a media darling and the sport of choice among young and old; no. However, basketball has entry obstacles that lacrosse does not. It also has the appeal of being the most interesting pass and catch game that there is.

We'll just have to see what the future brings. But, your suggestion that there are no facts to back what I have had to say just ain't so.

jimsumner
06-01-2013, 10:52 PM
I don't know why you chose a limited sample, high school sports, but the weight of the evidence is that lacrosse is indeed the fastest growing sport and that that has been the case for close to 10 years. see http://shine.yahoo.com/team-mom/lacrosse-fastest-growing-sport-us-203700673.html#!ftbfo; http://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-growing-sport-in-america-2011-9;http://spotlightsportsmag.com/sergei-oleg; http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1110862/; http://www.rjssports.com/lacrosse-is-the-fastest-growing-sport-in-the-us/; http://insidelacrosse.com/ilgear/news/2013/04/15/lacrosse-participation-tops-720000;

.

I believe the point under contention is your assertion that lacrosse might be the most popular youth sport.

This link does not list lacrosse in the top three.

http://www.dotsonfamilypark.org/node/307

greybeard
06-02-2013, 12:45 AM
I believe the point under contention is your assertion that lacrosse might be the most popular youth sport.

This link does not list lacrosse in the top three.

http://www.dotsonfamilypark.org/node/307

I never said that "lacrosse might be the most popular youth sport," just the fastest growing by leaps and bounds. I happen to think, for what it is worth, that, in terms of outdoor sports, baseball and soccer among the youngsters in this country will be eclipsed by lacrosse, and not by small numbers. Lacrosse is the best passing and catching game that is anything close to suiting the American ethos; soccer doesn't, baseball is like watching grass grow, and basketball, especially as it is played today, can't come close to the passing game that Lacrosse presents.

You take away the dunk from basketball and what have you got? Not very much beyond the 3-ball, which in these days everybody's got. And normal sized people without incredible hops can't play.

So, in this era of specialization, I think that lacrosse is poised to make considerable gains, considerable. Basketball will have it' place because of the dollars behind it and the ability of the media to sell highlights. Kids, athletic kids who lack the size and talents that infuse the upper-end play in the game of basketball from youth ball on up will find their way to this game of lacrosse in ever increasing numbers. And, if they play it growing up, they will follow it when their local colleges and universities play, and they will play on levels all the way through, just as guys currently do with basketball.

Lacrosse will be a very attractive option. The rate of the growth of the game, the youngsters who participate and the wholesale level in which high schools and colleges have been picking it up seem to raise the specter that which games are dominant might well be about to change. "About" is not tomorrow, but there are tomorrows after that and there is a groundswell. We'll see where it leads. Meanwhile, this thread has drawn a fair amount of attention. How far will the ACC grow the sport. Ten years ago, we don't have this conversation. Am I right or am I right.

johnb
06-02-2013, 09:13 AM
Will lacrosse edge its way onto the football/baseball/basketball mountaintop? Other sports have threatened without doing so. Hockey and soccer obviously have their defenders (the north and the world, respectively), but they don't grab america.

Lacrosse is a violent helmet sport, but without the constant injuries of football. Big plus. And there's lots of scoring. Players don't have to be big (a quick review of the duke roster yielded an average height under 6'1" with 14 of 47 guys listed under 6'0. this is shorter than men's tennis (6'1") and men's basketball (6'6+) and most similar to -women's-basketball (6'05"). This makes it accessible, or at least seeming to be accessible.

Of course, it's not actually accessible, at least currently. My small private high school won its state championship recently, which is attributable to skill, enthusiasm, and the reality that most athletic guys in Texas have never played or seen lacrosse. Would they or their parents endorse a switch from football--I'd guess only if football failed in 2 ways: cost and injuries. Can it supplant baseball? from a health standpoint, I'd hope so (baseball leaves almost everyone staring at the sky most of the game). will it? who knows.

jimsumner
06-02-2013, 10:51 AM
I never said that "lacrosse might be the most popular youth sport," just the fastest growing by leaps and bounds.

.

You said "Today, LAX is the fastest growing sport in the nation by far. There probably are more boys playing lax than soccer; I don't know about girls"and have produced nothing to back up that claim.

Here is a link indicating football is the most popualr youth sport for boys, basketball for girls. Lacrosse is not mentioned.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/99949-popular-youth-sports/

It is two years old. But I don't think lacrosse is growing THAT fast. :)

jimsumner
06-02-2013, 11:14 AM
Lacrosse ranks 11th in high-school sports participation for boys and 10th for girls.

http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3282

Native
06-02-2013, 10:08 PM
Inside Lacrosse reporting (http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/31/sources-johns-hopkins-announce-joining-big-ten-monday) that Hopkins will join the B1G:


Multiple sources have told Inside Lacrosse that Johns Hopkins will announce Monday at a press conference its intentions to join the Big Ten as an affiliate member in men's and women's lacrosse. By extension, the announcement keys the formation of Big Ten men's and women's lacrosse as league-sponsored sports for the first time.

burnspbesq
06-02-2013, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't want to be Air Force right about now. Hobart and Fairfield will find landing spots in conferences that make geographic sense. Bellarmine will end up in the Atlantic Sun.

BC, Louisville, VaTech, Clemson, it's time. Find a way to make it happen.

burnspbesq
06-02-2013, 10:34 PM
Lest we forget, the formation of a Big Integer lacrosse league has pretty major implications on the women's side as well. That's pretty much it for the ALC, which leaves Florida and Vandy looking for new conferences. Why not the ACC?

Duvall
06-02-2013, 11:16 PM
I wouldn't want to be Air Force right about now. Hobart and Fairfield will find landing spots in conferences that make geographic sense. Bellarmine will end up in the Atlantic Sun.

BC, Louisville, VaTech, Clemson, it's time. Find a way to make it happen.

Can't Louisville just buy Bellarmine's program and move it across town? They have the money.

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 02:13 AM
Inside Lacrosse reporting (http://insidelacrosse.com/news/2013/05/31/sources-johns-hopkins-announce-joining-big-ten-monday) that Hopkins will join the B1G:

Wonder what's going to happen with the ESPN contract? Still, good for a "Midwest" lacrosse conference, even if 4 of 6 teams are closer to the east coast.

Dev11
06-03-2013, 11:41 AM
Maryland finally gets that conference rival they've been dreaming about for six decades.

BigWayne
06-03-2013, 11:48 AM
Hopkins to B10 announcement is out. It doesn't happen until 2014-15 year though.

http://www.laxpower.com/laxnews/news.php?story=35690

There are a lot of changes going on in Lax conference makeup the next couple years. You can follow some of it here:
http://network.laxpower.com/laxforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49772

One thing mentioned in that thread states that the ACC this coming year will be at 6 teams and will somehow get an
AQ spot in that year and then hold it for a couple years while they look for a 6th team. How the poster figured that out, I don't know.

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 12:14 PM
Maryland finally gets that conference rival they've been dreaming about for six decades.

I hope you're joking. Maryland and JHU have been playing since 1895 and is probably the best rivalry in the sport.

sagegrouse
06-03-2013, 12:24 PM
I hope you're joking. Maryland and JHU have been playing since 1895 and is probably the best rivalry in the sport.

Seriously, the Hopkins to the Big Ten for lacrosse sounds like a "condition of sale" negotiated by Maryland before agreeing to join the Big Ten.

sagegrouse

-bdbd
06-03-2013, 12:39 PM
Seriously, the Hopkins to the Big Ten for lacrosse sounds like a "condition of sale" negotiated by Maryland before agreeing to join the Big Ten.

sagegrouse

Was thinking the same thing.

But Big10 LAX will still pale, considerably, compared up against the ACC, with 4 perrinneal powerhouses, including this year's final two - Duke and Syracuse. Weren't there 2-3 ACC schools looking into adding LAX as well?

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 12:39 PM
Seriously, the Hopkins to the Big Ten for lacrosse sounds like a "condition of sale" negotiated by Maryland before agreeing to join the Big Ten.

sagegrouse

There actually might be some merit to this. It's being reported that Delany said that Maryland suggested it to the Big Ten. It looks like the women are coming to, something initial reports denied.

EDIT: And now there are reports contrary to those reports. Women aren't in. They go independent.

Dev11
06-03-2013, 12:40 PM
I hope you're joking. Maryland and JHU have been playing since 1895 and is probably the best rivalry in the sport.

*Conference rival. I realize that UMD/JHU has always been a great lax rivalry.

ForkFondler
06-03-2013, 12:59 PM
Seriously, the Hopkins to the Big Ten for lacrosse sounds like a "condition of sale" negotiated by Maryland before agreeing to join the Big Ten.

sagegrouse

Sounds more like damage control to me.

Class of '94
06-03-2013, 01:00 PM
It's funny that the BIG wouldn't agree to Notre Dame being a partial member of the league and it wanted an all or nothing deal with ND; yet, they're willing to add JHU as basically a partial member and allow them to keep their deal with JHU. Interesting........

If it is true that the BIG is doing this to appease MD, the BIG is really going all of it's way for MD; and the crap the ACC has gotten for making decisions based on money, clearly the BIG should get the same treatment because the BIG would basically be selling itself out to MD in order to get the Baltimore-DC market for their BIG network. I wondering if Delaney made the move to place more pressure on the cable networks in the midatlantic to carry the BIG Network by now adding JHU Lacrosse away games to its inventory.

I never thought the BIG would do something like this. Now I'm wondering if the ACC should've added JHU as a Lacrosse only member before the BIG (if only to keep the BIG from getting them ;) ). That said, if 2-3 other ACC schools add Lacrosse, the ACC as an AQ league would be secured and the notion of adding JHU in Lacrosse would be a mute point.

Duvall
06-03-2013, 01:20 PM
It's funny that the BIG wouldn't agree to Notre Dame being a partial member of the league and it wanted an all or nothing deal with ND; yet, they're willing to add JHU as basically a partial member and allow them to keep their deal with JHU. Interesting........

If it is true that the BIG is doing this to appease MD, the BIG is really going all of it's way for MD; and the crap the ACC has gotten for making decisions based on money, clearly the BIG should get the same treatment because the BIG would basically be selling itself out to MD in order to get the Baltimore-DC market for their BIG network. I wondering if Delaney made the move to place more pressure on the cable networks in the midatlantic to carry the BIG Network by now adding JHU Lacrosse away games to its inventory.

I never thought the BIG would do something like this. Now I'm wondering if the ACC should've added JHU as a Lacrosse only member before the BIG (if only to keep the BIG from getting them ;) ). That said, if 2-3 other ACC schools add Lacrosse, the ACC as an AQ league would be secured and the notion of adding JHU in Lacrosse would be a mute point.

I think we saw from Gordon Gee's snotty comments published last week that university presidents view conference membership as getting to be in a cool club in addition to being a source of athletic revenue. Getting to claim Johns Hopkins as a fellow club member might have eased the concerns of some Big Ten schools that they had eroded their academic brand by letting in Rutgers and Maryland.

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 01:37 PM
I think we saw from Gordon Gee's snotty comments published last week that university presidents view conference membership as getting to be in a cool club in addition to being a source of athletic revenue. Getting to claim Johns Hopkins as a fellow club member might have eased the concerns of some Big Ten schools that they had eroded their academic brand by letting in Rutgers and Maryland.

If anyone eroded the Big Ten's academic brand, it's Nebraska. Rutgers and Maryland aren't bad schools academically. Middle of the pack I believe.

Curiously, Johns Hopkins hasn't mentioned the CIC, not that they need it; they get almost $2 billion in research a year. Maybe since they are in for the short term (can get out by 2019), they didn't get included?

Class of '94
06-03-2013, 01:47 PM
It's funny that the BIG wouldn't agree to Notre Dame being a partial member of the league and it wanted an all or nothing deal with ND; yet, they're willing to add JHU as basically a partial member and allow them to keep their deal with JHU. Interesting........



I meant the BIG apparently allowing JHU to keep their contract with espn for airing JHU Lacrosse home games. IMO this is a big deal since it goes against the BIG equal split in all tv revenue.

If JHU is a partial member and apparently is not a part of the BIG's grant of rights deal, what would be the penalty if JHU was to botl the BIG for another conference like the new Big East or the ACC in a year or two?

I'm wondering if JHU is a stop-gap until other schools in the BIG develop men's Lacrosse programs to keep the BIG as an AQ conference, and JHU will be dropped once that happens.

Class of '94
06-03-2013, 01:54 PM
If anyone eroded the Big Ten's academic brand, it's Nebraska. Rutgers and Maryland aren't bad schools academically. Middle of the pack I believe.

Curiously, Johns Hopkins hasn't mentioned the CIC, not that they need it; they get almost $2 billion in research a year. Maybe since they are in for the short term (can get out by 2019), they didn't get included?

I can't see JHU as a partial member getting any of that CIC money. It's a situation where you have a finite amount of money in a pool with more mouths to feed; thus the share of that research money goes down with each new full member added.

Btw, are you referring to JHU being able to get out of the BIG by 2019? If so, it lends support to my idea that JHU is just a stop-gap until other BIG schools develop men's Lacrosse programs.

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 01:59 PM
I meant the BIG apparently allowing JHU to keep their contract with espn for airing JHU Lacrosse home games. IMO this is a big deal since it goes against the BIG equal split in all tv revenue.

If JHU is a partial member and apparently is not a part of the BIG's grant of rights deal, what would be the penalty if JHU was to botl the BIG for another conference like the new Big East or the ACC in a year or two?

I'm wondering if JHU is a stop-gap until other schools in the BIG develop men's Lacrosse programs to keep the BIG as an AQ conference, and JHU will be dropped once that happens.


That's a good point. I guess it would be different since they are an affiliate member, not a full one. I don't see them jumping just to go to a conference they shunned two years earlier.

I don't see them getting dropped. They are one of the premier teams of the sport, and the B1G would be able to push the network into the Baltimore area even more with the rights to the away games. Hopkins is the biggest research university in the country. I can't see the Big Ten saying Minnesota is coming up, you can leave. If anything, they could have an 8 team conference. The 5 year trial was Hopkins idea anyway.

Side note, it looks like Johns Hopkins will be in the CIC as well according to Penn State.

http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/060313aac.html

They might be able to join when Rutgers and Maryland do next month. Looks like they are jumping in as fast as they can.

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 02:09 PM
I can't see JHU as a partial member getting any of that CIC money. It's a situation where you have a finite amount of money in a pool with more mouths to feed; thus the share of that research money goes down with each new full member added.

Btw, are you referring to JHU being able to get out of the BIG by 2019? If so, it lends support to my idea that JHU is just a stop-gap until other BIG schools develop men's Lacrosse programs.

Yeah. I hesitate to say they are a stop gap because Hopkins demanded that for any conference they joined. I could see an 8 team conference before Hopkins getting kicked out, especially because of the academics Johns Hopkins brings to the table.

Bluedog
06-03-2013, 02:11 PM
I don't understand why getting an AQ would really matter all that much to the ACC (as mentioned by several posters). With Duke, UNC, Syracuse, ND, and UVa, it's going to be a top conference year in and year out; it's not like the ACC will actually need the AQ in order to have a single team qualify. We should have multiple teams in the tournament every year. Am I missing something? Obviously, it's nice to expand the conference for other reasons (revenue, expansion of the brand, geography), but I don't see why a potential AQ would be major motivating factor. It's not like getting to 12 conference teams in football, so you can have a conference championship game and the extra revenue that game brings in.

sagegrouse
06-03-2013, 02:19 PM
That's a good point. I guess it would be different since they are an affiliate member, not a full one. I don't see them jumping just to go to a conference they shunned two years earlier.

.



Re this and other posts: an "affiliate member" sounds like an "adjunct professor," which can mean anything. I doubt that Hopkins collects a nickle from the Big Ten, unless there are some TV fees that go with the NCAA tournament.

I am so skeptical of this whole story, I no longer trust my own judgment. I assume this was conjured up either as a point-of-negotiation by Maryland for entry or as a way to boost LAX by the Big Ten LAX coaches and schools. The only thing constructive I can say is that Hopkins academics made it an easier sell.

sagegrouse

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 02:41 PM
I feel like Maryland said we'll join and give you the DC market, but you have to take care of lacrosse for us so bring in Hopkins and we have a deal.

BigWayne
06-03-2013, 06:16 PM
Good article that discusses the Maryland influence and some of the thinking of JHU.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/lacrosse-blog/bal-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-program-to-join-big-ten-20130602,0,1998652.story

Class of '94
06-03-2013, 07:22 PM
Good article that discusses the Maryland influence and some of the thinking of JHU.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/lacrosse-blog/bal-johns-hopkins-lacrosse-program-to-join-big-ten-20130602,0,1998652.story


Again, i find it funny that people have criticized ND for trying to exert its influence on the old Big East to get favorable deals that benefited ND; yet, it looks like MD is exerting its new found leverage on the BIG to get favorable deals that benefit MD.

I think Delaney is trying appease MD as well as "make friends and build relationships" in the MD-DC area; but I believe it is with the focus of making the BTN more profitable by getting higher subscription fees for cable subscribers in that area. Again, the announcement of JHU joining the BIG ranges from lukewarm to disinterest here in the part of Michigan where i live. I give credit for Delaney thinking outside the box on this one but I think he has to be careful in making moves solely to expand the reach of his BTN and making it more profitable. It could backfire on him down the road if he continues to add teams to his league that does not add to or genearate fan interest.

On the men's Lacrosse front, I see MD and JHU owning the BIG. I know PSU and Ohio State are good programs; and Mich is up and coming; but I think JHU and MD have the tradition own BIG men's Lacrosse.

Here is a Turtle
06-03-2013, 09:32 PM
Michigan is terrible right now. They might have been the worse team in all of lacrosse. 1-13 record. They can sell kids on playing Maryland and JHIU or just throw money at the program I suppose. I agree that Maryland and Hopkins dominate with OSU and PSU upsetting on occasion.

Interesting to see what the Big Ten does in hockey now. Members have been wanting affiliate members in that sport for years apparently.

greybeard
06-04-2013, 01:01 AM
Again, i find it funny that people have criticized ND for trying to exert its influence on the old Big East to get favorable deals that benefited ND; yet, it looks like MD is exerting its new found leverage on the BIG to get favorable deals that benefit MD.

I think Delaney is trying appease MD as well as "make friends and build relationships" in the MD-DC area; but I believe it is with the focus of making the BTN more profitable by getting higher subscription fees for cable subscribers in that area. Again, the announcement of JHU joining the BIG ranges from lukewarm to disinterest here in the part of Michigan where i live. I give credit for Delaney thinking outside the box on this one but I think he has to be careful in making moves solely to expand the reach of his BTN and making it more profitable. It could backfire on him down the road if he continues to add teams to his league that does not add to or genearate fan interest.

On the men's Lacrosse front, I see MD and JHU owning the BIG. I know PSU and Ohio State are good programs; and Mich is up and coming; but I think JHU and MD have the tradition own BIG men's Lacrosse.

Tambroni can recruit and coach 'em up, as the ole ball coach would say. Now, if he only knew when to call a freakin time out!! PSU will compete, if Tambroni hangs around.

Class of '94
06-04-2013, 09:54 AM
Michigan is terrible right now. They might have been the worse team in all of lacrosse. 1-13 record. They can sell kids on playing Maryland and JHIU or just throw money at the program I suppose. I agree that Maryland and Hopkins dominate with OSU and PSU upsetting on occasion.

Interesting to see what the Big Ten does in hockey now. Members have been wanting affiliate members in that sport for years apparently.

I agree with you about Michigan right now; I'm just trying to give the BIG some benefit of the doubt about their new Lacrosse league and not completely trash the league. Based on their history in other sports like football and basketball, I would think that Michigan will improve in Lacrosse.

It was interesting to read an article (I believe it was either from the DBR front page or ealier link in this thread) that mentioned the concern of a former JHU Lacrosse player about JHU playing in the BIG and being afraid that JHU will end up lowering their level of play by playing in the BIG. He implied that currenlty the BIG is a weak/inferior conference right now in Lacrosse and felt that playing in a weak conference might downgrade the quality of their play. Luckily, by having MD as a conference partner, JHU may not have to worry about that.

As far as adding hockey affiliates (or affilitate members in general) for the BIG (or any conference), would that really be wise? My knowlege of college hockey teams in the east is very limited; but I'm assuming the BIG would only care about college teams and associated schools in the NE in order to stay consistent with their goals of expanding into the east coast and heavy population centers. I can't see them adding affiliate schools in the midwest because they'd be in declining population centers. So would that include ivy league teams like Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, etc. (assuming they have hockey programs)? I'm being facetious when I say this but since the ACC doesn't sponser hockey and the BIG decided to sponser hockey, could ND and BC join the BIG as affiliate members in hockey if they chose to?

burnspbesq
06-04-2013, 11:12 AM
As far as adding hockey affiliates (or affilitate members in general) for the BIG (or any conference), would that really be wise? My knowlege of college hockey teams in the east is very limited; but I'm assuming the BIG would only care about college teams and associated schools in the NE in order to stay consistent with their goals of expanding into the east coast and heavy population centers. I can't see them adding affiliate schools in the midwest because they'd be in declining population centers. So would that include ivy league teams like Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, etc. (assuming they have hockey programs)? I'm being facetious when I say this but since the ACC doesn't sponser hockey and the BIG decided to sponser hockey, could ND and BC join the BIG as affiliate members in hockey if they chose to?

Conference affiliations in D1 hockey were stable for a long time (the last big move was almost ten years ago, when Vermont went from the ECAC to Hockey East), before the B1G blew it up. When Penn State added hockey, that gave the B1G six hockey-playing members, and that move tore the hearts out of both the CCHA and the WCHA.

BC isn't going anywhere. All of their hockey rivalries, except for Harvard, are with Hockey East schools. HE gets even stronger with the addition of Notre Dame, and the expectation is that the nascent BC-ND rivalry will quickly become something very special.

The six Ivies that play hockey (Penn and Columbia don't) aren't going anywhere. The ECAC is a perfect fit, and the rise of Yale, Union and Quinnipiac has made it a legitimate power conference.

greybeard
06-04-2013, 10:06 PM
Michigan is terrible right now. They might have been the worse team in all of lacrosse. 1-13 record. They can sell kids on playing Maryland and JHIU or just throw money at the program I suppose. I agree that Maryland and Hopkins dominate with OSU and PSU upsetting on occasion.

Interesting to see what the Big Ten does in hockey now. Members have been wanting affiliate members in that sport for years apparently.

Hopkins must expect that the schools in the conference intend to make a real commitment to the game. If not, why join? It would only hurt recruiting and postseason chances. Or am I missing something? Maryland, Hopkins, OSU, PSU (especially with Tambroni) should make other conference schools attractive to recruits. The conference is filled with terrific universities, and the woman's game has more than thrived. I'd look for conference schools to get real good quickly, maybe not as good and as quickly as Denver, but who knows. I'd look for PSU to take a big jump in the next two years.

-jk
06-04-2013, 10:57 PM
It's almost a no-brainer for both the Bigger Whatever and Hopkins.

Hopkins has a dispensation for D1 lax. They are one of a handful of D3 schools to also have a scholarship D1 sport, while being D3 in every other sport. Hopkins and a few other schools successfully fought off a requirement several years ago that would have forced them to give up all D1 scholarships to remain D3 otherwise. They don't plan to upgrade the rest of their sports if they can maintain that exemption.

The bigger is, like the rest of the BCS schools, stuck behind title ix, and unlikely to grow lax quickly.

Other than perhaps a bit more travel, what's the harm in Hopkins joining? I see a win-win for both - much better lax for the Bigger, much better exposure for Hopkins.

-jk

SmartDevil
06-05-2013, 12:58 AM
After Maryland departs, do the ACC schools with lacrosse teams plan on scheduling or avoiding games with Maryland? (This question also pertains to other sports but I think it is particularly interesting regarding lacrosse.)

I'm also curious about what people here think about about an unofficial conference policy regarding that. And also what Duke's stance about its own schedule should be if some ACC schools do schedule Maryland.

Here is a Turtle
06-05-2013, 05:12 AM
After Maryland departs, do the ACC schools with lacrosse teams plan on scheduling or avoiding games with Maryland? (This question also pertains to other sports but I think it is particularly interesting regarding lacrosse.)

I'm also curious about what people here think about about an unofficial conference policy regarding that. And also what Duke's stance about its own schedule should be if some ACC schools do schedule Maryland.

I doubt it. Football and Basketball are definitely out. The ACC wants out of the B1G-ACC challenge over Maryland leaving. As far as other sports, I think there are good enough teams in lacrosse to find a replacement for Maryland. The ACC is the best conference in lacrosse, period. Not sure about sports like soccer or field hockey.

MCFinARL
06-05-2013, 08:52 AM
I doubt it. Football and Basketball are definitely out. The ACC wants out of the B1G-ACC challenge over Maryland leaving. As far as other sports, I think there are good enough teams in lacrosse to find a replacement for Maryland. The ACC is the best conference in lacrosse, period. Not sure about sports like soccer or field hockey.

This could be different for women's lacrosse than men's. Though there are many more women's lacrosse teams than men's, right now there is a smaller top tier of excellent teams in the women's game than in the men's. Maryland has been the best or second-best team in women's lacrosse for the last several years, and losing Duke, Virginia and UNC from their schedule will be problematic even though they will still have good games (including an excellent Northwestern matchup) in the B1G. Similarly, the other ACC teams may not "need" a Maryland matchup, but they may well miss it, in terms of challenge and strength of schedule, if it's gone.
Whether this will actually result in games being scheduled, though, I have no idea.

One other factor in men's lacrosse is the role of stadium events like the Big City Classic. These usually feature particularly attractive match-ups, and I can see where Maryland facing off against a former ACC foe would qualify. This kind of match-up might work, too, because it's a one-off at a neutral site, so there is no multi-year commitment.

throatybeard
06-06-2013, 02:19 AM
LAX began out West in the 70's as a club sport

I thought Native Americans invented it a long time before that.