I think we, as fans and supporters of our great sport, should be cautious about applauding the addition of the sport at every school that adds it.
Here is why. The dirty, rotten truth is that a number of schools in non-traditional areas are adding the sport to help with their female population, overall school population, and generation of revenue (which is eventually not put back into the athletic department or into the budget of the program/scholarships, instead it is allocated elsewhere on campus where it is needed or desired more). They are not adding with hopes of winning a NCAA title, conference title, or even have their sights set on a winning season every now and then. And don't be mistaken. This isn't just happening at the D3 and D2 level. It is happening at the Division 1 level as well.
Lets do the simple math (don't be nit picky, this is all for the sake of the point I am trying to prove. I may be off be a few bucks here or there) and look at examples from scholarship schools (D1 and D2) and then non scholarship schools (D3).
School X at the D2 level costs $35,000 for tuition. They put together a roster of 25 lacrosse players. Hypothetically, that creates a revenue of $875,000. Coach gets paid $40,000 and assistant gets paid $15,000 (both those numbers are pretty generous for a lot of D2 schools). School provides 4 scholarships, totaling $140,000. Budget is $20,000 for the program. Let's say $25,000 in year 1 initial start up costs. Lets also say each student receives, on average, $5,000 worth of non-endowed academic scholarships (which means the school is basically giving a discount) awarded by the school, which totals $125,000. All totaled, in year one, the program has created $875,000, cost the school $365,000. That is a bottom line of $510,000. Half a million coming in to the school, per year, that otherwise would never have been there!
School Z at the D3 level costs $45,000 for tuition (the vast majority of D3s are private, liberal arts schools, so this tuition number is realistic). They put together a roster of 30 players (yes, believe it! These are the goals for MANY D3 programs). Hypothetically, that creates a revenue of $1,565,000. Coach gets paid $35,000 and has a graduate assistant that makes $10,000 a year plus grad classes equivalent of $10,000 a year.; so call it $20,000. No scholarships. Budget is $18,000 for the program. Start up costs would be, lets say, $15,000. Lets also assume that each player receives $7,000 worth of non-endowed scholarship money. That totals $210,000. All totaled, the program has created $1,565,000, and cost the school $298,000. Creating a bottom line of $1,267,000!
Obviously the math isn't that simple. There will be additional costs that aren't included or considered in the examples above i.e. facility upgrades needed to add the sport (but lets be honest, no one is building a new stadium because women's lacrosse is coming to town!). Or perhaps, the addition of one more athletic trainer to the staff to help cover the sport. Either way, say each estimated bottom line is WAY off base. And schools are actually only seeing half the numbers estimated above. School X would be creating $250,000 a year and School Z would be creating $600,000. No brainer, right? These schools see the opportunity to add a sport that has one of, if not, the highest, graduation rates of all collegiate sports. They do this knowing full well that the majority of lacrosse players are coming from strong socio-economic backgrounds. Again, REMEMBER, these are students that would not be attending these schools if not for lacrosse. Therefore, this is new revenue created by the school.
So, now that we have looked at all the numbers and benefits of adding the sport, what is the relevance of my post tonight? Simple. Many, many schools are adding the sport with little, if any, concern over the performance of the program on the field and the resume of the coach they hire (Don't believe me? One D1 just hired a Head Coach with ZERO D1 coaching experience and ZERO collegiate playing experience.). Their evaluation of the coach's performance is based on how big of a roster the coach recruits and retains (we just saw, bigger roster means more $$$ generated for the school) and how well the athletes are doing in the classroom and in the community. Hiring coaches for the small salaries we saw above, and giving them little resources, will cause consistent turnover and the continued hiring of young, inexperienced coaches. Is cycling through a new head coach every 2-3 years good for anyone? Is asking a 24 year old to recruit NON STOP, spend their entire summer on the road, and move to remote areas, all for $30,000 a year, realistic? NO!
I believe the growth of the sport is something we all want to see. But we should all want to see it done CORRECTLY. Hire coaches with a track record of sound, professional leadership. Oh, no good applicants? Dip into that HALF A MILLION your school is getting for adding the sport and throw an extra $15,000 to make sure you get someone worthwhile. After you hire someone qualified, give them the appropriate resources. Again, dip into that big bottom line and help them make their facility look appealing to recruits. Then, HOLD THE COACHES ACCOUNTABLE. Oh, and when you hold people accountable, you may be shocked at how much harder they work, and how much better they perform. It is a win-win for everyone.
I have officially jumped down from the soapbox. Hope you all could follow that stream of consciousness on some level.
Thank you, great pist! Mind if I ask what D1 school hired the non experienced coach?
Reply
Quote
