(04-05-2017 03:58 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 02:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 02:33 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 01:53 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 01:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  No, it makes sense. The state of Pennsylvania produces an inordinate amount of college wrestlers - and so to do neighboring states, New Jersey and Ohio.

In that vein, it would make sense that we would invest in that program if we were going to invest in an Olympic sport.

Hell, when I was in high school, aside from football, wrestling was the most popular sport at my school.

The wrestling crowds were twice the size of the boys or girls basketball crowds, so your point is well made.

I just don't think I would invest in any Olympic sports until I first got things worked out with the sports that matter to the ticket buying public: football and men's basketball. Next, I would probably invest in women's basketball. From there, who knows?

I think that's the challenge for every athletic department in the ACC.

Your point is well made in that priority level at most (if not all) ACC schools should probably be Football > Men's Basketball > Women's Basketball. But from there, things can differ wildly depending on things like climate or regional sports culture. And that's where an athletic director needs to figure out where resources should be allocated best.

At some schools, baseball will be the next priority. That certainly seems to be the case at places like Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT and Louisville. And from the announced renovation of English Field, it looks like VT is headed that way as well (for reference, VT's AD was a former college baseball player). But right now, I would say that wrestling is probably higher on the pecking order at VT. At a school further north like BC, baseball is seemingly less important than their hockey program. Hell, Syracuse doesn't even have a baseball program.

Sports like wrestling (6 schools sponsoring) and men's lacrosse (5 schools sponsoring) are relatively rare in the ACC anyway. Duke, UNC and UVA are the only that have both. For a sport that's relatively popular in the Mid-Atlantic region, there's not a ton of men's lacrosse representation in the ACC.

Hey Hustle,

I love you as a poster as you are always on point with your assesments on various issue. But I think you are missing out on this one. Virginia, Syracuse, Duke, UNC, BC and ND all have lacrosse programs. I believe that every one of those programs are making money off of lacrosse, although Im not sure about BC. I have seen some huge crowds at the stadiums of those schools during a lacrosse game. SU usually leads the nation in attendance and pays its lacrosse coach in the area of $1 million per year so It better be making some serious dough with its lacrosse team.

I understand your point about making the most of wrestling because they already have it and Pitt being in a wrestling hotbed. But lacrosse is growing quickly with each passing year and if promoted right. with a combination of winning, can be a source of serious revenue for any program. Especially when a coach can promote to recruits that their team gets to play some of the greatest lacrosse teams in the country and they will be on tv. Wrestling seems to have a lot less overhead so it may be easier to become profitable but I dont think it has the potential to be as profitable as lacrosse. I have seen some lacrosse playoff games with 40,000 in attendance.

I like lacrosse but I doubt any ACC school makes money off the sport. It requires a lot of scholarships and the attendance is usually measured in the hundreds at most. I don't think ESPN is paying to televise the games.

You are correct about No Acc schools making a profit off of lacrosse. I was wrong on that point. But many schools that sponsor lacrosse take in a significant amount of revenue. somes schools are close to making a profit, for instance, a Bloomberg article said something about Duke losing about $85,000 in 2013 with total expenses being over $3 million, I believe. ND lost $1.5 million that season averaging over 1700 in attendance. In 2015, Syracuse spent 3.8 million on lacrosse but made just under $2 million. SU usually averages around 3000 per game. Lacrosse takes in a similar amount of revenue as baseball even though lacrosse only has 7 home games per season where baseball has over 20 home games. Since Fb and bb are the sports that most fbs schools use to support all other sports, its good to be able to bring in an extra $2 or 3 million to help with the bottom line.

Lax expenses are dramatically overstated because of scholarship costs - much of which isn't really a relevant costs.

(04-05-2017 07:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  Personally, I would hope for Pitt to focus on some of its other current sports where there's a high upside, like wrestling.

The fact that Pitt's wrestling program is 4th in the pecking order of a wrestling-mad state behind PSU, Lehigh and Edinboro is a shame. At the very least, it should be able to outclass Lehigh & Edinboro (even though I know those schools have a long history of wrestling success as well).

With Virginia Tech's rise in college wrestling under former coach Kevin Dresser, I've taken a greater interest in the sport. From reading some of the college wrestling message boards, it seems like the new AD bungled the chance to hire away both of Lehigh & Edinboro's coaches. Lykes apparently had an integral role in helping hire Ohio State's coach while she was in that administration (which has been a home run for that program) and she has thrown a wrench in the Pitt interview process that had begun before she arrived.

A strong Pitt program would be great for VT if they had a true conference rival and Pitt could be just that if the AD invested in the program.

Pennsylvania for wrestling is like Florida for football.

Pitt was once a national power in wrestling, back in 50s and 60s when it was a much more widely fielded varsity sport. It is arguably the Pitt sport with the second richest overall tradition after football, with 16 individual national champions, 76 All-Americans, 34 top 25 finishes including twice being the national runner-up.

But since the 70s, Pitt has diverted most of its athletic resources to football and basketball as the athletic department has faced substantial financial distress at times. Most olympic sports didn't even offer full complements of their NCAA max allowable scholarships until right before or upon entering the ACC. Pitt wrestling was coached for 34 years by a legacy alumnus who, due purely to his loyalty and devotion to school and sport, put up with wrestling being a relative afterthought. He was a good but perhaps not great coach, and groomed his hand picked his successor, whose program started falling apart a year or two ago and who was subsequently fired this year, in the midsts of his fourth season, after an incident that occurred with the team on the road.

That said, despite the neglect over the last several decades, Pitt has typically hovered in the top 25 of dual meet rankings and produced the occasional national champion. In fact, when Pitt entered the ACC in 2014, it went 6-0 in dual meets and brought in the #2 nationally ranked recruiting class. Nationally, it is regarded as a program that could be a perennial top 10 type of program if it was given the proper resources.

Since the coach was fired this season, all signs pointed to Pitt making an effort to upgrade wrestling, including facilities upgrades and boosters were lining up. As you suggest, it is probably the program Pitt can have the quickest impact and most improvement for the investment based on Pitt's geographical and demographic advantages. In fact, a search committee lined up interviews with Lehigh's head coach (a Pitt alumnus) and Edinboro's coach, a national coach of the year winner. Both were very interested and apparently ready to accept as long as Pitt was willing to commit to the program. Then we hired a new AD who apparently came in and blew up what the search committee had set up.

So now what is going to happen is very much up in the air. We'll see what hire we ultimately make, but what has already transpired has a lot of wrestling supporters disappointed and wrestling boosters skittish.

As far a lacrosse, it is hard to imagine it wouldn't be only women's lax and that for Title IX reasons. I understand the popularity of lacrosse is growing, and it is one of the higher profile ACC sports and it could be valued as spring content for the network, but Pitt still is on the low end of revenue generation for its athletic department and adding more deficit to the ledger doesn't seem appropriate when existing programs still need investment. More problematic is the lack of competition and practice fields and training facilities to host a new program, especially if it is two of them (men's and women's), particularly on a campus with little existing space to build new fields. Western PA also isn't a lax hotbed. Other than for Title IX purposes, I question the prudence of this move.

So teach those wrestlers to hold without getting caught and put them on the offensive line for the football team...

(04-05-2017 07:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Since the coach was fired this season, all signs pointed to Pitt making an effort to upgrade wrestling, including facilities upgrades and boosters were lining up. As you suggest, it is probably the program Pitt can have the quickest impact and most improvement for the investment based on Pitt's geographical and demographic advantages. In fact, a search committee lined up interviews with Lehigh's head coach (a Pitt alumnus) and Edinboro's coach, a national coach of the year winner. Both were very interested and apparently ready to accept as long as Pitt was willing to commit to the program. Then we hired a new AD who apparently came in and blew up what the search committee had set up.

So now what is going to happen is very much up in the air. We'll see what hire we ultimately make, but it has a lot of wrestling supporters disappointed and wrestling boosters skittish.

Always good to have your input on Pitt athletics Paco. I was hoping you'd make an appearance in this thread.

Regarding the wrestling vacancy at Pitt, I'd read a lot of the same things you mentioned. Reading between the lines, it feels like the new AD wants to put her own stamp on the athletic department with her first hire, but she may have gotten in her own way on this one and missed a chance to hire two great coaches right in her backyard. The rumors I've read is that she stalled the search so she could get input from the head coach at Ohio State that she was responsible for hiring, and that has turned out to be a home run for that school.

As you hinted, I fear she may have alienated some important people in the Pitt wrestling community with the way she's handled things, but hopefully they end up with a good coach who can propel the program to the top of the ACC to be an annual competitor with VT (but being a perennial second to the Hokies ).

(04-05-2017 09:37 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 07:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Since the coach was fired this season, all signs pointed to Pitt making an effort to upgrade wrestling, including facilities upgrades and boosters were lining up. As you suggest, it is probably the program Pitt can have the quickest impact and most improvement for the investment based on Pitt's geographical and demographic advantages. In fact, a search committee lined up interviews with Lehigh's head coach (a Pitt alumnus) and Edinboro's coach, a national coach of the year winner. Both were very interested and apparently ready to accept as long as Pitt was willing to commit to the program. Then we hired a new AD who apparently came in and blew up what the search committee had set up.

So now what is going to happen is very much up in the air. We'll see what hire we ultimately make, but it has a lot of wrestling supporters disappointed and wrestling boosters skittish.

Always good to have your input on Pitt athletics Paco. I was hoping you'd make an appearance in this thread.

Regarding the wrestling vacancy at Pitt, I'd read a lot of the same things you mentioned. Reading between the lines, it feels like the new AD wants to put her own stamp on the athletic department with her first hire, but she may have gotten in her own way on this one and missed a chance to hire two great coaches right in her backyard. The rumors I've read is that she stalled the search so she could get input from the head coach at Ohio State that she was responsible for hiring, and that has turned out to be a home run for that school.

As you hinted, I fear she may have alienated some important people in the Pitt wrestling community with the way she's handled things, but hopefully they end up with a good coach who can propel the program to the top of the ACC to be an annual competitor with VT (but being a perennial second to the Hokies ).

That's the gist. Both candidates were just about gift wrapped. She screwed them both up, big time. The rumored backup interviews are flat out disasters. Hopefully she fixes this, and maybe even squeezes some extra support for wrestling out of Pitt, because this is a heck of a way to start a tenure. I know there is at least one alumnus whose $250K donation hinges on them getting a palatable coach, and so does a much lesser token pledge from myself.

Lacrosse is mega expensive.
Teams generally carry 50-55 players. NCAA scholarship limits for men are 12.6 (12.0 for women).
On the plus side for Pitt. ACC lacrosse is like ACC basketball....the best in the country. There would be no shortage of premiere matchups to start to develop a fan following, but the path to being competitive much less elite may be steep.

(04-06-2017 07:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  Lacrosse is mega expensive.
Teams generally carry 50-55 players. NCAA scholarship limits for men are 12.6 (12.0 for women).

Wow. Why do teams carry at least 50 players? I am fairly clueless on the sport, but from limited watching on TV I think there are 10 guys playing at once. Is the roster size due to specialization of positions on the team or more a result of schools trying to up enrollment by giving a lot of partial scholarships like with baseball?

(04-06-2017 08:34 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 07:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  Lacrosse is mega expensive.
Teams generally carry 50-55 players. NCAA scholarship limits for men are 12.6 (12.0 for women).

Wow. Why do teams carry at least 50 players? I am fairly clueless on the sport, but from limited watching on TV I think there are 10 guys playing at once. Is the roster size due to specialization of positions on the team or more a result of schools trying to up enrollment by giving a lot of partial scholarships like with baseball?

11 players on the field...you really should go 2 lines with little drop off...so there is 22...but you also have a 3rd line...so there is now 32-33

The extras are practice players and youngsters. Many of the players share the 12.6 scholies. Lots of them come from upper middle class and 1% households so they also garner academic monies and parents foot the rest.

A high proportion of the students get into business, banking and investments and the schools love them as alumni in 15-20 years.

Thanks for the explanation.

(04-06-2017 06:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 08:34 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 07:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  Lacrosse is mega expensive.
Teams generally carry 50-55 players. NCAA scholarship limits for men are 12.6 (12.0 for women).

Wow. Why do teams carry at least 50 players? I am fairly clueless on the sport, but from limited watching on TV I think there are 10 guys playing at once. Is the roster size due to specialization of positions on the team or more a result of schools trying to up enrollment by giving a lot of partial scholarships like with baseball?

11 players on the field...you really should go 2 lines with little drop off...so there is 22...but you also have a 3rd line...so there is now 32-33

The extras are practice players and youngsters. Many of the players share the 12.6 scholies. Lots of them come from upper middle class and 1% households so they also garner academic monies and parents foot the rest.

A high proportion of the students get into business, banking and investments and the schools love them as alumni in 15-20 years.

The real reason schools should invest in lacrosse. Besides, people are talking like they will need millions to invest just to start up, not quite true. Many schools already have very good club teams. Thus, fields, and other infrastructure are in place, a start up team is in place and club teams pay their coaches so many of the expenses are already being covered. Yes, the higher pay for D1 level coaches and the scholarships, field improvements, etc. down the road will need to be planned and accounted for but the long play payoff can be outstanding.

FSU, Louisville, VATech, NCState, GATech and others have decent club teams and could step up without too much disruption to the current AD status. Not that every school should, just saying that it isn't the terribly large expense many may think it could be to step up a new D1 team.

For the record, any school that has a sport that generates a lot of long term, big donors, should do what they can to highlight that sport and excel in that sport.

(04-06-2017 08:02 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 06:35 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  A high proportion of the students get into business, banking and investments and the schools love them as alumni in 15-20 years.

The real reason schools should invest in lacrosse. Besides, people are talking like they will need millions to invest just to start up, not quite true. Many schools already have very good club teams. Thus, fields, and other infrastructure are in place, a start up team is in place and club teams pay their coaches so many of the expenses are already being covered. Yes, the higher pay for D1 level coaches and the scholarships, field improvements, etc. down the road will need to be planned and accounted for but the long play payoff can be outstanding.

FSU, Louisville, VATech, NCState, GATech and others have decent club teams and could step up without too much disruption to the current AD status. Not that every school should, just saying that it isn't the terribly large expense many may think it could be to step up a new D1 team.

For the record, any school that has a sport that generates a lot of long term, big donors, should do what they can to highlight that sport and excel in that sport.

Again, I think context matters a lot here. People can say that lots of lacrosse players end up in business, banking, investments, etc... but that's also a by-product of the types of schools that offer men's lacrosse.

In the ACC, we're talking about Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA. That's three private schools and two "Public Ivies." And at that, mostly schools known for pumping out lawyers, doctors, and high-level business majors that end up in finance/investment banking.

The schools you listed that have good club programs aren't really known for producing tons of graduates in those fields. So, does adding yet another program that needs funding make sense for those schools? Every school needs to look case-by-case.

In the case of Virginia Tech, the athletic department is currently undergoing a big fundraising push to cover athletic scholarship costs. They have not been shy in telling donors that as recently as 2014-15, the annual scholarship fund dollars raised combined with the earnings from the athletic endowment were not enough to pay for the total expense.

It absolutely does not make sense to add another sport until VT can fully fund the programs it already offers. I suspect other schools may be in the same boat too.

And though lacrosse players are often high academic students, you have to look at the academic draw of each school. Is Virginia Tech likely to produce as many lacrosse players in the fields of business, law or finance as Virginia? Not likely. And with those parameters, are you likely to get as much return from graduates who played lacrosse at Virginia Tech? It's all hypothetical because the program doesn't exist, but my educated guess is no.

And trust me, coming from a VT grad, that's a tough pill to swallow that UVA is better at us than anything!

Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Word from someone inside the AD is that the report about Pitt looking to add lacrosse is false.

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

(04-07-2017 09:52 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Word from someone inside the AD is that the report about Pitt looking to add lacrosse is false.

Good scoop. Seemed like an odd sport for Pitt to be focusing their attention, to be honest.

(04-07-2017 10:37 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:52 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Word from someone inside the AD is that the report about Pitt looking to add lacrosse is false.

Good scoop. Seemed like an odd sport for Pitt to be focusing their attention, to be honest.

It would only make sense...at this point...if it was only for a women's team and really only then for Title IX purposes and they had a some sort of plan worked out for a new field (and there is no place to put such a thing on Pitt's campus). We may need to add a women's sport down the road, but rowing may make the most sense (although it is expensive too) because of its larger scholarship numbers and that it helps avoid overcrowding in existing facilities.

Who knows how the ACC Network may change the dynamic though.

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

BC has women's lax but not men's. It was varsity at one time but (I think) got axed due to Title 9. There's men's lax at the club level.

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

A sixth team is mostly wanted for the auto bid in the tourney. Though not required for the ACC, it is still preferable (it would also allow another team in the tourney as the tourney decreased by one team when the ACC lost the auto bid, thus many other teams want the ACC to have an auto bid).

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

Never understood why the ACC didn't offer Johns Hopkins an associate membership for Lacrosse

(04-09-2017 10:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 10:36 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Does BC play ACC men's lacrosse? Seems like a good fit...

Nope. Only 5 teams in the ACC with men's lacrosse - Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Syracuse and UVA.

BC would much rather spend the scholarship money on men's hockey. And rightfully so, as it's probably closer to being a revenue-generating sport for them (if it isn't already).

It wouldn't shock me if those 5 teams have been trying to convince one of the other ACC members to start men's lacrosse. Even though there's plenty of teams in the Mid-Atlantic with strong programs to schedule, you'd think having an even number would be preferred for conference scheduling (and the conference tournament).

Never understood why the ACC didn't offer Johns Hopkins an associate membership for Lacrosse

Passing on JHU was a really dumb decision.