Interesting flat hat article on the demise of lacrosse at the college.

http://flathatnews.com/2017/11/06/featur...-lacrosse/

Highlights why I am not a fan of cutting sports to address the MBB situation. Each sport provides a more well-rounded college experience for its student-athletes, which is part of W&M's mission, and increases the lifelong ties between the College and its students.

Wow great article. I thought it was very interesting that a majority of the cut sports made it back to the school at the varsity level.

The part that was stunning to me is that nobody tried to raise the 100k from inside the athletic department

I don't know the whole story. I just know a tiny piece, and I have eyes.

In the early eighties, while John Randolph was alive as the AD, there was a meeting between the AD and baseball invitees. I was an invitee, and I was there. We were told that baseball was in trouble, and in the "cross-hairs". The baseball field was going to be taken away. An off-campus site needed to be found. Funds needed to be raised. As everyone knows, Joe Plumeri and others stepped up, the program was saved, on off-campus site was found, the stadium was built, the program has prospered, and the program is now probably "safe".

That is all that I personally know.

However, the eyes tell me that football was also in the "cross-hairs", and everything that's been done in the last 30 years also indicates that football is "safe".

From all appearances, the eyes tell me that tennis and soccer are "safe".

I'll bet the same conversation that happened between baseball and the AD happened with all of the sports.

Wrestling and men's lacrosse didn't emerge from being in the "cross-hairs". Why? Could they have saved themselves like baseball? I have no idea.

But the word came down in the 80's that programs had to move towards self-sustainability, and some programs have been able to do that.

That is why I am so offended by the AD's bait and switch tactics in raising funds.

That is why I scratch my head at the differences between football and men's hoops.

That is why I get my back up every time a poster floats the idea of dropping sports to help men's hoops.

Men's hoops doesn't need the funds from dropped sports.

Men's hoops needs dedicated funds from donors that doesn't result in a siphoning off of general funds to another sport which, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to get its financial act together over the last 30 years.

Build the diving boards / platform for the swimming / diving teams. No brainer; benefits the entire community.

Form an exploratory committee to add men's lacrosse and women's crew. See if one can make the finances work.

(11-08-2017 03:05 PM)nj alum Wrote:  I don't know the whole story. I just know a tiny piece, and I have eyes.

In the early eighties, while John Randolph was alive as the AD, there was a meeting between the AD and baseball invitees. I was an invitee, and I was there. We were told that baseball was in trouble, and in the "cross-hairs". The baseball field was going to be taken away. An off-campus site needed to be found. Funds needed to be raised. As everyone knows, Joe Plumeri and others stepped up, the program was saved, on off-campus site was found, the stadium was built, the program has prospered, and the program is now probably "safe".

That is all that I personally know.

Not to quibble, but Plumeri field wasn't built until around 2000. I graduated in '98 and baseball was playing at Cary Field on what is now (and was then) the football practice field.

Rome wasn't built in a day... Looks like that meeting happened in the mid to late 80's, not early 80's.

http://www.tribeathletics.com/news/1999/...60947.aspx

Thank you for sharing, mrjoolius! It's an interesting read.

Selfishly, I wish W&M would sponsor varsity lacrosse, wrestling, ice hockey, rugby, Australian rules football, you name it. But the point of sponsoring NCAA athletics rather than running club programs is to raise your school's profile. and the sports that reliably achieve that are football and men's basketball. Other sports have done it for other schools, but generally speaking, those are the two. So if I was starting a school from scratch, I would need a really good argument to be made why any sports other than those two and the women's sports necessary to meet Title IX requirements ought to be offered.

Now, not electing to offer a varsity sport is different than cutting an existing sport. You're hurting the students and alums who have an attachment to the existing program. I don't think that's insignificant. But in a vacuum, I think club is the appropriate level for men's lacrosse.