By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/25/2015 3:32:59 PM

U Denver won the NCAA Lacrosse national championship today beating Maryland 10-5.  If a small private school in Denver CO can rapidly advance and win a D1 championship, so can really any other public or private school that puts in the investment.  GW is located right in the middle of lax country and recruits all the areas that produce high level lax: MD, VA, NJ, NY.  GW already has a women's team and could start a men's team if they created room in the budget.  Long-term, GW probably has a better chance becoming a national power in lax than any other sport including baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, soccer or anything else you can name.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/25/2015 4:00:35 PM

I agree Bobo abut the potential for men's lax success given that which you laid out.  Yet, with limited resources, wouldn't we prefer pumping more $ into the hoops program? 

How much benefit does a successful Lax program bring to a University, in contrast to say the clear benefit derived from a really good hoops (or football) program?

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/25/2015 4:16:56 PM

Fastest growing sport in the country.  Fun to watch and very popular at schools like Hopkins, Towson, Denver, Hofstra, Georgetown, UMD, Vilanova, Loyola (MD), High Point, Navy, Richmond and other similar sized and located schools to GWU.  GWU not having a lax program is like Maine not having a hockey team. Crazy.

By: GW Alum Abroad (2,456 posts) - 5/25/2015 4:24:09 PM

Actaully the fastest growing sport is rugby, but participation in both is tiny compared to the "big" sports. GW used to be the national power in badminton (an Olympic sport unlike lax) and it did the school so much good to win national titles that the sport was dropped. Hey, a cricket team could be a winner, too, but is that really something that is going to help the university?

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/25/2015 4:37:33 PM

Probably 90% of GWU students come from high schools that play lax.  It's more popular in the geographic area GW recruits than anything but basketball (not including football). It's spreading out and new D1 teams are being added in places like Jacksonville FL, Detroit-Mercy, TX and the West coast.  GW is located in the heart of lax county.  GW has found room for squash, swimming and diving, track and field, tennis and golf teams that nobody watches.  Regionally, lax is generally much more popular than any of those sports and could become a fan favorite at GW like it is at Hopkins, Denver or Drexel.

By: ziik (2,950 posts) - 5/25/2015 4:50:55 PM

I realize I am prejudiced. But if GW is going prep, why stio with lacrosse? Let's go for polo.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/25/2015 9:59:59 PM

GW already plays polo, ziik.  Water Polo.  Hard to see lax as being just a prep school sport anymore.  Most puplic schools in VA, NC, MD, NJ, PA plus LI and Upperstate NY play lax. 

By: SHOFAZ+1 (71 posts) - 5/25/2015 10:12:26 PM

bobo has great points all around. 

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/25/2015 10:33:18 PM

Lax is an exciting sport.  If you were starting from scratch, it would surely be in a top 5 you'd want GW to play. Bobo is right, we're in the eye of the hot spot and its far from an elites only thing for decades now, my NJ public HS team was winning state champs in the 80's before the NCAA had a shot clock for hoops.

However, its like all non football/hoops sports, a major financial loser and surely it would be for GW.  Who among us here would not see the $ it would cost to launch and maintain a lax program not go instead to Hoops?

(I'd say do away with both polo teams, seriously water polo? do we need water polo?... but even so, I'd take that $ saved and pump it right into basketball.)

By: notta hater (2,492 posts) - 5/26/2015 7:51:16 AM

I agree we should have a team. I am not sure what our path would be (logistics of a practice location, title 9 implications, what sports we would be willing to drop etc). If GW had a DI team given  our proximity to the best HS programs I would think we could be a conversation team each year.

By: yawle (244 posts) - 5/26/2015 8:11:50 AM



dont forget UVa which has won 4 titles since 1999. UMD last won a title in 1975.

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/26/2015 8:31:49 AM

Since GW already has a women's lax team and a women's volleyball team with no male counterparts,.  Almost all women's program can grant more scholarships than their male counterparts anyways (women get 15 scholarships for basketball and men get just 13).  The women play at Mt Vernon and that facility hosted the 2015 A10 women's lax tournament.  So the men could play there too.  It's a money issue obviously but, other than basketball, what other sport at GW can generate more fan support? I don't there there is any and think it would be a good long-term strategic move for Nero and GW to invest in a men's lacrosse team.

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 5/26/2015 10:17:28 AM

We don't necessarily have a money problem in terms of basketball (when compared to our fellow A-10 schools - we have more of a fanbase/support/exposure issue) so I am not sure they are mutually exclusive. I agree with Bobo. GW is right where it needs to be in terms of lax and it would be a good long-term investment for athletics. 

By: GW Alum Abroad (2,456 posts) - 5/26/2015 10:29:45 AM

Two words: Title IX.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/26/2015 3:46:10 PM

Any of the financial information on these programs available? Disclosed publically or commented on?

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/26/2015 4:14:22 PM

Why Title IX?  Women already have lax and volleyball plus every single men's team counterpart.  Plus most every women's team can give more scholarships then the men's counterpart.  No Title IX issues for adding men's lax.  Just a financial commitment.  Hell, drop any one of water polo, swimming and diving, squash, golf, tennis, track and field if you want to save money. 

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/26/2015 4:23:59 PM

It does make you wonder, why did we just add Diving and Indoor & OutdoorTrack & Field and not Lax?

By: squid (1,510 posts) - 5/26/2015 5:09:33 PM

Maybe those teams are cheaper -- presumably you just need shorts and a shirt, or a bathing suit, whereas lax you need pads, sticks, balls, goals, etc. Plus we already have a track and a pool. The womens' and mens' lax games are fairly different, you'd have to rearrange the field each time and such.

UMd for example has 50 players on their roster -- that's a lot, even if only half get schollies.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/26/2015 5:23:10 PM

Might well be, is this $ information ever published or discussed?

I'd think a lot of the costs of the programs are not just equipment and the things you mentioned, but travel, lodging, insurance, coaches salaries, costs associated with recruiting etc.  Also the costs of housing and feeding athletes and presumably forgoing 200k in tuition that would presumably go to non student athletes who would fill their spots in classrooms. 


By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 5/26/2015 5:44:07 PM

Dude try this ...

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 5/26/2015 5:45:40 PM

Click on Revenues and Expenses on the link. For 2013-14 year.

By: Poog (3,875 posts) - 5/26/2015 6:07:28 PM

Diving made both swimming teams viable for A-10 championships since those were points unavailable to GW without divers. Track enhanced the team's cross country recruiting prospects as it allowed for year-long competition for runners. School gets NCAA money for having those teams which partially offsets their cost. Not sure how many A-10 schools have men's lacrosse which could influence value of adding it. 

By: bobo (3,178 posts) - 5/26/2015 9:51:49 PM

Men's lax scholarship limits is 12.6.  It's hard to give more than 25 kids decent playing time so 50 is just a bunch of walk-ons and practice players.   Track & Field is also 12.6. Swimming and Diving is 9.9. 

All the HS fields I've ever been to can faciliate mens and womens games.  Sometimes they just paint 2 sets of lines (different colors) but I think the field layouts are the same.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/26/2015 10:00:18 PM

Good info Poog, I do recall that as the rationale to adding Track.  As for Diving, seems like a good reason. 

Thanks for sending Bo, some interesting data there.  Quite a few things stand out.

By: Poster (5 posts) - 5/26/2015 10:21:21 PM

Honestly I love to log on to this site and see this Denver Lax post. Honestly, I could not love what was done at Denver more and would love to think about GW being on that level. Unfortunately it is not. 

First things first. Athletically the best athletes in the country do not play lacrosse, so you can coach people up to win championships. Which is essentially what happened. Except there is one major difference. A hall of fame coach with 6 national championships left Princeton to mold a small program in his likeness. He did just that immediately. 

Additionally the world of lacrosse is a little different. Camps mean the world to these kids. Bill Tierney's princeton lax camp was THE CAMP. He was able to recruit the best of the best from his camp at Princeton to Denver when he left. 

Anyway... long story short... This is not the same situation unless coach K says GW is the school for me.

By: THE DUDE (529 posts) - 5/26/2015 11:25:43 PM

No one suggested Denver Lax could be GW Hoops.  No one even broached the comparison of Lax/Hoops.

Bobo was basically saying you could and should build a good program at GW for a variety of reasons.  While that's true, Tierney proved that in the Lax world Bill Tierney could make a great one anywhere and very quickly. No other team had ever won West of the Applachians, Tierney brought a National Title to The Rockies. 

(The Duke lax Coach who was shamefully forced from his job 8 years ago has built a winner at some tiny school getting Duke level talent to attend there too.) 

By: CJS fan (195 posts) - 5/27/2015 12:45:02 AM

A-10 schools having lacrosse: Richmond, St. Joe's, UMass.

Notes re: financial commitment.  Pleae note that Georgetown has almost the identical number of sports as GW -- no water polo -- but they do field a football team and a women's field hockey team.  GU also has a slightly smaller endowment than GW yet it garners a higher yield on annual donations from its alumni base than GW.. So, GW could add men's lacrosse to its list of sports without sacrificing any current sports team if it is able to find sufficient alumni support.

I spoke with Athletic Director Nero about the idea of a mens lacrosse team about two years ago.  He noted two problems:  one, the athletic department was going to focus on upgrading the teams we currently have and getting victories and glory out of them; and two, there was the problem of space.  Yes, the team could easily play on the existing soccer/lAX field but what about the locker rooms and weight room use by some 50 more jocks.  We would need to expand out facilities to accomodate those players.

Now .. about the gap between GU athletic donations and GW athletic donations.   It is not a systemic gap.  It can be cured when GW alums match their Hoya counterparts with checks made out to GW.

I have recently made a $1,100 donation to the baseball program as a congratulations to the team and coach Ritchie for a great season.  In addition I have made a $125 donation to the GW rowing crew.  That is in addition to two prior crew donations earlier this fiscal year.

Well Dude, well Bobo,  well Thinker.. where are your donations?

By: Bo Knows (705 posts) - 5/27/2015 10:34:02 AM

CJS-Fan, while I applaud your donations to GW and encourage more, you and I have no idea of who here has donated and how much. Also, don't you think stating amounts you gave and calling people out as to their donations on a anonymous message board is a little odd?


As a fairly new reader and poster of this esteemed board, its impossible to not detect an air of defeatism among some of the loyal and thoughtful writers. 1) Any highly successful coach will just .... 2) We can't ever land a legit top recruit 3)


GW Announces 5-Year Strategic Plan for Athletics

Details to follow ....