[NotAJerry]

The B1G is adding men's and women's Lacrosse, and Johns Hopkins joins as a Men's Lacrosse only member:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... -affiliate

Just another sport in which they will be inferior to the ACC

Yeah, but even better is the B1G adding a hockey conference.

As a former lacrosse player/coach, I'm ecstatic at how quickly the sport is growing. High Point and Marquette added men's teams this year. Boston U, Monmouth, Furman and Richmond are adding D1 men's teams next year.

[jbock13]

The killer of lacrosse will always be Title 9. However the growth in football revenue may be able to afford men's lacrosse teams plus the other women's sports.

[ATrain]

The sad thing about Richmond adding a men's team is they are sacrificing other men's sports in order to stay compliant with Title IX. The thing Men's Lacrosse has going for it is there is a women's counterpart to the sport.

[NotAJerry]

And it is ultra popular with their rich white northeastern demographic.

Definitely part of the equation, but the real surprise these days is that there are lacrosse hotbeds in Dallas, Denver, San Francisco, SoCal, southern Ohio, Atlanta, Charlotte, and several spots in Florida. It is, by far, the fastest growing sport and there's money associated with it everywhere. The real kicker was Bill Tierney, 6 time national championship coach at Princeton, leaving that spot for the University of Denver who has twice made the final four since he joined them in 2009.

BTW, the men's lacrosse national championship game is routinely one of the top 3 attended NCAA championships though that has dropped off since the economy crashed.

[RVAparks]

And it is ultra popular with their rich white northeastern demographic.

BTW, the men's lacrosse national championship game is routinely one of the top 3 attended NCAA championships though that has dropped off since the economy crashed.

Rich, white people travel well.

[NotAJerry]

And it is ultra popular with their rich white northeastern demographic.

BTW, the men's lacrosse national championship game is routinely one of the top 3 attended NCAA championships though that has dropped off since the economy crashed.

Rich, white people travel well.

Yep. This year's total attendance for championship weekend was "disappointing" in that it drew just over 90k for the DI semis and final, as well as the DII and DIII finals. That's down from 120k+ 6 years ago but is still really good considering the combination of the recession and ticket prices for the weekend having increased a full 100% during that time.

[JK37]

I thought this article was applicable to the discussion here for two reasons:

1) Gordon Gee's situation, as discussed in this thread, is mentioned as an example, and
2) Its become common knowledge that SBC presidents are blocking Commissioner Benson's bid to add Liberty to the SBC.

So, on that note, here is what outgoing UNC Chancellor Holdon Thorp says: "College presidents need to get out of the sports business."

He's come to the conclusion that presidents should step aside and let their athletic directors handle the job.

"Either we put the ADs back in charge and hold them accountable if things don't work," Thorp said in April during a campus forum, "... or let's be honest and tell everyone when we select (presidents) to run institutions that run big-time sports that athletics is the most important part of their job."

http://www.newser.com/article/da6nludo0 ... iness.html

[Blessed1]

Unfortunately college presidents will not get out of the way because of their level of pride. They like to feel prestigious when they play golf with their buddies. It's sort of like an honors society or country club.

I think ADs should have more control, but some of those guys bounce around too much, thus the presidents call the shots. Truthfully speaking, they generally step down when they get good and ready ala judges on the Supreme Court or are forced out due to bad decisions or lack of vision (e.g. anti-FBS).

Sometimes both presidents and ADs make wild decisions. I live in Maryland and I am still upset the Terps are leaving the ACC. The current AD (Anderson) saw the proposal by the B1G as a 'money grab' opportunity and a way of escape due to the poor financial decisions made by the old AD (NCST's current AD). The president of Maryland (Loh) ran with the idea too. Why? Because he and Anderson are former B1G alumnus!

The point I am trying to make is that these two people made a huge decision to leave for "greener pastures." Also, they ignored all of Swofford's calls before making the move. The ACC did not have the opportunity to work with Maryland and probably discuss the reality of the ACC network. The worst thing was the fact that Maryland's shareholders and alumnus could not give their opinion concerning the matter. 'Confidentiality agreement' be darn, the alumnus needed to know what was going on before a final decision was made.

Sure, Maryland's bills will be paid. However, will they still feel like the "red-headed step-children" like they felt in the ACC? Only time will tell if the move was the right move.

[JK37]

Blessed1:

With respect, your statements here regarding the Maryland/Big Ten/ACC situation only scratch the surface of the issues at hand. Though you do understandably feel the way a lot of fans do about the situation, and have much of the same knowledge of the situation as most UMD fans do, unfotunately you are not equipped with enough of the full picture to draw the conclusions you stated.

Please do not read anything more into my post than has been stated within it. My intent is only to help you keep from inserting your foot into your mouth.

[Blessed1]

Blessed1:

With respect, your statements here regarding the Maryland/Big Ten/ACC situation only scratch the surface of the issues at hand. Though you do understandably feel the way a lot of fans do about the situation, and have much of the same knowledge of the situation as most UMD fans do, unfotunately you are not equipped with enough of the full picture to draw the conclusions you stated.

Please do not read anything more into my post than has been stated within it. My intent is only to help you keep from inserting your foot into your mouth.

Thank you for your response, JK37... I know that Maryland's issues are more than financial. What I am saying is that they Anderson and Low made some swift decisions without involving its alumni base. I appreciate your intent to keep my foot out of my mouth, but please understand why I said what I said.

My 2nd cousin graduated from Maryland and was a star on the Terps football team. I asked his mom about her feelings concerning Maryland leaving the ACC. She just said that she was happy her son was leaving and that Maryland was no longer her concern.

Although they had some issues with the head coach, my cousin said that the two main reasons why her son chose Maryland was because 1) he would be close to home and 2) the family will be able to see him play. My aunt (her mom, his grandmother) was really sick at the time and that played a significant role in the decision making as well. The bottom line is that my cousin (the FB player's mom) is a single mother and traveling in the ACC made it feasible for her to see her son play. She was fortunate.

The B1G will subsidize Maryland's traveling expenses. However, what about the mothers and fathers that want to see their kids play? Not the rich folk, but the ones with little to no money. Excuse my French, but as anal as the NCAA is about benefits to student-athletes and their families, who's going to cover the traveling expenses for the less fortunate families? It's not Anderson and Low's problem, but someone is going to have to deal with it... The decision process went too fast. That's all I'm saying.

[NotAJerry]

Anyone who wants a glimpse at the stadium that Kennessaw St. built, it's hosting a Major League Lacrosse game right now on CBS Sports Network.

[LUGrad2000]

I did not see it posted on here. Mercer to join Southern Conference.

[JK37]

I'm not sure how the alumni of a university justifiably feel they deserve an official say in the goings-on of their alma mater. Even if it were a rushed decision (which it was not), the alumni don't deserve to be heard anywhere but in their own mind. UMD might lose a few local recruits each year because of this, and some alumni may give less - but so what? The men in a position to decide made what they believe is the best decision for the athletics department and the University. And, they are right!

Poor granny. So what if she doesn't get to see Johnny play football as much? Turn on the TV! That's cheaper than traveling anyway.

[Blessed1]

I'm not sure how the alumni of a university justifiably feel they deserve an official say in the goings-on of their alma mater. Even if it were a rushed decision (which it was not), the alumni don't deserve to be heard anywhere but in their own mind. UMD might lose a few local recruits each year because of this, and some alumni may give less - but so what? The men in a position to decide made what they believe is the best decision for the athletics department and the University. And, they are right!

Poor granny. So what if she doesn't get to see Johnny play football as much? Turn on the TV! That's cheaper than traveling anyway.

Alumnus are important because they are shareholders. They give money, thus they are part-time investors. So, they needed to be involved. However, in the game of realignment, there are a lot of closed-door meetings and most things are done in secret. Probably the quickest move I've seen was with Syracuse and Pitt. Not many folks inside those two schools quested the move because the Big East was sinking fast. The ACC was considered stable, thus the move was in many ways justifiable.

Maryland's decision made the ACC's stability in question. But that is no longer an issue since all the current 15 schools signed the GOR. The issue at hand was that Maryland's president and AD are former B1G alumnus. This, in my opinion, made their decision easy. Maryland has no one to blame but themselves since they hired the president, who eventually hired the AD.

It remains to be seen if they lose alumni monies. If football drives the bus, then Maryland's football is still stuck in neutral. Penn State does a better job in state of MD than Maryland. Of course, all that can change if they start winning. But playing Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State EVERY year, will take a toll on them. If anything the only sports that will compete well in the B1G is MBB, WBB, and lacrosse, that's about it...

Yes, it's cheaper to turn on the TV, but it does mean a lot to student-athletes when family can come and see their games in person. My cousin that played for Maryland is very-family oriented. Not every kid is like that. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

[bluedevilflame]

I absolutely think that despite whatever the circumstances, alumni deserve to have their voices heard in school decisions. Our alumni bases here at LU (and every other university) have given their time, energy, and money to our school and in return I think we deserve to have our voices heard within reason regarding the school's direction ideologically, academically, and athletically.

[Sly Fox]

The alumni who are giving financially have their voices heard at all schools. But at some point, the leaders who are paid to make tough decisions have the final call.

For the record, I don't see how Maryland could have considered anything but taking the B1G offer. That was a no brainer. They were fortunate to be even offered.

[NotAJerry]

For the record, I don't see how Maryland could have considered anything but taking the B1G offer. That was a no brainer. They were fortunate to be even offered.

[JK37]

A donor is not a shareholder. A donor gives voluntarily, expecting nothing in return.

This false idea of alumni/development shareholding is precisely why Jerry Falwell, Jr. couldn't care less about your dollars. If one who gives expects a seat at the table and their voice to be heard, just keep the money. Liberty doesn't want it, much less need it.

A University should never make realignment decisions based upon how many ones Granny will get to see the kiddies play. You cannot be serious! You'll still be whining about far away games, while the Terps count their millions.

[Blessed1]

A donor is not a shareholder. A donor gives voluntarily, expecting nothing in return.

This false idea of alumni/development shareholding is precisely why Jerry Falwell, Jr. couldn't care less about your dollars. If one who gives expects a seat at the table and their voice to be heard, just keep the money. Liberty doesn't want it, much less need it.

A University should never make realignment decisions based upon how many ones Granny will get to see the kiddies play. You cannot be serious! You'll still be whining about far away games, while the Terps count their millions.

Technically, a shareholder is someone who owns a piece of a company or organization. However, alumnus that donate money to a university are part of the "money pie", if you will. A student that pays tuition is part of the money pie too. A school depends on that money, along with other sources of income... If a person gives money, they are an investor, thus having the right to have their voice heard. If you neglect that, it can lead to people not caring to give. Your definition of a shareholder may be different. You say tomato, but I say tomahto... At the end of the day, it's still a piece of fruit.

[soccer7]

In Sport Management a shareholder is any one who has a vested interest in the athletics program. This includes alumni, athletes, coaches, fans, community, advertisers and donars.

[olldflame]

A donor is not a shareholder. A donor gives voluntarily, expecting nothing in return.

This false idea of alumni/development shareholding is precisely why Jerry Falwell, Jr. couldn't care less about your dollars. If one who gives expects a seat at the table and their voice to be heard, just keep the money. Liberty doesn't want it, much less need it.

A University should never make realignment decisions based upon how many ones Granny will get to see the kiddies play. You cannot be serious! You'll still be whining about far away games, while the Terps count their millions.

Technically, a shareholder is someone who owns a piece of a company or organization. However, alumnus that donate money to a university are part of the "money pie", if you will. A student that pays tuition is part of the money pie too. A school depends on that money, along with other sources of income... If a person gives money, they are an investor, thus having the right to have their voice heard. If you neglect that, it can lead to people not caring to give. Your definition of a shareholder may be different. You say tomato, but I say tomahto... At the end of the day, it's still a piece of fruit.

I´m with JK37 on this one. Donations, regardless of size, should come without any strings attached. The problem is that big doners don´t usually think that way. They often want a voice, and our current leadership wants to avoid that, and IMHO rightly so. Our current financial situation is such that the revenue streams from tuition, both on campus and DL is paying the bills and then some. If that changes, JLFJR will be faced with some tough choices as to what to do about seeking large donations.

[JK37]

I understand what you're both (blessed1 and soccer7) trying to say, and it's a common refrain. But I disagree. A donation is given freely, expecting nothing in return. Tax deductibility and the warm fuzzy feeling in one's heart after giving the gift is the full list of what one has the right to expect. To feel entitled to have one's voice heard is disingenuous.

The student who pays for an education receives an education; the transaction is complete. Institutions always seek them out after this initial transaction to continue supportin the university. But if the alum does give, no promise of "your voice will be heard" is existent unles the university ever says so.

Be all this as it may, it is true that donors feel entitled to their opinions being heard. It's ridiculous, by you are both right that it is reality. So, athletic departments are indeed foolhardy to not consider reality. They all do this, but the next step reality is that your gift is probably not large enough to make them care about losing it. That's reality.

[Sly Fox]

I think some are confusing the terms shareholder & stakeholder. In instances where revenue streams are likely to be impacted, listening to the concerns of stakeholders can have some value as far as overall strategy development. The key difference at LU is that it doesn't have the level of influence it does at most schools. While rank & file alumni had no input in the Terps' move, I would bet that core givers were at least somewhat in the loop to assure leadership that giving erosion wouldn't be significant. I know that was the case here in Texas when the Horns were looking at their option. And by core, I mean mega-million annual donors and not the $10k to the Foundation folks.

[Blessed1]

Thanks Sly! 'Stakeholders' was the word I was thinking about. Both shareholders and stakeholders are vital in the growth of any company or organization.

Truthfully speaking, If I donate money and I do not have a "say" or a good understanding how my money is going to be used, I do not give... This excludes my tithes, I don't mess with God's money.

[Sly Fox]

Good call on the last note, Blessed1.