Danger Zone
by Jac Coyne, Lacrosse Magazine Online Staff
The recent elimination of both the Butler University men's and Ohio University women's lacrosse programs is saddening. Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the country at all number of levels, and has been setting up shop in areas of our nation once bereft.
Now two programs representing Midwestern growth have opted to cease sponsorship of lacrosse. Two possible options for future collegiate men's and women's players at the Division I level are gone. And there's not a whole lot that can be done about it.
At the Division I level, there must be a continued promotion of the benefits of lacrosse, and hopefully institutions will be able to see everything the sport has to offer.
For most scholarship schools, athletic departments are separate entities and rely on self-created income (i.e. `revenue sports') to cover a large portion of the budget. This is why you see a lot of money dedicated to football and men's basketball, the traditional breadwinners for every athletic department. If the money is not generated there, programs get cut.
In the case of Butler and Ohio, both were also facing Title IX proportionality issues, heightening the financial woes. Butler needed to make significant changes in order to meet federal standards, and while Title IX urges athletic departments to make additions in order to move toward proportionality, the reality is most athletic departments must make cuts to satisfy compliance issues.
The DII and DIII levels are not immune to financial limitations -- in 2005 the Montclair State men's lacrosse program was `reclassified' (read: cut) only to be brought back through tireless fundraising and lobbying efforts by its stakeholders. At that level, however, there is an institutional acknowledgment of the minimal revenue created by athletic events, especially compared to DI schools. Funding must come directly out of the school's pocket, and because of this it is easier for institutions to come in line with Title IX. DII and DIII athletic departments are also less expensive to run, mostly due to lack of scholarships and travel expenses.
The Butler case, in particular, outlines the danger zone within which men's lacrosse exists. Putting the inner machinations of the Butler athletic department and the influence of powerful alums aside, the Bulldog football team would seem to be a more logical pick for discontinuation than men's lacrosse.
I'm looking through the prism of lacrosse when making this assertion, but Butler football, while in existence for over 100 years, has seemingly very little to offer the institution. It is the most expensive program, and the elimination of its large roster number would go a long way in offsetting Title IX considerations (which appear to be substantial in Butler's case). In its current classification -- non-scholarship I-AA -- there is very little chance of the Bulldog gridders making the postseason, and the team averages just under 2,000 fans per game, producing virtually no gross revenue.
On the other hand, the men's lacrosse team has half the roster size and a far better chance of making it to the NCAA tournament (through its automatic qualifying conference), and it even draws nearly a quarter of the fans football does.
But I'm not here to pile on the Butler football team, or even argue for its demise. I'm just pointing out that it made fiscal and competitive sense to keep lacrosse, and still the decision was made to cut it.
That should be a red flag for everyone who is a coach, fan, player or supporter of lacrosse. There have been great strides made in establishing the sport all over the country and in the consciousness of many high schools and colleges. For that we should be pleased and proud. But if and when the cuts come, it is still lacrosse getting the red line when the athletic director plays hangman, and that means there is plenty of work to do.
Contact Jac Coyne at jcoyne@uslacrosse.org.
