(11-12-2017 05:00 PM)Bogg Wrote:  To be fair, and I'm about the furthest one can get from an expert on the topic, but it seems like there are hurdles to overcome in starting up football that just aren't there in lacrosse. Football at that level is a significant expense, while it sounds like lacrosse is a pretty minor expense/can generate a small profit in terms of enrollment numbers without having to be at the very top level of the sport.

I don't disagree with that. It costs much less to run a lacrosse program than football, and lacrosse has the potential to be more profitable even with limited funding. Football is a wash if you aren't getting major network subsidies, alumni donations, and selling out your venue seven or eight times a year. Lacrosse offers smaller rosters, lower staffing, and there's partials if you're not going to pay for every kid to be there.

As another said, this is a good problem to have for lacrosse. I just can't look past it being these guys doing it when it's been known they're becoming more invisible. If the subject is A-10 lacrosse, I wouldn't bet on La Salle as a long-term solution.

There's no reason St. Joe's has to want them wherever they are, either. What does it do for them, you know, other than saving some money on travel?