During my tenure at Inside Lacrosse, I’ve head the phrase “No way, can’t happen” so, so many times. Often, that’s been directed specifically at a university’s prospects at adding a men’s lacrosse program.

Over the last 12 months, I didn’t hear that phrase with respect to Utah, and now that it’s done, that lack of doubt is a credit to the thoughtfulness given to the effort of becoming the 20th varsity sport on the picturesque Salt Lake City campus. Awareness of the effort started with rumors last May that heightened with Dom Starsia’s public comments, piqued with Brian Holman’s decision to join on as the club team’s head coach, crescendoed with LSN’s report last summer and has continued to build ever since.

The significant Utah Lacrosse Founders like David Neeleman, Bob Caldwell, Charlie Freedman, John Evans, JB Taylor, Tom Stockham, Michael Larson, Vicki Labrum and Ron and Marcia Ferrin did something that, in my opinion, has never been done in NCAA DI men's lacrosse, and it's very important. As a result, with all the unpacking of "Utah Lacrosse" that's been done over the last five days, I think it's essential to consider the implications and ramifications of this news, in order, and I'll end with what was unique about that donor support and why it was so essential.

That said, much of what's below is also covered in this conversation with Holman, which is one of the most candid and enjoyable I've had. I definitely recommend a listen, and please direct any feedback to [email protected].

Order of Significant Implications for Future Growth

4. Time Since Last Power 5 Addition

It’s been six years since Michigan added men’s lacrosse; that’s a huge improvement on the three decades that elapsed between Notre Dame and the Wolverines (not to mention the cancellation of programs at North Carolina State, Michigan State and Boston College).

While the shortened duration is encouraging for fans, fans’ hope or level of optimism has next to know impact on how or why programs are added. What does, however, is a feeling that Athletic Directors get that could best be described as “FOMO,” fear of missing out. I won’t argue that it’s the foremost consideration, but multiple DI ADs have told me that they chart trends in everything in their industry, including sport sponsorship. Two Power 5 programs and 12 new DI programs overall between 2010-2019 (which will at least be the level for men’s lacrosse this decade)? That’s a trend that’s difficult to ignore, especially compared to the DI men’s lacrosse growth trends in the ’90s and 2000s.

3. Geography

In his comments to IL, Bill Tierney mentioned how great it is that men’s lacrosse is now about 480 miles closer to the Pacific Ocean. On the podcast, Holman describes comments from prospective players’ families in which they explain how important it is to them to have the opportunity to play DI lacrosse closer to home.

Those are great and important sentiments, but public demand is a comparatively small consideration when universities explore adding a sport. A much weightier consideration? Cost. And for a program located as remotely as Utah, Denver and Air Force are relative to the rest of the DI men’s lacrosse teams, travel cost is a big line item on the annual budget. However, with every new “local program,” the average travel cost for each program comes down, and can start to approach manageable levels for smaller athletic departments. Consider that even a program like Utah, with an endowment and immense resources relative to at least two-thirds of Division I, drew out texts from college coaches like “Game travel and guarantees (the practice of paying a team to come play at your home field) are going to be a real hurdle.”

Then look at most the programs that have added DI men’s lacrosse in the last 10 years — they’re predominantly small, private universities in the Southeast, about half of which have FCS football and half of which don’t. The pocket of the U.S. with the most similar Division I institutions? The West Coast, particularly the West Coast Conference. Programs like Loyola Marymount, Pepperdine, Pacific, Santa Clara and Portland appear, to the informed outsider, like the next pocket for considerable growth for the same reasons the men’s lacrosse appeals to the Atlantic Sun and Southern Conference programs: it attracts well-educated, affluent men to campus, which is a major challenge in modern higher education. To this point, however, the travel costs have been prohibitive for those West Coast programs; Utah makes that line item a little more manageable, and each additional program in the U.S.’s left two time zones reduces the burden a little more.

2. The Pac-12 Question

Many fans' immediate reaction to Utah’s announcement was “What does this mean for the Pac-12,” and Athletic Director Chris Hill didn’t shy away from that topic in the introductory press conference. He mentioned how important being a leader within the Pac-12 is to Utah, how influential Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott’s comments were to the committee exploring the feasibility of men’s lacrosse at Utah, and on our podcast, Holman mentions that other institutions approached him during this MCLA season to ask him “How are you doing it?”

Also on the podcast, I explain that I had the opportunity to meet with Scott in December to privately discuss the prospect of Pac-12 men’s lacrosse. It was an interesting conversation in which I learned more about the source of his interest in the topic, and my takeaways were: There are a couple Pac-12 universities exploring men’s lacrosse (as there have been for the last five or more years). For them, this announcement could serve as a catalyst; however, there’s little evidence to suggest any of the other 11 universities have already done enough that they’re any closer than a couple years from hitting the field. Similarly, there are a couple universities for which men’s lacrosse is not feasible, and they may greet this announcement coldly because it means they’ll have to tell prospective donors, “No, we can’t do it,” which is never fun. And then there’s a group in the middle for whom men’s lacrosse may be a good fit but hadn’t seriously considered prior to the beginning of Utah’s process. If the breakdown there is two/two/seven, Utah’s leadership could be hugely significant for the future of lacrosse as a whole.

In the short term, however, I think an interesting idea is the prospect of reigniting the Great Western Lacrosse League concept. While I think Denver is solidly positioned within the Big East and couldn’t be compelled to leave, I don’t think that about Air Force’s relationship with the Southern Conference (especially given the earlier note about how much men’s lacrosse has grown within that league, and the likelihood that it’s the biggest area of future growth). Similar sentiments could be applied to Bellarmine. Additionally, Cleveland State is still looking for a conference home. Finally, I’m not certain that Detroit Mercy’s position within the MAAC is the best fit, particularly with St. Bonaventure’s debut in 2019, their need for a conference home and their advantageous geography relative to the Titans.

So, there’s five. It’s akin to the spot we wrote about in the January 2012 issue of IL in which Jacksonville, Mercer, VMI, High Point and Furman appeared poised to join forces; all it took was Richmond and that domino fell.

1. Replicable Blueprint

In 2013, I wrote a post headlined “Why Did They Add Men's Lacrosse?” (Excitingly, this now needs to be updated to include NJIT, Hampton, Cleveland State, St. Bonaventure and Utah). On that breakdown, I cited Michigan, Boston U. and Richmond as being influenced, to some degree, by external sources. However, relative to Utah, none of those three were influenced by sources as external or as direct. In Michigan’s case, club coach John Paul, who had previously worked in the university and athletic department fundraising offices, routinely says something like “we were ready when new Athletic Director Dave Brandon arrived, but without him, it never would’ve happened.” BU wouldn’t have happened without a New Balance gift that allowed for the construction of a new field, but I don’t think that gift came with the mandate that men’s lacrosse be added (rather, it allowed the athletic department to pursue something it independently thought was the right fit). In Richmond’s case, the amount of external pressure is unconfirmed; it was only rumored at the time.

On the podcast, Holman explains that Neeleman spearheaded the effort. That’s not to the Utes' athletic administration was not interested in adding men’s lacrosse; however, without the catalyst, it’s likely that last Friday’s press conference wouldn’t have happened.

The effort that the Utah Lacrosse Founders put in was, in a word, special.

To call the model replicable is not to suggest that every prospective institution has an individual as engaged or committed as Neeleman — upon meeting him and his family at Championship Weekend last month, the certainty that he brought to the conversation showed how uniquely well-suited he was to navigate this undertaking. However, individuals like him with a similar mindset and resources now have a blueprint to look to in achieving what, again, in my opinion had never been done.

If that’s the legacy of Utah adding men’s lacrosse, I think it’ll be the most impactful of all.