Could actually work in another way as well. If your a mid level school with football, and the program doesn't make money or barely breaks even, why keep it? With these added costs to fund the programs, it could tip many of them into the red. No profit, no reason to have it. Those funds could then be directed to the remainder of the athletic department to strengthen the rest of the teams. Getting rid of football in an unprofitable situation would free up massive amounts of budgetary dollars for all other sport. Men's lax cost a fraction to fund vs. football. For the most part, the overall academic profile for a lax athlete vs football is a much better situation for the school. I think football at the non powerhouse schools is the sport that should be very worried.
Isn't that what Hofstra did?
A painful truth not many of you are getting is this: athletic directors don't care about non-revenue sports very much. To they extent they exist and cost money to operate, they want to see conference championships or more. There is not an AD in the country who would lose sleep over needing to whack a non-revenue sport like lacrosse if necessary if it digs too much into keeping football or basketball strong. You are correct that lacrosse players come from a more comfortable demographic, and that leads to another point... only 12.6 scholarships means 35-40 full tuition paying students equivalent. Non-revenue sports are also a way of attracting paying customers to a school.
