Florida has a quality WLAX program but I don't even know if they know what lacrosse is in Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Why sponsor a sport no one cares about? IMHO, the Director's Cup tells you how much schools care about fielding competitive athletics programs. If a conference has more competitive and successful programs than the others, it tells me that it's a better athletics conference and that it draws the best athletes to compete simply because the competition is very good. Examples: Big 10 wrestling and women's volleyball. ACC women's soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse. SEC softball, gymnastics, and track & field.

The ACC, SEC, BIG 10, and Pac 12 each excel in a few Olympic sports. The ACC, Big 10, and SEC all have sports that they dominate. The SEC may not care about the Director's Cup but they do well in most sports that they sponsor. I expect that they'll do even better with all the new TV revenue. I even expect SEC women's soccer to get better each year. I've noticed an improvement over the past years. Maybe, eventually, the SEC will sponsor men's soccer since the demographics of the South is changing.

As Chris Coleman wrote in one of his articles, Clemson can spend more money on football because they sponsor fewer NCAA team sports than most of their ACC members. Sometimes, I feel Tech would be better off doing the same but I like having softball, lacrosse, and wrestling.

Also, if you look at the Director's Cup standings, you'll notice that the top 5 conferences are in the Power 5. You only see a few G-5 conferences. That tells me that those standings show you the quality of the conference. I don't see that many Sun Belt and CUSA schools in the top 50 or 75 , but I see a lot of Power 5 schools. I realize that it comes down to money, but that has always been true unless you find a exceptional head coach or land a few extraordinary athletes.
[Post edited by Old Line Hokie at 06/06/2016 11:38AM]