i see posters -- republicans, one assumes - taking the bait on financial explanations. i doubt a cheap track or XC program would be much of a financial solution if they were in a bad way. it's not an expensive program. you don't save much by offing it, especially if you keep women's XC.
no, the fact they kept half the XC undermines a pure cost argument. i then take them at their word -- naive or not -- that they want to get more competitive. i could see a scenario where a very naive program comfortably in a west coast conference with limited travel, as opposed to being broke, decides, i want attention, i want success, i want a bigger conference with more national breadth and significance. green lampshades come back, all that travel will cost a lot more than games in california and the northwest. naive AD says, can we cut some programs and use that for the travel.
thing being at its peak LMU hoops was an elite 8 school once. like 30 years ago. LMU has no unusual appeal as a conference mover and shaker. i can see a scenario where they scuttle their existing conference trying to elevate and then end up with a hodge podge of western US leftovers anyway. because they have not maintained a high level of quality in a particular sport or set of same, they lack any sort of "gonzaga" appeal in a conference shuffle. IMO you'd be better off pushing this malarkey on the back of a cinderella run in march madness, where the team had buzz going. as it stands, you can wish you were a big deal in sports and talk like you want to be more competitive, but getting that done in college is usually about spending money on coaching and facilities, and beginning to produce some results that can then snowball. talk is cheap.
women's XC was presumably kept for title ix reasons as they aren't any good. mediocre conference and well down their regional.
