Depends on the schools I think. Most of the NESCAC schools have large endowments, existing aquatics facilities, and way more applicants than slots to fill. They don’t offer scholarships, so the costs of adding mens and womens water polo are limited to bringing on a full time coach. Biggest problem is who to play. MIT (for men) and Conn College are already here, but for a league that doesn’t need to fly to play, they’d need to add several schools at once.
MIT doesn’t need to add women’s water polo to attract students and they’d rather spend money on other things. Stanford has a $36b endowment and just announced they are pausing hiring because of threats to cut off their research funding from the new administration. Why would they care if they have $36b? The likely schools that would add it are less desirable colleges that need to attract applicants. Abdou put in a ton of time meeting with colleges trying to get them to add water polo. The ones that did were schools nobody has ever heard of. The only major coup I can think of was at Fullerton adding men’s and women’s polo. That’s very rare.
I think there are ample opportunities to play if people broaden their horizon.
With the 24 person roster limits:
- There are 52 men’s teams and 64 women’s teams
- 24 athletes, 4 years each, zero attrition = 6 kids/team/year
- 384 spots per year on the women’s side and 312/year on the men’s
Not everyone can go to UCLA … UC Merced needs players too, but if the prevailing attitude amongst the best HS programs is “‘Big-4’ + Ivies is my 1st option, UCI as a backup, and if I can’t have any of those - then I quit” then we’re doomed.
1 Like
Not to mention all the junior colleges that have water polo programs and the ability to transfer to many of those other schools that you’re talking about.
I agree that we are in for a paradigm shift. No doubt. But as a small niche sport it’s not surprising that there is so much focus on the BOLD FACE teams; the history and legacy of those teams mean a lot. Look at a much bigger sport: Lacrosse. The focus is on 6-8 teams for the same reasons - even there 80 D1 teams and hundreds of D2&D3 teams.
Anyway, we’re still singing from the same song book. I think people WILL have to go to other places and that leveling up will be good for the sport. But let’s also be real, D3, community college and JuCos are not really driving eyeballs and they also don’t have to abide by the 24 player roster limits - perhaps providing even more playing opportunities. Btw, roster limits only apply to D1 (scholarship granting - so Ivies opt out and other non-football schools may as well) schools. So on playing opportunities math may be off, but your point is still made!
I know I’m focusing on the men’s side but that’s where the changes are going to the most impactful.
Actually, I think it works the other way around. For example, there are several college water polo teams in the state of New York. Fordham, Iona, LIU, Wagner, Marist (w), Sienna (w). New York has the third most NCAA varsity programs behind California and Pennsylvania. Not a lot of youth water polo in New York.
Texas would easily rival cali level players if UT added water polo
How do you figure that? Genuinely curious as I think Texas is a growing hotbed for polo but I think they are still behind parts of California and Greenwich right now.
Now that Texas has made water polo an official high school sport you will see it grow. UT would draw CA kids in. Great weather and a great school. It would be a win across the board IMO, and ideally see a cluster of TX universities add the sport could be amazing for the sport.
4 Likes
It’s been discussed before a few times. As much as this group would like it to happen, it just isn’t realistic that it will.
3 Likes