Consolation Games - What to do?

[dgr01002]

There are PROS and CONS for consolation. I think that teams that lose in the first round should play a consolation game the next day. That ensures two games and not a one-and-done scenario.

For teams that win in the first round, but lose in the second round, playing that third straight game in three-days is too much, especially for nothing. The only benefit is allowing for your bench players to get on the field. But even that is a Catch-22 because if one team plays its bench and the other team decides to go all-out, a blowout can occur that doesn't fairly tell the entire story, and can affect a team's ranking the following year. Also, without a day's rest, three straight days of games is asking for injury. I was very worried about my squad on Thursday's games.

So, teams losing in the second round don't need a consolation game. They played two games. Maybe, since the consolation games on Thursday are not decided until late, teams can elect or declare to play consolation on the third day, and fields and refs can be set aside, but if a team choses to end it right there, they can. Sort of like a pick-up game of sorts. It is always possible that teams will want to play, they can declare it immediately upon losing that they would like to play on Day 3. If match ups are possible, the hotline will announce where and when the game is. Anything is possible.

My thoughts.
Coach Reed, Emory Lax

[Sonny]

Fellas,

The National Championship Tournament is not about "pick-up" lacrosse. Never has been, never will be.

The number of mandatory consolation games will be determined by the MCLA Board and it is expected that all teams will be expected to complete their tournament/MCLA obligations.

You can forget the suggestion that teams show up and decide to play on the fly, at their discretion. Problematic on many levels, not the least of which is field space & officials availability.

The only three realistic options I see:
Keep the current system.
Reduce the amount of consolation bracket games to 2.
Eliminate all consolation bracket games entirely.

That is all.

[CATLAX MAN]

Couldn't fit in an all-star game if the consolation games were reduced to 2?

[Sonny]

Couldn't fit in an all-star game if the consolation games were reduced to 2?

That might be an idea. (Key word be might.)

But the notion that Team X will tell us on Wednesday night if they want to play another consolation game on Thursday morning/afternoon won't fly at all for alot of different reasons. Managing and staffing the 28-team, 2-division tournament is hard enough as is without more variables.

[OAKS]

Couldn't fit in an all-star game if the consolation games were reduced to 2?

That might be an idea. (Key word be might.)

But the notion that Team X will tell us on Wednesday night if they want to play another consolation game on Thursday morning/afternoon won't fly at all for alot of different reasons. Managing and staffing the 28-team, 2-division tournament is hard enough as is without more variables.

I think we could put the onus on the teams to provide the game management. For the last few days, as there are fewer games, there are a couple of fields open, and I'm sure some of the refs would be available if teams wish to purchase their services. If there are available fields, let them play if they want to. They can keep their own stats, time, etc. I'm sure some sort of agreement can be worked out without taxing the tournament staff too much if teams are that interested in playing more games.

[PigPen]

I readily admit it has a lot of holes in its logic, and is basically communism, is to spread the cost of traveling to nationals among the teams coming, within reason.

ok pinko

no really-you play on Tues and lose, play a conso on Weds. (if you elect to staty)-Thursday is local day. I remember teams in this situation in St. Louis going to the Brewery or to Grant's Farm or Union Station. Heck the staff went to a Cardinals game. Granted in Dallas there is less to do-but there is still some cool stuff around at least to fill in an afternoon. And then Friday you watch the semis and Sat you watch the championships.

[Danny Hogan]

i like the idea of a sticker-swapping senior allstar game on thursday for all the teams that got bumped in the first 2 rounds.

that and give the first round losers a conso game and no one else.

[LaxTV_Admin]

i like the idea of a sticker-swapping senior allstar game on thursday for all the teams that got bumped in the first 2 rounds.

that and give the first round losers a conso game and no one else.

If we did that, it could be something fun for everyone who has lost to do on Thursday as well as the teams who have won on their off day.

[Danny Hogan]

i doubt the teams that won would put their players in that game on their day off, but if you look at it (for A)

12 teams x 2-3 seniors each woudl be about 30 guys, plenty for a team. Maybe do an E/W senior allstar game to add a little flavor. This year it would have been (top of my head, i'm not the geography wiz i once was):

NU, BC, UF, UGA, Michigan, Lindenwood

vs.

ASU, UA, CU, TAMU, UMD, Sonoma

[Daniel Morris]

I can't respond to every one of these posts, but here are a few thoughts coming from a guy who has been point man for the tournament the past two years:

There are a lot of teams that love the games, there are an equal amount that loathe them. Some teams need three games to justify their attending to their schools. "Value" is a word I hear a lot. Others competing to win it all, they could care less. Anything but a trophy is a failure and they want out of dodge because the longer they stay in town, the more restless their players are, and more likely to get into trouble.

If we allow teams to decide if they want to play an extra game or not, you will always need an even amount of teams, or someone gets screwed out of a game. Not too mention a plan like this would not sit well with the referees. They would never accept a situation where they may have a full crew playing, or they may have 1/3 of the games being run.

Coaches cannot pick the games. Tried it in the past. It is a disaster. Team A wants to play Team B, but Team B wants to play Team C. Even worse, Team C just wants to go home. There is no pleasing everybody.

The approach to the consolation games is what is generates the most problems. Some teams are in it to win it. Others want to empty their benches. The forums and game posting don't help matters. It just adds fuel to the "Team A beat Team B in consolation play, proving they are better" arguments. Next season, we may not even post scores for consolation games. These games should be only for getting seniors and guys that play less time a chance to see one more run or some national competition. The entire approach to the games needs to change.

We talked about consolations a lot this year. Staff, coaches, everyone has varied opinions. I personally agree with Sonny. You lose, you get one consolation game. I also agree with Oaks & Dan W. We should set up a seniors only game one of the days, and make it an event. Have it in the stadium. Maybe return to a banquet setup. It would give all the seniors one last moment to shine, and could be a ton of fun. The money we save on the refs for all those additional consolation games would go a long way towards funding it.

Or, we keep everything the same, but make sure all the coaches and posters and fans and players are on the same page and know these games are strictly for the love of the game and geting everyone some run time.

[Chris Gaffney]

I really like the Senior game idea. I would have enjoyed that.

[Timbalaned]

Staff vs Senior game?

[Danny Hogan]

you are nuts.

[cjwilhelmi]

you are nuts.

For real, Danny is an old man.

[Sonny]

Maybe return to a banquet setup

At Bonedaddy's?