LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

With 12 teams competing for D-B, how will the bracket be set up?

Could there really be a first round bye for the top 4 teams? I don’t see this as being a good thing.

Why not have 16 teams?

It’s understood that a lot of DB teams don’t have the funds to travel to Dallas, but that’s only because they know they are not going Dallas! I am sure any team thinking they have a chance to compete for a national title will raise the money to do so. If DB competition is to step up, let more teams play in the national tournament

It's called starting small and slowly growing. Much like the Division A started out with I believe 8 teams.....than expanded to 12 than 16. Don't want to increase from 8 to 16 just like that.

We are starting to see Division B teams play more OOC games now and over time (say 2-4 years?), maybe the USL MDIA will expand the tourney to 16 teams.

Basically, grow slowly rather than rushing things and it back firing on everyone.

Ok, first of all I think the reason Division A had to start slow is because the idea of a National tournament was new (a lot of kinks to be worked out). Second, maybe it took a while for programs to develop and be worthy to compete for the national title. Third, it more than likely took time to figure out how to run a tournament proficient.

Now that the tournament is running very proficient, kinks are mostly worked out (other than weather-Blaine-), and there are more than enough teams willing and worthy to compete at both D-A and D-B levels.

I know it may take time to get to 16, and that’s ok,

My real question is how will the bracket be set up for D-B with 12 teams competing?

bste_lax is wise beyond his young age. He will develop into a fine Jedi in due time.

The schedule I submitted looks like this for Division B:

Games start on Wednesday. There is no day of rest for Division B teams. The top four teams have a first round bye. 5 seed plays 12, 6 plays 11, etc. Remember, although there are only four Division B games on this day, we still have another whole Division's worth of games going on. We can't run more than four fields at a time based on manpower and resources and need time inbetween for warmups, overtime, etc.

Winners play the top four seeds on Thursday. Right now, Seed 1 plays the winner of the 8 vs. 9 game, Seed 2 plays winner of 7 vs. 10 game, etc. Currently, we are not reseeding for the next bracket. Reasons for this include the desire for teams to know who they are playing to be able to scout games, and considering the top seed has the best chances theoretically to win, the highest seed team wouldn't play anything worse than the 8th seed. Sure, there will be some upsets, but for the very tight juggling act we are running with both Divisions, this is the best set up.

Consolation games are then bracketed the first round, with the second consolation round being mutual consent. Everyone is guaranteed three games, just like Division A. And the consolation games are at reasonable times (no 8 am games) and we did everything in our power to schedule so teams could watch semifinals as well.

As for "why not 16 teams?" Well, bste_lax said it best. The Division B tournament is new for everyone. It almost doubles the workload of the tourney staff (and our budget wasn't doubled along with it) and we are still feeling out which teams will be able to commit to making this trip come May. Last season, we weren't sure who would be able to make the trip financially until days before the tournament. That's why we were ready to choose highest seeded teams if league winners couldn't attend. In addition, we are at a totally new site this year, and that is never a smooth transition. Better to have a tournament we know we can manage and grow than bite off more than we can chew.

shocker P wrote: I am sure any team thinking they have a chance to compete for a national title will raise the money to do so.

that is a very broad assumption.

Danny Hogan wrote:

shocker P wrote: I am sure any team thinking they have a chance to compete for a national title will raise the money to do so.

that is a very broad assumption.

I totally agree with Danny here. You can't just assume some of these small colleges can come up with this kind of money, and it is substantial money we are talking about. Some teams have a hard time just paying their season expenses! And what about that team that is a dark horse winner? Never would have guessed they would win their league tournament but pulled it off? We all would like to think that everyone is ready and able to attend the national tournament, but that just isn't the case yet.

There were many doubters last year that the B division would come through, but every team invited made the trip last year. I would imagine more of the same in 2006 - especially considering that we are likely to see many of the 8 teams we saw in 2005.

If the season ended today, and without major upsets, the final 12 might look like this:

Claremont (WCLL)
St. John's (UMLL)
Montana (PNCLL)
UVSC (RMLC)
Harding (GRLC)
Calvin (CCLA)
Davidson (SELC)
Southwestern (LSA)
PCLL Winner ??? - no games played yet

At large bids:
San Diego, Saint Thomas, Montana State

All eight teams that were in Blaine in 2005 are in position to head to Texas and the 2006 championships (teams in bold).

My guess is that if any of these teams falls short, teams like Creighton, Eckerd, Pepperdine, Fort Lewis and Northern Colorado. . .the next five teams in line, would not hesitate to make the trip if invited at the last minute.

PLULax wrote:My guess is that if any of these teams falls short, teams like Creighton, Eckerd, Pepperdine, Fort Lewis and Northern Colorado. . .the next five teams in line, would not hesitate to make the trip if invited at the last minute.

you are right, but i'm guessing the MDIA doesn't want to run a tourney with any chance that someone might 'fall short' of being able to show up.

Of course, having a team cancel is always a concern. The bigger issue, by far, is being able to run a larger tournament. Adding teams costs additional money and requires additional manpower (which also costs more money). Getting qualified officials is already a huge challenge.

We were thrilled last year that the B division tournament was such a success. All eight teams invited accepted their bids, the games were well played and competitive, and the feedback from the teams that participated was overwhelmingly positive. It was a great first step. The growth this year to 12 teams shows the commitment the MDIA board has toward the B tournament. When we are able, and if it's warranted, more teams will be added in the future.

My point is that no one fell short last year - all teams that were invited found a way to raise the money and get to Blaine. . .and a couple of those teams surprisingly won their league tourney when they weren't the favorite.

With the growth of the USL MDIA I find it highly unlikely that a team that is good enough to qualify for nationals - which requires a serious level of organization - would not find a way to play to raise the money to play in the tournament. The B division teams that struggle to meet their financial obligations typically struggle on the field as well.

I'm not suggesting that I think we need 16 teams in this event this year. I really don't. 12 B division teams is going to require the tournament organizers to stretch their resources significantly. Slow growth is definitely the smart thing to do at this point. . .

It's just that some people are suggesting that we need to keep the numbers down in the B division portion of the tournament because if we invite too many teams, they won't show up. I think it is more accurately suggested that we need to grow slowly so the tournament directors have time to adapt to the influx of additional games, so the event will not suffer.

I guess I'm just a little more convinced that the top B division programs are committed to travel and will gladly accept any invitation they get to play in the National tournament.

By all accounts, lasts year's Division B tournament was a tremendous success and all 8 representative teams demonstrated that they have the commitment and resources to contribute to our national lacrosse showcase.

I am thrilled that the Division B tournament has expanded to 12 teams. I appreciate that many posters want to move slowly and take "baby steps" with respect to the tournament's growth. I also understand that with each additional game there are added costs for fields, referees, support staff, equipment, etc. But, the bottom line is that Division B teams pay the same national dues as Division A teams.

The expansion to 12 teams this year is a prime opportunity for the B Division to again show our that our dedication, commitment and professionalism warrant our participation at the national tournament. Hopefully, the top 2 or 3 teams in each conference are preparing to attend the national tournament in Dallas. This year's Division B tournament will be an even greater success and we will prove that we are ready for expansion to 16 teams next year.

culax wrote:The expansion to 12 teams this year is a prime opportunity for the B Division to again show our that our dedication, commitment and professionalism warrant our participation at the national tournament. Hopefully, the top 2 or 3 teams in each conference are preparing to attend the national tournament in Dallas. This year's Division B tournament will be an even greater success and we will prove that we are ready for expansion to 16 teams next year.

Very well said Coach Gilner

I'm sure that there were quite a few second place conference teams who started setting up financial plans for a trip to Nationals when they heard about the 3 at-large bids. I think the conversations on-line after last year's Nationals were a clear indication that the B division is ready, willing and able to do it.

i was looking at montana ooc games and wondering if you play the same team twice if that counts towards your three required games for at large bids?