Consolation Games - What to do?

The 2013 tournament returns to Greenville, SC this May.

What Should Be Done with the consolation games?

Get rid of them completely
3
4%
Take a game away, and the only game played is one that is predetermined from the bracket
12
17%
Leave it as is
36
52%
Add a game
1
1%
Mandatory one game of consolation (if you lose first round) and a second game for only the willing/wanting teams
12
17%
Only teams willing/wanting can play consolation games
5
7%
 
Total votes : 69

Postby Jack Cribbin on Sat May 26, 2007 11:38 am

I would vote to eliminate the Consolation games completely as I think it would just make for that much better of an atmosphere with the 'one and done' scenario. You have seniors playing with nothing to lose, after they have lost in the first round, for example. I think those games could do more harm than good. I have coaches ask me all the time how lacrosse gets away with playing consolation games at the national tournament as it is not common in most other sports, club or not. That is why national tournaments are so exciting, because if you lose you don't get to play again until next year.

Maybe use the ACHA (American Collegiate Hockey Association) http://www.achahockey.org/page.php?page_id=3390&league_id=1059 as an example. This is a 'club' hockey league very similar to the MCLA. They have 3 National Championships, one for the Men Division-I (the same thing as MCLA Division-A), D-II (MCLA Division-B), and a women's championship all held at different locations around the county. They host a 16 team single elimination tournament (no consolation games) each year for each division. After speaking with the hockey coach here at LU, he would not have it any other way.
Jack Cribbin
Lindenwood University
Women's Head Coach
User avatar
Jack Cribbin
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:59 am
Location: St. Charles, MO


Postby MountaineerLax on Sun May 27, 2007 2:55 am

Let's not forget the "depth" that the consolation games provide there fellas.

With every team getting 3 games we've got lacrosse 9 to even 11 hours a day for 4 days and then an intense day of finals.

Add it up and it's approximately 38 hours of lacrosse before the finals even hit.

That is intriguing for sponsors, makes us available to fans, and ensures that refs will want to work the event (more games equals more pay for them - making them available - almost so that they can be selected by conference directors).

It's an event that's easy to sell right now - to potential sponsors, fans, players, professors, administration - it's got substance now and if it is changed it could effect other areas, such as financially.

Lax World might be interested in throwing us a good chunk of change to see the event happen now... but you start scaling it down and I have a feeling that you'd see that support scaled down as well.

Even if it doesn't effect it I think the current format is so unbelievably strenuous that is warrants respect from those involved.

It's incredibly "valuable".

It's a great "final-act" on a season - great for players to experience the sport on the national level - and great for any program to grow - and a great "DAMAGE CONTROL" element.

Due to the consolation games it gives something for players to do - THIS IS HUGE - if they lose on day 1, it's so beneficial for them to stay.

Players realize they are representing their teams to those from around the nation and they tend to prepare for the games. This maybe be preventing a entire MYRIAD of potential disasters that could happen.

Anything could happen, I mean anything, and legally who knows who's going to go down for it - team, coach, league? We don't need some of these kids handing around, angry that they lost, and nothing to do... those are the wrong types of news headlines (Google: "Duke University Lacrosse" for more information).

This topic can't be brought up because of Irvine - that was just a growing pain and needs to dealt with to prevent such occurances. Perhaps an example needs to be made.

This topic was brought up because of the strain on the teams and the staff... it's tough, it's long,.... but it's worthwhile and keeps everyone on their toes. With everyone tired by the end of the day we're saving a lot of money and building a lot of strong relations without any embarrassing behavior in the background ruining it all ....
Dave Leach
Website / Media - RMLAX.com

Western State College Alumni '03
User avatar
MountaineerLax
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Postby Gooseguy10 on Mon May 28, 2007 8:18 pm

While I see all sides of this discussion, I can not understand why people wouldn't want to play another game. When you get done playing lacrosse, you will never regret playing another game.

I know when I went to the tournament in 2001, we played Michigan (and lost) followed by three consolation games (Auburn, Simon, Tennessee). I really don't regret playing any of them. In fact, I would have been really, really bummed to only play michigan.

I understand that people will say they are meaningless and that people are getting back to save money and for school reasons. Weren't you planning on staying the whole week anyways? Didn't you budget the money for the whole week? Didn't you make alternative academic plans based on the fact you expected to stay all week? To miss out on a game to save a little money or study for a test is somewhat stupid.

I also understand that these games mean different things to different teams.....but it is still another game of lacrosse. Many of us older guys would love to play once more, even if it isn't for a national title.
Gooseguy10
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:03 pm

Postby MountaineerLax on Tue May 29, 2007 11:09 pm

When you get done playing lacrosse, you will never regret playing another game.


Good point...

... the kids are willing to play the games, they want to play the games.But unfortunately it's not always their call. It's all on who makes the final decisions...

Whomever it is that decides where the money is spent and how have the say.

This is not a question of what the kids want - it's what the "puppet-master" wants.

Image

Coaches, Presidents, Directors... whatever you want to call them...are questioning the amount of time and money that is spent after a tournament loss...money that they see beneficial elsewhere.

It's a no brainer....if you're in the MCLA and you get invited to the national championships it's going to be expensive. Hotels, travel, food, time-away ... are all going to cost each and every person and especially the team.

But also, if you're in the MCLA and get invited to the national championships, you show ... period... coaches, players, everyone should lead the way.

And you do so believing that everyday is beneficial to the organization and the individuals. Every person there should realize the immense teaching/learning/networking tool that 5-day event really is.

A true leader uses that very ideal...

With some of these past situations, it seems someone's leading but... then again...

Teams that are truly strong in leadership accept the invitation - period.

Beyond all obstalces they get there.

That same leadership believes that going home early... it's not even an option.

Really it should be put on the coaches for allowing their team to make a decision that would be damaging to the organization.

Do they really need a list of how damaging this is to them? Honestly?

Is that the type of attitude we want our "leaders" to project?

Do we really want these coaches in the MCLA?

Are restrictions against coaches ever in order?
Dave Leach
Website / Media - RMLAX.com

Western State College Alumni '03
User avatar
MountaineerLax
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Postby OAKS on Tue May 29, 2007 11:59 pm

MountaineerLax wrote:Is that the type of attitude we want our "leaders" to project?

Do we really want these coaches in the MCLA?

Are restrictions against coaches ever in order?


I'd say restrictions against coaches are only in order once in a blue moon. Almost all of the coaches in our league (especially at the B level) are at the mercy of the players, as we are made up of student-run clubs. In all reality I'd say most of the time it's not the coach's call in these kinds of situations.

It's a delicate balance of power, and unfortunately a lot of kids aren't smart enough to realize just how much their coach is doing for them.

I don't know the situations at Calvin this year and Salem State last year, but I will back up the UCI men's coaches 100% in this situation - from what little I've discussed, they wanted to stay the whole time. Sometimes it's not up to the coach. What are the coaches going to do besides try their best to motivate and educate the kids? If the kids really don't want to be there, they don't have scholarships or athlete status to lose, and will leave and maybe later fire the coach.

The players need a better understanding year in and year out of the commitments they are making when their team is a member of the league.
Will Oakley
Assistant Coach, Glen Allen High School
User avatar
OAKS
Bumblebee Tuna!
Bumblebee Tuna!
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:57 am

Postby MountaineerLax on Wed May 30, 2007 12:06 am

The players need a better understanding year in and year out of the commitments they are making when their team is a member of the league.


Which a coach should be teaching. He's the adult, the teacher, the coach.

The kids are there... aren't they there to play lacrosse?
Dave Leach
Website / Media - RMLAX.com

Western State College Alumni '03
User avatar
MountaineerLax
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Previous

Return to Championship Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


cron