LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

With some recent debate, what do you think of the B division?

I dont know if I completely agree with this poll. I think the vast majority of people on the boards will agree that it is a league for smaller school teams. However, perception is everything and the perception is that it is a developmental league.

Maybe some more options?

http://forums.collegelax.us/viewtopic.php?t=7650


If anyone cares what the UMLL thinks there was pretty lengthy discussion about it a week or so ago. Just check out the link above, i think it starts at the bottom of page 2. It got a little personal though and the mighty hand that is sonny struck it down.

cjwilhelmi wrote:I will disagree with Hi-Line Lax and say that there are equal numbers in both A and B that see that B is a developmental league and not a league for small teams.

Oops!

it's all about what situation you're in. here at westminster we aspire to be A division and beyond.

even though we are a small school.

it's situational. some smaller schools will never have the resources or support we have.

i like what someone said about building the b division. from what i've seen this year i think there are players in the b division that could easily play A ball. B division isn't horrible lax, by any means.

Ideally we'd have an A league for large schools, a B league for small schools and an Developmental league for schools who are looking to join and establish a foothold, or want a traditional 'club' environment.

Currently, SCHOOL SIZE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR for how good an MCLA team is. If you look at NCAA sports, the general trend is that size is a good indicator of a school's power in sports (yes there are always exceptions). If you want proof that size doesn't matter in the MCLA, check out the 1AA or below teams in the latest MCLA 'A' poll.
(yes I know it's bowl and championship teams, but I'm using A and AA for ease)

UMD - 1AA
Sonoma State - II
Northeastern - 1AA
UCSB - 1 (no football)
Lindenwood - NAIA
Cal Poly - 1AA
Simon Fraser - no idea
Loyola Marymount - 1 (no football)

For now, I don't really see a need for a Division B if the top teams can hang with good Division A teams. In the future, it will hopefully be necessary and I think it'll be a great thing.

Actually I see that Corbin and Danny have already summed up my argument in a better way. Read their posts in the UMLL thread.

UMD is actually Div II. They are only D1 for hockey, just like Mankato and St. Cloud.

OAKS wrote:Ideally we'd have an A league for large schools, a B league for small schools and an Developmental league for schools who are looking to join and establish a foothold, or want a traditional 'club' environment.

Currently, SCHOOL SIZE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR for how good an MCLA team is. If you look at NCAA sports, the general trend is that size is a good indicator of a school's power in sports (yes there are always exceptions). If you want proof that size doesn't matter in the MCLA, check out the 1AA or below teams in the latest MCLA 'A' poll.
(yes I know it's bowl and championship teams, but I'm using A and AA for ease)

UMD - 1AA
Sonoma State - II
Northeastern - 1AA
UCSB - 1 (no football)
Lindenwood - NAIA
Cal Poly - 1AA
Simon Fraser - no idea
Loyola Marymount - 1 (no football)

For now, I don't really see a need for a Division B if the top teams can hang with good Division A teams. In the future, it will hopefully be necessary and I think it'll be a great thing.

I wouldn't exactly consider most of these "small" schools though

UMD - 1AA - 11,900 not too small
Sonoma State - II - 7,749 - agree, small
Northeastern - 1AA - 15,000
UCSB - 1 (no football) - 21,016
Lindenwood - NAIA - 15,000
Cal Poly - 1AA -18,500
Simon Fraser - no idea - 20,000
Loyola Marymount - 1 (no football) - 5,465

Of those, I would only consider LMU and Sonoma small school, UMD would be right on the cusp, but I think 15,000+ is a big school considering a lot of Div B schools are less than 5,000 students.

Tim Gray wrote:

OAKS wrote:Ideally we'd have an A league for large schools, a B league for small schools and an Developmental league for schools who are looking to join and establish a foothold, or want a traditional 'club' environment.

Currently, SCHOOL SIZE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR for how good an MCLA team is. If you look at NCAA sports, the general trend is that size is a good indicator of a school's power in sports (yes there are always exceptions). If you want proof that size doesn't matter in the MCLA, check out the 1AA or below teams in the latest MCLA 'A' poll.
(yes I know it's bowl and championship teams, but I'm using A and AA for ease)

UMD - 1AA
Sonoma State - II
Northeastern - 1AA
UCSB - 1 (no football)
Lindenwood - NAIA
Cal Poly - 1AA
Simon Fraser - no idea
Loyola Marymount - 1 (no football)

For now, I don't really see a need for a Division B if the top teams can hang with good Division A teams. In the future, it will hopefully be necessary and I think it'll be a great thing.

I wouldn't exactly consider most of these "small" schools though

UMD - 1AA - 11,900 not too small
Sonoma State - II - 7,749 - agree, small
Northeastern - 1AA - 15,000
UCSB - 1 (no football) - 21,016
Lindenwood - NAIA - 15,000
Cal Poly - 1AA -18,500
Simon Fraser - no idea - 20,000
Loyola Marymount - 1 (no football) - 5,465

Of those, I would only consider LMU and Sonoma small school, UMD would be right on the cusp, but I think 15,000+ is a big school considering a lot of Div B schools are less than 5,000 students.

Based on a cursory review of the 99 Div A schools, only 7 are DIII (Chapman, Claremont, St. Olaf, Stonehill, Worchester, UW Stevens Point, and Coast Guard) so i think it is clear that Division A is a division of large schools.

When talking about school size the difference between 15,000 and 25,000 is essentially meaningless. However, the difference between 3000 and 15,000 is huge.

I think ultimately that is irrelevant though. Teams should be playing in the A division if they have the talent level to compete. The difference between DI and DII/DIII NCAA lax is scholarships (and also school size). In this league we are all on an even playing field, so why should you stay in the the B division just because you are a small school, if you can compete with the larger schools.

In our case, we decided to make the jump this year because we felt we could compete in the A division. The B division is growing stronger, but there are still very few (less than 10 teams) that play lacrosse comparable to mid level A teams.

We could have stayed in the B division, been competitive and played for a national championship, but we wanted to grow as a program. Top, and even mid level A teams would no longer schedule us. They had every excuse in the book, but ultimately they didn't want to lose to a B team.

This year we are having some success in the A division (making the WCLL playoffs) and posting a record of 7-3 vs. A teams to date. There is no telling how the team will do in the future, but we feel great about our move up.

Teams should carefully consider their choice to move up; that being said, i don't think there are any justifiable reasons for teams to stay in the B division just because they have small enrollments.

Maple Leaf:

I've written extensively on this topic on the UMLL thread noted above. I'll not repeat those arguments.

But I respectfully disagree with what I infer from your following quote:

The difference between DI and DII/DIII NCAA lax is scholarships (and also school size).

You seem to suggest that the players are the same, and the institutional issues are all that seperate the leagues. While the second part is accurate - there are institutional differences, and you've accurately stated them, the players are not the same. Nowhere more is that demonstrated than last year's D1/2 v. D3 all star game. The D1 players were Bigger/Faster/Stronger - at all positions. The skill level was roughly equal, as was the game knowledge. But Physics is a science for a reason. In short, the game was never close.

I attended that game with the GM of a MLL team and an NLL Scout and a NLL coach and it was fascinating to watch with their thoughts - namely at their levels, the athletecism becomes even more important, as the skill levels and game knowledge has basicially equalized. The only variables that remain are athleticsm and attitude - and boy were those two qualities looked at pretty close to equally...

Rob Graff wrote:You seem to suggest that the players are the same, and the institutional issues are all that seperate the leagues. While the second part is accurate - there are institutional differences, and you've accurately stated them, the players are not the same. Nowhere more is that demonstrated than last year's D1/2 v. D3 all star game. The D1 players were Bigger/Faster/Stronger - at all positions. The skill level was roughly equal, as was the game knowledge. But Physics is a science for a reason. In short, the game was never close.

Coach,

sorry for not being clearer, i was only talking about the institutional differences. You are correct, there is clearly no comparison between the level of D1 and DII/III athletes. But as i was trying to say, this is because of scholarships, and institutionalized differences between levels. Now unless there are D1 athletes playing on MDIA teams, i don't see a problem; i would venture to guess there are few, if any ,such athletes.

There is no such comparative advantage, however, in the MDIA. Small schools can compete on an even playing field if they have the talent to compete. That is like saying hopkins shouldn't play DI because they are a small school.

I don't want to misconstrue your arguments...but are you suggesting that no matter the skill levels of teams, schools with small enrollments should stay in the B division??

Woda wrote:

cjwilhelmi wrote:I will disagree with Hi-Line Lax and say that there are equal numbers in both A and B that see that B is a developmental league and not a league for small teams.

Oops!

Go take a general stat class. Surveys are all flawed and skewed to show whatever someone is intending. If we took it of everyone nationally, not just those that have a desired interest in the topic at hand, we will find a vastly different answer; for instance those who care nothing about Div B will not look at a thread that starts by calling itself "B Division". Honestly if I didn't care about B, I wouldn't look. Just like I dont look at the PCLL forum cause honestly, I dont care.

I don't want to misconstrue your arguments...but are you suggesting that no matter the skill levels of teams, schools with small enrollments should stay in the B division??

And why not? If the B division is not to be viewed as a devopemental league why would teams that display a winning record move to the A division? This is the key to the argument. Yes, to answer your question, the teams should remain in the B division. The ultimate goal is not to move into the A division but to win a B division national championship not at a B division shcool but as a small school. One that deserves just as much respect as an A shcool. At least in the UMLL it is my understanding that this is how the A-B split is viewed. Why is it in SJU/UST's best interest to make the jump the the A division? Sure these teams are talented, but for the sake of argument, lets consider football. SJU is certainly talented in football, but would they compete on the division I level? Under the current UMLL guidlines (and again, this is my understanding correct me if I am wrong) the B division is designed for teams like SJU and UST. Teams that lack no talent, but are smaller. I know that there are rumors of an SJU jump to division III lacrosse, and if they prove to be substantiated why would they move to A? They could put more pressure on the school to facilitate the varsity jump if they contunue to produce better results within the B division. They can compete better on this level. I believe that the continuous argument about the current state of the B division is detrimental to the MCLA. The B division has a national tournament. The B division has a national poll. I hope that SJU does choose to remain in the B division. A division that is designed to contain schools such as themselves. What is needed to create a national criteria for the B division to create a league that is formed with a common goal? Why is there currently not a national critereon for the B division? The solution of course is to instate a A-B nationallly recognized system. What constitues an A team? And a B team? Untill this happens as Sonny says, the argument will continue.

There is a national B Criterion. Individual conferences are choosing to allow or force some teams to compete as large schools in the small school division.