Future of Division B

[AflacLax]

We are not in the business of running an invitational tournament, and in this I think I can safely speak for our entire Board. If that's what it's going to take (and I hope it's not), then B will probably go away.

Aside from the huge philosophical shift an invitational would mean to the MCLA, it would also be a very difficult thing to do logistically in the time frame we work with.

We never intended the B division to be a developmental league. Its purpose was, and is, to provide the same organizational and competitive benefits the A division provides, for smaller schools. We are not set up to provide support for a developmental league. If one is needed, and it may be, then it will probably have to happen outside of the MCLA.

I personally think we have many of the same issues in A as we are now seeing in B. I'm not convinced, as some may be, that we need to just cut B from the tournament or all-together. I continue to think we need to do a better job defining and enforcing, and we may need to consolidate across the board - but the B Division is a valuable segment of our league.

John, first of all thank you and all the others that have helped shape the MCLA. It's meant so much to me and a huge part of my college experience. Also, John, thanks for this post. It's nice to know your viewpoint on Division B, not being developmental.

It is my opinion that the high frequency of B teams not owning up to their obligations as members of the MCLA has increased and will continue increase. This bothers me because I respect the MCLA. When the best teams from Division B make the move to Division A it leaves behind a void. If San Diego and Claremont were still in Division B...UCI would not have been invited to the national championships.

While I'm not sure if forcing small schools to play in Division B is the answer I am sure that if great teams (Montana, Westminster, UVSC, and others) move up to Division A, then there will be problems left with Division B. I wish that when a great team left, another team stepped it up to fill their shoes. This has not been the case. I foresee the best Division B teams moving up to Division A. If this is allowed it will spell bad news for B.

[rtbirm]

I think that the "b" division is a legit league and there are no significant reasons to discard or alter it. However, why does the "b" division national tournament need to be a week long? I play for UC Irvine and we have come under a lot of fire in these forums for leaving early. First off, I feel I need to say that we practiced the entire school year, 5 days a week starting in the beginning of January with over three weeks of double days. Our commitment throughout the season was certainly there and our goal was to make it to Texas. Those of us who should up would have played with 10 guys.

Second, when we started this season, many of us were unaware that the tournament was going to fall right during our exam week and at a large public institution like ours, administrators are not always willing to rewrite exams or set up alternate lab times for a club sports program. Yes, I am aware we had time to tell our professors, but many still did not care and the few guys who could not make the trip were extremely disappointed about that. Then once we lost our one meaningful game to Dayton, many of us decided that missing exams and labs was not more important than than playing a 2nd meaningless consolation game. We felt bad about leaving but what were we supposed to do? Fail our classes?

Is it possible that the "b" tournament be Thur-Sun or even Fri-Sun. My freshman year we played 3 games in 24 hours in a texas tournament and still won all of them so I don't think double headers would be that big a deal. What do you guys think about just shortening the length of the "b" tournament so schools that don't get a lot of slack from their universities can still participate?

[Timbalaned]

I think that the "b" division is a legit league and there are no significant reasons to discard or alter it. However, why does the "b" division national tournament need to be a week long? I play for UC Irvine and we have come under a lot of fire in these forums for leaving early. First off, I feel I need to say that we practiced the entire school year, 5 days a week starting in the beginning of January with over three weeks of double days. Our commitment throughout the season was certainly there and our goal was to make it to Texas. Those of us who should up would have played with 10 guys.

Second, when we started this season, many of us were unaware that the tournament was going to fall right during our exam week and at a large public institution like ours, administrators are not always willing to rewrite exams or set up alternate lab times for a club sports program. Yes, I am aware we had time to tell our professors, but many still did not care and the few guys who could not make the trip were extremely disappointed about that. Then once we lost our one meaningful game to Dayton, many of us decided that missing exams and labs was not more important than than playing a 2nd meaningless consolation game. We felt bad about leaving but what were we supposed to do? Fail our classes?

Is it possible that the "b" tournament be Thur-Sun or even Fri-Sun. My freshman year we played 3 games in 24 hours in a texas tournament and still won all of them so I don't think double headers would be that big a deal. What do you guys think about just shortening the length of the "b" tournament so schools that don't get a lot of slack from their universities can still participate?

Can't wait to hear some fire from this one

[AflacLax]

Please, let's not discuss in detail a specific team or circumstance. There are other threads about those issues. I truly believe there is a MCLA-wide issue here with teams shifting from B to A. Let's talk about that. Does something need to be done about it or not? If not, then I think a lot of teams will attempt to move into Division A.

[wapiti]

My two cents worth. It seems that most of the teams in Division B have and are making serious committments to their teams and leagues.

The game of Lacrosse is exploding across the country. I have already, in the past 3 or 4 years, seen teams significantly improve themselves by the level of time, committment, and the level of talent flowing into the colleges from the high school level. A case in point would be the CSM program in Colorado.

There absolutely should be a Division B ( or Division II - I like the suggestion ) for those schools serious about the sport but without the resources of a major university. And there absolutely ought to be a National Tournement, with a championship, for these teams to strive for.

I"m not for the concept of a 'developmental' league. There are other avenues for that outside the MCLA.

What I think this boils down to is a rules and enforcement issue. For some reason, some clubs feel they can make decisions adverse to the league and their fellow teams and justify the position - and argue any possible consequences.

The past few years, particularly this year, has demonstrated IMO that some thought needs to be given as to how to clarify responsibilities and handle enforcement. I really believe the tournement, as set up now, is appropriate - the committment piece by ALL members of the organization needs to be resolved.

[Hugh Nunn]

To paraphrase the immortal Ty Webb (character, not poster):
The MCLA isn't for everybody Danny, the world needs beer league lacrosse too.

Stryker, I think you're dead on with this post, but it was Judge Shmaels who said the above.

Lacrosse and Caddyshack quotes in the same conversation...all is right with the world.

[Gvlax]

We are acting like the MCLA is the only league that has teams who have teams in divisions that move up and down. NCAA has teams moving up and down quite often. It is possible for Division B to be a developmental league and a league for small schools who wont have the resources to move up to A division.

Division will always exsist because there will always be teams who can not economicaly and talent wise compete at the upper level of A division

[OAKS]

We are acting like the MCLA is the only league that has teams who have teams in divisions that move up and down. NCAA has teams moving up and down quite often. It is possible for Division B to be a developmental league and a league for small schools who wont have the resources to move up to A division.

Division will always exsist because there will always be teams who can not economicaly and talent wise compete at the upper level of A division

There are very few teams to move up and down in the NCAA. Presbyterian is one, and I believe UC Davis, and a few others in recent history. This is because all teams in the school are required to move up now that the NCAA doesn't allow only one team to play up.

As well, economics is not a dividing point between division A and B. The only division right now is whether a team is 1A or 1AA and less in footballl. We expect the same amount of dedication from division B teams as we do division A teams. If we're going to make B a developmental league, then we need to make it available for teams with limitied budget (e.g. matching gloves and helmets are not required, OOC play is not required, an expensive trip to nationals is not available).

The current reasoning for the creation of Division B as it stands is that small schools, such as St. Johns, Emory, Sonoma State, etc, cannot compete with large schools such as Montana, Michigan, Alabama, etc.

[DwinsChamps]

The current reasoning for the creation of Division B as it stands is that small schools, such as St. Johns, Emory, Sonoma State, etc, cannot compete with large schools such as Montana, Michigan, Alabama, etc.

...but the current state of the MCLA is not one where the conferences are divided up by school size. Generally, yes, but not entirely. How large of a factor was "school size" when the A/B split occurred?

Why can't smaller schools compete with larger schools? Alabama, a school of 24000 students, was 0-8 this year with losses coming against comparatively tiny schools. On the other end of the spectrum is Westminster, a school of less than 3000 students, who in it's first season beat some large schools in New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah. To say that smaller schools cannot compete with the larger ones, in my opinion, is invalid. Perhaps a different factor should be used to define the distinction between the A and B divisions.

[Zeuslax]

http://www.mcla.us is the official website

I should have been a more clear. The league website should also be a resource not only for scores and standings. It should outline rules, define the league and explain the MCLA. It should also be an area to outline precedent and make public the decisions made by the MCLA board and leagues. It then becomes a resource for coaches and players. Just having a reference area would go far. I know I'm not the only coach to have freshmen think that some of the things we say that are required for "club" lacrosse isn't 100% concrete or non-negotiable. Each year I always have a freshmen say, "I didn't think this was so organized and such a big deal". It always comes from a kid that has been killing himself for 6 months for the team too. How often on these forums are people answering the same questions posed by new players, coaches, and family.

In addition, the league site should be an area to release information.
It would be nice to say hey team, coaches (and high school coaches), recruits, school administration, parents, alumni, community, etc........if you want more information about what I'm telling you go to www.mcla.us.
I know it's a fairly new site and that some of the things have been planed. Also, creating new content for a web site is a real bugger too. IMHO it's important that when a large eligibility issue happens like two years ago that it needs to be documented and made public. All of the personal details don't need to be aired, but the info needs to get out there for others to see. It's interesting to see when things are put to paper how much good it does.

A few things that I would like to see are:

Budget and Finances - Hopefully we get to a point where we're able to make this public at the end of year to all teams. Especially now that we stand alone.
Overview - expanded about section
Rules and Governance - eligibility, tournament, dues, reesponsibilities etc....

My freshman year we played 3 games in 24 hours in a texas tournament and still won all of them so I don't think double headers would be that big a deal.

A national tournament with double-headers?