MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[Hi-Line Lax]

FYI... our decision to move up had nothing to do with USD or Claremont. We've traditionally been a Division A school and have been basically playing down for the past three seasons. Our size, location, and traditional recruiting base make our program completely unique and I don't think our decisions should be used as a measuring stick for any other teams.

[TheBearcatHimself]

My leaning is more towards Div. II as a developmental and skill level split rather than a school size split.

I believe this is very dangerous wording. We absolutely cannot view it as a talent split. If you in any way use language in regards to talent then you immediately pigeon-hole D2 teams as "inferior" to D1.

I believe, as someone earlier stated in regards to the UMLL, that we must view D2 similar to the NCAA's Division III (The PNCLL has a very similar viewpoint). It is a place for student athletes at smaller schools that do not have the traditional resources (from alumni, boosters, D1A football programs, etc.) to compete with larger scholarship-based athletic programs. Now in the MCLA we do not have the issues of scholarships, but in terms of recruiting a team like Colorado State is a more traditionally successful lacrosse school compared to my own (Willamette).

Now the initial thought is that "better" lacrosse players go to Colorado State (compared with my school). While this may be the case at this moment, you cannot look at it as a talent split. The students that attend my school or Colorado State are both human beings, they are both athletes, they both have the same ability to be good at lacrosse. The difference is that the more advanced lacrosse athlete is more likely to choose Colorado State because their program is further along. Colorado State and other D1 teams have more depth, more resources, and more structure. We cannot view it as a talent split.

The sport of lacrosse is unique because it is "new" to many schools and regions. We unfortunately have to deal with the "developmental" issue. I believe, as was said earlier, that this must be a conference issue. It should be up to the people in the conferences and at the specific schools to ensure a competitive balance. I do believe that with proper monitoring that schools will not stay in D2 to keep winning titles.

[TexOle]

I think a team should be allowed to play an MCLA schedule as a Developmental team. Maybe give them Division 1D or 2D status. As part of that all games they play will count for teams away from Developmental status. Allow the Developmental teams to use 2 referees, modified scheduling for less travel, and other benefits to keep initial costs down. As a result they are not allowed to play any post season contests. All teams should be forced to leave Developmental status after 2 seasons. If a team wishes to not go to the national tourney, then by all means do not schedule OOC games. Otherwise make a clear statement early in the season that if your team does not plan to play at the National level.

[Danny Hogan]

No way man...lowering the bar helps no one and opens the door to a bunch of delinquent programs that in the end will burn the league.

Make all teams play by the same rules and make the bush league teams get their acts together before they are admitted to any conference.

[coachpg]

So here I am sitting in the airport in lovely Birmingham. AL............and i am reading this thread, and wanted to clearify a few things. Claremont's decision had nothing to do with what USD was doing. We actually considered petioning the WCLL a year earlier. The driving force behind our decision to move up was based on a few factors that were really out of our control. The first was brought up in an earlier reply from someone else. The WCLL Divison 2 is not as balanced as some other leagues. We felt that we were at a crossroads in the development of the program. We could have very well stayed in division 2, but we were much more motivated to play at a higher level. The second reason, will most likely bring me grief from the division 1 members of the league, but honestly as a division 2 team, few division 1 teams would touch us on their schedules. We were very fortunate in that we had a very good first year in division 1, 11-4 and had a national ranking as high as # 25 before the national tournament selection. Will we be as successful this year, who knows, and frankly who cares. If smaller schools want to take that journey into Division 1, let them , as long as they have shown stabilty on the filed and administrativly are able to bite off that nut. Most teams and most players want to be able to compete at the level they aspire too, will we all be successful.............no, but it is agreat challenge to try.

[TexOle]

No way man...lowering the bar helps no one and opens the door to a bunch of delinquent programs that in the end will burn the league.

Make all teams play by the same rules and make the bush league teams get their acts together before they are admitted to any conference.

Schools trying to start programs face tons of challenges. Who do you play? How do you schedule games against established teams? How do you find refs? What about the costs of joining a league? It is not an easy experience joining the MCLA, and there needs to be place for development.

I am also trying to address many of the feelings of those wanting an MCLA experience without the huge financial cost. Some teams don't want to travel, and that should be their right. I think they are missing out an experience, but we have seen too many problems with teams not fulfilling their obligations at the end of the season.

I guess I am trying to fix a problem that has no easy solution to make everyone happy.

[OAKS]

Schools trying to start programs face tons of challenges. Who do you play? How do you schedule games against established teams? How do you find refs? What about the costs of joining a league? It is not an easy experience joining the MCLA, and there needs to be place for development.

I am also trying to address many of the feelings of those wanting an MCLA experience without the huge financial cost. Some teams don't want to travel, and that should be their right. I think they are missing out an experience, but we have seen too many problems with teams not fulfilling their obligations at the end of the season.

I guess I am trying to fix a problem that has no easy solution to make everyone happy.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a structured experience with basically guaranteed games, conference tournaments and awards and national tournaments and awards, you gotta pony up the $$.

Don't want to travel? Don't join the league. There are men's team's popping up all over. If you're in an area with MCLA teams, I'm sure some would be willing to scrimmage. You could probably get a great schedule most places in the U.S. with a maximum of a few hours of travel and without having to book hotels.

It's not that hard to find out who's running the teams in your general area. With a little work in Google you'll find this website, which will put you in touch with virtually all the MCLA teams. NCLL teams may be harder to get to, but you post some things in the message boards here or over at LaxPower, and you'll probably have information at your fingertips within days if not hours.

I'd venture to say that every single team in the MCLA is or has been in a position of just getting started. Most are sympathetic, and are gonna lend a hand. It is Lacrosse after all. It's gonna take some hard work yes, but there is certainly no lack of knowledge abounding around the web and various organizations (USL) to help a team get started without having to join a league.

[Campbell]

No way man...lowering the bar helps no one and opens the door to a bunch of delinquent programs that in the end will burn the league.

Make all teams play by the same rules and make the bush league teams get their acts together before they are admitted to any conference.

Schools trying to start programs face tons of challenges. Who do you play? How do you schedule games against established teams? How do you find refs? What about the costs of joining a league? It is not an easy experience joining the MCLA, and there needs to be place for development.

I am also trying to address many of the feelings of those wanting an MCLA experience without the huge financial cost. Some teams don't want to travel, and that should be their right. I think they are missing out an experience, but we have seen too many problems with teams not fulfilling their obligations at the end of the season.

I guess I am trying to fix a problem that has no easy solution to make everyone happy.

This seems like the kind of thing that should be relegated to the inidividual conferences. I don't think the MCLA should be trying to develop teams as its mission. The burden of getting a team up to snuff to play in the MCLA should be on the team, not the MCLA making allowances for developing schools. That is where the individual conferences can help, by recruiting new programs and developing them with other teams in their conference, before turning them loose on the MCLA. It is to the benefit of conferences to be stronger, have solid teams, and make a showing at nationals, I say let them handle development.

[GrayBear]

This seems like the kind of thing that should be relegated to the inidividual conferences. I don't think the MCLA should be trying to develop teams as its mission. The burden of getting a team up to snuff to play in the MCLA should be on the team, not the MCLA making allowances for developing schools. That is where the individual conferences can help, by recruiting new programs and developing them with other teams in their conference, before turning them loose on the MCLA. It is to the benefit of conferences to be stronger, have solid teams, and make a showing at nationals, I say let them handle development.

Federalist.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I'm one who has always favored a small college division to allow the little guys to compete amongst themselves. "No taxation without representation" is a time-honored American credo. If the smallest colleges pay the same MCLA dues as the BYUs, Colorado States, Florida States, Arizonas and Oregons of our lacrosse world, then they should have the right to truly compete for a chance to play in a national tourney, and not in the same division as the "big boys" against whom they would have a decided competitive disadvantage.

The basic debate here, as I understand it, comes down to two different philosophies and a logistical problem. The debate boils down to small/large or competitive/developmental for our dividing line. The logistical problem is if we decide on the former, how to set the dividing line based on enrollment, which is not a constant for many schools?

So what if -- presuming the majority ultimately agrees with me on some kind of small college/big university split (never a given with this group of diverse viewpoints LOL) -- we make things easy with this following specific proposal (call it the "Wish Split"):

A) If a school participates in NCAA Div I athletics in most or all sports, they must be permanently placed in MCLA DI, from the date of admittance to any of the conferences. New (NCAA DI) lacrosse programs could play as non-MCLA "independents" against MCLA DII schools until they are ready to apply for and gain admission as full-fledged MCLA members. These developing teams could be required to pay some kind of MCLA and/or conference "dues" based on the number of MCLA teams they schedule exhibition games against.

B) If a school participates in NCAA Div III or NAIA athletics in most or all sports, they would be placed in MCLA Div II, and should remain there permanently unless they can successfully petition that a move up to Division I is warranted and would be a "permanent" move, based on historic competitiveness and NOT a recent, short-term trend. The Sonoma States, Lindenwoods and Simon Frasers of the MCLA could be "grandfathered" in to Div. I from the beginning under this rule.

C) If a school participates in NCAA Div. II athletics, they could be voted into either MCLA Div. I or Div. II on an case-by-case basis, but if admitted to the small school division and demonstrate a record of "dominance" (consecutive conference DII titles, for instance) they would be automatically moved up the following year to Div. I and would have to petition to move back down in the future, which would only be considered if they likewise demonstrate a record of competitive futility (consecutive winless seasons, maybe?). This would add a bit of developmental "fairness" to those medium-sized schools who are new or developing their programs "out of whole cloth" and/or in non-traditional lacrosse regions of the country.

[Kyle Berggren]

Personally, I'd rather not deal with some of those issues Dan. You're forcing teams that don't belong in D2, on the D2 teams. If these independent teams are playing "required schedules" who do you require them to play? I don't want to travel to them, give them one of our weekends, & a part of our budget & not have it count toward playoffs.

That said, we elected to schedule Portland State this year, we weren't forced. We had an open weekend early in the season. If anyone forced us to play an "independent" at the end of the season, & we had an injury right before the playoffs we'd be pretty upset. We'd be better off sending a JV team... wait, we're a tiny school & a small team, we don't have that option. Therefore, I say join the MCLA in the conference you belong when you're ready to join or not at all.

We want to say that D2 is not inherently inferior to D1, but the level of play at the D1 is typically at a much higher level. D2 should be for smaller schools that aren't as competitive, not for fostering growth of other schools at the smaller schools' expense.

I believe the split needs to be in the 5-8k students range. I'm not as familiar with school size in the other conferences, frankly I was still amazed to see that Oregon is not the largest school in Oregon (Portland State 26+k), but we have more than a handful of school's with fewer than 3k students. Many D2 state schools are near 10k students & they have more in common with the Oregon's of the world than the Puget Sound's & other small liberal arts colleges. In general, an organized, stable, fully functional team from a school of 8k (that should belong in the MCLA) should be able to compete with the Montana's of the world (12ish k) on a more regular basis than the College of Idaho (less than 1k) or Pacific Lutherans (3.5k).

We're not working with teams of only recruits, we have walk ons, all of us do. The influx of athleticism at larger schools is greater. I personally like the D3 type of recognition for our D2.

[Matt_Gardiner]

I am curious as to how people are wanting to define a student at a school. It is not as cut and dry as it should be at many schools. SLU counts students in Madrid, Spain on its roster. It has Graduate students and Medical School students on its roster. It has teachers and other professionals taking night courses on its roster. It has part-time students taking summer classes on its roster and it has students on Internships and Co-Ops on its roster.

SLU lists international campus students, graduate students, night students, summer class students, other part-time student, and full-time undergraduate students all lumped together on its roster. I am curious to see how a "student" is defined if the criteria is based on student body size. I would also be curious to see if the gender make-up of the student body is considered. Once the decision comes out I am certain people will make a number of arguments from a number of different angles about where they are placed and why that was right or wrong.

[John Paul]

Your absolutely right Matt, and that's one of the arguments I've always presented against using school size as our measuring stick. Add in that some school populations fluctuate quite a bit from a year to year and that the published enrollment numbers are often a year or more old, and it has the potential to become an easily contested criteria. The good thing about D1A football, or NCAA D1 affiliation if we go that route as a criteria, is that they are definitive. We're examing all the options we can think of. The concensus seems to be enrollment right now, but I'm not sure everyone has thought through the potential problems with that.

[LaxRef]

One approach would be to set the limits based on, say, "the average number of male full-time undergraduate students studying on campus over the past 3 years for which data are available" (since, I believe, that is the population of students the MCLA teams can draw from). It makes no sense to put a team in DI because the enrollment is 10,000 (or whatever), if 6,000 of those students are graduate and professional students, 1,000 of the undergrads are part-time or studying abroad, and 60% of what's left are female.

The obvious counter to this is, "How easily can you get the data needed to calculate this?"

[Steno]

e-mail the registrar.