MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[Matt_Gardiner]

So I was curious and started tearing through Will's numbers on the GRLC teams because I was curious how the teams pan out. I also decided I should have looked at Creighton when looking at colleges. The school appears to be very impressive by their website. Anyway the information was often incomplete, but here is what I saw. I took some liberties statistically speaking and just used the best information available. Ultimately I could not create a list that is apples to apples, but it took some time to compile so I am posting it if it is of interest to anyone else. I also noted any discrepancies between lists of 8% and more. Memphis had the most interesting breakdown by far. A large student body with a much smaller number of potential players to pull from.

Augustana - 2,230 by Will's list - 2,277 FullTime students reported by the school. No breakdown by gender could be found

Arkansas - 12,502 by Will's list - 14,350 Undergrads, 12,661 FullTime Undergrads, 50.5% male indicating 6394 U.F.M (Undergrad FullTime Males)
15% HIGHER THAN WILLS LIST

Cornell - Unlisted on Will's list - 1,200 students by school site - No Profiles

Creighton - 3,765 Will, ~4,000 School - No Profiles Found

DePaul - 12,436 Will - 15,024 School - No Profile Found - 21% HIGHER

Dordt - 1,420 Will, 1,300 School - 8% LOWER

Harding - 3,982 Will - 6,108 Undergrad and Grad School - No Other Info

Memphis - 15,296 Will - 15,802 School - 67% Full-Time, 38% Men - Extrapolates out to 4,003 U.F.M.

Missouri S&T - 3,698 Will - 4,515 School - 77% Male 3,386 U.F.M.

Northwestern - 1,243 Will - 1,342 School - 522 are Men

Nebraska - Lincoln - 17,968 Will - 18,053 School - Couldn't Download Profile

Nebraska - Omaha - 10,694 Will - Unable to find info on school site

Rockhurst - 2,034 Will - 3,000 School - 70% Undergrad, 45% Men - Extrapolates to about 945 U.F.M.

SLU - 9,821 Will - 7,479 Undergrad - 80% FullTime, 42% Men - Extrapolates to 2,513 U.F.M. - 24% less than Will's estimate

South Dakota - 5,147 Will, No Info on School Website

Wash U - 6,695 Will, 6233 School Website, No Profile Information

[fsusg]

The numbers Will found do give an objective standard, but those are just averages from 2004-07. If you did a split involving enrollment, would you do the actual or do the averages? For some schools, those averages are extremely less than the current year...i.e. Cal State Fullerton is listing their enrollment at 35,040 (avg. 23,385) and Harding is 6,760 (avg. 3,982). If you did a cut-off point and hypothetically said anyone over 6,500 is Division I, the Harding would be Division I based on actual, but Division II based on the averages.

By the way, Northern Colorado's actual enrollment is listed at 10,799 and Montana State is 10,832.

I seriously doubt that the enrollment of CSF went up by that much in a few years. You're talking a difference from the 3-year average of 11,000! It is likely that the 35,000 number includes graduate and professional students and the 23,000 number does not.

I'd say use the three-year average or something similar. That way, if 10,000 is the cutoff and a school that usually has 9,900 students over-enrolls and gets 10,001 students one year they won't need to switch twice in a two-year period. You could use exponential smoothing weighted a little more heavily to the present if you wanted to, although some people's eyes will glaze over as soon as you start talking about it and won't like it or even try to understand it. (You know who you are! )

CSF's total population didn't include the breakdown, but the total average listed by uscollegesearch.org had CSF at 28,000. I did a little research and found a 2004 CSF media guide with the total enrollment being 32,000+ (sorry, no breakdown again). I was just using CSF as an example...there were a couple of others that I saw were off, including the school that I work for. With Matt's list, there were some averages that were pretty close. Who knows...maybe averages will work, maybe not.

[TheBearcatHimself]

For some schools, those averages are extremely less than the current year...i.e. Cal State Fullerton is listing their enrollment at 35,040 (avg. 23,385) and Harding is 6,760 (avg. 3,982). If you did a cut-off point and hypothetically said anyone over 6,500 is Division I, the Harding would be Division I based on actual, but Division II based on the averages.

By the way, Northern Colorado's actual enrollment is listed at 10,799 and Montana State is 10,832.

I believe I remember seeing that Cal State Fullerton had a huge total number around 35,000 as you say, I used the total undergraduate average. I wanted to stick to undergraduate since I believe this is the first year we are using the experimental one-year graduate rule where you can play anywhere despite undergraduate attendance. I also believe Harding had as big a graduate program as its undergraduate, thus the doubling of the total number.

I don't think any university in the country, period, will see a jump in more than 1,000-1,500 students more from one year to the next. The infrastructure simply must be in place to handle a jump like that, and I would argue that any university with the infrastructure in place for that surge should not be in D2 anyway.

PS thanks for the Northern Colorado and MSU numbers, the website I used just didn't have them for some reason.

[TheBearcatHimself]

Arkansas - 12,502 by Will's list - 14,350 Undergrads, 12,661 FullTime Undergrads, 50.5% male indicating 6394 U.F.M (Undergrad FullTime Males)
15% HIGHER THAN WILLS LIST

I believe I must clarify again, I used the list of full-time average undergraduate attendance since I believe this is the greatest indicator of available bodies. I do not believe we allow non-full-time students to play in the MCLA, I believe 12 credit hours is needed (unless in senior year)? Thus you would be full-time.

I do appreciate the breakdown according to gender, however if people were complaining that attendance numbers would be hard to find (which they really aren't) I don't know how they wouldn't be screaming that gender breakdowns would be impossible to find (I don't know where to find them, but judging by your info it wasn't always easy to find either).

I did notice that all of the school website numbers seem to be within 1-2% of the uscollegesearch.org data, which would be statistically insignificant and would only prove that from year to year colleges do not see large surges.

[A.J. Stevens]

I don't know how they wouldn't be screaming that gender breakdowns would be impossible to find (I don't know where to find them, but judging by your info it wasn't always easy to find either).

Everything needed should be right here. Each school reports this information to the the Dept. of Ed annually. Have fun...it also includes athletic budgets and salaries.

http://www.ope.ed.gov/athletics/main.asp

[Zamboni_Driver]

Ok, I need some help. This is not an arguement about whether D2 should be a developmental league (which is kind of a discussion I'd be interested in). This has turned into a discussion about where the cut off between D1 and D2 should be located.

Can some one, in very simple terms, clearify what the issue is? Clearify how the current system is bad? Please use examples....of who is negatively affected by the system. I'll even take senarios of potential future situations that if occured would rip the fabric of the MCLA.

Please keep it simple...

[Karl Lynch]

Zamboni Driver

We have on many policy issues always worked toward "bright line" rules. The current division split is a very simple "bright line" rule that worked great for the LSA.

We had two teams, OU and TCU both play "down" as DI schools for a couple years to get organized and now they are in the DI LSA North. We put huge limitations on the teams so that they could not take away from the "true" DII teams and both OU and TCU were fine with it.

I think the MCLA decision to say "this what a DI team" is worked really well in hindsight for the LSA. It left the definition of DII out of the mix and allowed our conference to address any potential problems internally.

The teams we have in DII think of themselves as DII teams. UTA, Sam Houston and SFA have 10K student populations, but Rice does not.

But in Texas Rice is always considered a big school because of its football history.

[onpoint]

I think we are getting at the point of why I started this argument. No matter how we decide to split this, there are going to be "developmental" teams, regardless of your personal feeling of what that word means. There will be Div. II schools who WANT to play "up" and Div. I schools who NEED to play down.

I actually like the GRLC split-up a lot because it allows for cross-competition for the not-yet-ready-Div. I schools (and even grants them a playoff berth if memory serves correct) while keeping them out of Div. II. They also have the relegation into the Div. IA, or whatever they call it. Thoughts on this as a national procedure?

[PigPen]

ooh-relegation, hmm...wonder who will be this year's Charlton Athletic.

[TheBearcatHimself]

I actually like the GRLC split-up a lot because it allows for cross-competition for the not-yet-ready-Div. I schools (and even grants them a playoff berth if memory serves correct) while keeping them out of Div. II. They also have the relegation into the Div. IA, or whatever they call it. Thoughts on this as a national procedure?

I think you are 100% correct, and I have had your argument in mind through this whole thread. I think that the GRLC has provided us a model to attempt to follow. My point is this: There will be many more Cal State Fullertons with student populations well above 15,000. Whether you have D1A football or not, 15,000 students is a whole heckuva alot and will eventually provide your team the opportunity to compete at the MCLA D1 level. I think that the GRLC has taken a very positive step towards recognizing that these schools are developing.

I also think it is crucial for these high-population schools to realize that they are in a position to develop and staying in D2 is not going to be conducive to long term equality in competition. This falls on many people and no one team, conference or the MCLA board is to blame, I think we all realize this is a quasi-brotherhood we have and we must help each other. Providing steps and procedures for developing teams and forming the wording in documentation so that high-population schools cannot stay in D2 forever is critical to a competitive balance.

[Hi-Line Lax]

how is having a 1A group nationally different from three leagues (1,2, & 3)?

[Matt_Gardiner]

D1A is different from a D2 because essentially 1A does not have its own division. It is a subgroup of Division 1 and allows teams to develop and grow without being forced to play a schedule of games where the outcome is already clear long before the teams take the field to play.

It benefits both parties and ultimately the conference. It does not force teams looking to play a predominantly national schedule like Lindenwood and Illinois to schedule games against teams that they will spend a few thousand dollars to play a game that will be less competitive than their team practices. The money saved and more importantly the date on the calendar saved can be used to play the BYU's and Michigans of the world, improving the individual team and helping to raise the GRLC's status. It also allows 1A teams to have a more competitive required schedule that will ultimately give them a chance at the playoffs and at nationals. The 1A teams can then use their free weekends to schedule games as they please and of course they can schedule the Lindenwood's and Illinois' of the world, they are just not forced to. Division 1A is not a separate division, instead it is a novel approach at providing teams increased flexibility in their schedules and helps assure that the required games teams are "forced" to play are games that both teams want to play. The most important detail of which is that teams in D1A and D1 are both in the hunt for the GRLC AQ when the season starts.

[BigheadTodd]

Enough talk about what should happen...What did happen? Was anyone there who can let us in on it?

[Matt_Gardiner]

On a slightly different note, I think that if number of students is used as the main determining factor for D2 teams that a student absolutely should be defined as Undergrad, Full-Time, and male. I also think that you only need to be in compliance for a single semester (Fall or Spring) in any two-year period. The fluctuations in student body size are minimal and it would ease the burden of regulating. It would eliminate timing issues if school are not ready to publish a given semesters student body profile. To be D2 in the Spring of 2009 your school would need to be at or below the "magic number" for either Spring 2009 or 2008 or for Fall 2008 or 2007. I do not think that the "magic number" used to define D2 would be precise enough that if a school was 100 students over in the Spring of 2009 but was 100 students under in the Spring of 2008, that the school advantage due to increased student body size is negligible.

It also helps avoid the hypothetical problem that School A is barely D2. They create a D2 schedule in the fall. They find out that they have just moved over the line for D2 and now they need to create a DA1 schedule within their conference and any OOC teams depending on them to fulfill their OOC requirement is out of luck. A situation like that would be a nightmare to deal with and a large drain on the resources of the conference.

The conferences all have a lot at stake to make sure their teams are properly slotted. If a conference approved a team that should not have been, I would imagine that the conference in question would be at great risk of losing their AQ. Due to individual conferences having something to lose and little to gain, they would be motivated to diligently ensure all teams are where they need to be. I would have each conference in charge of confirming the cocompliancef their D2 teams. I would also require that each D2 team get a notarized form from their school confirming the size of the student pool of Undergraduate, Full-Time Men.

[LaxRef]

It also helps avoid the hypothetical problem that School A is barely D2. They create a D2 schedule in the fall. They find out that they have just moved over the line for D2 and now they need to create a DA1 schedule within their conference and any OOC teams depending on them to fulfill their OOC requirement is out of luck. A situation like that would be a nightmare to deal with and a large drain on the resources of the conference.

Oh, absolutely. You can't have a standard that is changing after teams schedule. You should probably even base it on enrollment through the end of the previous school year, since that's more easily available information.