LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I see that earlier in the year, Colorado cancelled a trip to Florida in which they were scheduled to play Florida State. Now, I am reading about UCLA cancelling a trip to Michigan where they were supposed to have faced Michigan & Michigan State.

Is anyone else troubled by these OOC game cancellations at seemingly the 11th hour?

The BOD has been collecting data from the conferences and plans to address this among other issues at the next meeting. This will be a high priority once the bylaws and policies are finalized.

So what happens if one of your required OOC games is canceled and you can't get a replacement? Does this keep you out of the tournament?

LaxRef wrote:So what happens if one of your required OOC games is canceled and you can't get a replacement? Does this keep you out of the tournament?

i was wondering this as well (for the team who got cancelled on)

LaxRef wrote:So what happens if one of your required OOC games is canceled and you can't get a replacement? Does this keep you out of the tournament?

This happened to GVSU a few years back, had to scramble to find a team to play. I was curious as to what happens if it wasnt your fault and you couldnt find a replacement. I guess one thing to do is schedule more than the minimum, looks good for the voters and saves your butt from not meeting the requirements.

This is why I try to schedule at least 4 OOC games. I am not sure on the ruling but better safe then trying to get games in just to qualify. Also the more games you play OOC the better exposure. I know not very team can do this though

Moose wrote:This is why I try to schedule at least 4 OOC games. I am not sure on the ruling but better safe then trying to get games in just to qualify. Also the more games you play OOC the better exposure. I know not very team can do this though

Unfortunately this may be the best defense. I am curious as to how the BOD can regulate this. Just as it is impossible to regulate a UC Irvine from leaving nationals early, you can punish them which sets an example, but it does little to prevent it from happening and hurting those it happens against.

I guess the golden rule should apply to these situations: Cancel only when willing to be canceled upon.

TheBearcatHimself wrote:

Moose wrote:This is why I try to schedule at least 4 OOC games. I am not sure on the ruling but better safe then trying to get games in just to qualify. Also the more games you play OOC the better exposure. I know not very team can do this though

Unfortunately this may be the best defense. I am curious as to how the BOD can regulate this. Just as it is impossible to regulate a UC Irvine from leaving nationals early, you can punish them which sets an example, but it does little to prevent it from happening and hurting those it happens against.

I guess the golden rule should apply to these situations: Cancel only when willing to be canceled upon.

Hit 'em financially.

We all went to college - set a date of when all schedules are due to the league, have an add/drop duration, and then fine teams for cancelling games after the add/drop timeframe. Just make sure the fine is about the same as a travel cost for a team, that way teams can't save money by cancelling even after the fine.

And please, no arguments that the league has trouble getting teams to pay as is...that isn't a problem of collecting..its a problem of not being willing to cut the fat....

I think you have to remember who does the majority of the traveling in a season. In most cases, it is the teams in the Midwest and Northeast that travel the most in the MCLA. Because most of the fields in the CCLA, UMLL and PCLL are buried under snow, we are forced to travel to meet the three game requirement. Of course, we would like to have teams reciprocate and travel to us the next year but teams in the South and West don't really "have to." They can stay at home and host games with visiting teams from the North who have to travel in February and March to get games in.

Penalizing teams that cancel games will likely fall on the teams that already bear the travel burden and not the teams who suddenly cancel. If anything, the BOD should consider making travel a requirement for all teams. Perhaps that means putting a limit on the number of home games a team can have. That will force teams to travel to get in more games.

And if a team does make a road trip, then they are rewarded with the ability to have more home games.

why are the teams being allowed to cancel with the other team not being awarded a forfeit? Girls side has a add/drop deadline of Feb 15. Teams cannot cancel for any reason other than weather. Also, teams cannot add games in the middle of your schedule to improve their SOS for an at-large bid.

I personally like the idea of a game contract & a forfeit. Give the team a loss & remove them from the conference tournament. Put them on probationary status for a year or two, any other infractions & remove them. I'm not sure if the MCLA BOD can wield this power, I doubt it, but I know I'd support our conference moving this way. We can't have this happening unless both teams agree to remove the game for whatever reason, it's ridiculous. I personally can't think of a reason to cancel a game other than safety or weather, but strange things happen. I wouldn't be completely apposed to giving teams an out, like an immediate appeal process in case there was a major car accident involving the teams etc. Things happen, but teams (and people) need to start being responsible for themselves. Too many others are counting on them holding to their commitments.

Zamboni_Driver wrote:Hit 'em financially.

We all went to college - set a date of when all schedules are due to the league, have an add/drop duration, and then fine teams for cancelling games after the add/drop timeframe. Just make sure the fine is about the same as a travel cost for a team, that way teams can't save money by cancelling even after the fine.

Agree.

On a related note, there was an column in the MCLA magazine about teams forfeiting games. The author took a dim view. He was most upset with--and rightfully so--the excuse "Well, we were just going to lose anyway!"

I agree that there should be some kind of penalty for just backing out of a game: forfeit, fine, conference sanctions, loss of eligibility for tournament, loss of scholarships ( ), or a combination.

Sonny wrote:

Zamboni_Driver wrote:Hit 'em financially.

We all went to college - set a date of when all schedules are due to the league, have an add/drop duration, and then fine teams for cancelling games after the add/drop timeframe. Just make sure the fine is about the same as a travel cost for a team, that way teams can't save money by cancelling even after the fine.

I Disagree.

Fining teams for canceling games is not, in my opinion, the answer.

I agree that games should not be canceled. But there are circumstances when it is in the best interest of both teams that games are rescheduled. But how will a team know in November what the weather is going to be in March. So, scheduling early will not solve the problem. Weather is just something we have to deal with as a sport. But, if a team cancels because they realize that they have no chance of winning or because they cannot afford to travel to a venue or any of the other possible excuses I've heard in seven years, they should have to suffer some penalty for the time and effort that it takes to have a game.

My other thought is that penalizing a team for canceling a game should be equally impactful regardless of who that team is. That's why fining is NOT the answer. Telling one of the elite programs that they have to pay a fine versus one of the smaller division 2 teams is not equal. Larger programs will simply write check while other programs might have to actually go into debt to pay the fine. That's why I believe losing games in the next season is a better way of deterring teams from canceling games instead of demanding money that most teams don't have.

As far as not allowing teams to play in their league or the national championships, again, it's not equal. Many times, teams that are canceling games do so because they have no chance of playing in either. They just want the season to be over. But in some cases, as is the case with Colorado, they would lose that opportunity and hurt the MCLA as a whole. So, the penalty would only affect teams with something to lose. That's why it would be better to takes games away instead of fining teams or making them forfeit an opportunity to play in the post season.

Taking games away is the one thing every team wants to keep. Mandating that a team can only play a certain amount of games in the next season would be a huge penalty for any team and quite a deterrent.

I don't think anyone is talking about penalizing teams for weather-related reasons.

The game limit idea for the subsequent year is a good one.