LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

The MDIA exec board is holding their summer meeting this weekend. While I have no idea what is on their agenda, I encourage all Division B players and coaches to get in touch with their respective conference commissioner or other representative immediately. We should be sharing any Division B concerns with them now if we hope to have them addressed by the executive board.

As we are in the "nest" here (this thread is for Division B only) I would like to start a dialog to identify some concerns or questions that our B Division teams have. Please feel free to ask any question, make any criticism, or offer any opinion.

There is the obvious issue of the Division B All-America recognition this year. Other posts indicate that the exec board will address this issue at the meeting. I don't know how the selection process works exactly and would like to see something added to Sonny's excellent FAQ page that he recently added.

A second issue is the Division B National Tournament. Currently, there are approximately the same number of A and B teams competing in the MDIA. Division B teams pay the same dues as Division A teams. Do we feel that we are ready to expand to a 16 team field at the tournament? If not, do we have an argument that the structure or amount of team dues should be changed?

I am interested in hearing what other questions or concerns the Division B programs have (eligibility, requiring/promoting more out-of-conference competition, tournament selection, ref fees, etc.)

Thanks

I think the B-division is well on its way to having a 16 team tournament. It is probably something that should be attained if not this year next year. I think the concern would be whether or not the B-teams could travel to such a tournament. Only in the last three years have teams made an effort to take long road trips for quality OOC competition. UTA in the past three years went to Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas. Other teams are now doing the same thing and seeing the advantage. Harding is another team that has consistently traveled OOC well.

I think that the B-Division is still growing in certain areas as quality lacrosse. In the LSA there are only 4 or 5 teams that have made the playoffs every year since conception. The bottom teams don't improve. The depth as a conference right now is very poor, But I believe that with time, things will improve.

B division will have to demonstrate a number of years of filling the tourney without any bids being declined before any expansion. The A division took 4 seasons to expand from 8 to 16 teams

There are enough teams to fill a 16-team bracket now. If you open the slots, teams will make the sacrifice to travel. Don't let Salem St. be the rule, rather they are the exception.

When the tournament started back in the late '90s, conferences and teams were not as organised. Now, for the most part based on my experience, the B Division has its collective act together. Much farther along, than the situation was back in the late '90s. The B Division evolved from the the A Division, so there has always been a model in place for B Division teams to follow.

When I joined Augustana, they were a one-win program. In a matter of 16 months, WE won our conference, finished ranked #10 in the country and were playing in Plano.

KnoxVegas wrote:When I joined Augustana, they were a one win program. In a matter of 16 months, we were ranked won our conference, #10 in the country and playing in Plano.

Coincidence? I think not! A program-changing addition - kind of like Justin Combs.

I don't know how the selection process works exactly and would like to see something added to Sonny's excellent FAQ page that he recently added.

I'm not sure that many of us know how most of the process works. I wasn't aware of when the meeting takes place or any of the topics either. Where can we find out more?

The issue of expanding the Division B tournament was initiated by GRLC Commissioner Brian Mosher at this past weekend's MDIA meetings. And the proposal was defeated, fairly easily.

It was the consensus of many board members that Division B will have to demonstrate a few years of relatively stability before expanding further. Although it's only one team/conference, Salem State declining the PCLL Div. B automatic bid at the last second doesn't help matters.

As Jolly Roger noted above, the Division A tournament wasn't expanded to 16 teams until after 4 years. Food for thought.

Sonny wrote:As Jolly Roger noted above, the Division A tournament wasn't expanded to 16 teams until after 4 years. Food for thought.

I still fail to see the relevance of this statement.

Back then things were different. Today you have 2 divisions consisting of approximately the same number of teams that pay the same amount of dues.

I anxiously await a press release/summary from the executive board and sincerely hope that we can commit to expanding the Division B tournament in the near future.

culax wrote:

Sonny wrote:As Jolly Roger noted above, the Division A tournament wasn't expanded to 16 teams until after 4 years. Food for thought.

I still fail to see the relevance of this statement.

Back then things were different. Today you have 2 divisions consisting of approximately the same number of teams that pay the same amount of dues.

I anxiously await a press release/summary from the executive board and sincerely hope that we can commit to expanding the Division B tournament in the near future.

In the meantime, does anyone want to give a summary of decisions that were made at the meeting?

Ok, so if our B Division dues were doubled to $1000, what exactly are we getting for that? No expansion of the B Division field of 12 to 16 because of stability? As I seem to recall, the pool of club teams was cleaved into the A & B Divisions. Why then must the B Division be made to prove its viability?

We may be smaller schools, and not have the funding to make a spring break trip every year (then again so do a lot of A Division teams, come to think of it), but we have proven that we can travel to nationals (with Salem St. the exception). It would be nice if people out there would stop viewing the the B Division as a minor league, or as a proving ground for future A Division teams. The B Division stands on its own.

Ok, so if our B Division dues were doubled to $1000, what exactly are we getting for that? No expansion of the B Division field of 12 to 16 because of stability? As I seem to recall, the pool of club teams was cleaved into the A & B Divisions. Why then must the B Division be made to prove its viability?

You are correct. If someone on the outside was looking in. They would say that the divisional split is not equal. They would say that the A division receives more benefits.

This issue of amount of money paid for dues and teams receiving benefits was a big topic of concern in the CCLA for a few years. When I first became involved with club lacrosse the B division in the CCLA was paying the same league dues as the A division, but we didn't have any post season. The A division had a CCLA tournament however. In addition, the B division didn't even have a national tournament at that time. There was never any clear justification for this, and I think some of the concerns about the national tournament and dues are very valid. There is some bias no doubt. Is it intentional? No. Is the bias entirely correct? No. I can see how it frustrates though. I think the first thing we need to be asking for not only as a B division, but nationally is more transparency. Every team should be seeing budgets (beginning and ending), we should be seeing National board meeting agendas, decisions, and minutes covering the decisions, and everyone should at least know that the meeting is taking place!

It boils down to who has a voice. Our leagues and national leadership is dominated by Division A teams. Quite frankly, the ones running the show have the resources and the time to dedicate. In almost all cases their programs are already "there". The reason you don't see more B team national leadership is because most of the B teams coaches are still getting their programs together. It makes sense that teams who don't have their programs on semi-auto pilot, should be working on getting their own house in order. We all know there's a direct correlation to off the field organization and on the field success.

Here are your concerns:
Every team should be seeing budgets (beginning and ending)- ONE major reason we are going on our own. Even our board did not see this information year in and year out with USL. If we did, it was far from complete at times. We WANT accountability and thus we are moving to be on our own and take that step. Budgets will be released yearly after the championships.


We should be seeing National board meeting agendas, decisions, and minutes covering the decisions- That information is passed on to your conference directors. Contact them. Decisions and minutes I can understand but agendas a lot of times are done at the last minute based on external factors. Your conference directors are AT the meeting, they should have all of that information for you.


Everyone should at least know that the meeting is taking place- again, see your conference director- THEY ATTEND IT. They should be the ones in direct contact with you and gathering your leagues interests on topics that they want discussed. Any league can enter agenda items.

Increase in dues- again, your conference director should be able to provide all of this for you. Going on our own requires a lot of start up costs along with some new programs we want to start in terms of marketing our league. We know there might be a few teams that struggle with our dues increase. For years dues did not increase then we jumped to $500 last year (from $300) and doubled that this year. Maybe not the best way to do it when we honestly should be increasing each year as costs rise in almost everything we do. We are also funding some paid positions to assist with the running of this league which is well needed with the amount of work that it will take as we move forward. Part of our problem is that our league is run by coaches. For most of us, we have a day job, a coaching job, a husband/father job and then top that with conference or national duties. It can be draining. For this reason we would like to hire some people to assist- that are not coaches.

If you want a voice get a position that will assist in that. I do not take your excuses about the A teams in "cruise control" or "auto-pilot" so their coaches must have more time. I happily serve on the board and my team is in no way in cruise control and I feel many teams/coaches represented on the board would agree with me about their own program. We all struggle with team issues. We (A coaches) hold most EB positions probably due to time with our programs and longevity and willingness to help with our conferences and then we move up from there. I would love to see more B represented. I know we had a few B reps in Dallas this year at the meetings and that is a good step.

The B Division Stands On it on- cut to the chase here- if you don't like it, then form your own League or find another one to join. If it's so easy then do it. Sorry to be short but it must be easy to criticize. I know its a big jump in dues (especially if most teams, like ours, budget a year out and now we have to find another $500). If you feel the dues are too much, then don't join. Pretty simple in my mind. I am one of the 83 A teams that do not get the pleasure of nationals every year like some teams. I still feel the money is worth it to be associated with the top collegiate club league in the nation.

Nationals- 88 teams in B- 12 teams go- i may be wrong but is that not roughly 14% of the teams go. A- 99 teams- 16 teams go- 16% of teams go. In the B numbers that even includes 4 teams I know of (there may be more) that are not even eligible to go so reduce that number to 84 and you get over 14%. I guess my next question- why do B level teams (by virtue of our alignment) chose to play in A? If B stands on it on, they why do we allow them to move up? I think that question sometimes leads people to look at B in a different light. Why does Sonoma play up? Why does Alabama play down? I struggle with this question and what exactly A and B are. It may be our alignment tool that is the problem but no matter how we do it, we will have issues. B should stand on its on but the league must be able to walk before we run. Unless you have been behind the scenes it takes a LOT to run this league especially our tournament which is based on some great volunteers giving a week of their time to score, time, set up, break down etc..... Without them, we have nothing. Its a full schedule as is. We will get to 16 and 16.


wow,,,, sorry for my JP long post. I hope I answered some of your questions.

Ken Lovic wrote:The B Division Stands On it on- cut to the chase here- if you don't like it, then form your own League or find another one to join. If it's so easy then do it. Sorry to be short but it must be easy to criticize.

In no way was I insinuating that the B Division teams want to break off. You misinterpreted what I wrote. What I am asking is that the B Division be seen as a separate division under the MCLA umbrella, rather than a training ground for future A teams specifically. I am new to the B Division and will be seeking a greater voice. You are absolutely correct in stating that many teams in the B Division are not as organised but then again the same could be said for many A teams.

What we have is a case of haves and have-nots. I do not feel that many A teams are on "cruise control" or "auto-pilot." I am just one of many that put in a lot of time, possibly too much time, not for myself but for the benefit of the guys on my team. Isn't that why we all do this?

I also understand start up costs but at the same time, why must the information be filtered through our individual reps, rather than coming from the group themselves?

I look at the A & B Divisions like the AFL and AF2. Same game. Small schools. No less dedicated to being successful and growing the game. So in no way am I asking for the B Division to splinter off, but I also don't see why we are treated as separate but unequal?

Ken Lovic wrote:Nationals- 88 teams in B- 12 teams go- i may be wrong but is that not roughly 14% of the teams go. A- 99 teams- 16 teams go- 16% of teams go. In the B numbers that even includes 4 teams I know of (there may be more) that are not even eligible to go so reduce that number to 84 and you get over 14%. I guess my next question- why do B level teams (by virtue of our alignment) chose to play in A? If B stands on it on, they why do we allow them to move up? I think that question sometimes leads people to look at B in a different light. Why does Sonoma play up? Why does Alabama play down? I struggle with this question and what exactly A and B are.

I believe that the definition of what is an A and what is a B team has to be more defined. The teams like Sonoma evolved in a period when in order to play competitive collegiate club lacrosse on a state-wide, much less a national scale, you had to have a program to compete with the larger state and private schools. This is no longer the case with the creation of the B Division. Also, my team was ranked (albeit on Laxpower.com) somewhere in the neighbourhood of #84 at the beginning of the 2006 season. I guess we are the exception?

As for the moving up or down, that is ridiculous. Why do you allow teams that fit your A Division profile to play down? Then allow their games to count against the other teams in the B Division, even though they are not eligible for the post-season? If an A team fits the profile, then they should be made to play in the A Division.

Ken Lovic wrote:Unless you have been behind the scenes it takes a LOT to run this league especially our tournament which is based on some great volunteers giving a week of their time to score, time, set up, break down etc..... Without them, we have nothing. Its a full schedule as is. We will get to 16 and 16.

You can ask Sonny about my involvement both in front of and behind the scenes at the national tournament in the past. I hope that we have 16 and 16 by next year. The game is only getting bigger.

Seems to me that the exec is pulling the league in the direction they want to go in, rather than the direction the league might want to go in. The reason I say this is because I don't know how teams have any input whatsoever in this decision, and we'll just get told what happened and that our dues are doubling at our league meetings. I see it as a bit disconcerting. The lack of communication from nationals to the teams and from the league to the teams is rather scary, as is the lack of input that goes back up, as does all the seeming secrecy surrounding this, from the people making the decisions not wanting to discuss it on a public forum to having to pay $10 to find out what the heck is happening. What in the world is going on?!?!

It seems the "we" in the podcast that is being referred to is the top 25 at most and the teams that make the tourny at least. The main question I have is how does this extra money and this change benefit the membership at large and why weren't we notified of any kind of change? If I had known that I had to be on some sort of exec board to know what in the world is going on with regards to something as drastic as becoming a part of a new organization, I wouldn't have resigned from the SELC exec...

KenLovic Wrote:

If you want a voice get a position that will assist in that. I do not take your excuses about the A teams in "cruise control" or "auto-pilot" so their coaches must have more time. I happily serve on the board and my team is in no way in cruise control and I feel many teams/coaches represented on the board would agree with me about their own program. We all struggle with team issues. We (A coaches) hold most EB positions probably due to time with our programs and longevity and willingness to help with our conferences and then we move up from there. I would love to see more B represented. I know we had a few B reps in Dallas this year at the meetings and that is a good step.

I think my statement is a little misrpresented here..... Basically, I was saying exactly what you stated here. That if more B division people would like a voice they need to step up. To address the "cruise control" statements. The teams that are more established, possibly have been around longer, have their feet under them a little more when compared to most encompass the board. It's obviously a natural progression of dedicated time. Of course the more organized, put together teams are going to represent us! I would say 99% of us are pleased an thankful that you guys take on that role. We all understand the commitment and time that goes into this.

As for the money/dues issue. I've been saying for a long time that the dues need to be raised. We need an operating budget that can support paid help. Period! If we want all of these things we "should have" we need this level of dedication. Until an independently wealthy person comes along to fully fund us, then these are the steps we need to take.


Lastly, to address the premium forum. You know as much as everyone else at this point in time. Sonny doesn't make millions. You start doing the math and the time and energy that goes into this thing you don't come out ahead. Regardless of the information provided here we can all agree that a minimum of 10 bucks is worth it.