LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Talking with another MCLA coach this evening got me thinking about the future of the MCLA. Follow these hypothetical points:

-Lacrosse continues to grow at the youth and high school level at record numbers over the next ten years, especially out west
-The number of qualified and knowledgable coaches at the youth and high school level continue to blossom and grow
-Former MCLA players begin having children playing in youth and high school leagues
-Division I Varsity lacrosse does not expand or grow
-Too many good/great players in the talent pool nationwide for the amount of limited roster spots at Division I and Division III programs
-MCLA programs over the next ten years continue to grow in organization, coaching and how the program runs evolves, respect from University Administration grows, talent pool grows

------------------------------

After reading those theories, in ten to fifteen years, could the MCLA become the USFL to the NCAA? For those that do not know the USFL was a competitor to the NFL in the 80's, as they attracted some outstanding talent in their early years. They eventually folded due to lack of attendence and money. Maybe that is not an accurate comparison, but does anyone think that one day, if Varsity lacrosse does not grow, that the first question lacrosse fans will ask of a former college player will be, "Did you play NCAA or MCLA ball?"

Please do not turn this thread into Varsity vs MCLA in 2007 as we have all been down that road, rather it is intended to discuss what the future will hold if current trends continue............................

Definately a deep question. Is there anything in any other sport that compares to "this thing of ours"? Tony S is dead so I can steal that. There is no real college club football. Is there basketball or any other sport? I am curious if there is anything to compare with.

You will know when we arrive when you read posts about teams joining the MCLA instead of all of the posts about MCLA teams going NCAA. I see that in my vision of the future of the MCLA. We have a lot of big name schools in our organization.

I think in 20 years you WILL see NCAA DI lax grow- and here's why (not to say the MCLA won't grow in stature or talent)......when schools, like USNA for instance, realize with good marketing and little care-that you can make Men's lax a money maker, then more "Big" schools will start to field teams. But this will happen ONLY when this occurs. When schools figure out that they need a spring sport that can bring in some of the moola that baseball isn't then this chain reaction will occur. I don't think we are far from it. What will this do to the MCLA? Now that's an intersting what if...but that's still a ways a way.

There was a great article about this in Inside Lacrosse: lacrosse can obviously make money, but the schools don't do a good job of marketing it. But one of the reasons that they don't do a good job is that the teams do stuff like schedule a noon game on a weekday at a neutral site; you'll never make money doing that!

They also talked about how Syracuse would have good attendance, but it was mostly locals. They didn't go hard after the students.

If schools want to make money from lacrosse, they have to use their heads. But when you get 50,000 at the championship, you know there's interest.

if schools want to make money from lacrosse, they have to use their heads. But when you get 50,000 at the championship, you know there's interest.

Making money on a varsity sport is very difficult and almost impossible after you factor in the cost of scholarships (tuition, housing, food), insurance, opearting expenses, coaching salaries, travel, etc. etc. Men's basketball makes money because CBS paid $1 billion over ten years to cover the tourney. No one has stepped up at that level to cover the NCAA Men's Championship at this time. The cost of being good at the varsity level, mainly coaching salaries and facilities keep programs from 'making' money.

Back to the discussion, let's try to stay focused on the what if's I pointed out, with one of those being Varsity lax not expanding.

IF varsity lax doesn't grow....The MCLA will gain crediblity with the masses (those mainly being the newer population in the West and oft forgotten parts of the East-ie. Western Mass, Western NY, Western PA. But the lax purists will still be purists and 20 years from now will still be MCLA doubters because they went to lax factories like SU and UVa. That's just the way it's going to be.The quality and hopefully the organization of the MCLA will improve, but I doubt never to the quality of the NCAA. the cream always rises to the top and you can see now that varsity coaches are starting to plunder the gold mines of TX, CO, and CA just to name a few. Without the vast majority of these studs playing in the MCLA...the MCLA will still be looked at as a second rate league. And though the average kid in CO may still want to go to CSU or CU, they will still dream of playing in the big league because Johnny So and So from Golden went to Hopkins.

I don't like the comparison of USFL to NFL. Mostly because the USFL was a flash in the pan and I hate to think that the MCLA will ever have to fold due to lack of interest. Actually on a side note-I think the downfall of that league was the big bucks that the stars were being paid compared to the gates they were taking in...but that's aother discussion for the water cooler.

I like the comparison of the A League to MLS. MLS supposedly has the talent and plays in the "marquee" stadia, but the A-League has many viable teams with some pretty good (albeit older) talent-Romario played last season in Miami. The A league is starting to gain some credibilityin its own right as it tries to outgrow the mentality that it is the AAA to Major League Soccer.

We are right where they are now-breaking out of the second class facilties and breaking stereotypes as the media has picked up on the situation and the epedemic which is the growth of lacrosse.

If you are going to use the USFL analogy, a better one would be to use the NBA-ABA merger. Not every time survived into the NBA (Indianapolis, Denver, San Antonio and NJ Nets did) but a merger was forced. Later there four more rounds of expansion. Or the NFL-AFL merger.

Unlike the ABA, I see the MCLA continuing to co-exist outside of the NCAA and filling the void that it does now that the NCAA cannot due to money, Title IX, etc... much like the NAIA does at this time.


(Big ups to Chris for bringing up the USFL. My family were season ticket holders to the Washington Federals and their head coach, Ray Jauch, eventually became my high school football coach)

Chris,

You've pretty much summed up our vision for the MCLA. However, club teams will continue to be held back by lack of funding, lack of full-time, long term, quality coaching, lack of vision by short-term student-leadership and most importantly, lack of support for evolution by university administrations (including lazy club sports departments and dis-interested athletic departments). Those are all tough things to overcome for MCLA teams to truly evolve, and without that evolution the MCLA will struggle to command respect.

John Paul wrote: and most importantly, lack of support for evolution by university administrations (including lazy club sports departments and dis-interested athletic departments). Those are all tough things to overcome for MCLA teams to truly evolve, and without that evolution the MCLA will struggle to command respect.

Amen to that. I have spent eight years now working with the club sports department at UW, and the gains we have made have been hard earned through sheer will and stick-to-it-ness. We often take two steps forward in our journey and then fall a step back -- like being cut down to twice-a-week practices after Spring Break. Varsity teams never have to deal with this crap. They build world-class facilities (with my tax dollars) then severely limit our access to same. While I have been known to howl at the moon I've found that to be less than helpful at resolving the situation. So we do our best to deal with it. What else can we do?

Back to thread: Our "evolution" as an MCLA organization has been built exclusively on the backs of the elite programs. Anyone who believes otherwise is welcome to try to convince me here. The level of play has certainly risen across the board in the past few years, with 2007 a break-through for many programs. We have grown beyond a four or five team elite league into one well represented at the top by teams from around our nine conferences and in both divisions. More and more teams are willing to travel for OOC games. And yes, high school talent is flowing in to the majority of clubs. The MCLA runs a great tournament. These are all big steps forward.

But the chasm between the "haves' and "have nots" still exists -- albeit with more haves and many more "wannabes". We must 'fess up to the fact that still have some very weak programs which are holding back our progress and retarding the evolution of the organization as a whole. These programs represent our step backward, to bring the analogy full-circle. The "big tent" concept has met with mixed results, and the future holds more of the same IMHO. Perhaps with this deep discussion about our vision we should address how we go about either helping our weakest take the steps forward the best of the MCLA have already taken and get truly assimilated, or figure out how we can cut them adrift if they are hopeless cases.

We can't hope to be everything for everybody. If we are to be credible as an organization -- and as a serious alternative to NCAA lacrosse as this thread's author has posed -- we just can't do it as an instructional league or even as a "club" league. We either all embrace the "virtual varsity" mentality (sorry, I know many hate this term but it's the best I've got) or we can forget about being taken seriously as an organization by the outside-world. As always, just my two cents...

Not to stray off-topic too much, but i think that as the talent in the MCLA continues to grow, and if possible teams like BYU participating in events with legitimate varsity programs- and begin doing well, the MCLA will definitely gain some legitimacy with the old-school east coast DI supporters.

In order to join them (figuratively of course) we need to compete with them, consistently, and with a variety of teams.

I am interested to see how the growth of Division III trickles down to the MCLA. While Division I may not be growing, Division III certainly is and will continue to do so because there is no pressure to make money. I think that Division III programs around the country could stop the MCLA from becoming the "Did you play varsity or MCLA?" type of question... but probably only in the immediate future.

30 years from now, I have no idea.

Unless their is some legislative or judicial help to resolve the Title IX hurdle, Division 1 men's lacrosse will not grow. No offense to Bellamine and Robert Morris. But it costs too much $$ to field a D1 team and the fact of the matter is that we are males. (Most of us, at least.).

The D2, D3, NAIA type schools will continue to add the sport to attract students and their tuition dollars. But I think we are still a generation (or two) away from seeing the growth of men's collegiate lacrosse we all desire, both on the major D1 NCAA and MCLA level.

John Paul has made this point in the past and I think it's still valid. Former youth/H.S./MCLA/NCAA players will rise up in their professional careers. As they gain financial security & disposable income, they will donate $$$ to schools to help fund or start new collegiate programs.

NCAA D1 lacrosse might not be considered a money maker by many schools right now, but if a donor walks into an Athletic Dept. and wants to write a big check - someone will be listening. When multiple people walk in the door wanting to donate big bucks to fund men's lacrosse, someone will be saying when do we order the uniforms and find a coach.

If AD's continue to ignore the growing interest in lacrosse, then those dollars will most likely fall into the MCLA teams and conferences.

The biggest problem with MCLA teams now is attracting quality coaches and keeping them. The MCLA continues to lose quality coaches to alternate high school/college coaching positions or alternate employment elsewhere. Look at some of the names that have left the MCLA ranks over the last few seasons: Joe Kerwin (Oregon), Adam Hopkins (ASU), Todd Boward (Indiana), Chris Larson (Minnesota), Kyle Hawkins (Missouri), John Hughes (UCSD), Lane Jaffe (UCLA), Eric Hethcoat (Kansas), Chad Donnelly (Chapman), etc.

Look at the instabilty when a coach laterals to a different MCLA program - Troy Hood left Wash U for Lindenwood. (Wash U folded their program earlier this year in the GRLC.)

If teams were able to better manage money long term and consider paying coaches stipends or salaries, they could get out of the year to year "rut" that plagues many programs. After 11 years, very few MCLA programs pay their coaches.

It's like a chicken or egg theory. Which comes first? the coach to build a overall MCLA program from the ground up OR the resources to attract/retain a quality lacrosse coach?

very similar, same goals, some of the same schools.

http://www.achahockey.org/index.php

Pinball wrote:very similar, same goals, some of the same schools.

http://www.achahockey.org/index.php

The ACHA appears to do a lot of things very well and I agree that the MCLA should emulate many of their offerings, especially administratively from a national standpoint.

However, a few of the big differences between the ACHA and the MCLA is that the ACHA allows the use of graduate students and the ACHA allows club teams from campuses that sponsor varsity lacrosse programs.

I think the MCLA would be viewed differently if the MCLA allowed graduate students and clubs from varsity campuses. Most likely, some of our top MCLA programs wouldn't get the chance to play varsity programs.