Div A Subdivisions

[Troy Hood]

I made a comparison to Harding in my original post. They played within their subdivision and then went outside the conference and up to Division "A" for their "non-required games". They benefitted from that. I'm only looking for a similar opportunity.

Five games sounds good to me. Either way you sub-divide Div A, we'll be getting the result we want. The only concern I have is in putting the only two ranked teams in the conference in the same subdivision.

I like the fact that this topic has everyone sharing ideas. I appreciate the opinions and suggestions that have been laid out.

[KnoxVegas]

The only concern I have is in putting the only two ranked teams in the conference in the same subdivision.

I agree but geographically, this makes sense. Maybe in a few millennia, the New Madras fault will open up facilitate another realignment but until then...

[A.J. Stevens]

If schools want to do that, then go independent and play for an at-large every year.

Independents are not allowed in the MCLA. So either Lindenwood and Illinois have to make the GRLC work for us or join the CCLA or ask Duluth, Minnesota, Michigan, & Michigan State to form a Div A conference. (I wonder how that would go over with everyone) I think we will choose the first option but there has to be a little give and take. I am firmly opposed to placing Lindenwood and Illinois in the same subdivision. Ethan's East/West option actually creates three 8+ hour (one at 9.5) trips while none of the options I have put forward have trips over 5.5 hours except the Nebraska - Illinois trip at 7.5 hours. I'm not real concerned with our conference functioning to the lowest level. I have never heard of a quality product that comes from reducing standards and expectations. How about we raise the bar not lower it.

[KnoxVegas]

So either Lindenwood and Illinois have to make the GRLC work for us or join the CCLA or ask Duluth, Minnesota, Michigan, & Michigan State to form a Div A conference.

Corbin, there you go.

AJ,
Why not convince those CCLA teams to form a super league or better yet, a league within two leagues? I just don't think that conference should be diminished. A as far as me suggesting that teams go independent, I know that is not an option. Who is to say that in a few years, Lindenwood and Illinois will not be the top two teams? Or that other schools will not see their talent increase? I just think that gerimandering the conferences to suit two teams is wrong. I thnk two divisions is plenty. Rather than make the long trip, we can a have situation where teams make the their longest trip every three years, rather than every year.

I think that we are all working to the same end. I believe that OOC games are important but to discount our league season in favor of them is wrong.

[A.J. Stevens]

I have never claimed to have loyalty to the GRLC over Illinois. Explain to me why that is a bad thing. I am trying to find a way to move the teams up that belong in the A div. Hopefully without forcing teams to have to play 18+ games a season to be competitive. If I were purely looking out for Illinois, I would vote to not allow any additions to the A division. Followed by a motion to expel the teams that chose to not play required road games within our division.

[Madlax16]

"A.J. Stevens wrote:

Illinois and lindenwood scored 20 goals on the 3rd seeded team during the regular season.


Well, then if the gap is that big I propose:

Div A
Illinois
Lindenwood


Div AA
Arkansas
Kansas
Illinois State
Iowa
Kansas State
Memphis
Nebraska
Mississippi
Missouri
Missouri State "

......HAHAHAH! YES! All joking aside i really like Ethan's idea for the east west subdivisions. I think its a better idea than the others proposed. (not saying the other ideas were not good ones) Like what timbalaned said earlier, we should not make our divisions based on talent level. Great empires all rise and fall. Cough cough lindenwood. We should make the divisions to be what is best feasible for the conference as a whole. Also, i honestly do not like the AA division, sounds to me to be the C division proposed last year in sheeps clothing. I speak for my entire team when i say that i want to only play for something more than just pride. Like what some also said earlier, we pay the same amount of dues and fees, therefore we should receive the same chance for the conference tourney as everyone else., no matter the level of the team.

[KnoxVegas]

AJ-I am not doubting that you are working in Illinois best interest, as I work in the best interest of Augustana. I am not proposing anymore than five league games. That is three weekends at most and I never said anything about 18 games.

I proposed what I thought was equitable for the conference as a whole. Why should Illinois' or Lindenwood's needs of now supersede the rest of the conference? It was not too long ago that Illinois was not on top. That Illinois moved to the new GRLC to get away from Michigan in the CCLA. Then again, if you feel that the CCLA would give you better competition, call JP. I just think that it is wrong to bend the conference to the will of the top two teams. If Illinois and/or Lindenwood go in the tank, then where are we as a conference? Would we then have to realign to suit the next two or three top teams?

Why can't Illinois play a five game conference schedule plus playoffs and then play all the OOC games they want? I just don't see where five leagues games is asking so much. The RMLC A Division plays four league games plus playoffs.

[A.J. Stevens]

That is three weekends at most and I never said anything about 18 games.

Five conference games and 3 tournament games along with 10 ooc games adds up to 18.

[cjwilhelmi]

Look we all want to do what is best for the conference and our own biases towards doing what is best for our teams. Not everyone is going to be happy. In order for the conference to be the best that it can be we need to raise the level of competition. Does anyone really argue this? If you do then maybe some other leagues might be better suited for you. In my estimate there are several goals that we need to satisfy all requirements of moving on as a conference.

1) Raise the level of competition throughout the conference. Whether it be coaching training or even consistent coaches (there are only three head coaches in Div A as it stands today), competition will breed parity. Look nationally, the more OOC games has increased the parity nationally.

2) We need to help solidify Div B and get developing A teams out of B but still get them the chance to develop on their own time table. I will be honest, I am very, very hesitant about bringing Nebraska, Arkansas and Memphis up to A along with Ole Miss if they choose to petition for membership.

3) There is a need to limit in conference play. Why is this so upsetting at the A level but not for the B? B division has three different sub divisions and Augustana played a whole mandatory three games. Harding played four mandatory games (two which didn't count for anything) and Creighton played five. The same can and should be done at the A level.

So there are the three goals. We need to raise the level of competition. Teams that struggle on the field are not doing anyone any good. Games decided by 10+ goals are not beneficial for either team. Teams not showing up to play because they don't want to play a certain team are not helping the conference either. Does anyone want to just discard these teams or those that are developing or trying to get their act together? I really don't; however, we can't have them hurting the member teams that have competing on the field and fulfilling all their requirements off the field. In order to do this we must have a developmental division. As has been said by Coach Ritz 'Why can't Div A police themselves' instead of dumping teams into Div B. Let the A teams watch over our own and let us create a developmental area. I personally think it would be good for the B division as well but that is up to them.

We all know that in Div A, travel distance/cost should not be an issue. Honestly, it should not be an issue in Div B either. Cowboy up and get the money, but that is a whole different issue. To me there are two groups of teams: Teams that have proven that they should be in A, and those that are either developing or are on the brink of falling apart. I would place them as follows:

Proven:
Lindenwood
Illinois
Missouri
Missouri State
Illinois State
Kansas (debatable, depends on coaching situation)

Developing:
Kansas State (pending EB discussion)
Iowa (pending EB discussion)
Arkansas
Nebraska
Memphis

Arkansas, Nebraska and Memphis went a combined 6-5 in their subdivisions in Div B. Granted Memphis went 0-3, however Arkansas lost to both Kansas State and Missouri State and Nebraska got blanked by Missouri State. These teams are not ready to compete on the field with the playoff teams of 2007. Why should we set these teams up for failure? It would be irresponsible for us to do that. However, in order to satisfy the second goal we need to move them up. By leaving them in B we make B a developmental league. If we want to have them develop why not make a subdivision in A for them to do it?

Lets say that we make the proven teams Division A and the unproven teams Division AA. Each team would essentially have the same amount of travel. You must play each team in your division. That way developing teams get quality games that will help them grow and the proven teams get quality games and there are no more blowouts (or at least thats the plan). The top three in A would go to playoffs as well as the top team in AA. Give the top AA team a chance to prove that they can travel for the conference tournament on relatively short notice and play against the top teams in the conference. That way if some AA team has a badass year they can still have a chance at winning the conference.

Some people have said that Lindenwood and Illinois will be at the bottom of the league at some point in time. Look at BYU, CSU, UCSB, Sonoma and several others that have been at the top every single year. I'm not saying that it can't or won't happen but there is evidence to the contrary. If they do have a down year or two then the system will work and they will move down to AA until they can compete on the field at the higher level.

This also gives the league stability as there is only one team changing in each division. We never will have to redraw sub divisions as you play everyone in A or AA.

Here is the biggest thing - it gives all teams something to play for. Teams at the bottom of A have to play every game hard so that they don't move down to AA. AA teams have to all play hard so that they can try to make the conference tournament and then prove themselves in A the next year.

[Madlax16]

"We all know that in Div A, travel distance/cost should not be an issue. Honestly, it should not be an issue in Div B either. "

It wouldnt be a problem from a team where all the lax finances are paid for by the school. I wish we had that too....unfortunately MOST of the teams in the conference have to have finances and travel costs as a major deciding factor for scheduling games. As for talent level and capability, we went from 1-12 to a above 500 program in just one season. We were told that we could come back to A this upcoming season if we took care of all of our off field problems, we did. So for us to be put from a probationary year to a "developmental" level will just hurt our program more than help. Not having confidence in the teams in our conference will do nothing but hurt our conference as a whole. The best way for a team to get better is to let us play with the "big boys" and not get treated as a second rate program. If kansas is capable of playing at the A div and not AA, then why not us( kstate, nebraska, iowa and arkansas) All we want is a chance that some in our conference are not willing to give us.

[bste_lax]

But what happens if you play against the "big boys" and start losing by 10-15+ goals on a regular basis? Who is to say that Nebraska doesn't fall back to where it once was (1-12)? Nebraska lost by 15 goals to Missouri State this past season who was a #4 seed this past year in A. Iowa and K-State had issues towards the end of the season both of which were probably due to the fact those teams were losing on a regular basis like that.

If you played in this mythical AA, you would play against teams like an Iowa or a K-State (who you guys beat by 1). Close games breed better competition and usually makes players coming back for more. You could still schedule a couple games against the "big boys" to see where you stand and improve your team by playing against some tougher teams. Plus, if you guys continue to grow as a program and get stronger, you earn your spot into A by winning the AA. But I just don't see a team continually to lose (and lose by 10+ goals) as getting better.

Like Corbin said above, I don't think we should hurt the Division B teams by giving them the "bad apples" (whether that is defined by on or off the field issues) of the Division A.

"AA" teams would still be a Division A team under the MCLA but they are teams that need some improvement to get them to the status of a Lindenwood or a Illinois.

If this were to happen next year and lets say Nebraska was put in AA, show people why you should be in A. And if you get into A, show people why you should stay in A by trying to stay in A rather than dropping down back to AA.

From what I have seen over the years is when a team losses a couple early games and are basically put out of the playoff picture, those teams have a tendency to fall apart late in the season and don't finish the season strong. I am not saying a team won't finish strong and will always fall apart, but majority of the time (from what I have seen from my years playing and watching against many of these same teams in the CCLA then the GRLC) those teams basically mentally give up. Under this proposed structure, this makes every game count as someone is always battling for a spot whether it be a playoff spot or a spot to stay in the top subdivision.

I think all of the proposed ideas in this thread could work, but I think this relegation type idea sounds like it could be the most beneficial with where the league is right now for all teams in the GRLC Division A while helping the Division B where it should be.

That's just my $1.56 on the subject.

[cjwilhelmi]

"We all know that in Div A, travel distance/cost should not be an issue. Honestly, it should not be an issue in Div B either. "

It wouldnt be a problem from a team where all the lax finances are paid for by the school. I wish we had that too....unfortunately MOST of the teams in the conference have to have finances and travel costs as a major deciding factor for scheduling games.

I felt the exact same way when I was running the Harding program. Those guys can vouch for that.

Being completely honest and at the risk of coming off as an ass - if you are worried about finances when scheduling games there are several other leagues you could go join and you are definetly not ready for the A division. Its called having commited players and fundraising. You have ties to the football team, get on and clean the stadium after games. If coach Joe Pa isn't above having his D1 football team do it then you guys could do it.

[Sonny]

TJ - There is quote key. It is very helpful. Please learn how to use it. You can try this (and other message board features) in the TEST DRIVE forum at the bottom of the board.

[Madlax16]

I didnt say we were worried about the finances, i just ment that it is a factor to add in when schedualing road games. Though it is said that travel costs shouldnt be an issue for and A division team, if a team is playing a large majority of road games, it creates larger financial burden for the team than there really should be. Most of the kids on our team are working and paying for their own school and not having mommy and daddy pay for their lacrosse. Im just lucky that mommy and daddy are floating my bill.


sorry sonny i was just in a copy paste kinda mood.

[A.J. Stevens]

I am in favor of a AA division where the champion gets the #4 seed in the A conference tournament and has an all-GRLC team. Remember it is the current A teams that vote on any changes or additions. I would think twice about making smart comments. It does not help your case. I started this thread to create an open discussion on the subject. It is not likely that most of the A teams will vote for a mass admission of teams competing at the B level. Help create a situation that will help your team build a competitive program on and off the field. Drawing a line in the sand and saying you will only accept or were promised full admission into the A division will likely result in you being on the outside looking in next spring. This is your opportunity to influence how you compete next season. Win the AA and move up. Come in last place and move down. Fail to meet basic league requirements in AA and you can go join another league. What are you thoughts? What will make this work better for you?