Fall Meeting

[DRich17]

Doing some thinking and wanted to address something...

As some of you know, I have talked about a lot of things on these threads in the past few months, getting responses from every end of the spectrum; extreme disgust, emphatic agreement and some indifference. A lot of the answers to some of the questions I have asked, have involved attending the fall meeting (which I plan on doing). I have also noticed, with some issues concerning certain teams and eligibility for playoffs, conferences dues, etc, anything really you name it, that a lot of people are really interested in knowing more about how stuff is run and how they can learn to become a better, more active member of their conference/league.

I have yet to attend the fall meeting, so some of this is ignorance, but let's say (ideally) we have 5 or 6 members from each team that are involved and would like to attend the meeting. I don't think there is anyway that Lindenwood could accommodate so many people, nor should they be expected to. Besides that, there are probably a lot of people that would like to go to the meeting but can't because of the travel (some of our student athletes are 9 or more hours away, right?). Besides that, what would it be like if I were in a fall meeting asking as many questions as I do on here? Nothing would ever get done!

My point to all this? Is there anyway we can set up some sort of open discussion of the sort of problems and issues at hand in the conference, like things that would be talked about at the fall meeting? I know there are minutes kept, but it would be cool to be able to just talk about some of the stuff, objectively. Why is Iowa ineligible? What sort of things were taken into account in deciding that? There's more stuff i've thought about besides that, so i don't want to give that impression.

I have emailed a lot of people in my conference and on the EB asking certain questions, and in most cases I was told to send all questions to my coach and have him ask. I have emailed the president of the MCLA and have received timely and informative responses in a very professional manner. I have brought up some stuff on these boards (MSU v MU, right?) not to complain about the unfairness but to understand the rules at hand and see how that holds similarities in current situations... and I was told I was whining. I'm stopping there, I'm not trying to victimize myself here but I am so desperate to better understand not only how our conference works, but how, on a fairly regular basis, can I ask questions openly and get feedback.

So how's the best way we can talk about this stuff without walking on egg shells? Any ideas would be helpful.

Or should we just ask away here?


Just voicing my opinion

Thanks

[essn1064]

sure why not.....

Here is a question......

What to do with the conference break down for the 2009 season

Do we keep the div 1AA and div1A?

I was told that the top two move up and the bottom two move down

I believe the conference has become more competitive to move into a geographical split

The two furthest away teams cannot be in the same subconference...i.e. Iowa and Ole Miss

It doesnt make sense....for this year it did... but next year I dont think so

That is several states being crossed

I am not gripping about traveling .... I have already recieved my new budget for the school which has doubled thus will allow the Ole Miss team to have a much larger schedule

Now I propose a North/South split

North
Illinois, Illinois State, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State

South
Lindenwood, Mizzou, MOState, Arkansas, Memphis, Ole Miss

With each subconference having three spots for playoffs

[essn1064]

Or you can do a East/West

East
Lindenwood
Illinois
Illinois State
Ole Miss
Memphis
MOState

West
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Kansas State
Arkansas
Mizzou

[beckner11]

Well before you do that you have to ask yourself, was the playing level slightly more level due to AA teams playing each other? If so, and you remove it after just one season then you may end up putting yourself right back in the same situation before, with teams getting destroyed..... or not wanting to spend thousands of dollars to make a trip for such a game.

However, if the subdivisions were combined I would support a north/south split. Obviously I could sit here and point out flaws with both split possibilities but N/S just seems to have a few less.

The major question I'd be asking at the meeting is how Harding became ineligible for post-season due to the use of an ineligible player (which the self reported) when the exact situation happened with MSU a few years back and the only thing that happened was having to forfeit the game played and were put on administrative probation? That is a clear cut sign that there isn't a uniform way to handle certain situations. I think Harding got the raw end of the deal based off past rulings by the board (not saying that a team using an ineligible player can go unpunished)!


Oh and before you talk about divisional split you'd need to make sure no team is trying to move up or down and no new team that would fall in Div. 1, or wants to play there is trying to join the league (i.e. MO Bap.)

[cjwilhelmi]

The major question I'd be asking at the meeting is how Harding became ineligible for post-season due to the use of an ineligible player (which the self reported) when the exact situation happened with MSU a few years back and the only thing that happened was having to forfeit the game played and were put on administrative probation? That is a clear cut sign that there isn't a uniform way to handle certain situations. I think Harding got the raw end of the deal based off past rulings by the board (not saying that a team using an ineligible player can go unpunished)!

This is why there is trouble with word of mouth. There was no press release and no official announcement made by the executive board. Harding will be in the playoffs this season.

Just for the record - the GRLC EB ruled that any team that is ineligible for the National Tournament would therefore be ineligible for the Conference Tournament. Since the National EB ruled that Harding is to be placed on National Administrative Probation and therefore able to go to the tournament then Harding is able to come to the Conference Tournament.

Hope that clears it up. For any other info, PM me offline.

[Michael Martin]

The other consideration regarding realignment, will the MCLA this summer change the national definition for Division I, which is currently based on NCAA Division I football programs? Another definition, perhaps enrollment, may change the GRLC landscape.

Our Division I teams will need to honestly answer the question, which is greater between teams, the geographic distances or competition levels?

[DRich17]

The major question I'd be asking at the meeting is how Harding became ineligible for post-season due to the use of an ineligible player (which the self reported) when the exact situation happened with MSU a few years back and the only thing that happened was having to forfeit the game played and were put on administrative probation? That is a clear cut sign that there isn't a uniform way to handle certain situations. I think Harding got the raw end of the deal based off past rulings by the board (not saying that a team using an ineligible player can go unpunished)!

This is why there is trouble with word of mouth. There was no press release and no official announcement made by the executive board. Harding will be in the playoffs this season.

I agree with Beckner on the consistency. And the deal with me...er MSU a few years back was also handled with that player having to miss the first 4 games of the following season (a fitting punishment if you ask me). I do agree that it sounds like there are inconsistencies.

And I totally agree with the "word of mouth" deal, hopefully we can find a way to address all that stuff.

I have brought up the MU/MSU deal a couple times and I never meant to sound like I was trying to seek revenge on the decision makers, but for the sake of argument we've got to be able to compare certain situations and TRY to be as objective and open as possible.

So here's my question as to the divisional split...
What sorts of rules are there concerning teams in a conference playing each other? Are they required to? What happens if they don't? I think we have to take that into consideration before we think about what the best way to divide it up would be.

And like I said before, what would be done to a team if they didn't make the trip?

[cjwilhelmi]

I agree with Beckner on the consistency. And the deal with me...er MSU a few years back was also handled with that player having to miss the first 4 games of the following season (a fitting punishment if you ask me). I do agree that it sounds like there are inconsistencies.

Or you could realize that there are different national rules now than what were in place at that point in time. Damn, we're even a different organization now if I remember the time periods correctly.

And I totally agree with the "word of mouth" deal, hopefully we can find a way to address all that stuff.

There was no decision until National ruled. Therefore no press release or other information needed to be let out.

I will not be commenting further.

[essn1064]

Competition level is important

But My vote for my team would be geographic

Im just saying taking 14 hr bus rides hurts moral..... and drive me crazy

[bste_lax]

Well, no matter how you split it up, there is going to be some long bus rides, it's just the nature of the beast for the GRLC.

If you do North/South split, you have Illinois and K-State/Nebraska in the same division.

If you do East/West. you have Iowa and Arkansas in the same division.

Those are just one example with each split.

[essn1064]

Well I understand that..... but it is not as long as say Ole Miss to Iowa

Arkansas to Iowa is 9 hours

There are going to be long trips but not as much...thats all

[DRich17]

I still can't get past the idea of playoffs working out the way they did...
5 & 6 seeds coming from Div I-AA with the chance to move up the following year? Doesn't that just start a 2 year cycle of moving the top 2 teams from AA up and the bottom 2 teams from A down, and having the same thing happen next season?

It just doesn't seem like the best was to have playoffs

[A.J. Stevens]

I still can't get past the idea of playoffs working out the way they did...
5 & 6 seeds coming from Div I-AA with the chance to move up the following year? Doesn't that just start a 2 year cycle of moving the top 2 teams from AA up and the bottom 2 teams from A down, and having the same thing happen next season?

It just doesn't seem like the best was to have playoffs

Because that is not the deal. Teams will move up when ready and down when they need it per the amendment to the bylaws. Anything else is wishful thinking. I want to see the Friday games before I would even start talking about moving anyone up. We need to see how the program has developed since being placed in AA.

[essn1064]

that is not what I was told when deciding on this conference

I was told that the top two teams in AA move to A and the bottom two move to AA

I do not like the idea of circumstances now and who makes the decisions about a team future.... if the team wants to move up shouldnt it be their proagitive

[jwetterer]

The other consideration regarding realignment, will the MCLA this summer change the national definition for Division I, which is currently based on NCAA Division I football programs?

What would this do to the alignment of the teams if it happens?