LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

An Open Letter to the GRLC,

Having been around college club lacrosse for 15+ years, I have seen this game grow from several independent leagues, spread out around the country into what we have today under the USLIA MDIA. I have known Sonny Pieper since my freshman year at Tennessee (1991-'92) and worked closely with him during my college career (UT lacrosse president 1994-’96) and later on several USLIA MDIA National Championship Tournaments. I can honestly say that if not for Buff Grubb and Sonny Pieper, I would not be the head coach at Augustana College. I have won conference championships at Tennessee (1993-’94) and now one as a head coach. Lacrosse is my passion and I only want this game to grow.

I was with the SELC in the formative years and as Sonny and Doug Horn preached then (and is still true today) "We must learn to crawl before we walk." Baby steps, people. Baby steps. The expansion of a league is not something that should be entered into lightly. It seemed every fall SELC meeting featured a presentation from a school looking to gain admittance. Some presentations were better than others. Some schools made sense while some didn’t. There is too much at stake now, too much money invested, too much time spent for our league to have another expansion round like we had last fall.

Sonny wrote:Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but frankly letting a new 18-year old kid (School President) into your conference meeting when he will promise the "moon" to get his brand new school into the league is foolish. Just look at the track record (Truman State, Monmouth, Ole Miss, Western Kentucky, etc.......)

I agree with Sonny 100%. If we consider adding schools to this conference, whether at the A or B Division level, we must truly do our due diligence. The disaster that was the aborted admission of Monmouth and Truman State is embarrassing. There is too much at stake now with our member schools to admit schools only to bag us and have our member schools scramble to fill schedule holes. The onus is on the prospective school to prove to our league that they are worthy of admittance. Allow me to be the first to offer my time to chair a committee on league expansion. Here are a couple thoughts I have on prospective expansion GRLC schools:

1. Interview the sports clubs director (or campus equivalent) regarding the school's commitment to their lacrosse program. We are talking about a lot of money in order to run a program and if the finances are not secure, then a prospective team is already on shaky ground.

2. Confirm that each school has two sets of jerseys, matching helmets and gloves, regulation goals, adequate field space and an adult coach.

3. Place all new schools on a one-year, renewable probation period, which includes but is not limited to: 1) each prospective school should be placed in their respective A/B Division based upon the current criteria; 2) each prospective school will not have a league vote but will be able to sit-in on all league meetings; 3) all prospective school’s league games will be played on the road. Each school is free to schedule as many "friendlies" as they want on their own campuses, but road games are a sure way to test a school’s commitment. The carrot being the prospect of home league games by year two; 4) At the end of one year, each school will be evaluated and an up or down vote will be taken by the member schools at the fall meetings on admission. Upon gaining admittance, those schools that are eligible for the A Division will be placed into a A Division “division” based upon geography (either Big Ten or Big XII) with full league status, B Division-sized schools will be admitted to the B Division and placed in to a B Division “division” based upon their geographic proximity to other B Division schools.

4. If a schools fails to gain admittance, the school(s) will be offered a second year of probationary status at the same criteria listed in subheading #3.

Of the 15 schools in the GRLC B Division last season, one was a former A school (SLU) playing down and Memphis and Arkansas were expansion schools that eventually would make the jump to the A Division. Speaking of the jump, what is the time line for this move? One season? Two seasons? Or are they allowed to spend an infinite period of time playing in the B Division, provided they are fine with being non-playoff eligible, non-National eligible?

If we look at the traditional B Division schools (Harding, Wheaton, Creighton, etc…), what are the criteria for these schools to move up to the A Division? Can they move up for one year and then decide that they would rather compete at the B Division level? If we are going to allow these traditional B Division schools to move up to the A Division, we must impose (if not already) a set period of time (two years, say) that these schools must commit to playing at the A Division level. This will avoid reshuffling the B Division “divisions” on a regular basis.

I have brought this up before and plan to as well at the league meetings, but I do believe that relegation would solve many of the problems that appear to be facing the A Division. Last season, six of 10 schools in the A Division were .500 or less. If we had relegation, Iowa and Nebraska had the worst records in 2006 and thus would play the 2007 season in the B Division, not eligible for the conference playoffs or Nationals. After the 2007 season (using the schools we have now), the top two A-eligible schools with the best record of Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Memphis would move up to the A Division while the bottom two A schools on the A Division ladder, playing 2008 in the B Division.

Either win or face being sent down. It is really as simple as that. Being relegated can be seen as a punishment but I prefer to see it as an opportunity for a team to reorganize and come back strong the following year. The relegated teams would still remain in the league as a full member and play a full schedule of league games (and OCC games/ ”friendlies”). This would help schools build for the future, while not forcing any of the existing traditional B Division schools to move up to the A Division. A smaller eight-school A Division would make for better competition. The B Division would gain by having the infusion of new teams to play.

It is our responsibility as member schools to see that the league is represented to the fullest, not only in league games but also in our OCC games. We must show up on time, have two sets of jerseys, mouth pieces, matching gloves and helmets, the proper goals, etc… Our schools not only represent their respective school but also the conference at all times. There seems to be a lot of whinging about the GRLC being disrespected in the polls, All-America selections, etc... Quit your complaining and let’s workout solutions to our problems. I tell my team all the time that we cannot change people’s minds off the field. We only have control over our own actions and we let our play speak for itself.

I look forward to the league meeting in October. Let’s not be short sighted and continue to make the same mistakes over and over. I urge each member school to think about what is best for their school and the league as a whole. Show up in October with solutions to each of your complaints. We have great leadership in Brian Mosher. Mosher is not just a friend but has been a colleague since my Tennessee days. We have great teams in the GRLC, a valuable commodity that can either take its rightful place as one of the elite leagues in this country or continue to stumble and take steps back. The choice is up to us.

Sincerely,
Ethan Ritz

I think you have some good ideas. Maybe I will be able to make the trip to the meeting and hear some of everyone's ideas.

Ethan - While I agree with you almost completely in principle here are a couple thoughts on your proposal:

KnoxVegas wrote:
1. Interview the sports clubs director (or campus equivalent) regarding the school's commitment to their lacrosse program. We are talking about a lot of money in order to run a program and if the finances are not secure, then a prospective team is already on shaky ground.

At some of the smaller schools, there is no club sports program (Harding for instance). Talking to the faculty advisor may not give you the best overall picture of a teams finances. I would suggest a conference call with an Exec Board Representative, Faculty/Club Sports Representative, and a Team Officer. That way everyone will be on the same page at the same time. Unless the faculty advisor/club sports director is heavily involved with the team I doupt that they know the financial end of it as well as the team president. But I do agree that the overseeing adult needs to be consulted.

2. Confirm that each school has two sets of jerseys, matching helmets and gloves, regulation goals, adequate field space and an adult coach.

Pretty much a given, but I doupt that new teams will have all of that at the opening meeting the way the GRLC is set up now to accept new teams. I like how the SELC does it where a team must compete for a year and then try to gain entrance into the league.

3. Place all new schools on a one-year, renewable probation period, which includes but is not limited to: 1) each prospective school should be placed in their respective A/B Division based upon the current criteria; 2) each prospective school will not have a league vote but will be able to sit-in on all league meetings; 3) all prospective school’s league games will be played on the road. Each school is free to schedule as many "friendlies" as they want on their own campuses, but road games are a sure way to test a school’s commitment. The carrot being the prospect of home league games by year two; 4) At the end of one year, each school will be evaluated and an up or down vote will be taken by the member schools at the fall meetings on admission. Upon gaining admittance, those schools that are eligible for the A Division will be placed into a A Division “division” based upon geography (either Big Ten or Big XII) with full league status, B Division-sized schools will be admitted to the B Division and placed in to a B Division “division” based upon their geographic proximity to other B Division schools.

Please check the GRLC Bylaws, if memory serves me correctly here are the issues with your following points -

All new teams are automatically placed on administrative probation, as such they have no vote but must still be there at all meetings.

According to the bylaws (again by memory) each new team must play at least two games at home and at least two games on the road. This was how it was a couple years ago, I remember some teams struggling to get two teams to travel to them.

I dont know if I'm reading number 4 right but it sounds like that the first year the team is in the conference they aren't in a certain division. I kinda like this idea but what about a team like Eckerd, first year SELC and makes it deep at nationals?

4. If a schools fails to gain admittance, the school(s) will be offered a second year of probationary status at the same criteria listed in subheading #4.

If they dont make admittance they will be on probation? Probation indicates that they are part of a group or organization. I would just tell them that if they dont make the conference then they may play any team in the conference that they want or who wants to play them. I doupt too many teams would travel for a game that doesnt count for anything.

Of the 15 schools in the GRLC B Division last season, one was a former A school (SLU) playing down and Memphis and Arkansas were expansion schools that eventually would make the jump to the A Division. Speaking of the jump, what is the time line for this move? One season? Two seasons? Or are they allowed to spend an infinite period of time playing in the B Division, provided they are fine with being non-playoff eligible, non-National eligible?

I have said this before in the Premium Forum - "A" size schools play "A", "B" size schools play "B". I would be in favor of the following idea: create a Div "C". This is a little different than Coach Steven's idea. Div C would be for ALL new teams unless they previously played in a different league, like Eckerd in the Florida League, and were successful. Div C teams may play whoever they want but are not eligible for post season awards or tournaments. This would be a probationary period that does not affect any member school's record or chance at post season awards/tournaments. This way there would be "A" size schools playing in a "B" subdivision. Teams can move in and out of Div C by a majority vote of other member schools. If a team is struggling for two years with finances or organization they can be put in Div C until they get everything cleared up. They aren't removed from the league but they can not hurt any other member schools that way either.

If we look at the traditional B Division schools (Harding, Wheaton, Creighton, etc…), what are the criteria for these schools to move up to the A Division? Can they move up for one year and then decide that they would rather compete at the B Division level? If we are going to allow these traditional B Division schools to move up to the A Division, we must impose (if not already) a set period of time (two years, say) that these schools must commit to playing at the A Division level. This will avoid reshuffling the B Division “divisions” on a regular basis.

Again, I discussed this previously in the Premium Forum (another plug, spend $10 support USLIA.COM). I like the idea of teams being moved to "A" for a period of 4 years. That way its the length of eligibility for an athlete. Its a serious move to go up to Div A, "B" teams need to not take it lightly. I do agree that a number of preset years needs to be established.

I have brought this up before and plan to as well at the league meetings, but I do believe that relegation would solve many of the problems that appear to be facing the A Division. Last season, six of 10 schools in the A Division were .500 or less. If we had relegation, Iowa and Nebraska had the worst records in 2006 and thus would play the 2007 season in the B Division, not eligible for the conference playoffs or Nationals. After the 2007 season (using the schools we have now), the top two A-eligible schools with the best record of Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Memphis would move up to the A Division while the bottom two A schools on the A Division ladder, playing 2008 in the B Division.

Either win or face being sent down. It is really as simple as that. Being relegated can be seen as a punishment but I prefer to see it as an opportunity for a team to reorganize and come back strong the following year. The relegated teams would still remain in the league as a full member and play a full schedule of league games (and OCC games/ ”friendlies”). This would help schools build for the future, while not forcing any of the existing traditional B Division schools to move up to the A Division. A smaller eight-school A Division would make for better competition. The B Division would gain by having the infusion of new teams to play.

I am 100% against relegation from A to B. That makes the Div B look more like a developmental league then it already does nationally. Div B is NOT a developmental league. Teams that are struggling should NOT be sent DOWN to Div B. Sorry this is a touchy subject for me. This is why I like having a Div C. If a team, Nebraska for instance, is struggling, then let them move to Div C for two years while they try to get more organized. I wouldnt send a team to Div C simply because they lost games, thats stupid. Look at other sports - where is the dominance of the Chicago Bulls of the Jordan Era or the Dallas Cowboys of the early 90's. Teams go through up and down periods of time. We are not the European Soccer league, we do not need to relegate teams.

We have great teams in the GRLC, a valuable commodity that can either take its rightful place as one of the elite leagues in this country or continue to stumble and take steps back. The choice is up to us.

Sincerely,
Ethan Ritz

Well Said[/quote]

I guess the thing I don't get is why the GRLC has supposedly taken the road of alllowing adtmittance to anyone who thinks they might be able to put a team together. I mean, what's in it for them? At some level, you have to know that the more disorganized teams you have, the more likely it is that you'll have people annoyed at something (e.g., showing up to play and the home team not having a legal field, having a team fold just before the season or during the season, costiing teams games, problems with teams not paying, placing an added financial burden on the league).

When you have something of value, you diminish it's value by giving it away to anyone who wants a piece.

LaxRef wrote:I guess the thing I don't get is why the GRLC has supposedly taken the road of alllowing adtmittance to anyone who thinks they might be able to put a team together.

One reason may be how the GRLC was created in the first place. 6 years ago (i think) when the CCLA was split, the conference that was created was the GRLC. If memory serves me there were only 5 "A" teams that were included from the CCLA (Mizzou, Wash U. Ill. Ill St. and Iowa). So from the beginning we were scrambling to find enough teams to fill the A division as to not lose the conference's AQ to nationals. That's where teams like Ole Miss came into play.

Those first meetings of the GRLC were very interesting. As a conference, at least I felt, we were set sailing without a compass. There wasn't a whole lot of direction so the member teams tried to do the best they could. We took some gambles. Some paid off (Harding, MSU, KU, Lindenwood...) and some blew up in our faces (Ole Miss, WKU, etc.) I think there needs to be more focus on the successes we've had in expansion than the failures. No other league encompasses more area in the country than the GRLC. Also much of the conference geography is in developing lacrosse areas. So I think in an effort to grow the sport we got burned a few times.

While it's bad any time the conference or a team gets burned (Ole Miss cancelled on us a week before our game, so I speak from experience) these things are the natural growing pains of a new conference. We need to But as the conference grows so will our success rate. We now have a full time commish. We need to take this opportunity to solidify the process of admission and evaluations of teams and use people like Ethan and others to make the conference better.

The conference has made great strides in the past 6 or so years and i have no doubt it will continue to improve in the future. Just my opinion on things; I might be completely wrong.

SLUDoubleDeuce wrote:

LaxRef wrote:I guess the thing I don't get is why the GRLC has supposedly taken the road of alllowing adtmittance to anyone who thinks they might be able to put a team together.

One reason may be how the GRLC was created in the first place. 6 years ago (i think) when the CCLA was split, the conference that was created was the GRLC. If memory serves me there were only 5 "A" teams that were included from the CCLA (Mizzou, Wash U. Ill. Ill St. and Iowa). So from the beginning we were scrambling to find enough teams to fill the A division as to not lose the conference's AQ to nationals. That's where teams like Ole Miss came into play.

It sounds like admitting everyone might have made sense at one point, but now that you're established you could choose to be more discriminating if you want to.

LaxRef wrote:

SLUDoubleDeuce wrote:

LaxRef wrote:I guess the thing I don't get is why the GRLC has supposedly taken the road of alllowing adtmittance to anyone who thinks they might be able to put a team together.

One reason may be how the GRLC was created in the first place. 6 years ago (i think) when the CCLA was split, the conference that was created was the GRLC. If memory serves me there were only 5 "A" teams that were included from the CCLA (Mizzou, Wash U. Ill. Ill St. and Iowa). So from the beginning we were scrambling to find enough teams to fill the A division as to not lose the conference's AQ to nationals. That's where teams like Ole Miss came into play.

It sounds like admitting everyone might have made sense at one point, but now that you're established you could choose to be more discriminating if you want to.

I think that is starting to change now. But just like anything, old habits are hard to change. Part of the reason it is starting to change is that is it beginning to be recognized and we are also starting to new new blood and new leadership into the GRLC. I'm excited to see what will happen, it just won't be overnight so a little patience will be needed.

The original leadership of the GRLC had a duanting task that no other conference has had to go through. I'm pretty certain that all other conferences existed in some form and joined the MDIA as a group. The GRLC while made up of MDIA teams, was developed from the ground up. While these individual leaders may have had differing views of the role of the GRLC/MDIA in promoting growth & providing opportunity, they eventually made the decisions that were best for the conference at that time.

The GRLC now has different leadership and, it sounds, more people ready to get involved in the development of the conference. The latter is really good news.