LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Lakes Division
-Buffalo
-Central Michigan
-Pittsburgh
-Purdue
-West Virginia
-Western Michigan

Plains Division
-E. Michigan
-Indiana
-Miami
-Michigan
-Michigan St.
-Oakland

Crossover Games (Counts towards season standings)
Pittsburgh vs. Indiana
Western Michigan vs. Miami
Purdue vs. Michigan State
Buffalo vs. Oakland
West Virginia vs. Eastern Michigan
Central Michigan vs. Michigan

The Tournament will be held at East Grand Rapids High School April 29-May 1. Top 6 Division A teams, and Top 4 Division B teams attend.

Win/loss record as of 3/28 in CCLA(games that count in seeding)

Lakes Division
Buffalo (1-2)
Central Michigan (2-2)
Pittsburgh (3-0)
Purdue (0-1)
West Virginia (0-0)
Western Michigan (0-1)


Plains Division
E. Michigan (0-1)
Indiana (0-3)
Miami (0-0)
Michigan (1-0)
Michigan St. (1-0)
Oakland (2-0)

Crossover Games (Counts towards season standings)
Pittsburgh vs. Indiana (Pitt won 12-11)
Western Michigan vs. Miami
Purdue vs. Michigan State
Buffalo vs. Oakland (Oakland Won 16-4)
West Virginia vs. Eastern Michigan
Central Michigan vs. Michigan

What are tie breakers?

Head to head? What about head to head non conference games?

i.e. if MSU and W. Va tie, does MSU get in because they beat them head to head, even though it was officially a non-ccla game?

Will there be a plains division champion and a lakes division champion for the regular season?

I would say that if the teams that are tied and play eachother within the CCLA 6 games they are allotted. Then that is how a tie breaker would work, based on the head to head game. If that is not the case.

I would say that a coin toss would be the next thing to do. While it would seem unfair for the lossing team, that is probably what will end up happening.

Scenarios- So if WVU and MSU tied, they would go to a coin toss.

- If Pitt and UM both end up at 6-0 in conference games that count towards the season standings, they would also go with a coin toss to see who would get the #1 seed.

- If MSU and Miami were tied at 3-3, that would go to a tie breaker of the head to head winner, since they play eachother in the regular season.

That seems like the most logical way, not sure if this is all set in stone, but seems like the most feasible and straigtforward.

how about a 3 way tie?

In the past, we have never used a coin toss to decide who gets in. I think its a little "too casual" to decide a season on the flip of a coin.

In the past, the tiebreakers (and George and JP can help me here) were decided by: 1) head to head; 2) best record within the conference; 3) goal differential and 4) goals against (this was being discussed but not ratified).

While I didn't agree with the system, it was used to decide the tiebreaker in 2002 and 2003. In both cases, it came down to goal differential and one team lost out because it had not run up the score in an early season game.

It's something we should really discuss as a league.

Dwayne Hicks
Oakland University

I know I'm coming late to the party, but what is the rationale behind the Lakes/Plains Divisions? Will CCLA-B teams be split into Divisions as well?

I thought we used best overall MDIA record (percentage) in there somewhere as well. Eventually every tiebreaker system has to come down to a coin toss. You try to set it up so there will be no ties, but it's always possible that it can still end up that way, even after all the various tiebreakers are determined. Goal differential should always be low on the tiebreaker list, but you end up having to use it eventually if the other means are all resulting in ties. Even goal differential can end in a tie.

I've asked George Counes to send me the official tie-breaker format that was used last year.

Are there any changes to last year's format or will this year be the same for tie-breakers?

Dwayne Hicks wrote:In both cases, it came down to goal differential and one team lost out because it had not run up the score in an early season game.

It's something we should really discuss as a league.

Dwayne Hicks
Oakland University

Goals allowed should always be put ahead of goal differential. Its never poor sportsmanship to not let the other team score.

Danny Hogan wrote:

Dwayne Hicks wrote:In both cases, it came down to goal differential and one team lost out because it had not run up the score in an early season game.

It's something we should really discuss as a league.

Dwayne Hicks
Oakland University

Goals allowed should always be put ahead of goal differential. Its never poor sportsmanship to not let the other team score.

But what if you play a style that is run-n-gun........that hurts your team because you don't play a style that goes with the tiebreaker. Same goes with goals scored. I think goal differential is alright if you put a cap at 5 goals so anything above 5 goals stays at 5 for tiebreaker purposes.

I like that, it sounds like it will also take away a teams advantage of a weaker schedule and running scores up.