LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

For those of you that missed it, here is the breakdown for the new officiating contract for college lacrosse officials. The most impactful change, you will all see, is the reimbursement rate for referee travel.

These new numbers were published in the US LACROSSE COLLEGIATE OFFICIALS COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER dated December 20, 2006.

You can see the direct link at: http://www.uslacrosse.org/mens_div/mdoc ... lege.phtml


Essentially, game fees have gone up only marginally, but travel fees have gone up exponentially. Unfortunately, we still have a major shortage of officials outside the Portland, Vancouver, Seattle and Tacoma regions.

In some conferences this will be a small issue. But for a conference like ours (that covers two countries and 4 Northwest States), games outside the Interstate-5 corridor are about to get exponentially more expensive.

The bottom line? Our game fee structure will no longer work for our league. We have crunched the numbers, and our league will go bankrupt by March if we don’t make an immediate change to our game fees. This cannot wait until September.

We discussed the possibility of game fee increases at the fall meeting based upon the new MDOC/MCLA officiating contract, but we did not expect such a gigantic increase in referee travel reimbursement.

Here is an example. . .On March 3rd, Montana is playing a game at Gonzaga. The three officials assigned to this game are traveling 274, 287 and 257 miles. The reimbursement rates for these three officials will be $426.11, $437.46 and $411.27 respectively. This single game will cost the PNCLL $1274.84 in game fees. $250 per team, per game will no longer cover these kinds of overages.

For years we have been begging teams to recruit potential officials, especially in Eastern Washington and Montana. The referee shortage is going to cost us substantially more in 2007 than it did in 2006.

As an Executive Board, we have discussed this issue for weeks now, looking for the best and fairest solution to our current crisis. We can not wait until our fall AGM to enact a new policy, so we are asking a representative from each school to vote on one of the following plans to change our fee schedule for the 2007 season. Those votes are not to be posted at collegelax.us but must be emailed to me at jstock6@aol.com. All team representatives will receive an email with all of the details and timelines.

Here are the options:

1. All PNCLL teams share the burden of the new increase. We maintain the current system, but in the event we have an extremely expensive game in our league, the home team covers the additional costs. Fees increase to $350 per team per game played in the conference. Any game that costs the league MORE than $700 total to assign a crew, the difference will be paid by the home team. For example, if UPS at Whitman costs $789 to reimburse the officials, UPS will pay $350 and Whitman will pay $350 + $89 for overages for that contest. For OOC games played in the PNCLL, the home team would pay the entire bill if option 1 is chosen =$700 plus any overages.

2. Home team pays entire game fee. This would be a drastic change. This would significantly change the way we do business in this league, but it may in fact be the fairest way to pay for increased costs. Teams that don’t want to pay the entire game fee can agree to play a neutral site game, in which case the game fees are split evenly between the two teams. The reality? A game between UW and GU might cost the league $1200 in Spokane, but only $425 in Seattle. If GU wants to minimize costs, they can agree to play the home game at a neutral site like Ellensburg. This will also certainly motivate schools to recruit officials in their own back yard, which will cut their own costs dramatically.

With the increased fees, we also have to address games played within our borders that DO NOT include a team from the PNCLL. Typically, the OOC teams are sent a statement and pay $250 each to play games here. These games are great for our league, but they do affect everyone in that they utilize our limited referee pool, which can lead to increased costs at other sites playing on the same date. As a result, we propose that the game fees be split 3 ways - 1/3 paid by the host team, and the teams travelling into our back yards each pay the other 2/3 of the bill. . .which in option 1 would mean a $233 bill to all 3 teams. If option 2 from above is enacted, the amount of the bill would vary based upon actual game fees.

We know these increased costs are going to be extremely difficult on every team in the league. With that, we are prepared as a league to ease this burden by billing out game fees on a monthly basis for those schools that feel the increased costs will cripple them if they were forced to pay the entire bill immediately. It will buy each team some time to raise the additional funds necessary to compete under this new fee structure.

Keep in mind any plan enacted for 2007 will only be utilized for 2007. At our September 2007 A.G.M. we will discuss this issue and enact a plan to utilize for future seasons.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to contact me personally via email at jstock6@aol.com. I will be happy to answer any questions or concerns you have due to the financial increases facing us at this time.

Feel free to discuss this issue openly on this forum. I will announce the plan voted in by the membership on Monday morning.



Thank you for your continued support,

As an FYI, we were discussing this very issue in the Officiating Forum. Here is the direct link:
http://forums.collegelax.us/viewtopic.php?t=6789

Since the fees came to light, the board has been debating our options. We know everyone is going to be effected, it's just by how much? We've all been very curious as to what the individual teams & players will think is our best option?

Obviously we'll re-address this at the league meeting in September.

Sonny wrote:As an FYI, we were discussing this very issue in the Officiating Forum. Here is the direct link:
http://forums.collegelax.us/viewtopic.php?t=6789

So are we allowed to talk about it amongst ourselves on our league board here or must we go there?

Band wrote:So are we allowed to talk about it amongst ourselves on our league board here or must we go there?

Feel free to talk about the PNCLL issue at hand here.

We wanted to generate some debate here before all member teams vote this weekend. Obviously there is much at stake, and the Board wrestled with how to deal with the financial ramifications of the new travel package.

Option #2 is certainly the fairest method for the long term, but in the short run it would likely cause great hardship for the teams in the eastern half of the PNCLL. The basic premise is that when you travel you bear only the cost of doing so. When you host, you pay for the actual cost of getting refs to your field. Under this model, there is going to be created a tremendous incentive to those teams outside the I-5 corridor to actively recruit reffing candidates from their areas to be developed as lacrosse officials. This "carrot-and-stick" approach also removes the "subsidies" paid by all teams for the cost of holding games where there are no refs. This argument can be summed up simply: "Why should Lewis & Clark have to pay extra for a game between Simon Fraser and Montana?"
I suppose one could make the argument both ways to this debate, and we'd like to see that debate here, respectfully, over the next two days.

At the Annual Meeting we will also have to discuss the increased cost of playoff officials, which will likely necessitate a raise in PNCLL dues to cover.

Dan Wishengrad wrote:
Option #2 is certainly the fairest method for the long term, but in the short run it would likely cause great hardship for the teams in the eastern half of the PNCLL. The basic premise is that when you travel you bear only the cost of doing so. When you host, you pay for the actual cost of getting refs to your field. Under this model, there is going to be created a tremendous incentive to those teams outside the I-5 corridor to actively recruit reffing candidates from their areas to be developed as lacrosse officials. This "carrot-and-stick" approach also removes the "subsidies" paid by all teams for the cost of holding games where there are no refs. This argument can be summed up simply: "Why should Lewis & Clark have to pay extra for a game between Simon Fraser and Montana?"
I suppose one could make the argument both ways to this debate, and we'd like to see that debate here, respectfully, over the next two days.

Option 2 would likely force us out of the league, unless we want to play all of our home games at someone else's fields. I think if these fees do increase, our league bylaws should state more clearly that non I-5 schools are obligated to recruit home-grown officials before joining or re-joining the PNCLL. Or possibly consider splitting the league into two separate conferences (eastern and western)? The new eastern branch would then work together to recruit/train their own officials while the western branch wouldn't have to send their officials to cover eastern conference games.

The Moscow/Pullman area will be extremely difficult to find and train referees. Spokane and northern Idaho high school referees would require a lot of work but might be a possibility. Do our referees actively go out and recruit outside of their respective areas? If not I really think we need to re-visit our league constitution and by-laws at the next meeting and clearly define each teams responsibility for recruiting/training referees.

We finally got permission to use our soccer field (the nicest field at UI) for the Oregon State and Oregon games. If we were to sign on to all neutral site games I would suggest we break off of the schools we are associated and just turn into a men's league team. Having home games is a large part of being a University team (even if they are considered a club). It would be really sad to see half of the school get true home games and the other half get lumped together for neutral site games. Neutral site locations are even harder to lock down. I lost a chance for Idaho to play Nevada because of this.

This is all pretty serious stuff. I'm concerned that this might further divide this conference and hope we can come up with a resolution that best fits both eastern and western PNCLL teams. I would rather see continued growth than the division I proposed earlier.

Dan Wishengrad wrote:This argument can be summed up simply: "Why should Lewis & Clark have to pay extra for a game between Simon Fraser and Montana?"

Code: Select all

Ricky: Why do I pay taxes so that other peoples' children can be educated?  Those children aren't mine!

Gary: Well because then those children might have a chance to grow and make something of themselves and contribute to society.

Costs are distributed for the good of the league. It fosters growth and competition.

My coach is right, by the way, option 2 has a great likelihood of forcing Idaho out of the league. More immediately, there is absolutely no way our budget can sustain it this year. Even the increase in option 1 may be impossible to swing. You can't let someone plan their budget for this long and then tell them that they suddenly have to pay more and expect that they will just be able to write a check. What are the logistics of the league taking out a loan to cover the costs in the short term and then increasing dues over the next few years to pay it off?

If there is a split or not the cost of getting officials over to Eastern side of the Mountains remains. The mileage costs mean it could easily cost $1200 to do a game at Idaho & quite frankly it could cost upwards of $2000. Someone has to pay it.

Eastern teams have always had to have larger travel budgets, & used to pay the same in game fees. In the future it may make more sense to request fewer home games (as in 2 or 3). It's not ideal, but neither is an 8k officiating bill + MCLA/League Dues.

Over the past year our dues raised from $150 to $350 & quite frankly I had zero complaints which still shocks me. The bottom line is it needs to be done, & it is possible come up with the extra money. 20 players @ a $200 increase is $4k on short notice... Or it's $50/month (Feb, Mar, Apr, May) which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Ryan, when I was playing (late 90's) & just about every year I can remember the board has asked for official recommendations. When I was playing we didn't take it seriously & would nominate someone that had no intention of doing it. I knew that getting officials to all the games was difficult, but I had no idea what the CAA goes through with such a limited pool. Now that the cost have increased, the CAA's job is exponentially more difficult. If an official gets sick & cannot go to Missoula, someone from Portland may have to travel, adding $600+ to the bill... It's not easy, it's last minute, & it's going to be difficult for everyone. Option #1 is going to increase every team's budget, option 2 is going to put the burden on the outlying teams... And too be fair, the outlying teams are the teams creating the cost. The numbers are ugly anyway you look at it.

I have been most curious of the opinions from these outlying schools, i.e. Montana, Gonzaga, WSU, Idaho, (Albertson is border line with Boise so close), CWU, SOU, & WOU. I don't know how this will pan out, but if any other conferences have suggestions, we need them.

Band wrote:My coach is right, by the way, option 2 has a great likelihood of forcing Idaho out of the league. More immediately, there is absolutely no way our budget can sustain it this year. Even the increase in option 1 may be impossible to swing. You can't let someone plan their budget for this long and then tell them that they suddenly have to pay more and expect that they will just be able to write a check. What are the logistics of the league taking out a loan to cover the costs in the short term and then increasing dues over the next few years to pay it off?

I don't like your education analogy, but I'll leave it alone.

A loan isn't an option, the costs are the costs. They were laid on us when the official's contract was finished, & we've been working out ways to get it done since. We didn't realize how bad it would be across the board until we ran the costs will officials that have accepted the games. You'll have to have a meeting & discuss your solutions, could be a goal-a-thon, could start washing cars, or more likely, you could start calling home. The costs aren't going to go down over the next few years, so a loan would only prolong the problem. You'd also be forcing current HS seniors to pay off your league bill... If that's something Idaho is willing to do, perhaps you should take a look at a team loan... Maybe an alumnus or 10?

Kyle Berggren wrote:20 players @ a $200 increase is $4k on short notice... Or it's $50/month (Feb, Mar, Apr, May) which doesn't seem unreasonable.

An extra $200 out of the blue? That's real unreasonable to ask of our guys! We're supposed to tell our players that dues just jumped from $300 to $500? Most of them had to beg borrow and steal to get the $300, and a few we had to put on payment programs.

Well Mike, what's your suggestion then? We'll take all we can get, a better solution is more than welcome.

Thanks for the response Kyle, this is definitely something we need to address at our fall meeting. I just asked our president about moving UI to Tacoma, WA and it didn't fly!

I honestly don't have too many ideas on this one. Before I took the coaching job here I was looking into becoming an official. I still call our local high school games here in the Spring but I think the guy I work with is getting re-located with his job. This is a pretty small pool to draw from but we have to be able to find someone. My summers are mostly filled with working with the little ones and their parents on playing lacrosse. It's possible some of the parents might jump into the ring but who knows.

I wish I had an easy button??

Kyle Berggren wrote:Well Mike, what's your suggestion then? We'll take all we can get, a better solution is more than welcome.

First of all, any future contract negotiations that will affect team costs need to be held prior to AGMs. That would have helped a lot. I'm sure that's no one's fault but it is a point that needed to be made.

Secondly, I need to point out that the University of Idaho lax club will make every and all efforts to raise the additional money we need to play ball, but the league needs to recognize that our budget began being planned in April of 2006 (thats when we have to submit our funding requests to the university). Coming up with extra on top of the fundraising we are already doing/have done may not be entirely doable. Are we going to get drummed out of the league because we can't come up with an surprise $X000? Questions like that need to be addressed. This may not be the league's fault but it isn't our fault either. We joined expecting to get the same treatment as anyone else.

Edit: Didn't see Kyle's comment on the impossibility of a loan. Removing the suggestion from this post.
Edit2: Is there an itemized projection of fees under both plans for each team under the current schedule? If so could we see it?
Edit 3: Oh, and my solution is to enact option 1 for this year on a trial basis and then reevaulate and vote at the next AGM.

So I got an email today about ref fee increases. The two options essentially put teams outside of the Portland, Seattle/Tacoma, Vancouver, Boise metro areas at a major disadvantage. Basically one option is bad, and the other is totally worse. The worst option for the schools outside of the metro areas will be adopted because it greatly favors more schools in this league. There are only five schools (Idaho, Whitman, GU, UM, and SOU) outside these areas (yeah, I guess Eugene is kind of far from Portland, CWU is kind of far from Seattle). The justification for these options is that it will encourage us to play at half way points like E-burg. Sounds like no one wants to make the extra travel. Well, we don't want to travel every freaking weekend. Why don't we deserve homegames like everyone else? Why don't other schools want to travel? All I hear coming from these league meetings is complaining about traveling. Well, our closest travel is four and a half hours away. Too bad. It's life. This isn't high school lax anymore. We can't help that we are in the middle of nowhere and there is no high school lax here which means there are no refs here. You say recruit local refs. Who wants a ref from Walla Walla reffing a game who has never picked up a stick or seen a game? Come on. I remember when BSU petioned for membership, and all the Seattle teams were saying how the refs there weren't good. So I doubt you'd accept some bozo from Walla Walla reffing games. This shows how selfish this league is. All about me, not about the league. Let's screw the schools who are disadvantaged enough to have to travel way more as it is, and make them pay way more cash. No surprise. This was all drafted by people from teams in the western half of this league. Why don't you try and kill lacrosse over here. Man, I'm mad. Nothing gets me more than selfishness.