LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

Hello everyone.

I know that there will be complaing and moaning about this list because it's made by humans, and can't ever be perfect. I think the biggest moaning will come from CMU who turned in their list about 4 hours late. In reality it was 28 hours late. The committee decided that we have to draw the line somewhere. We were most of the way done with our selections when CMU's votes came in. This in no way diminishes what the players from CMU have accomplished. The voters agreed that there would have been a few changed votes, but over all it wouldn't have been that many.

The process went like this (this is how the bylaws state it should be done): We took submissions from coaches which had the players ranked in order of importance. Then the 3 committee members voted for first, second, and third teams for the following positions:
Attack (3)
Midfield (3)
Defense (3)
Faceoff (1)
Dmid (1)
LSM (1)
Goalie (1)

Three points were awarded to a first team vote, two to a second, and one to a third. The points were tallied. There were a few places where a tie had to be broken. The ties were broken by the committe via a general discussion. I will not disclose where those were in order to maintain the confidentiality of the discussions on the commitee but I will say that the discussions were not long or drawn out. The committee members featured a representitive from the North (Scott Morrison-UMich), the South (Ryan Crawford-Buff) and the vice commisioner (me).

Several teams did not submit any nominations, and thus did not receive any awards.

The honorees are:

Offensive Player of the year: Jared Blechman - Michigan
Defensive Player of the year: Chris Zolkower - Michigan State

First Team
Attack
Adam McCollister Pitt
Brian Loeffler Buffalo
Jared Blechman Michigan

Midfield
Bobby Morales Michigan
Eamonn Brady Pitt
Mark Hammitt Michigan

Defense
Brad Ferriell Michigan
Chris Zolkower Michigan State
Will Clugson Michigan State

D-Mid
Mike Shearman Michigan

Faceoff
Brekan Kohlitz Michigan

LSM
Scott Brittain Michigan State

Goalie
Ryan Kaufman Michigan

Second Team:
Attack
Evan Fox Michigan
Peter Krauss Michigan
Ryan Mierzwa Buffalo

Midfield
Jerzy Zdrojkowski Michigan State
Michael Schumacher Michigan State
Peter Vasher Michigan

Defense
Ben Loefke Buffalo
Riley Turchetti Michigan State
Ryan Kelly Buffalo


D-Mid
David Diehl Michigan State

Face off
Derek Baynton Michigan State

LSM
Owen Lipp Buffalo

Goalie
Matt Kassa Oakland

Third Team
Attack
Brian Baines Michigan State
Brian Kegley Michigan State
Jason Faber Pitt

Midfield
Clint McGuire WVU
Eric Tinti Buffalo
Pat Hogan Indiana
Will Garret WVU

Defense
Craig Bauer WVU
Dave Mercure Oakland
David Mikolagczak Eastern Michigan
Matt Berg Oakland
Zach Elyachar Michigan

D-Mid
Joe Rybny Pitt

Faceoff
Dave Reinhard Michigan

LSM
Andrew Schwing Eastern Michigan

Goal
Jason Reynolds Buffalo


Congratulations!

Would like to thank the Committee for their fine and expeditious work.

A little concerned about the lack of diversity, but recognize that is more a function of the lacksadaisacal attitude of teams in nominating players.

Similarly, very disappointed in the posting of scores and stats on the MCLA site by CCLA --A teams.....Incomplete scores and stats everywhere.......

onetime wrote:Similarly, very disappointed in the posting of scores and stats on the MCLA site by CCLA --A teams.....Incomplete scores and stats everywhere.......

I noticed this with the B division as well. I know the committee reviews the nominations from the coaches of each team. Does the committee way heavily on the MCLA stats as well or do they just review the coach’s submissions? Obviously the reps from the North and South will also have first hand input as they have seen the nominated players in action. Just a few things I noticed in the B division were numerous incidents where the Goalie stats were not entered or were partial (i.e. 0-GA). I also noticed incidents where one team scored 13 goals. However, if you add the individual players’ stats up it comes out to 21 goals. This obviously throws the season leaders off if you go by the MCLA website. Just a lot of inconsistencies I noticed this year. In the end, I’m sure it still works out that everyone deserving gets the proper recognition.

Nice work on getting the awards out so quickly. Also wanted to say congrats to all the A division award winners.

UMD Lax wrote:

onetime wrote:Similarly, very disappointed in the posting of scores and stats on the MCLA site by CCLA --A teams.....Incomplete scores and stats everywhere.......

I noticed this with the B division as well. I know the committee reviews the nominations from the coaches of each team. Does the committee way heavily on the MCLA stats as well or do they just review the coach’s submissions? Obviously the reps from the North and South will also have first hand input as they have seen the nominated players in action. Just a few things I noticed in the B division were numerous incidents where the Goalie stats were not entered or were partial (i.e. 0-GA). I also noticed incidents where one team scored 13 goals. However, if you add the individual players’ stats up it comes out to 21 goals. This obviously throws the season leaders off if you go by the MCLA website. Just a lot of inconsistencies I noticed this year. In the end, I’m sure it still works out that everyone deserving gets the proper recognition.

Nice work on getting the awards out so quickly. Also wanted to say congrats to all the A division award winners.

The commitee used every possible source of information we had at our disposal. Every player that was nominated has been seen by at least one, if not two of the 3 commitee members.

I was also disapointed with the lack of timely nominations. There were at least a few players that I saw from teams that didn't submit nominations that I thought had a chance to make one of the 3 teams.

Overall I'd like to see teams become more organized. I'm not asking that every team run their program like John Paul does, but I'd like to see an effort from programs to step up their organizations.

The good thing about doing everything electronically is that there is a record of who did or did not do things correctly or in a timely manner. I suggest the board go through all the deadlines and keep a record of everything that was late this year and/or incorrect. They can also go through game reports and see who was doing a good job on those and who wasn't. At the very least it is a tool to show which teams need help next year.

I'm not asking that every team run their program like John Paul does, but I'd like to see an effort from programs to step up their organizations.

Agreed. However, remember that we started out exactly like everyone else - as a low-budget student-run club team with more school roadblocks than support. I think what we should be looking for from all CCLA teams is obvious progress every year. Teams that stay the same or step back (organizationally, not competitively) should raise flags and be put on notice. Teams that improve from year to year should be used as examples to everyone.

Not all problems lie with the teams however. I came into my head coaching post after the fall meeting, submitted my contact information to the conference secretary and commissioner--on more than one occasion--and I still don't receive notices/emails/bulletins/etc from the conference. I have to rely on the student club president to forward everything to me. Yes, teams need to progress more consistently, and that comes with having consistency at the helm of each program, but a proper support structure needs to be in place to help them succeed.

It is my experience that the Executive committee has bent over backward in terms of hand-holding new teams in terms of communications.

Yes, the responsibility begins with team presidents and unfortunately, that is where most of the breakdowns occur, since so few teams at the A level most alarmingly, seem to have any adult, post graduate leadership.

Most (okay, way too many) of the teams we dealt with this season had NO head coach, even though league by-laws require it...

Communicating stats and nominees takes moments of time.....but commitment to do it. Sadly, this is where the CCLA is greatly lacking

You're right Ryan. It does go both ways, and I don't disagree at all, nor would anyone on the current board, that the conference still has a lot of room for improvement. However, there are a lot of very fundamental and simple tasks that don't get done by teams - regardless of communications from the conference.

onetime wrote:Most (okay, way too many) of the teams we dealt with this season had NO head coach, even though league by-laws require it...

This is a huge issue that continues to be mainly ignored. Our bylaws REQUIRE head coaches to run the teams, yet many teams are run by student officers or even have no real coach at all (or just a figurehead coach). We continue to excuse this because it's so hard to find a dedicated, capable coach and we, as a conference, sympathize with that difficulty. The catch-22 is that the lack of dedicated coaches is what leads to most of the problems.

This is not to say a student-president can't do an amazing job of running a team or that a coach can't do a poor job. Of course either can happen. But a dedicated coach brings consistency and accountability over a long period of time. Even the best student-officer graduates and leaves the program in a year or two.

We ignore the fact that it's possible to have a satisfying lacrosse experience outside of the CCLA and MCLA for the teams that haven't reached the MCLA level of organization yet (whether it's by choice or not), and by ignoring that we continue to make it difficult for the teams that are organized and the administration that is already stretched thin. Our conference is not alone in this, but we continue to lag behind most of the others.

We need to find solutions - both from the team perspective and the conference perspective.

Most (okay, way too many) of the teams we dealt with this season had NO head coach, even though league by-laws require it...

The same can be said for the B division, excluding the most comment. Our experience has been that many teams allow players (presidents) to handle communication even when they have a head coach. This structure can work.....ask St. Johns, but they have the logistics worked out with their adult coaches.

Every team that MSU played this year had a head coach. If you play a game against a team that does not have a head coach it is your responsibility to report them to the leauge.