LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

From PNCLL.com

PNCLL Meeting Notice
Please note the PNCLL Annual General Meeting is coming up

* When - Saturday, September 29th 2007
* Time - 12 noon
* Where -Pacific Lutheran University
Leraas Lecture Hall in the Reike Science Center

Just over 3 weeks until the League meeting so let's get everything out on the table now so we aren't there all day.

Thanks Dan for getting this started on your previous thread where you proposed a geographic split for the A division (now D-1) if Montana and WWU were to move up. It'd be great to hear from these teams to know what they are planning on doing as it will affect both Divisions and lead to a lengthy discussion either way.

Does anyone know for sure that there are new teams petitioning to join the PNCLL besides WSU??? If so, who? and what do people think. I've heard rumors of Montana St. and Humboldt St. wanting to join D-2...can anyone validate this? No matter what D-2, will need some discussion as Linfield will not be in the PNCLL this year (per Tim one week ago).

I personally think we should vote again on members of the EB having a vote as it doesn't make sense that they don't. Any thoughts? Arguments for or against?

Then there is the whopper....how to pay for the refs!! Are we still looking at the two options that we had to vote on last year? Has the EB, or anyone else, devised other options?

Any other big proposals that will take a long time? Let's discuss them now so we can just vote in three weeks.

We could probably have a thread for each one!!!

Yeah we definitely need to get some things started. Our team has been trying to budget but we have no idea how to because we are unsure of road trips as we are unclear who is even in the league and who will be in our division, etc.

If Humboldt St. really does want to join they should be contacted ASAP! I know some teams have already played them in scrimmages.

Executive Board members MUST be given votes, for us to elect them and then remove any power of input is irresponsible as a league. Someone needs to get the paperwork ready to amend the constitution/bylaws to put that to a vote at the meeting so we can pass it immediately!

For my 2 cents on the ref contract, I still think the best way is EQUAL rate for everyone, e.g. $350 per team per game. This way those that have to travel 15 miles like WU to WOU will subsidize those unfortunate teams like SOU and UM who have to travel 950 miles to play each other. It would be unfair to create some adjusted number for teams based on location, because then teams like mine would skirt by on the coattails of those further away who are willing to pay more so that MY TEAM can play. We are in this great game together, we should act like it.

Finally again, what is the deal with UMontana in A or B?? This is probably the most crucial element to realignment now that WSU will most likely be joining and Linfield will most likely be gone.

TheBearcatHimself wrote:
Finally again, what is the deal with UMontana in A or B??

I am assuming you mean 1 and 2?

Facts to consider when discussing the ref fee issue:

1. Last year the league paid ref fees for two Oregon OOC games that were played at third-party sites. The first was BYU v. UO played at NDMU ($395.00 in ref fees). The second was CU v. UO played at Arizona State ($435.00). The MCLA ref contract requires the home team league to pay the fees. Oregon was the home team in both games. The refs came from those areas.

2. The ref fees and costs were somewhat contained by scheduling local refs whenever possible. OR refs stayed in OR, WA refs stayed in WA and ID refs stayed in ID. A few games in OR were rescheduled or had fewer than 3 refs due to heavy OOC schedules involving the UO tournament or due to more games being scheduled than there were refs to cover. Refs from other areas were not used due to the cost-- and there were refs available to cover those games.

3. Some games did not get the best refs available because the cost of their travel would be a factor. None were playoff games. See #2 above.

Keith MacFie
PNCLL Ref Assigning Authority

The problem with the Idaho ref's is that they are all in Boise. That still puts our closest officials crew roughly 300 miles away (about the same distance from Moscow to Seattle).

In a perfect world we could mix officials so that we don't get an ID, WA, OR crew. I have concerns about having the same crew calling for the same teams all the time but understand that this is not always practical due to travel.

My greatest concern is that we continue to raise fees for home teams until it becomes too expensive for the eastern schools to stay in the league and end up dropping. At the same time I don't want it to end up costing more to go to one location than another and have schools start trying to play more neutral site games. I still stand by my strong feelings for the importance of home games, especially when our schools offer some (even if it's little) support.

I raised fees this season which should help and hopefully our fund raising efforts will allow us to stay competitive. I'm glad this is being discussed now and look forward to hearing others and their thoughts.

Pinball wrote:I am assuming you mean 1 and 2?

Sorry, not up to date on my jargon, I will correct myself.

Ryan Hanavan wrote:My greatest concern is that we continue to raise fees for home teams until it becomes too expensive for the eastern schools to stay in the league and end up dropping.

If we all pay the same ($350, or applicable amount, per team per game in league) then aren't we all on equal footing??? I think smaller Division 2 schools would be hurt by this issue more, but I think it's the most fair in the end. I proposed this system to HELP the eastern schools not hurt them. In the end it should affect us all equally if we all pay the same. If we create some system where people pay based on how much they have to travel (and I believe we even talked about the league subsidizing some games with saved money??? ) then it will be too uneven a playing field.

We're on the same page Will. My concern is if it goes the other way.

Ryan Hanavan wrote:We're on the same page Will. My concern is if it goes the other way.

My bad, misunderstood. Obviously its a complex issue, I guess we need as many teams to weigh in with concerns before I/we decide.

Question for the powers that be: Does someone need to draft paperwork to vote to update the bylaws?? Or is that being done already?? Just checking so it doesn't go by the wayside.

On the thread about the MCLA Meeting and changes enacted, it was stated that the new Div. 2 would not be considered a "developmental league" but would be reserved for small schools -- they are going to hash out an enrollment figure to replace the current dividing line between the divisions in time for 2009.

If this does come to pass -- and I for one support it -- some of our larger lower-division schools may be forced to move up anyway the following season. Let's say, for argument's sake, that 8,000 undergrads is the dividing line agreed on. Which current Division 2 member schools would have to move up? WWU, CWU and WOU come to mind, but I haven't researched PNCLL enrollment numbers lately.

Perhaps all medium sized public universities currently playing in Division 2 out to at least consider moving up now voluntarily? We could really have a great small school conference in the PNCLL, and an expanded Division 1 could be split geographically into sub-divisions.

Just my two cents...

8000 students at WOU!!!! Wow thats news to me. It must have been a good summer, because last year we had about half that. :D

I think many of these public universities have a perceived larger enrollment than they actually do maintain...

According to uscollegesearch.org, 2007 undergraduate enrollments for these schools are:

WOU: 4,201

SOU: 4,879

CWU: 7,603

WWU: 11,564

I think it is clear which one of these is not like the other...the rest look D2 material to me

I hate to agree with our goalie here Dan, but unfortunately I have to. WOU usually has less than 5,000 undergrads on any given year, however the powers that be could decide the number might be less than 8,000 so maybe we should all be prepared for the option. I knwo that WOU's enrollment size is not the discussion here so I will ask my real question for the post. Was that just a number you threw out Dan? Or has there been a little insider trading on information about this topic? Does anyone have a possible ball park for this number? I am also in favor of the subsidization of game costs, however i am just one man on WOU's exec. so don't count that as a vote from the wolves in either direction. From the stand point of teams joining the league, I am not sure how Montana State is a better candidate for the Pacific Northwest league than it is for the Rocky Mountain league.

as you all know I am sure WSU is attending the meeting again this year and are working on our petition to reenter the league. We are working our powerpoint presentation and hope all goes well. Sorry to make the meeting longer, but we are excited to hopefully be back in the league. See you all in 3 weeks.

Curiosity killing my cat I got you all some more numbers to chew on, courtesy again of uscollegesearch.org 2007 undergraduate enrollments for PNCLL schools (notice some incongruities?):

Division 1 (A, whatever):
Gonzaga: 3,019
Oregon State: 13,766
Oregon: 14,076
Boise State: 14,756
Idaho: 8,759
U Washington: 25,987

Division 2 (B):
Pacific Lutheran: 3,247
U Puget Sound: 2,619
Whitman: 1,424
Lewis and Clark: 1,709
Willamette: 1,749
Albertson: 774 (that's the smallest)

Possible PNCLL teams in the future:
WSU: 16,839
Seattle U : 3,303
Eastern Oregon: 2,545
Eastern Washington: 7,567
U of Portland: 2,512
Humboldt: 6,469

Former PNCLL teams:
Linfield: 1,534
The Evergreen State College: 3,901

Couldn't find Montana or Simon Fraser, I felt way too nerdy looking it all up anyway...