PNCLL D2 2009

[Timbalaned]

*edit* posted twice somehow.

[AndyP]

[quote="Dan Wishengrad"]

While I agree that SFU is a "draw", teams have committed to come to Seattle before we ever even invited the Clansmen to participate, Nate. The best HIT to date didn't even include SFU -- it was when we had MInnesota-Duluth, Cal-Poly and Utah. A big part of the draw is coming to Seattle itself, and even more the chance to play inside the best indoor facility in the MCLA. The HIT began in 2004, and SFU hasn't been an elite national team since 2001, until this year that is. quote]

I agree the HIT is a "hit" (pardon the pun) regardless of SFU's participation. It's a highly anticipated event that gets a lot of attention throughout the MCLA.

I don't agree SFU hasn't been an elite team since '01. In my mind, if you make it to the National Tournament you're an Elite team. The only years SFU hasn't been among the MCLA's elite are the years Oregon WAS (05, 06, 07).

I'm sure Jeff, Brent, Marilyn and the rest of the SFU crew greatly appreciate your annual invitations Dan. It's a win win situation that I doubt anyone would want to lose. SFU needs that tournament to get some much needed and highly publicized OOC games.

[Timbalaned]

Was going to quote something, but can't find it now, but oh well. I have been a huge proponent of splitting D1 for a long time and I think it would benefit the league as a whole.

West (I-5)
SFU
UW
PSU(?)
OSU
UO

East
WSU
Boise
Idaho
Gonzaga
Montana

Top two teams make playoffs from each division. Though it may seam stacked now, you don't make your leagues to the strength now, that stuff can change, you make it to the best fit economically and physically. (If Portland State comes in D1, but them in the West and there you go) Everyone plays the teams in their division and you can schedule all the other games you want, but DON'T HAVE TO. This lets everyone play their traditional games if they like, and if not, then you can get your conference games over and then play out of conference. It really makes sense in terms of safety (sketchy travels over the mountains in late january/february) and economics (gas, hotels, getting refs out there). It is time for the PNCLL D1 to do this.

*remembered what I was going to quote. Nate, I think people are all about the Seattle Tournament cause A) as much as I hate all things husky, they put on a good tournament and get other good teams to come even if the husky's are bad as you say. B) Seattle is a huge hub and easy/cheap to get in and out of. C) Seattle is a cool city to go check out for other schools like Utah and Duluth. SFU being there is now just an added bonus, but I wouldn't say it hinges on SFU.

[AndyP]

Was going to quote something, but can't find it now, but oh well. I have been a huge proponent of splitting D1 for a long time and I think it would benefit the league as a whole.

West (I-5)
SFU
UW
PSU(?)
OSU
UO

East
WSU
Boise
Idaho
Gonzaga
Montana

Top two teams make playoffs from each division. Though it may seam staked now, you don't make your leagues to the strength now, that stuff can change, you make it to the best fit economically and physically. (If Portland State comes in D1, but them in the West and there you go) Everyone plays the teams in their division and you can schedule all the other games you want, but DON'T HAVE TO. This lets everyone play their traditional games if they like, and if not, then you can get your conference games over and then play out of conference. It really makes sense in terms of safety (sketchy travels over the mountains in late january/february) and economics (gas, hotels, getting refs out there). It is time for the PNCLL D1 to do this.

Yes! Somebody please make this happen.

[Ryan Hanavan]

A big part of the draw is coming to Seattle itself, and even more the chance to play inside the best indoor facility in the MCLA.

It will be great once the Kibbie Dome renovations are complete at UI. That will create a scenario where Idaho will be capable of hosting OOC games in January/February. This is key for a rebuilding WSU who can lock in to OOC teams committed to playing Idhao. It's really nice to have two eastern PNCLL teams 8 miles apart.

[TheBearcatHimself]

OK I just hatched a brain-child here. Take Brauck's suggested two division split, assuming PSU is sent to D1. Now take this D1 and D2 Alignment scenario.

D1:
West - PSU, UO, OSU, UW, SFU
East - UI, GU, WSU, UM, BSU

Play each team in division once, then play 2 from other division on rolling basis (if want a detailed breakdown PM me, it works I promise) Gives 6 Conf Games

Playoffs: Each division champ in, best overall record from last two are in. If you want to argue for six teams be my guest, that is rather interchangeable with this system.

D2:
North - WWU, UPS, PLU
South - WU, WOU, SOU
East - CWU, Whit, CofI

Play each team in division home and home. Play one team from each other division, e.g. WWU from North plays WU from South and CWU from East (one of those home, one away). Gives 6 conf games

Playoffs: 3 division champs make playoffs, best overall record of rest of teams is wild card.

Both layouts guarantee each team 3 home conference games and three road conference games!

What's the best part about this system?? PSU and WWU are interchangeable, so if PSU somehow gets voted into D2 and WWU voted to D1, it still works, however I think it will be much more likely the opposite happens.

IMHO that is a great setup, if you want a detailed breakdown with a fully worked out "dummy schedule" that I've made, PM me.[/b]

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

D2:
North - WWU, UPS, PLU
South - WU, WOU, SOU
East - CWU, Whit, CofI

This split is great geographically, but I have a hard time with teams vying for playoff positions and being compared to one another with unequal schedules. If WWU, UPS and PLU are all vying for the North title, they need to play the exact same teams.

If in your scenario Will we have UPS play WOU and Whitman with it's interdivisional games, but WWU gets Willamette and CofI - I can't see using these two games to determine who does and doesn't make the playoffs.

You just can't compare apples and oranges.

And I like the 6 playoff team format with 10 teams. Honestly, what did it hurt to have Whitman and SOU in the playoffs?-- It actually made the playoffs more interesting. . .With only 9 teams I'd lean towards 4 playoff spots.

[TheBearcatHimself]

This split is great geographically, but I have a hard time with teams vying for playoff positions and being compared to one another with unequal schedules. If WWU, UPS and PLU are all vying for the North title, they need to play the exact same teams.

If in your scenario Will we have UPS play WOU and Whitman with it's interdivisional games, but WWU gets Willamette and CofI - I can't see using these two games to determine who does and doesn't make the playoffs.

You just can't compare apples and oranges.

And I like the 6 playoff team format with 10 teams. Honestly, what did it hurt to have Whitman and SOU in the playoffs?-- It actually made the playoffs more interesting. . .With only 9 teams I'd lean towards 4 playoff spots.

Jason, I completely agree with 6 teams in the playoffs. I know some have mentioned it a little negatively on here earlier, but that most likely was due to there only being 9 in D1 this season. Personally, I don't view it as 60% making the playoffs, I view it as giving an extra two teams a chance to make the final four.

As for saying WWU would get a "weak" draw, I think this was somewhat addressed with our layout debate this past season. People were afraid of that in D1 with the proposed split (that never happened with no WWU). However, as was concluded in the meeting, you cannot assume the same teams will always be the strongest. While yes, a team can theoretically "get lucky" and get teams that laxpower says are weaker than others, however the point of my system is to get teams playing teams from other divisions, or "regions" in the PNCLL. If a team is weaker that season, so be it.

The same argument can be made that if WWU gets a season where PLU and UPS are the worst teams in the league, they get 4 "easy wins" while no one else gets that many games against those opponents. It is an inherent problem, and it proves that no system will ever be perfect when you don't play every team. However, I would argue that if this scenario played out with WWU against a weak division, it would still serve its purpose beautifully by sending the best team from the North division to the playoffs. The playoffs will decide who is truly the best. Even in our format this year, the regular season told us CWU was better than Whitman and should win, however Whitman won in the playoffs (yeah I just opened that can of worms again ).

The unfortunate reality is that we have grown where playing every team becomes a logistical nightmare for all the teams and the league (though we did pull it off this season it can be smoother I believe). I believe this divisional system would be best for the teams and the league.

An alternate proposal that could work in my system, would be to play each intra-divisional opponent once, then play 4 inter-divisional games. Each team would see 6 teams, and have 6 games with conference opponents. I personally like livening the local rivalries, but that's just my taste. Taste should not dictate what is best.

[Kyle Berggren]

Just a thought, not a suggestion, a draw could work. Pair travel partners, & draw their schedule out of a hat. As much as I hated how difficult it was to schedule D1 & D2, I liked playing everyone. It's easy to give teams the Month of March to schedule OOC games (which has been a thought), & schedule league play late February & April.

[nhoskins]

While I agree that SFU is a "draw", teams have committed to come to Seattle before we ever even invited the Clansmen to participate, Nate. The best HIT to date didn't even include SFU -- it was when we had Minnesota-Duluth, Cal-Poly and Utah. A big part of the draw is coming to Seattle itself, and even more the chance to play inside the best indoor facility in the MCLA. The HIT began in 2004, and SFU hasn't been an elite national team since 2001, until this year that is.

I believe we upset Colorado in 2003, before losing to Sonoma in round two. I don't know if that made that SFU team an elite national team or not. If not, then I would say the PNCLL's only "elite national teams" would be SFU in 1999 and UO in 2007. The ineligible SFU team of 2001 was the best I played on.

LOL the irony here is that there have been other PNCLL teams who have asked to come to Seattle to play in Dempsey for our event and I've invited SFU instead because the Clan has so much trouble getting teams to travel to Canada for OOC games, and I try to help my neighbors to the North. Now you are saying that it is SFU itself that "drives" the HIT. Hmmmmm, maybe I should not invite your alma mater in the future and we'll see if teams are still willing to come anyway?

Now Marilyn is definately going to cut me out of the will, Dan! It's bad enough that I'm a Bronco now and coach against SFU, now I'm ruining their OOC schedule?

As far as your other post about my agenda to expand the D1 playoffs, you can believe what you want to. The truth is my lobbying for a 6-team playoff had virtually nothing to do with my own team. I can and do "wear more than one hat", and sometime try to consider what is good for the entire membership as a PNCLL executive and not just my own team. We have six of ten D2 teams going to playoffs, but only four of nine D1 teams. That doesn't seem fair to me, but I was out-voted. Fine. It won't be the last time I advocate a position which doesn't carry the day.

Where the Huskies are concerned, our ultimate goal (like most teams) is to win the PNCLL -- not just go to playoffs and get eliminated in the first round. I will advocate for an expanded D1 playoffs again this year, and if you want to believe that it is only to sneak U-Dub into the final slot you are free to do so.

I don't think that you had an agenda at all, Dan. You voiced some good arguments which I still disagree with, not based on the Huskies, but rather that I don't feel >50% of a league's teams should make playoffs. I just found it funny that whether it had been a 6 team or 4 team playoff, UW would have been in.

[nhoskins]

Was going to quote something, but can't find it now, but oh well. I have been a huge proponent of splitting D1 for a long time and I think it would benefit the league as a whole.

West (I-5)
SFU
UW
PSU(?)
OSU
UO

East
WSU
Boise
Idaho
Gonzaga
Montana

Top two teams make playoffs from each division.

With this format, the Final Four would have been SFU (1), UO (2), Montana (3), and Gonzaga (4).

That's almost the same as it was this season, although UW would have been out. The only flaw really, in terms of this season, is that OSU and UW would have much better records than the 3-5 Zags, and would be on the outside looking in. In the WCLL, this is the same situation with their divisions being 'unbalanced' program-wise.

[nhoskins]

Just a thought, not a suggestion, a draw could work. Pair travel partners, & draw their schedule out of a hat. As much as I hated how difficult it was to schedule D1 & D2, I liked playing everyone. It's easy to give teams the Month of March to schedule OOC games (which has been a thought), & schedule league play late February & April.

Is that you volunteering to schedule next year too because you like enjoy it so much?

[Mark Brown]

The split will completely depend on how things go w/ PSU and WWU. If WWU is forced to move up then there are 8 teams in D2 and we have an easy 4-4 split. If WWU and PSU are in the D2 then we have a 5-5 split. Point being we need to figure this out before we can talk alignments. This effects both the D1 and D2 and everyone will have a vote on it. It'd be great to debate this and know where everyone stands BEFORE THE MEETING. This could lead to being able to figure out division alignments, etc., before the meeting so we aren't there forever. I will be sending an email to team reps that don't appear to frequent this forum to get them in on the debate.
If you are the one that will be casting your vote at the AGM and already know how you will vote on these topics please post it.
Will, as for your proposed split, thanks for doing the work. I'm not in favor of forcing teams to play each other twice in the same season. I'd rather be paying for refs and travel to play OOC games or other PNCLL teams. Just my opinion.

[TheBearcatHimself]

Agreed, if we don't know how teams feel about PSU then we are just scribbling our plans in the sand for no good reason. If we know the fate of PSU, then our whole system can be set up pre-meeting, thus saving our 7 hours on that lovely Saturday in September.

As for D2, I don't think we need to force playing a team twice, I just liked it that season in 05, thought it gave it some spice. D2 looks like we can have a decent geographic split no matter what happens, we just need to get it resolved. WWU being NCAA DII in athletics leads me to believe it will be hard to get them up to D1, so they are probably in D2 for the long haul, and we'll just need to grin and bear it. As for PSU, they certainly fall into that loathsome gray area.

The PNCLL can set an important precedent with PSU, I think we should all scratch our heads long and hard to come up with the correct solution.

[Kyle Berggren]

It really shouldn't be that hard. Is the D2 a developmental league? If you answer no it's for smaller schools... then problem solved. We aren't creating divisions based on team strengths, it's not developmental, so put them where they belong, don't force them on the rest of us.

C of I (800 students) should not have to compete against a school that out numbers them more than 10 to 1.

My fear is that teams will vote on what is in their own best interest (yet again), & not in the best interest of the conference. Everyone has their own opinions, that's fine, but maybe it's time we gave the power to our non-affiliated paid president. If we want to vote PSU in, great, we discuss, vote if we want, & follow the president's leadership/decisions during his or her term.