WCLL Division 2 Champion

[buffalowill]

Jason,
I think the problem is the mentality in the WCLL that div. b is for second tier or beginning teams. I am not taking down on the B-division, there have been MANY good b-teams in a given season, but this in my perception. Just look at USD and Claremont, two very good B-division teams who excelled nationally, "moving" up. With so many teams grandfathered in, I do not think that the "small school" division will ever "work"...at least not in the way it was intended.
I do not know if there even is a correct decision or solution to be made. Tough task for the board.

Colonel Sanders

[Chris Larson]

The longevity of the WCLL as an organization has cultivated a strong sentiment that any split is based on talent.

The current administration understands what the MCLA is trying to do, but it will take time to change long-standing perceptions.

[SDSULAX]

Lars, you are absolutely correct!

[Maple Leaf]

The longevity of the WCLL as an organization has cultivated a strong sentiment that any split is based on talent.

The current administration understands what the MCLA is trying to do, but it will take time to change long-standing perceptions.

Chris i think you are missing this point... at this point it isn't practical to split the WCLL based upon school size. I agree that it makes sense in principle to separate the divisions based upon school size, because in general the large schools field stronger teams than smaller schools. That makes complete logical sense and would even the playing field.

In reality, however, for the WCLL it is just not practical. In fact, almost the exact opposite is true, the large schools have inferior teams with poor infrastructure, while smaller schools seem to succeed.

I completely understand what the MCLA is trying to accomplish. However, i believe the WCLL should do what is best for the conference, not what is best for the MCLA. I cannot see how decimating Div. 2 by forcing teams to move up and get crushed is in the best interest of the players, teams, league or the game.

My question is why should the board of the WCLL just tow the line for the rest of the MCLA, while taking a stance that is not beneficial for its teams.

Nobody would suggest that moving Chapman and Claremont (as an example) back down to division 2, and moving UNLV, UCI, UCSC, SJSU, and CSFU to division 1 is an improvement.

The problem that i see coming is the MCLA adopting an enrollment limit, and then forcing large schools to move up to Division 1. Allowing teams to "play down" in division 2, while not being eligible for playoffs is simply not a hybrid solution to the problem. That may work well for other conferences, but to have 5 of 10 teams not eligible for playoffs would be a joke, and possibly result in the removal of the AQ. The other outcome would be to have teams play Division 1 before they are ready to compete.

I don't have a magical solution to the problem, but to simply dismiss the issue as in the best interest of the MCLA is also not a wise choice for the WCLL.

just my $.02

[Timbalaned]

[ The other outcome would be to have teams play Division 1 before they are ready to compete.

This right here is the problem with your argument. It isn't supposed to be developmental. If a team is not ready to compete then just be an independent club. You can still schedule games with WCLL teams and travel if you please, but don't join the WCLL or the MCLA. The league as a whole is trying to get away from the idea of the Division 2 being a place where teams "get ready to compete" and then move to their appropriate areas. Be ready to compete, then join the league. This will stop the idea of D 2 being developmental.

[SDSULAX]

The WCLL is doing just that with teams applying for admission, first show us you can perform. It takes a lot of time and effort to bring teams along, but we are not planning on cutting loose member teams because they are having issues, we just don't have to keep compounding the issue.

[bulax6]

Do we have any idea how many teams are trying to enter the league next year? In either D1 or D2?

[Chris Larson]

The longevity of the WCLL as an organization has cultivated a strong sentiment that any split is based on talent.

The current administration understands what the MCLA is trying to do, but it will take time to change long-standing perceptions.

Nobody would suggest that moving Chapman and Claremont (as an example) back down to division 2, and moving UNLV, UCI, UCSC, SJSU, and CSFU to division 1 is an improvement.

Two things.

First. You use the terms "move down" to D2. That's a perception problem.

Second. It might be an interesting idea to place all teams in the appropriate division based on size. This means Sonoma/UCSB?/Chapman and Duluth/Lindenwood/Simon Fraser? playing at the D2 level. Nothing would stop D1/D2 games - other than the perception that there is a competitive difference between the two divisions

[buffalowill]

Chris,
Yes, at the root it is a perception problem that will be VERY difficult to change.

Also, redoing the count the only schools in the WCLL Div I with IA football programs are: The 6 PAC-10 schools, plus Nevada and SDSU.
That means out of the 20 DI schools, only 8 would qualify for MCLA DI under the current guidelines, correct? Is DI AA included?

Also, I am sure UCSB would be included in DI (NCAA DI athletics program and nearly 20,000 students).

If anyone is familiar with collegiate club hockey, namely the ACHA which is similar to the MCLA, please chime in on how they distinguish their DI, DII and DIII divisions.

[Sonny]

Also, I am sure UCSB would be included in DI (NCAA DI athletics program and nearly 20,000 students).

Under the current rules, they would be MCLA D2 as they don't have a NCAA Division 1-A football team at UCSB.

[Karl Lynch]

I think the MCLA definition of DI and DII is being misunderstood.

Correct me if I am wrong and JP may want to jump in here, the MCLA defines DI only. Furthermore, the MCLA does not restrict a school from being DI if it does not have football.

The definition says if you have football you are DI. It does not say that if you do not have footbal you are DII. That is a big distinction.

UCSB, Chapman, Sonoma are not DII teams nor would they be unless the WCLL or the MCLA forced a reclassification on them, which neither party ever will.

[SDSULAX]

This is from the Draft MCLA Operating Procedures, modified to change the designations A & B only to correspond with current designations.
"(a) MCLA sanctioned play shall be divided into conferences. Each conference shall have a minimum of 10 teams, which may be divided into separate “1” and “2” divisions (each, a “Division”). Teams in each conference will be separated into Divisions based on the NCAA designation of the varsity football team of the institutions at which teams are located. Teams at institutions with NCAA Division 1-A football teams will be placed in Division 1, all others will be placed in Division 2. Teams may petition their conference, in accordance with applicable conference regulations, to be placed in a different Division. " It is clear to me.

[Chris Larson]

Guys,

I'm not suggesting anything drastic. The MCLA is still trying to decide if a division based on student population is appropriate.

I'm merely discussing some ideas and challenging the way people might have thought about things. Discussion only - no policy.

Friends?

CL

[SDSULAX]

Friends

[Kadillac]

In fact, almost the exact opposite is true, the large schools have inferior teams with poor infrastructure, while smaller schools seem to succeed.

The second best team in WCLL A is ASU. Also, the biggest school in the WCLL...

Cal has been very successful in the past as well...