Portland State Team?

[Dan Wishengrad]

New teams are generally short on numbers and the league should place the team where they are going to be somewhat competitive with the majority of the teams.

The divisional split is NOT supposed to be based on competitive level. The notion of dumping big schools into DII for purely competitive reasons is antiquated thinking.

Yes, if the MCLA sticks with DI football/no DI football as the dividing line, then of course a school like PSU would qualify in DII, even with the largest student body of any college in the Pacific Northwest.

But please let's everyone stop this "old" thinking that DI is for competitive lacrosse and DII is for crappy teams.

[vikingslax]

Super interesting posts gentlemen. We are planning on filing paper work for the 08-09 season. We have had some great games this year, and really hope that we have shown the league that we are for real. We have a roster of 23, and have just acquired Jay Mayes (Gettysburg/Lumberjax office staff) as a coach. We traveled well this year, and were prepared to at home with refs, and scoring staff. The school is 100% behind us (i even won student leader of the year), and we are getting sponsorship through Harrow. The team is playing summer ball together, and will return to regular practice in the fall.

We would like to be placed into DII for a couple years (San Jose state did this) as we are not a traditional school. the 26,000 is misleading as we have lots of older post bach students. This would allow our program to be competitive and give us time to increase recruitment of new players. Placing us into the DI would only discourage guys from throwing down hundreds of dollars to only play games where we will be crushed 20-3. We played OSU and Gonzaga this year, and both were complete blow outs. This is not the way to build the league. Guys from the metro area will continue to leave the city and join clubs like UofO, and OSU so they can be on a winning team. But if we can have some success we will be able to draw in more metro kids. This is just my 2 cents.

Thanks to all that hosted us, and came to play in PDX. Hope we will be voted in.

JT

[Timbalaned]

While I agree that PSU would fare much better in D2 right now than D1, you have to look at Dan's post and see that the split is not for a developmental league. Maybe there needs to be a D-league added so teams that want to play and learn can and then they can join the league they are supposed to be in. Or just compete for a few years as an independent and then join, but also there you are going to have issues gettin guys to pay when they don't get a chance at tournaments and awards. Tough situation.

[TheBearcatHimself]

New teams are generally short on numbers and the league should place the team where they are going to be somewhat competitive with the majority of the teams.

The divisional split is NOT supposed to be based on competitive level. The notion of dumping big schools into DII for purely competitive reasons is antiquated thinking.

Yes, if the MCLA sticks with DI football/no DI football as the dividing line, then of course a school like PSU would qualify in DII, even with the largest student body of any college in the Pacific Northwest.

But please let's everyone stop this "old" thinking that DI is for competitive lacrosse and DII is for crappy teams.

Exactly, Dan, great post. The problem with having D2 be probationary or "developmental" for large schools is there is no protocol for determining when they are "ready" to go to D1, if ever. There is no proverbial meat thermometer stuck in the team measuring when they are just the right temperature to move up to not get blown out anymore.

ACTUAL NUMBERS
Everybody please look at these numbers, and you can find them and information on all undergraduate and graduate enrollments for any university at www.uscollegesearch.org

Portland State University 2004-2007 average enrollment for undergrads was 13,625.

Far less than the 26,000 being thrown around, HOWEVER it is 2,000 more than Western Washington University, a team that has continually excelled at the D2 level since their move down. By comparison, a new D1 team last year, WSU has 16,839 students. Very comparable numbers to PSU. If they are forced to enter D1 and "get crushed" then why would we use different criteria with PSU?? Like Mark Brown already said, Portland is a far greater hotbed for lacrosse than Pullman I can't say for certain, but it is highly likely once the team is in place that students will flow in simply by osmosis.

As a league regarding divisional split, we cannot continue to be hypocritical and place teams where they would like to be. This is detrimental both to individual team development, and by extension the development of the league and the MCLA as a whole. I have been a broken record for the past year, but I'll keep going: We MUST institute a divisional split criterion of 10,000 undergraduate students. There is no team currently in the league within 1,000 of this marker, so it CANNOT affect any one team adversely.

For the record, Gonzaga only has 3,019 undergraduates and competes every year at D1. And San Jose State is STILL at the D2 level and is being punished every year by being ineligible for the post-season because they are supposed to be in D1.

[wheelz33]

While I agree that PSU would fare much better in D2 right now than D1, you have to look at Dan's post and see that the split is not for a developmental league. Maybe there needs to be a D-league added so teams that want to play and learn can and then they can join the league they are supposed to be in. Or just compete for a few years as an independent and then join, but also there you are going to have issues gettin guys to pay when they don't get a chance at tournaments and awards. Tough situation.

As long as teams such as Montana/San Diego move up as soon as they win a DII championship, and teams such as Utah St/Alabama play "down" cause they cant hang with the big boys, that perception will remain. To force PSU to play in DI while others do not have to seems unfair for many reasons. This subject has been debated in many forums, but a decision needs to be made about what the line is, and force all teams to be in DI or DII based on those lines. Cause right now the split IS for a developmental league, whether it is described as one or not.

[Chris Larson]

You can set an example of embracing the idea of D2 for small schools only and ensure that this idea is not comprimised in your conference. If you're successful, other conferences and the MCLA can use you as an example of how it can and does work.

[PNWLaxer]

I missed a crucial point to my earlier post. If the team is D I by the standard set out then this is the caveat I would put out there. Let the team find its legs in D II for max 2 years, after 2 years they are in D I. My thinking was not that new teams are crappy but long term thinking, where will they be in 5-10 years. I think they would be better off if the league allowed them to play 1-2 years in D II before they were forced into DI if that is what they are mandated to play right away.

The first year from what I can remember the team is on probation so it doesn't really matter what division they are in.

I just do not agree with the throw them in the deep end and let them survive if they can philosophy that we have seen so far. In the past few years we have seen established as well as new teams sink.

A lot of the new teams are headed up by upperclassmen by the time the league lets them in and they get everything in place those that originally organized the team are graduated and gone within a year or two with no support coming up from the younger guys.

Since the inception of the DII league there has only been 1 team that has come in as a 'new' team to my knowledge that has really been really strong right away in their league, Westminster. I do not know why people are afraid to allow a new team to play in DII for a year or two. The only comment that seems to keep coming up is DII is not for development, its for small schools. That thinking to me is very short sighted and there is no long term vision in place for new teams coming int.

There has to be a place for good development somewhere in this league and I just do not get how development can take place when you are continually getting beat by 10 and 20 goals.

[Mark Brown]

Will, thanks for doing the research! Someone just told me they had 26,000 students and I believed them and threw the # out there like I knew what I was saying. I won't do that again.

As for it being short-sighted thinking to place a team where they belong from the start, well I'm not sure how that is true. It does make the D2 developmental which we, the smaller schools, don't want it to be. Is NCAA D-3 a developmental league? Any school in the D1 can schedule as many games as they want to w/ D2 teams. If PSU joined the D1 it would make 10 teams and I'd bet they would vote to split the League into 2 sections and only be required to play teams in their section. That would leave plenty of room for scheduling D2 games while gaining the valuable experience of playing the teams that are more similar to your school.
If PSU is planning on playing in the D2 for a couple of years and then moving to the D1 I'm against it, again not a developmental league. If they only have 13,000 students and want to play in, and stay in, the D2 then I'm not against it since it would be an unfair precedent considering the #'s of WWU.

I do agree w/ Will that it'd be nice to have a better definition of what makes a D1 vs. D2 team. The football criteria does not work. The MCLA BOD made it very clear that they are not interested in changing this rule and they want each League to place teams accordingly if it appears the D1 football criteria doesn't work in their league. From what I can tell all of the leagues just cater to the wishes of the respective teams. We could be the first league in the MCLA to set a different standard, anyone else interested?

[vikingslax]

I missed a crucial point to my earlier post. If the team is D I by the standard set out then this is the caveat I would put out there. Let the team find its legs in D II for max 2 years, after 2 years they are in D I. My thinking was not that new teams are crappy but long term thinking, where will they be in 5-10 years. I think they would be better off if the league allowed them to play 1-2 years in D II before they were forced into DI if that is what they are mandated to play right away.

The first year from what I can remember the team is on probation so it doesn't really matter what division they are in.

I just do not agree with the throw them in the deep end and let them survive if they can philosophy that we have seen so far. In the past few years we have seen established as well as new teams sink.

A lot of the new teams are headed up by upperclassmen by the time the league lets them in and they get everything in place those that originally organized the team are graduated and gone within a year or two with no support coming up from the younger guys.

Since the inception of the DII league there has only been 1 team that has come in as a 'new' team to my knowledge that has really been really strong right away in their league, Westminster. I do not know why people are afraid to allow a new team to play in DII for a year or two. The only comment that seems to keep coming up is DII is not for development, its for small schools. That thinking to me is very short sighted and there is no long term vision in place for new teams coming int.

There has to be a place for good development somewhere in this league and I just do not get how development can take place when you are continually getting beat by 10 and 20 goals.

This is the most intelligent view on the subject that I have heard. PSU will play in any division we are allowed to play in, but we would have greater success by being able to start off in DII and get a chance at a few wins. We already have lost to many of the DII schools, and next year won't be much different. If Montana was able to play up based on ability I don't see why new teams regardless of school size shouldn't be allowed to play in the division their skill set is matched for. It is not only better for the new teams, but for the seasoned division I teams as well. I am not sure how it would benefit UofO to play us and beat us by 20. They learn nothing, and we learn nothing. IF there is no set criteria then shouldn't the teams within the league get to vote on this, didn't they have to vote to let Montana move up? If the PNCLL wants teams to stick around then they need to make it enjoyable for the players, and coaches. I know my guys are ready to play no matter what, but would have a lot more fun if we could have some competitive games. We played Willamette and had a blast, PLU we lost but no one minded, but when we played Gonzaga it was a little bit of a bummer to take such a beating.

[IndianaJones]

If the PNCLL wants teams to stick around then they need to make it enjoyable for the players, and coaches.

I'm confused. Is Portland State applying to join the PNCLL or is the PNCLL applying to join Portland State?

[Kyle Berggren]

Well, we should all think about what we want D2 to be for the PNCLL... We have a blank slate, with a D1 Football mandated split. We can build or enforce that anyway we want, but think about what it is, & should be...

In my eyes, it's for smaller schools... If schools don't have the structure to stay afloat year after year, the PNCLL isn't a good option for them. We should be here to service our member teams, not develop other teams to help grow our 19 team conference. We should make an effort to become the best we can be, & have the opportunity to set a standard for the MCLA with decisions made at this years AGM.

As for Portland State facts.... Their website, http://www.pdx.edu/profiles/13427/, shows

Total 24,284
Undergraduate 18,012
Graduate 6,272

56% are listed as full-time... which is probably why you're getting different figures. I'm sure if Ben Sadler attended PSU part time, there would be lots of pressure to get him eligible to play...

[vikingslax]

If the PNCLL wants teams to stick around then they need to make it enjoyable for the players, and coaches.

I'm confused. Is Portland State applying to join the PNCLL or is the PNCLL applying to join Portland State?

Very funny . My point was that guys want to have a good time after shelling out money to play. I know this is a very competitive league, and we are very serious about making a strong team at PSU, but no one will want to stick around, or come onto a team that takes a beat down in every game. For positive growth to happen you have to positive experiences. The idea of having divisions is so teams can play on even ground is it not? If that is the case then I do not see why the decision to place a team into a division is not based on their skill set, and game record.

[Dan Wishengrad]

If PSU bases their bid to join the PNCLL on being placed in the small school division, count me as a no vote on admission. We want DII to be a division where the truly small schools -- like College of Idaho and Whitman -- can compete against their traditional rivals for the rights to go to playoffs/nationals. Portland State is not a small college, it participates in NCAA Division I in every other sport, I believe. IMHO WWU should be moved up to DI also, and permanently.

That being said, however, there is nothing to prevent Portland State from scheduling some non-conference games and/or scrimmages against DII schools.

[TheBearcatHimself]

IMHO WWU should be moved up to DI also, and permanently.

That being said, however, there is nothing to prevent Portland State from scheduling some non-conference games and/or scrimmages against DII schools.

Amen to WWU to D1.

Also, for the record, D1 vs. D2 games are not counted as scrimmages, they count as non-divisional games that do go on your record. When Willamette lost to Stanford this season, it was a non-divisional loss that went on our final record (Stanford got a non-divisional win).

We should be here to service our member teams, not develop other teams to help grow our 19 team conference.

Crucial, crucial, crucial point Kyle!! I applaud this point over and over, we are already a very healthy AND large conference!! We are not required to admit any new teams, and based off our recent scars of Linfield and Lewis and Clark, I think we should be very hesitant to do so. Let's get our current teams straight (e.g. setting a rigid enrollment marker) and then we can discuss where to put new teams.

If Portland State is uncomfortable with a full D1 schedule, they can play another probationary season against more D1 opponents. Or if they do wish to gain full membership in D1, they can play the 6 D1 games and then schedule 5 or 6 D2 games so that they theoretically have more likelihood of winning. It is important to note it is not the league's mission to guarantee "likelihood of winning."

If the PNCLL wants teams to stick around then they need to make it enjoyable for the players, and coaches. I know my guys are ready to play no matter what, but would have a lot more fun if we could have some competitive games. We played Willamette and had a blast, PLU we lost but no one minded, but when we played Gonzaga it was a little bit of a bummer to take such a beating.

Regarding this point, I will only say that if it hadn't been for the tough love that the league showed our school when we forfeited in 2006, I do not think myself nor my team would have had the impetus to improve like we have. My team got blown out regularly for 3 years, then we got our CRAP together and got better. I unfortunately have little sympathy over the fear of losing since it was a reality my team and others were forced to deal with.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

You can set an example of embracing the idea of D2 for small schools only and ensure that this idea is not comprimised in your conference. If you're successful, other conferences and the MCLA can use you as an example of how it can and does work.

Like Chris states here, any decision made by this conference needs to be made with the best interests of the PNCLL and secondarily the MCLA in mind. It is not our place to accommodate teams that wish to enter our conference. They need to cater to us.

If we have any inkling that a team applying for membership belongs in the D1, that is where they should be admitted. Not in one or two years, because I am completely opposed to teams entering in one division with the intent of moving into another. It has been said many, many times before. . .the D2 is not a developmental league. If other conferences treat it as such, so be it. The PNCLL does not need to follow this trend, and I personally think PSU has a lot more in common with WSU, OSU and UO than it does with UPS, Whitman or Willamette.

The D2 in the PNCLL is as good as any from top to bottom. . .and it is made up at this time of schools that all compete in NCAA DII or DIII in other sports. I feel our D2 is the model other conferences should be emulating - a conference made up of small schools with small athletic departments.