PNCLL D2 2009

[Thrilla]

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.

Like Mitch Hedberg for frilly tooth picks

I'M FOR IT

[Ryan Hanavan]

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.

Is there something different about Jason that we don't know???

I think that's a great idea Kyle. Let teams petition for league status and have the board appoint division status.

[TheBearcatHimself]

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.

Kyle, this is a valid suggestion that I would fully support. My only question would be is it currently in the bylaws? I cannot say that I know the procedure as it is currently laid out. If it is not set up the way you suggested, maybe we should vote on setting it up that way in the bylaws, and then proceeding from there.

The bylaws are our constitution, we need to follow its procedures accordingly, or vote to adjust them if they are outdated.

[gibb5]

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.

I haven't had a chance to talk to Nick Lyon (wsu pres) about this yet but I think WSU's vote would go towards the 5-5 split for D1 that was proposed with PSU in the "western conference".

I know that a few of our losses were disheartening for some guys but I believe it is an awesome learning experience for younger players to go up against the juggernauts right away. In my mind, there's no substitute for initiation by fire. I think PSU would also benefit from this as well. It opened our eyes to what teams in the northwest are all about and showed our freshman some great examples of how to properly model a virtual varsity program.

I think it was Brauck that mentioned the disparity of talent between an "eastern" and "western" conference should not be an issue, because every team will go through peaks and valleys at some point. This is right on and should not be a factor in forming the 5-5 split.

As for a playoff scenario, I think 6 out of 10 making playoffs would be legit.

[gibb5]

Correction: it was Timbaland that mentioned the 5-5 split that I'm referencing.

[Kyle Berggren]

It's not the way we've done things as long as I've been around. The AGM's are long enough, everyone seems to be battling to better their own situation (at times), not toward moving the conference forward. If the D2 didn't vote to admit Boise St., they would have been out. I don't remember the WOU/SOU specifics, but at this point in our conference, it might be easier to hand the power & responsibility to the paid President or BOD. Discussion is great, and the BOD needs to act on the behalf of it's members so input is required (hence the AGM). I can't think of much the BOD could do, or would do (we're primarily volunteers), that would adversely effect the conference, besides, vote em out after a year if you feel wronged.

We talked a lot about transparency, you'll get more than you want this year, especially concerning finances, maybe that will ease our concerns. PS, your attorney is doing a great job & saving you money right now, you should thank him if you see him.

[GrizLens]

I have an attorney? Sweet!

This information would have been very valuable over the past few years....

[Sean Forsyth]

There hasn't been much player input on this thread, and as it is summer and I am bored, I thought I would chime in.

I love the division 1 format as it is, I think it would be very unfair for the East - West split to transpire, as the traditional top four teams in the PNCLL would all be in the West division (OU, OSU, SFU, UW). Montana has been a great team the past few years, but have been led by some outstanding players that were juniors and seniors this year, and losing Hall, Sargent, Ault, etc. will not help their cause. I disagree that the skill level will even itself out and the divisions will have enough parity. I think SFU is now going to be a perrenial powerhouse with the feeder program and coaches they have, OSU and OU draw from schools like Lakeridge, OES, Lake O, and Lincoln, and UW draws from some of the top high school programs on the west coast as well (if only more WA high school laxers got in to the U we would be golden).

I don't see the proposed East being as strong as the West in the next decade at least (if we haven't all gone D1 by then :), and if a four team playoff was instituted, every year at least one team from the west would be frustrated because a team they beat or think they would have beaten would be in the playoffs.

I also enjoy playing every team in the PNCLL every year and consider my league games to be of utmost importance. I would not want to sacrifice the opportunity to play every one of my NW counterparts so that my team could have the chance to gain a little bit more national exposure by traveling to play in some far flung tournament. Call me old fashioned, but my primary goal is to play for a PNCLL championship, not a national bid. Also, even though everyone played 8 conference games, none of the D1 PNCLL teams had problems scheduling enough OOC games this past season (with maybe the exception of Wazzu, who is still kindof getting the wind in their proverbial sails)

Basically, this is just a long way of saying if it ain't broke don't fix it!

[TheBearcatHimself]

Sean, good post. I can assure however, even though I am a coach now, I still have a "player's perspective" as I am all of 4 years older than you. I agree, league games are valuable and the interaction between individual teams, coaches and players would be a terrible thing to lose. I think that you will see an incarnation arise where we all end up playing everyone, or at the very least everyone minus 2 teams a season.

As for your fears over the D1 playoff scenario with the East/West split, I think that problem is very easily solved by (if 4 teams for playoffs) making the two division champs the automatic bids, then making the last two the best overall records, not necessarily top 2 from each division. If, as most are suggesting with a 10 team format (the only way that D1 will be split by the way), we use 6 teams for the playoffs, you can pretty much guarantee that all good teams will make the playoffs with top 3 from each, top 2 from each then two at-large, or champs and 4 at-large. I really don't see many scenarios where you would get a "bad" team in. If any of those three scenarios were used in a D2 split this season, the 6 teams in the playoffs would have been the same in each case.

Love to hear what more players think, and more teams for that matter.

[Thrilla]

Montana has been a great team the past few years, but have been led by some outstanding players that were juniors and seniors this year, and losing Hall, Sargent, Ault, etc. will not help their cause.

I thought Sargent was a soph?

[Sean Forsyth]

You're right, I got him and Jake Bagley confused. Montana will be sick, but I still maintain that the West would be perrenially better than the East.

I wouldn't be opposed to your solution Coach Patton, and I think it is the best playoff format for a split conference, but I still don't see why we need to change something that is already perfectly functional. I don't believe that our in conference schedules are inhibiting PNCLL teams from attaining national recognition, SFU was the only team that deserved to go to nationals last year; if Oregon had beaten their OOC opponents late in the season they would've gone as well. Montana, UW, and OSU would not have fared well against the top teams at the national tourney, so I think the conference format as it is has consistently done a good job of establishing which teams will contend out of the PNCLL (but I haven't been involved for as long as most of you on these forums)

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

I think this is very positive thread and I appreciate all of the insightful comments that have been posted thus far.

These tough issues will always have some polarizing effect, and I doubt we'll ever all agree on these tough issues. . .which is why these constructive debates are so healthy.

For the first time in 5 years, I'll be attending the MCLA Summer Meetings myself. I will do my best to gather perspective from other conference directors and get a broader perspective on some of the pressing issues we face. If there is a pressing national issue that any of you want addressed, please PM me and I'll do my best to address it through the proper channels nationally.

For those of you holding your breath that the MCLA BOD is going to pick a magic enrollment number that will determine the division split in August- I think you need to come up for air. This issue has been discussed quite a bit and I think the MCLA is going to maintain its current criteria as Nate mentioned earlier in this thread.

If it changes, we will cross that bridge when it arrives. . .but it is my opinion that we need to conduct our business under the current guidelines of the MCLA.

It doesn't mean we can't make our own decisions based upon what's best for our conference, but I also don't think we should expect the MCLA to make these decisions for us. Sure, it could happen, but I'm certainly not planning on it.

[Steno]

Any ideas on why the BOD is so reticent to resolve the issue? Or do they have their own "if it ain't broke" mentality?

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

Steno that is precisely what I am looking to find out. It is just so hard to pick a "hard" number to split the divisions. Should they be split by budget? Split by undergrad enrollment? Total enrollment? What is the right number. . .5000, 7500, 10000, 15000? If you truly split the divisions by a number, most figures would leave our D1 national runner-up (Chapman) in the D2.

There is discussion of a developmental division as well. It is just a very complicated issue that I know is going to be discussed and debated - I just have no idea what (if anything) will be decided.

Bubba sat in on a conference call last week where these very issues were discussed. The MCLA has a long way to go to resolve this issue. It has several layers and will require much intelligent discussion.

[Mark Brown]

As I stated before, I was at the MCLA BOD meeting in the winter and they have no interest in changing the rule. They want to leave it up to each league to make sure that the teams in each league are placed in the right division. Tim Gray, the coach of Northeastern, did a ton of research which included a breakdown league by league on how many teams would be affected if a split was made at 2500, 5000, 7500, 10,000, 12,500, etc.
Even with all of that research done the majority opinion was that the rule works well enough and each league should be responsible enough to move teams that they feel don't fit in the correct division based on the D1 football criteria.
That said, again, a key ? we face is do we want to have a standard that we feel, as a league, better fits us like the UMLL does?