B-Conference Divisions- Just for discussion

[TheNino57]

The current system for the B Conference is a little bit goofy since Evergreen dropped off the radar after the schedules got finalized.

If we are going to stay in the three division format for the next few seasons, then perhaps Lewis & Clark should get nudged into the North Division to make the divisions even out to 4 teams each.

But, what if we level the playing field a little bit and make every team in the B division play each other one time. That would give every team 11 division games. Not a bad season length. Then, those teams with National At-Large bid hopes can play their three OOC games and have a 14 game season. I do realize that some teams in the far regions are at a disadvantage in this system, but Montana has had this problem for a few seasons and now the whole East has this problem as well. This system would also allow for the head-to-head tie breaker and every team would be able to get a look at everyone else by season's end. This system might also allow for more accurate playoff seeding.

[Dan Wishengrad]

The only thing I'd change Coach P. would be to reduce the number of games from 11 to 10 (which Bubba favors) or even 9. I fear some new B teams and especially the remote outsposts like SOU and AC would have difficulty paying for and playing so many required games. If two B teams don't play each other, they have to play the following season. Travel between the two would be reduced to making a long trip only once every four years -- Albertson and Western Washington, for example, don't play in 2006. In 2007 Western Washington is at Albertson. In 2008 they don't play. In 2009 Albertson is at Western Washington, etc., repeating on four-year cycles.

When new teams join the league, you play them their first-year or you play them the following year. A "Master Scheduler" could produce the B division schedule on a four-year basis, teams just schedule date and time at the annual meeting for that year's game. If teams which are close and have rivalries want to play each other twice, make it the FIRST meeting of the two be the game which counts towards conference record and it's simple.

Teams could create a "core" of geographic and traditional rivalry teams y every season, and rotate the other teams in the B division in and out on a yearly basis. I like this personally much better than geographic divisions in the first place. Geographic grouping is "artificial", weighting games against some teams as more important than others. All games played in the B division should count the same, and when you group teams geographically the divisions created are never equal in terms of on-the-field competitiveness. There will still be some inequity if everyone doesn't play each other on a yearly basis, but this should even out statistically over four seasons and be less significant than what we'd have with smaller artificial groupings of any kind.

But if you B guys want to play everybody as suggested, that's great too, have at it! My suggestion here (nine B division games) is just a slightly less expensive version of what El Nino 57 has proposed here and what Bubba said he backs (ten games). Any of these would work well and avoid any confusion or controversy, like what we are doing this season.

[woulax23]

I completely agree with both of your opinions involving having a different scheduling system for the PNCLL B. i don't know which i would support more, but i do know that the system right now leaves lots of teams cheated when it comes to play-off time. For example our team at Wetsern Oregon has heard that we are only making play-offs because we are in a weak conference. This may be true and could leave possibly better teams, such as Western Washington out of the play-offs spots they may well deserve. It is also unfair to our guys because it makes them feel like what we accomplished was undeserved because our conference is percieved as being "weak". (i believe that may be kind of harsh because all of the teams down here have solid, well-built programs) That aside, if we switched to a more open style of scheduling like what Dan and Bubba have suggested then no team would really have a reason to complain about weaker conferences because everyone would have an opportunity to meet everyone throughout the year. anyways i just thought i would throw my two cents in, even though it may not mean much. By the way, is this going to be somethign that we might bring to the table and vote on during the fall anual meeting?

[Kyle Berggren]

As far as WOU only making it because they are in a weak division.... You were 6-3 overall, 6-2 in your division. You earned your right to represent your division in the playoffs. You should be proud, and I wish you the best of luck against PLU on the lake., err field. WWU may be a better team, but they didn't quite have the record to get in. We have to prove it on the field, and you did. The first season WOU is in the league, and you're 6-2, be proud, not embarrassed. You're a suprise for the playoffs, which is why we play the conference schedules. Everyone in the B North knew that only 2 teams would most likely make it. Congrats, good luck, and make sure you guys have fun. Welcome to the PNCLL Playoffs.

[BearcatLax]

I am conflicted on these ideas. It would be great to play everyone once, but this is not very possible both schedule and reality wise (teams have to produce their own money often to travel, and I'm not saying that our team can't do this).

Currently, the division system is a little messy with Evergreen throwing a wrench into the gears. However, I would not want to lose the two games with each team from our division. I think getting two looks at your division opponents is critical not only for your team, but for the league.

As far as our division being weak, thats crap. I think WOU, SOU, Linfield and L and C will all agree that while Willamette is weak in wins, we make you work as hard for a win as anyone else. I know that I took every game seriously this season, from Lewis and Clark to Linfield and thought we had a chance in every game except for our first against Linfield, and I believe every team took us serioulsy as well. We were only fortunate enough to play two out of division games, CWU and Whitman, but plan on playing several more next year. If we lose the two games against our division opponents I think that would be a large mistake, I know last year I wish I had played several teams twice.

[woulax4]

I think that if people have a problem with the set up now, rather then take away the divisions we adopt a point system. This is what most high schools use and it seems to be a very fair way to figuring out the strong teams from the weak. I know it would have to go through consideration but I feel it is something to think about.

[TheNino57]

You boys down in the South (and I guess the North has this also) have yourselves a sweet situation where you have two teams in the same city, two more less than an hour away, and only one long travel game. If you only play the eight games needed to fulfill your divisional requirement, you have a fairly cheap travel arrangement. Out here on the fringe, the two closest teams are 2 1/2 hours away, the next closest are two teams who are about six hours away from Ellensburg and not much closer to Walla Walla. We have to make motel reservations every time we travel out to Caldwell and Missoula and those are divisional games. This current scheduling system puts the East teams at a financial disadvantage.

Now, we scheduled games against every team in the B division except for Southern Oregon, sorry SOU boys, we'll get you next year. And, we traveled to all of you B-South teams giving you all a home game. Portland is five hours away, McMinnville and Salem are even farther and this meant more lodging accommodations. We didn't have to schedule these games, but we did. This provided us with a unique opportunity to see and experience what the B Conference had to offer. We got experience playing against different defensive and offensive styles. As a player, I can tell you that the experience gained will make you much better in the end, especially all of us on young teams. It taught me how to respond to different looks, i.e. Montana's long poles would follow me around the whole offensive end of the field, sticking to me tighter than my own shadow, whereas Western Oregon and ACI would protect the cage and allow you as much time as you want out near the edge of the restraining box.

The A Division has to accommodate for travel with their scheduling. I’ll use UW as my example because I know that Dan will read this and correct any mistake I might make. Their closest game is against Simon Fraser which lies about 2 ½ hours away, not including the time spent at the border inspection. The rest are all at least four hours away. If we switch to a new B Division scheduling system, like the kind I had proposed, it will create a situation where travel costs are a little bit more equal. It will give teams a better understanding of where there team sits competitively against the rest of the league. It will give every team a more honest opportunity to make the playoffs. It will eliminate the two “league games” the B East and West have to play against one another to give each team eight league games. And it will give teams a better look at who the All-Conference selections should be and will allow for better calculations of stats since all teams will play roughly the same number of total games against roughly the same teams and stats and comparisons can be made more accurately. No system can be rid of flaws, but the current system has many that need to be addressed at the upcoming AGM.

[Kyle Berggren]

I would consider it, I think most people are open to it, but we still need to figure out how many games we'll play, and how to decide them. The point system would seem to work better knowing we kept divisions, which is what seems to be upsetting some people.

Divisions reduce the number of required teams played each season, alleviating some travel cost. Every team needs fight its way out of its own division to get to the playoffs. Division games become very important in this type of play. Divisions are not designed to send the top 6 teams to the playoffs. They are designed to send the best 2 teams from each division to the playoffs.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

All of the teams East of the Cascades have had extra travel over the years. . .and certainly at CWU there is really no team really close. Unfortunately, that is never going to change. Just ask the boys from Missoula. My best advice is to schedule exclusively double headers on travel weekends, and try hard to schedule some neutral site games to minimize travel - which benefits everyone - including officials. If we do change to a system where the divisions get removed and everyone plays nine or ten league games, you should work hard to set up more weekends like the one involving UPS, PLU, Montana and CWU - those work out well for everyone.

[BearcatLax]

Nino 57

I hear you, and I thank you for making the trip to us B South fellows. But is it not true that the system repays itself by us travelling to you next year? I know that I would not be happy with not getting another shot at you guys, and when we come out your way it kills the Whitman bird with the same stone (and did your club not play multiple games on a single trip as well?). That's what we've done and what we will do. This year our club was fortunate to have no overnight trips. Next year, we are possibly spending up to 4 weekends away from campus, while you spend all of yours on for all of the teams who should come to you now. It's a cycle, albeit a sometimes vicious one.

While I disagree with your theory that we should realign due to our teams positioning, I do completely agree that 4 teams in a division is wrong because you have to schedule 2 outside your division for league. Right now the problem is number of teams, not position. Look at the RMLC, teams like Utah have to travel from Boise to Cheyenne to Pueblo, Colorado, that's a far greater sphere than our league encompasses. When we get more teams (most likely more out your way if WSU comes back and Eastern Washington doesn't have a team yet and Boise might join our league too) then we are the ones who will travel as well. Our division is close, but like all teams we are not going to just schedule the close easy games, or else we will never get better.

I look forward to you hosting us next year, and all other teams that were gracious enough to travel here this year, as we had travelled to them the year before. May this always be the code, and may all travelling costs even out.

[Kyle Berggren]

Sometimes things just don't work out, as an example, we played 2 home games this season. I don't know if our goal as a conference should be to make sure everyone plays everyone each year. The RMLC does not have a choice in the matter, and they do have to travel a ton. Well, with our geography, we can limit that cost to our teams. As gas prices are shooting for $3.00 a gallon, an 18 hour round trip drive sounds less appealing. Our budget was about $10,000 this year, and I'm sure we have the best travelling deal around. We didn't buy anything big for the team, but needed a few little things, along with hotels, gas, car rental, and dues.

Are we trying to change the fact that we have small divisions with too many games amongst each other? or is the issue how and who we get to the playoffs?

I really liked Jason's proposal for the three divisions, and thought the travelling between the East and North was a good solution, that helped keep the South's costs down. I've been kicking around a similar idea, because I like the 8 game format. Forcing teams to play more is fine if they do not want to schedule ooc games, but we do, and I'm sure there are 4-5 other teams that would really like to as well. 8 games could be done in as little as 4 weekends, but more likely 6-7 depending on your location. I'll work out a formal presentation for the league meeting, and it will include 2 six team Divisions, the North and South. Each team would play everyone in their division once, and 3 teams in the other, switching the 3 every year. It would make it so that Southern Oregon would play Montana @ home in 2006, and away in 2008. A neutral site game could be arranged at any team's discretion, or we could plan so that SOU and MU would play @ SOU in 2006, neutral site 2008, home 2010. I like the system, but integrating new teams means is problematic, and we'd have to do it again.

Now, each team would play 8 games, and would not necessarily have massive travelling costs compared to past years, along with free time to schedule ooc games. I would also propose that we expand the playoffs.... Keith won't like this because PNLA's are usually going on the week before our playoffs, but I'd like to try and make it work on our end. Teams would be ranked on Conference Record first, head to head second. I believe that teams should be rewarded for playing their conference games and winning before they schedule extra games. If team is A 4-4 in their division, and team B is 5-3, Team B should be ranked above team A. Even if team A beat team B 200-1 outside of a conference game. Doing it like this stresses winning conference games, and allows us to play rookies and experiment a little bit in other games. Head to Head would be the tiebreaker if the two teams had equal conference records, and had played outside of the conference, followed by goal differential among common opponents.

#1 Winner Division
#2 Winner Division
#3
#4 (1-4 all byes)

#5 vs #12
#6 vs #11
#7 vs #10
#8 vs #9

....this leaves 8 teams in the playoffs, but everyone recieved a shot at getting there. The #5-12 teams could be played neutral or at the higher seed, I don't know yet, I've just been kicking the ideas around. They could be held at Delta Park the weekend before PNLAs, or at CWU if they were willing to host. If we did a neutral site, we may be able to do 8 games in the weekend. We'd start with 12, and leave with 4 going to the Championship 2 weeks later. Every team would be able to meet everyone, and see them play. As long as a team doesn't say, "I don't want to come to the playoffs, we're not going to win," it could work out.

Other major drawbacks could be the logistics of getting it done, added travel and room cost, along with a season shortened by 1 week (if we have to do it before PNLA's). It is entirely possible that PLU and UPS could travel to play each other at a neutral site on this weekend, which is dumb, but possible, which is why I'm still just kicking it around. I'm sure for some teams it would work out to where you play a division team again, but for others it wouldn't. Teams could not worry about the regular season, because they know they are in the playoffs regardless. I don't think that is actually a problem, because no one likes to lose.

All and all, I think its interesting, and could be the best of both worlds. I like the idea of having the B playoffs 2 weeks before the finals, but others might not see it that way, we'd have to go with what the majority wants. If we get every B team together for a weekend, it may take away from our finals weekend with the A, but it could really strengthen our B, and rivalries between teams.

This year it would have been, and I'm partially guessing because I don't want to do the math, this post is long enough.

Montana
Linfield
PLU
UPS

WOU vs Albertson
Whitman vs. Willamette
WWU vs. CWU
SOU vs. L&C

When teams are seeded because of conference record, they can get penalized for being in a tougher conference that year. It happens, and Whitman that is what would have happened to Whitman this year. It may mean that #1 seed doesn't play the weekest team on day 2, but it still tries to reward teams for conference play. If we want to get the best team to Blaine, all of the best teams would be in the playoffs.

I'm not proof reading this, I'm extra lazy today, but please comment if you have any ideas, or problems with it. I know its not perfect, but I see it as a good compromise.

[TheNino57]

I actually like Kyle's idea, I would probalby vote for it at the AGM. Kyle, if you make any changes to your format above, please post it so we can review it. Also, I would just like to note to BearCatLax that I was not accusing the South of anything, just informing that our nearest conference game involves a five-hour round trip, and thanks to PLU, UPS, for coming out to us this season. As it sits, I just feel that our current system has too many flaws and another sytem might fit our needs better. If new teams joined, we would accomodate them, however, WSU, and BSU would be in the A division and so would Eastern Washington (if I'm not mistaken, I do believe that their football team is going D-I next season, or the season after that).

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

I agree that we want to create a system that benefits everyone. I think our system would have been fine this season had Evergreen not dropped out at the last minute.

A system like the one Kyle proposed sounds great - but it would likely come with added expense for most teams. . .which is not a huge problem for our program, but I know others will balk at the idea of extra travel.

For the record, we played road games vs. Oregon, Oregon State, Simon Fraser, Western (league), UPS (5 miles), Boise State, Utah Valley State (in Boise), Central, & Montana (at CWU). . .

I like the idea of having the freedom to play OOC games rather than a mandated 10-12 league games. . .but we'll certainly listen to all proposals and hopefully come to an agreement as a league in the fall.

I DO want to get away from changing our system every year, so I hope we can put something in place for '06 that has some staying power. It needs to be versatile enough that by adding or subtracting a team each year it won't fall apart.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I DO want to get away from changing our system every year, so I hope we can put something in place for '06 that has some staying power. It needs to be versatile enough that by adding or subtracting a team each year it won't fall apart.

Amen, brother.

Kyle I've been playing with your proposal, trying to fully grasp it. The problem is as Jason notes the addition or subtraction of any team or teams on an annual basis could mess up the model and call for minor tweaking or even major overhaul again. We have seen teams enter and exit, so it is reasonable to predict we will have further turnover in our membership in coming seasons.

Also, as I stated earlier in the thread I'm not certain that we can ask all B teams to play ten or eleven games, that might not be realistic for some of our clubs.

What exactly is the beef with a no divisions/"Pac-10" model? Close rivals can still play a second game which doesnt count towards playoffs if they want, and it is flexible when teams are added or dropped. It removes any kind of artificial grouping (i.e divisions) entirely, and assures that no two teams ever go two seasons without playing each other. Just settle on a number -- 8, 9 or 10 divisin games. If eight stays the number, the current twelve returning B teams would play all but three other B teams in 2006. We could start it next season with the three highest seeds going into the playoffs (UM, LC, PLU) not playing the three lowest record teams (Albertson, WU, L&C). If everyone agrees to 9 games, then there are only two teams you don't play...

One other thought on our tie-breakers in the future -- how about substituting goals allowed for goal differential in all tie-breakers? It judges the same basic thing without rewarding running up the score like differential does.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

I definitely prefer goals allowed v. goal differential. I know at PLU we have very few players who arrive at the school with any lacrosse experience whatsoever. . .so we try really hard when a game is out of hand to get those "rookies" some playing time. It is really bad form to reward a team for dropping 25 on a weak opponent and leaving starters in the game. But if the playoff picture rewards it, you really can't blame a team for leaving the starters in to create a substantial goal differential.

Hopefully we can discuss this and other issues up in Canada this weekend. With every board member's team qualifying for the semifinals, we should all have ample opportunites to brainstorm and come up with a winning formula for '06. I'm all for an informal gathering over a couple cold ones Saturday night. . .