A teams required to play B teams

[Dulax31]

I posted this somewhere eles too, but I want to know what others feel about this. Mostly because almost all of the teams in our league COULD technically be part of either the A or B division (lack of D1 football in the area).

This is one topic I have been thinking about a lot lately. The NCAA has three levels of competition. They do not require teams in D1 to play teams in D2 or D3 and vice versa. I believe A teams shouldn't be REQUIRED to play a B division game, but if we want to schedule one, heck why not.

My thing is I enjoyed our game against St. John's this year, but at the same note I think to myself, if this team or a team like it wants to play at a higher level, why not play in the A division. My team, Minn-Duluth could compete at the B level and play to win a B division national championship, but we decided to play up to the A division to get a more challenging schedule. If a B team wants to require A games, play at the A level!?

[Adam G]

I understand how an A division team wouldn't want to play B division team, and also understand the argument about if you want a more competitive schedule, join the A division.

But I personally like the A/B games that we've played. We've played the U and UWSP in the last two years, and each time it gave our (still very young team) a look at what more established teams look like, and gave us something to aim our play-level to.

I do think that there should be some sort of parity, though, when scheduling the games. Why insult a team that finishes last in the B division by scheduling them against a national championship contender from the A division (for example, scheduling UWEC v. Duluth in our first year in the league.) The A/B games are fine, so long as the level of play is taken into consideration.

Just my thoughts.

[Johnnielax13]

There are a few reasons that Division A teams are required to play Division B teams. However, you are right, for an A team, it might seem like an annoyance (especially if you get upset by a B team) but it is important that the requirement is there to protect the B teams, create opportunities for a schedule that doesn't cost everyone on the team $2,000 just to travel, and to allow growing teams to see what quality lacrosse looks like.
The first is the strange relation you make from a DI football team, and the Division of lacrosse a school is in. There is no relationship between football and lacrosse. What I remember four years ago, was that the divisions were created initially based on enrollment, the record the previous year, and following that, a team that was placed in the B Div, could petition to become an A team. But, the USLIA is divided into two divisions, forcing the UMLL to follow, so there HAS to be a difference. And a team can't just jump back and forth, between divisions whenever they want.

Second: We are not part of the NCAA. Club lacrosse is separate, and just because a system works for the NCAA, does not mean it can be applied to everyone.

The reason that an A team is REQUIRED to schedule a B team, is because they wouldn't otherwise. I can imagine (even though I agree with you, that the difference between some of the teams in each division IS arbitrary) that an A team, would not want to lose to a B team. Of course a loss is a loss is a loss, but on paper, no one likes to get upset. And to suggest that an A team would place their rankings on the line is not taking into account that the ego of a lax player is as large as the field he plays on.

"Why the heck not? Let's schedule a B team that has beaten us for the past four years."
Right

Also, you say "if we want to schedule one." Like it is a gift for a B team to play against Duluth. Come on. . . we don't all hold our breath to see if we got the golden ticket this year.

Plus for an A team to win against a B team, it doesn't affect their national rank among the pollsters. So for an A team, who is looking to get noticed, and is trying to create a demanding season schedule, they would have no benefit to play a B team.

Third: the amount of opponents in each division. For a B team in the UMLL, there are only 5 other opponents. In order to get a full season, a B team would have to schedule most teams twice (bringing this back to the some-what confused football idea, DI teams don't play each other twice in a season). It is not fun to play the same team two, three, or even four times in a year. (Trust me, we play UST almost every other weekend, once or twice in a fall, once in the regular season, once again in the UMLL tourney, and now it looks like we might see them at nationals too).

Fourth, I appreciate that you enjoyed our game, I did too, even though we lost. We (SJU) do want to play at the highest level we can, that is why we flew out to California, but again, we can't just jump into the A division. It is really admirable of you that your team "decided" to play at the A level. To presume that SJU was not OUTRAGED when we found out the league was being separated, and we felt like we were dismissed to the "JV" squad is not giving us enough credit. Every team in the country would like to play at the highest level of competition, don't sell us short.

B teams don't "want" to require A games. It is designed like that for the betterment of the entire league. The disparity between the strength of every team in the UMLL is very large, and without the rules that are in place, it would grow, causing the whole league to take a step backwards.

Fifth: not every team has UMD's budget to travel around the country. Not every team has the desire to even do that. And not every team has a school system that allows them to miss that much class. I am glad you posted this topic as a question and an open forum, and I can understand why a team like UMD wouldn't want to play B teams (especially SJU cause we might sneak one out sometime soon) but coming from a player on a B team, who was around to remember the split in the UMLL, trust me, the requirement is there for a reason.

[Steno]

I know this isn't really my area, but I was curious about your statement. I was under the impression that (at least in the PNCLL) a Division I football team meant a Division A lacrosse team just as a rule of thumb. After that assertion, teams could then petition to move either up or down. This is the reason why Univ of Montana is Division B - they have a I-AA football team, and there has been scuttlebutt recently about them petitioning up to Division A, although I think that this would be a mistake considering the national picture of Division B lax.

I realize that MDIA and NCAA are in now way connected (except for rulebooks), but I always thought that DI football was at least a ball park indicator for Division status.

[Pinball]

i think that if you have any NCAA sports being D1 you should be forced into the A, if you play D2 or 1-aa you have a choice, if you play d3 you are in B.

I think for the A/B crossover games to be successfull they need to schedule smart (like they did this year with SJU playin UMD and UST playing the U of M)

[Johnnielax13]

I know this isn't really my area, but I was curious about your statement. I was under the impression that (at least in the PNCLL) a Division I football team meant a Division A lacrosse team just as a rule of thumb. After that assertion, teams could then petition to move either up or down. This is the reason why Univ of Montana is Division B - they have a I-AA football team, and there has been scuttlebutt recently about them petitioning up to Division A, although I think that this would be a mistake considering the national picture of Division B lax.

I realize that MDIA and NCAA are in now way connected (except for rulebooks), but I always thought that DI football was at least a ball park indicator for Division status.

You may be right, but at least for Minnesota, there is only one Div I football team. It had been explained to me that the split was based on enrollment, I can see that for other states ie. California, that the split based on Football divisions would make more sense. The point I was trying to make was that it really doesn't have anything to do with football, it is the enrollment of the school that is the real variable.

[LaxRef]

i think that if you have any NCAA sports being D1 you should be forced into the A, if you play D2 or 1-aa you have a choice, if you play d3 you are in B.

So if Bemidji (enrollment 5000) had a team, you think they should have to go A division just because they have DI hockey? But if they didn't have DI ice hockey then B division would be okay? That doesn't make sense to me.

My understanding was that if you had Division IA football you had to be division A (or do div B but not be eligible for playoffs). Has this changed?

BTW, I agree that a more sensible criteria is enrollment, although having Div IA football is some indication of school resources available for club sports, I guess.

[oldmanlax]

I like hearing the discussion about this topic every year. The key to the whole thing in my opinion is exceptions. Should NDSU be forced into div-A because of their 1-AA Football team? OF course not. What good could possibly come from them getting rolled by all of the A-teams. The same could be said of UND and their hockey team.

I understand playing up is good to help you improve. However, I think it should happen when you are remotely ready to take that step. No one wants to lose all of their games. To say that a team could build threw a 0-8 season is crazy.

I remember when the split first happened and mumbles were said about the B-division champ going into A-Division and last place A-Division goes down to B after each season. Does that mean Moorhead and John's switch places next season (Hypothetically).

My point is there is no clear cut way to logically group teams. Each team needs to be considered based on participation, resources, ability level etc. Not strictly D-1 sports

[DanGenck]

This raises a good point as well about some A Division teams potentially moving down to B Division to be more competitive. I won't name teams, but there are some who would fit better at the Division B level (academically, athletically and enrollment based).

[Pinball]

cough, st. olaf cough cough moorhead cough....

[TexOle]

St. Olaf or SJU was going to A and the other was headed to B from what I heard a few years ago. St. Olaf was chosen over SJU in part because SJU was just terrible a few years back. I am referring to the winless SJU season. St. Olaf was also very close to turning the corner and becoming a top notch team. I still think St. Olaf could become a major force in A, but they need to fix some areas. In two years that team will probably make a decision on where to go, but at this time I think that Olaf would be best in A. If St. Olaf wins their remaining games they will finish 3rd in the UMLL. With a 3 seed they might make it to the UMLL Championship game, and 1 game anything can happen. All of this has yet to be seen, but it is telling of where the UMLL A division is at this time. The other issue is how many teams do you have in A. At this time the league has 8 teams not including Marquette. If one team leaves A, then the UMLL would lose its AQ. So then you ask if a team should move up, but then B loses its AQ.

I think the biggest difference between A and B is the officiating. I know it is the same officials, but what I see doing games with 3 officials is very different from what I see with 2 officials. Any lacrosse official will tell you that it is hard to catch all of the little things that happen at midline in a 2 man system. Here is a huge example. If I am the trail official on the far side from the changing box I will never see an illegal sub since I want to sink in and look for infractions that are more serious in nature.

The A/B split for the UMLL will probably need to be reevaluated in 2 years. I truly believe the UMLL is headed for some major changes in the next few years, and the alignment will change dramatically if the changes I think are coming happen. This is a huge topic, and I think the current system is going to have to work for the next few years.

[Rob Graff]

This is all very interesting.

1. The MDIA-USLIA rule is that if you have a D1A Football program you must be a Div A school, and if you choose to play B, you are not eligible for any tournament or post season awards.

2. The UMLL seperation rule on Div A/B is based upon enrollment. It has nothing to do with NCAA anything. Because the UMLL rule and the USLIA-MDIA rule do not conflict, there is no problem.

3. I have, and the UofM has, previously come out against div a/b games. League treasurer/secretary Chris Larson introduced a proposal to eliminate the "mandatory" nature of such games at the fall meeting. It did not pass, but not by much is my recollection.

As league director, I will continue to push for its repeal. This is especially true in light of the UCSD/USD game. UCSD had nothing to gain and everything to lose. USD had everthing to gain and nothing to lose. The same is true with EVERY div a/b game. And given that inequity, it makes no sense to play these games. I'm going to watch with very interested eyes what happens to UCSD's poll ranking - and every one in the A division should also.

And then they should contrast it with what happened to SJU after they lost to UMD, what happened to UVSC after they lost to Oregon and what happened to UST after they lost to UofM. Note - the answer to the last three questions is "Nothing". I'm guessing the answer to the UCSD question is "a significant drop in the poll". I'm willing to take a risk and as such, I will play any division A team - even if there is the real possibility that such a team could kick our butt (and we have done that in the past - see our trip to Michigan 2 years ago when we lost 3 in a row to UCSB/Michigan and CSU) - but only if there is a concomittant reward if we win. Playing A/B games has no reward component for ANY A team.

4. And A/B Games take up time that could be spent playing other A teams in other conferences.

5. I can recall a time when St. Olaf was regularly beating St. Johns a few years ago. Give them time - if they choose to play A, so be it. And they should be commended for it. MOving between divisions should not be like changing shoes. The B division - with the addition of teams like UND and some schools like UWEC will continue to enlarge without your attempts to make those decisions for others.

6.

B teams don't "want" to require A games. It is designed like that for the betterment of the entire league. The disparity between the strength of every team in the UMLL is very large, and without the rules that are in place, it would grow, causing the whole league to take a step backwards.

I think this is a false premise based upon the fall meeting. B teams were vehement that the cross over games MUST take place. That they MUST be required or they won't happen. Such an argument indicates the truth behind those peoples words - that cross over games do not help our league - they help B teams. And the disparity in A/B that you are concerned about is irrelevant. Why has UST improved dramatically over the past 3 years? Because SJU is good - NOT because UST played UofM. UST's decision to schedule many OOC games and SJU's willingness to travel OOC to California is what is going to raise the level of play in B - NOT one game once a year with a UMLL A team.

[Pinball]

We are just looking for competitive games, whats wrong with that. As we watch UCSD ranking drop dont forget they lost to Arizona State.

[Rob Graff]

Pinball:

Fine - That's great and one of the reasons why SJU has taken such a big jump - they went and found Division B games that were competitive - you went to Texas last year and Cali this year. But don't expect teams to play you that have nothing to gain by doing so - the Cali and Tx teams did have something to gain by winning - as did you.

And re: UCSD - yes the did lose to ASU. But compare SSU's loss to Utah and what happens to them (probably won't drop more than 2-3 spots) and what happens to UCSD (could drop 5-9 spots)(note I"m guessing on both of these and not revealing what I did in my poll vote). The differential between UCSD/ASU and SSU/Utah in the last poll is similiar, but the teams will be treated differently in this week's poll even though each had a tough lost to a ranked A division opponent - why? The UCSD loss to USD.

[Pinball]

If you think the only thing that you have to "gain" by playign games is to rise in the polls, then yes there is nothing to "gain" by playing a competitive b div opponent. Don't all we want during the season is fun competitve games though? I thought pollsters were not supposed to consider crossover games while doing their polls but if they do- dosent it look better beating a Top 10 Div B opponent then some A divison team having a bad year by 20+ goals?? It sounds like A division teams are running a little scared since UCSD got beat..........