new teams?

[beckner11]

i agree it is pretty funny....but at least in the press release (assuming I was looking at the right thing) it says that they "will look to compete in the Great Rivers Lacrosse Conference", so that sounds a little better on their part.

Although the newest article there does state that there is only 1 other lacrosse program in Kansas, and thats Kansas State. Sorry KU, your team doesn't exist anymore according to Newman!!

[LaxRef]

i agree it is pretty funny....but at least in the press release (assuming I was looking at the right thing) it says that they "will look to compete in the Great Rivers Lacrosse Conference", so that sounds a little better on their part.

Although the newest article there does state that there is only 1 other lacrosse program in Kansas, and thats Kansas State. Sorry KU, your team doesn't exist anymore according to Newman!!

A little off topic, but the posters for the WCHA (Hockey) Final Five listed NDSU. This caused great consternation among the ND fans, as ND is in the WCHA and NDSU is not.

Someone may have just figured KU and KSU were the same thing here. Not that that makes those schools any less annoyed.

[norway]

being from harding, i can tell you right now that no one would want to drive 7 hrs. to kansas for one game. if there was the possibility of picking a game w/ an A team in kansas it would be a possibility.
As far as A & B teams go, i dont think a team should be forced to play in A right away. I also dont believe they should be allowed to make playoffs either (like it is now). i think the way it is now is fair. But, a larger school should not be allowed to linger around in B div for more than like 2 yrs. I think we have to be careful of over expanding the B div. There already is a substantial difference in the top 4-5 grlc B teams and the rest of the conference. Only time will tell.

[davewiley]

Wichita puts you pretty close to KSU, KU and Oklahoma State, so there would be some other options. Maybe one day Wichita State will have a strong squad again (GPLL champs '93, '94, '95).

Here's my annual plea, if you have any ladies on campus looking to start up a women's team, please let me know and I can get them up to speed with the women's league's fall meeting (dwiley@ku.edu). Thanks!

Dave Wiley
Soon-to-be Past-President, Central Plains Women's Lacrosse League.

[beckner11]

dave,
I've given your email to several girls this year and they said they'd try getting in touch with you.

[Jay Wisnieski]

Purdue made themselves jerseys about six years ago with white Hanes T-Shirts. Numbers and names were then spray painted on. The CCLA made it clear that Purdue was not wearing what they would consider acceptable jerseys. It was meant to be funny, but I do not think everyone enjoyed the joke (understandably).

At least they meant it to be funny. We actually had to dress like that for games when USD wouldn't let us use the school name for our team. I've provided a link so anyone who cares can see how we looked:
http://www.usd.edu/orgs/lacrosse/Photos ... 202001.htm

Ah, the good old days.

[A.J. Stevens]

There has been some discussion of adding a developmental subdivision within the A division. It would allow the B division to function as a small school division. Traditionally in the GRLC the B division gets every new team. A solution to this would be the creation of a developmental subdivision that has its own conference championship (but no AQ) and all-conference team. This would allow new teams to immediately play for a championship. The thought is still a little bit raw. How do you feel about this idea?

[scooter]

i think that the subdivision is a good idea in theory, but competitive teams probably won't compete unless they have an option to qualify for the national tourny in dallas

[LaxRef]

There has been some discussion of adding a developmental subdivision within the A division. It would allow the B division to function as a small school division. Traditionally in the GRLC the B division gets every new team. A solution to this would be the creation of a developmental subdivision that has its own conference championship (but no AQ) and all-conference team. This would allow new teams to immediately play for a championship. The thought is still a little bit raw. How do you feel about this idea?

The big problem is that you probably won't have enough raw teams to make such a division interesting. I mean, if you get 2 new teams per year, even if they stay in there for 3 years that's only a 6-team division. And teams are going to want to move out as soon as possible, which might leave you with only 3 or 4 teams.

[Arklax]

Don't we have almost every Div. 1-A football team within our boundaries?...Arkansas State has no team, and Northwestern, Iowa State, and NIU have other conference affiliations. Are there any B teams going to move up? Our most consistently successful one over the past 3 years, Harding, doesn't look like they'll be jumping up to A any time soon. I guess I'm trying to say, how many more teams are we going to add in Div. A over the next few years to warrant the creation of a sub-division?

[pepsi24]

i think that the subdivision is a good idea in theory, but competitive teams probably won't compete unless they have an option to qualify for the national tourny in dallas

first of all...no brand new team...or perhaps "Raw team", as was used earlier, is a better term, is very competative. it takes most teams a few years to get into the flow, to get a decent team together and be competitive in "b" before they move up. and secondly...as it stands now. an "A" division team that plays down doesnt even qualify for the conference tounament much less the national one.



i think a 1-a division is a good idea. but only if thought through...and if actually handled like its own league. im not sure if i agree that it would take more then 6 teams...although the more the better. 1-a teams could play a teams and b teams without it being bad on either side.. that would give them a good schedule. and all 6 could automatically qualify for their confrence tournament. and then maybe the winner qualifies for the "a" tournament or something. it doesnt have to go that far...but its just an idea, just to make things interesting.

[cjwilhelmi]

i think that the subdivision is a good idea in theory, but competitive teams probably won't compete unless they have an option to qualify for the national tourny in dallas

They wouldn't be able to compete for a trip to Dallas, but thats kinda the point. These teams are not competing for much of anything. The idea of a "AA" or what I like to call Division "C" is for teams that are new to the league, or teams that need to develop. These teams can play anyone who wants to play them, whether A or B.

I have changed what I earlier thought (if you read my lengthy post in the Premium Forum) and I do think that these teams should receive an All Conference Team. I wouldn't call it First or Second or Third or Honorable Mention but just leave it at one team - 3 attack, 4 middies, 3 defensemen, 1 goalie, 1 specialist. That way there is some, although slight, intrinsic motivation to play well. As noted earlier by "Pepsi", I wouldn't mind seeing the champion of Div AA receive a 6th seed to the Division A tournament. I know that the Div A teams will get pissed because that is one less spot for them, but I think it would be interesting. Again, the conference can name their conference champion, as was discussed at the conference meeting several years ago when the 1A Football rule was introduced for splitting divisions.

Back to the original quote - once a team gets competitive they will move up to Div A.

[A.J. Stevens]

I would hope that if we decide to create a developmental subdivision that we would be able to get rid of it as the teams gain strength.

Some of the current Division A teams that are having a difficult time competing at their current level would also be in this division. It would allow teams that are not in a position to play for a championship to spend some more time building their program. They could still play other GRLC teams not in their subdivision. Only their divisional games would count for a conference championship. Some have also proposed that new B teams also play in this subdivision for at least one year. We have some teams in the A division that if they took an honest look in the mirror would recognize that this would benefit them.

Here are some of this season’s division A scores in the GRLC. The 3 lowest ranked A teams lost 4 or more games by 10+ goals. A few may have had more if every game on the schedule was played.

Nebraska 1 Missouri 23
Nebraska 0 Illinois 14 (running time)
Nebraska 4 Augustana 17
Nebraska 1 Illinois State 18
Kansas State 0 Lindenwood 19
Kansas State 8 Illinois 18
Kansas State 2 Missouri 17
Kansas State 3 Kansas 13
Iowa 1 Missouri 28
Iowa 6 Washington Univ 23
Iowa 0 Illinois 14
Iowa 3 Lindenwood 18

[Sonny]

Perhaps, if the GRLC didn't admit every single team that applied and encouraged them to spend one (or more) seasons outside of the conference getting their act together - They would be more productive and competitive once they were admitted to the conference.

Its been my experience in various capacities with the SELC over the last 10 - 15 years then when new teams take one season to buy their gear, get matching uniforms, find an adult coach, play some home and away games, develop a budget, etc. -- that they are far better off in Year 2. This ain't rocket science.

Go talk with my friend Ethan (aka KnoxVegas), he has been to plenty of SELC meetings through the years and seen firsthand how it works and it doesn't work.

You can encourage new teams at arm's length and let them build their team, outside of the GRLC. If they succeed and make all their games/obligations, GREAT! Invite em back next Fall and encourage them to apply. If they don't succeed, then it's no skin off of the GRLC's back.

The problem is that you have teams that don't belong in the conference now that should be expelled and most new brand new teams shouldn't be admitted to the GRLC/MCLA in year one of existence. Furthermore teams that cannot complete their GRLC/MCLA obligations on and off the field should be placed on probation and have their vote taken away for future conference issues (like admitting more new teams).

Hopefully Commissioner Mosher & other GRLC executives will look long and hard at the supposed 6 - 8 new teams in the GRLC's geographic area before admitting them. The time to analyze new teams is in the late Spring & Summer and not in the Fall at the all-day Saturday conference meeting.

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but frankly letting a new 18-year old kid (Team President) into your conference meeting when he will promise the "moon" to get his brand new team into the league is foolish. Just look at the track record (Truman State, Monmouth, Ole Miss, Western Kentucky, etc.......)

Respectfully submitted.

[norway]

i agree completely w/ sonny's post. unfortunately, i think the grlc voters/commissioners or whoever are more concerned w/ trying to grow the sport than trying to keep our own league competitive. it's a joke really w/ some of the teams. you drive 6 hours to play a team that only has one set of jerseys AND they don't even have official goals set up or dont even know how to string the nets up. It's a joke for the teams that have to travel far and away for a required game and it's worse than a neighborhood pick-up game.
Seriously, how long are we going to put up w/ teams like this? More importantly, how long are we going to subject competitive teams to fit games like this into their budget and schedule? It's really disappointing to show up to game ready to play and then encounter situations like that.