new conference?

[scooter]

with all the discussion of admitting new teams and what not, and considering the size of this conference being so large, and looks only to get bigger......has anyone ever thought of breaking the grlc off into 2 conferences?

I mean, it already spreads from indiana to kansas, and then from arkansas to south dakota. This is probably the largest conference in all the league, so why not break it down into 2 smaller ones?

[Jolly Roger]

the can of worms is officially open.....

Would these 2 conferences each expect an AQ to nationals? You might get the arguement that until one of your conference's representatives wins on the first day of nationals, that pool of teams deserves only one spot in the tourney.

IF the GRLC splits, the SELC should spilt. Is this another AQ down?

Do we now need to expand the tourney to 24 teams and play Mon-Sat? Or will this number of AQs lead down the path of regional qualifiers/final four format. I'd say that the GRLC/GRLC2, UMLL/PCLL/LSA might find this path less than ideal.

That's off the top of my head

[scooter]

i was thinking more of a B division split. The A league currently has 10 teams, which is roughly the same number of teams in other A leagues. And in the GRLC, there don't seem to be many teams moving up to the A league, in fact, it is almost reverse Missouri State already stated they were strongly considering moving down.

Now, currently there are 16 teams in division B for the GRLC ( i hope I counted correctly). Say MSU does in fact move down, that would make 17 teams, and apparently there are about 8 teams trying to enter the league, even if half are accepted, that would make the GRLC- B division 21 teams strong.

So why not break it down into two separate conferences? I know that making a conference isn't an exact science, and with the level of competion growing each year......but if there are 21 teams competing for 1 AQ, that does not seem fair. With 21+ potential teams this season alone, it seems to me that we need to break into 2 separate conferences and have 2 separate AQs

There are many quality clubs in the GRLC-B league (Harding, Augustana, Creighton, Dordt, etc...) It would suck for only 1 team to automatically qualify for Nationals, especially since there are so few At-large bids, each team would take a massive beating during the season and conference playoffs trying to earn the AQ, that none of these teams will have the record to earn an at-large berth.

As for the playoff system, why not make it 16 teams like the A league? There seems to be more B league teams anyways, so why not have a few more present for the national tourny? I'm not saying add more teams just so more can go, but the gap between the elite teams is growing smaller each year, so why not have more quality teams at nationals to try and prove who's best?

I personally think that more B teams should be at Nationals. Harding and Augustana were the cream of the crop for the GRLC this year, and both were eerily similar in strengths and weaknesses. If Augustana would have lost 10-11 instead of winning 11-10, they would not have went to Nationals just because no one knew of them. If Salem State didn't drop out, then Harding wouldn't have been added to the 12 team format. I would argue that both these teams belonged in Dallas....but both only made it by a stroke of luck

sorry for the digress, been thinking about that for a while

[Matt_Gardiner]

It is not as simple as just making a new conference. It takes several years to make a split. It also takes many volunteers willing to head a new conference. I do not believe there would ever be a division B only conference. Augustana earned their trip to nationals, I would not call it luck. Both teams were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs, making it tough to argue that he GRLC absolutely deserves to have at least two teams in the big dance. The other three at large bids made it to the field of the final 8. As the schedule plays out next year, teams will establish themselves and (more often than not) the teams that deserve to be at the tournament will be.

The CCLA, GRLC, WCLL, SELC, and RMLC all have three or more teams at the top that all would represent the conference well at nationals. I did not include the PCLL, LSA, and PNCLL just because I do not know enough about their teams after the top two from much experience.

[scooter]

no one ever said it was going to be easy to make a new conference, especially a division B only one, but the fact remains that there are going to be way too many teams in the GRLC unless we limit the amount of teams accepted, but by doing that, the USLIA runs the risk of stifling the growth of the sport.

It would be unreasonable to expect any changes to be made for this upcoming season, but i have to think that if the conference continues to grow in the manner it has in previous years, the teams at the top will push for siginificant changes within the conference or within the league as a whole.

[pepsi24]

\ Augustana earned their trip to nationals, I would not call it luck. Both teams were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs, making it tough to argue that he GRLC absolutely deserves to have at least two teams in the big dance. The other three at large bids made it to the field of the final 8.

im confused are you trying to say that harding didnt deserve to be there?

i dont think that you were paying attention. claremont was seeded 4th and didnt even have to play in the first round. and did not make it out of their first game (albeit on a last second goal by montana). Northern Colorado played a team in Calvin that has struggled in big games and won by one. and finally Saint John's was an at-large playing an at-large...one of them had to lose and as was evident from the rest of the tournament...st. john's, i wont say should i understand how the system works....but could have been ranked much higher, as they ran all the way to the championsip game. they only didnt get the aq because they...like harding lost in the conference tournament.

[LaxRef]

\ Augustana earned their trip to nationals, I would not call it luck. Both teams were knocked out in the first round of the playoffs, making it tough to argue that he GRLC absolutely deserves to have at least two teams in the big dance. The other three at large bids made it to the field of the final 8.

im confused are you trying to say that harding didnt deserve to be there?

i dont think that you were paying attention. claremont was seeded 4th and didnt even have to play in the first round. and did not make it out of their first game (albeit on a last second goal by montana). Northern Colorado played a team in Calvin that has struggled in big games and won by one. and finally Saint John's was an at-large playing an at-large...one of them had to lose and as was evident from the rest of the tournament...st. john's, i wont say should i understand how the system works....but could have been ranked much higher, as they ran all the way to the championsip game. they only didnt get the aq because they...like harding lost in the conference tournament.

It sounded to me like he was saying, "Since both GRLC teams got knockked out in the first round, it's hard to argue that the GRLC deserves two automatic qualifiers." That statement doesn't mean Harding didn't deserve to be there, it just means that he believes that a conference should be able to win some games before you can say they are deserving of two AQs. If they aren't given two AQs, they can still be granted at-large slots in the years where TPTB decide that they have two (or more) strong teams. But to grant a conference two AQs is to say, "We believe this conference will have multiple teams deserving of at least two bids every year," and to say that the teams that play in the tournament should be winning some games.

As usual, none of this is intended to disrespect anyone; I don't actually have any opinion on whether the GRLC should have two AQs. I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument it.

[Matt_Gardiner]

LaxRef is correct. An AQ is a fiercely coveted item. Every conference always has a team or two on the bubble. If the UMLL with two teams in UST and St. Johns that both were very deserving to go tried to split, people would be screaming. It is just that nobody wants to see any spots taken away from them. Whenever an AQ is given out, there is a chance that a team will get bumped by another team ranked lower.

It also increases the chance of upsets. When Michigan State beat Michigan, it essentially cost Utah a trip to nationals by eating up a spot.

I was not saying at all that Harding was not deserving, both teams deserved to go. I just wanted to make sure that Augustana was not getting slighted. Augustana won the conference and won the AQ. They earned their place at the tournament. It was meant to be a stand alone statement with no implications on other teams.

[LaxRef]

LaxRef is correct. An AQ is a fiercely coveted item. Every conference always has a team or two on the bubble. If the UMLL with two teams in UST and St. Johns that both were very deserving to go tried to split, people would be screaming. It is just that nobody wants to see any spots taken away from them. Whenever an AQ is given out, there is a chance that a team will get bumped by another team ranked lower.

And even though UST and St. John's were both deserving of spots this year, that's a far cry stating that the UMLL will have two deserving teams every year. Thus, the UMLL should not get two AQs until it gets to the point where they are continually showing they have multiple teams with the potential to compete at the national level.

Personally, I think the system is good: the AQs give every conference something to play for, while the at-large berths give the teams that are very good but in a conference with another good team a chance as well. As with the All-America voting, the selection of the at-large teams will never please everyone, but that's how it is for the NCAA basketball tournament as well (and that tournament seems to be on the verge of being called "successful" ).

[Sonny]

As for the playoff system, why not make it 16 teams like the A league? There seems to be more B league teams anyways, so why not have a few more present for the national tourny? I'm not saying add more teams just so more can go, but the gap between the elite teams is growing smaller each year, so why not have more quality teams at nationals to try and prove who's best?

I personally think that more B teams should be at Nationals.

We were discussing this issue earlier in the main forum:
http://forums.uslia.com/viewtopic.php?t=5631

[scooter]

its unfortunate that the idea was quashed, but thanks for the link, i probably should have searched existing threads before throwing that idea out there

[pepsi24]

I just wanted to make sure that Augustana was not getting slighted. Augustana won the conference and won the AQ. They earned their place at the tournament. It was meant to be a stand alone statement with no implications on other teams.

ok...it just sounded like you were trying to slight harding. i completely agree with you. augustana completely deserved to be there. the only reason they were ranked so low was because of it being their first overly successful season and them being from the GRLC a concieved "weaker" conference. i look forward to seeing them develop over the next few seasons.