Gem State Recap

[Band]

Why not join the PNCLL & MCLA when your team is ready to compete at it's level? What's wrong with scheduling these games & building your team before you join the conference?

It doesn't work that way, Kyle. Maybe things are different at UPS but here on the Palouse we have found that it is impossible to get anyone to commit to a team unless they believe they are playing for something. I have spoken to the president of the WSU team and they are having that exact same issue. Both WSU and UI have a huge Greek community and a ton of intramural athletic opportunities and between those two, players have no motivation to devote time to a lacrosse team if they don't feel that they are actually going to be playing in a league - hell even with the league it is next to impossible to get some of these frat guys out. Furthermore, your idea does absolutely nothing to alleviate the stresses I outlined above regarding recruitment and retainment. The whole idea is to grow a program inside and with a legitimate body, not to try and catch up from the outside.

Why should the MCLA differentiate divisions & then allow your program to develop under its wing?

I'm not arguing just for my program here. I am arguing common sense. The MCLA should be allowing every program to develop under its wing and if that isn't happening then the differentiation of divisions doesn't work.

I see a problem in that Idaho, a larger public school, competing year in and year out with Albertson or Whitman (schools of much smaller size(900-1500 students)) is absolutely outside of the realm of fair to those smaller teams.

What you are failing to take into account is that school size is not the only factor here. Albertson's in basically in the Boise area. Every single high school in the Boise area has a lacrosse team. Thusly, Albertson's has a direct feed of new recruits. Furthermore, Albertson's is a totally different environment from UI. Albertson's doesn't have a Greek system that completely hampers participation. Yes Albertson's is smaller, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their ability to grow their program is severely limited compared to UI.
You say you have a problem with Albertson's or Whitman "competing year in and year out" with Idaho. I'll address that in two ways. Firstly, Albertson's and UI just played each other and it was a 1 point game. I don't think that sounds all that unfair. Secondly, we have an AGM every year and if a team gets too big for their B division britches, theres no reason why they then can't be moved up to the A division.

Recruiting problems for you teams most likely stem a lot further than just wins & losses.

No, but that kind of proves my point, doesn't it? A team's ability to draw new players is not based alone on the size of its school either, which is what you are presupposing. Wins and losses play a role in how appealing we are to lacrosse players, but so do our location (where the hell is Moscow anyways), our weather, our demographics (this school is incredibly cheap - you can't expect everyone who is only willing/able to spend X on school to spend X on gear and dues), and a number of other factors. Placing a team such as this in Division A right off the bat doesn't help anyone. Giving a team a place to be competitive will foster growth and allow them to make that jump to the higher division when it is appropriate.

Whether Oregon is dominant this year, last year, 10 years ago or 10 years from now is not really a huge concern in my book. They are 1 of 18 teams. Granted they may be the model of how to build a program in such a short time, but still only one team.

Thats true, and they shouldn't have to spend time and money playing teams that are a waste of their time.

If you don't feel Idaho program is ready to be in the PNCLL as it stands, you may want to be ready to address the board & the committee redoing the bylaws this season & prepare to address the conference at next years AGM.

Phrasing it like that is exactly the problem with how this debate always goes. Idaho is ready to be in the PNCLL, but probably not in the A Division. Will they be ready for A division someday? Maybe, but it would be a lot more sure if the team were given a chance to find its legs in a more appropriately competetive division. And yeah, addressing the board and committee is a good idea, but so is debate and exchange of ideas beforehand.

[Kyle Berggren]

Petition should have nothing to do with it. Divisions should be arranged by what is most competetive and what will foster the most amount of growth for all teams - not just a few.

I'd also be curious what you're referring to when you infer the divisions are arranged to foster the growth of just a few?

I don't mind the debate, I'm happy to have it. It helps me to see the another side of the arguement. And I'd still like to know what teams we're fostering growth for? Montana?

I'll have my take out on this shortly, but I'm trying not to write a book on it. Overall, what you're asking for is not what my understanding of the MCLA has become in the last 5 years or so.

[ZagGrad]

And I'd still like to know what teams we're fostering growth for? Montana?

How about GU? We were basically nothing about 5 years ago. Thanks to Rick, we've been able to draw more kids with more talent. Oh yeah, thanks to the basketball team too.

[Kyle Berggren]

Chris, the PNCLL is barely recognizable from when we started playing in it... Oregon couldn't win a game against PLU back then (except the playoffs, when it mattered). That's one of the reasons its tough for me to shake the growth of the game aspect of this debate. Remember when you'd have to travel to SFU to get spanked? I do (28-10 sounds right to me). Or go to the playoffs to play SFU & go home? It wasn't pretty, but we got better from having played those teams & the programs are stronger because of it.

[Kyle Berggren]

It's probably best that this thread be locked, but I don't want to squash the Gem State Recap portion of this thread. Please post comments (quote people if you need to) in regards to A vs. B division teams in the other thread.

[nhoskins]

The success of PNCLL teams has been linked to the growth of lacrosse in their states (or provinces).

SFU had a strong base of players that had played before, and dominated because no one else did at the time. Once lacrosse started to grow in Washington, they got a lot better too. Oregon's successes point to the explosive growth of lacrosse in Oregon too. Teams like Boise State, Idaho and Montana will be (or are) reaping the benefits of growing lacrosse programs in nearby high schools too.

It's a matter of these schools recruiting and retaining these players. Oregon's, Gonzaga's, OSU's and SFU's recruiting efforts recently have allowed them to grow their rosters and attract top talent, top talent that either went elsewhere for NCAA lacrosse, or did not exist until high school programs developed.

It's a matter of time before all the schools in the league start being "fed" by their local high school programs. Montana is fortunate (and rare) in developing before their high school programs have. I don't see Idaho or Albertson's as being any different, they may struggle now but will get better and we will see league parity as we see parity in number of feeding high schools.

That being said, props to Montana. I remember playing you guys back in the day, and I'm really impressed with the work of Kevin and the rest of the team in improving. Fall ball was fun and while not an accurate forecast of season success, Montana played well to win the Gem. I look forward to following Montana's successes in the B division this year.