NCLL teams joining MCLA?

[Campbell]

Taking out the costs, Title IX, higher profile, etc. is there any advantage for a school to have their lacrosse team be a part of the NCAA vs. MCLA? I mean from an administrative or regulatory standpoint.

[Madlax16]

*snip snip*

especially at the A level, are playing at a much higher level and are much better organized than many NCAA teams at the Division 3 level.

um, i disagree totally. From watching MANY MANY NCAA games at all levels, and playing in a some in d2 games, there is no way that the mcla is a higher level play than many d3 schools. Ive seen the better teams in the mcla play, and the fact is that there are more errors, dropped passes, and just careless mistakes in the club level than in the varsity level. Im not saying that there are alot of errors in mcla games, but the fact is that varsity level doesnt tend to have the same ammount of flaws in gameplay, passes are crisper and allmost allways in "the box", shot are harder and more prescise in the varsity level.
Also, though i am now at nebraska, and we are begining to get the organization that many of the upper level teams have, NCAA teams are more organized. The style of pratices in the mcla and the ncaa are very similar, the main fact is, the talent level OVER ALL in all divisions in the NCAA is better than than in the mcla. Dont get me wrong, there are a few team in the bottom 2 divisons that the upper level mcla team could beat, and have, as, if my memory serves me, didnt florida state beat one of the lower level d2 deep south conference teams?, i want to say lees mcrae, a year or two back?

[Madlax16]

in regards to campbell, those are the reasons to be a varsity sport, not having to pay to play, in some instances free gear from sponsors, being a higher profile team, and the biggest part, playing for the NCAA championship. That in my oppinion, is WAY more gratifying, and covetted, than if i were to play for the club national championship. I had a bigger sense of pride when i got an athletic scholorship to play last year than i do saying that i play at the club level. In my oppinon its all about cost, and playing for something that in my oppinion means more.

[cjwilhelmi]

and the biggest part, playing for the NCAA championship. That in my oppinion, is WAY more gratifying, and covetted, than if i were to play for the club national championship. I had a bigger sense of pride when i got an athletic scholorship to play last year than i do saying that i play at the club level. In my oppinon its all about cost, and playing for something that in my oppinion means more.

Ok then here is the obvious question: If you liked it that much and think its that much better and were on scholarship, why are you at Nebraska?

[John Paul]

Is there an advantage to the school? Absolutely - regulation, exposure, director's cup points (if they value that), donations to the school and athletic department (huge factor for lacrosse - and ultimately why I think you will eventually see more varsity growth), higher graduation rates and gpas for athletic department, etc. There is also a potential advantage to the community through camps and clinics (much easier to do as a varsity), and as an example to regional youth and high school players (who would benefit from seeing the sport played at a higher level locally, and let's face it - who are much more likely to attend a D1 game).

Waldo is absolutely correct about the hurdles a major D1 school faces to add a varsity sport, especially a men's varsity sport. Smaller D1, D3 and any level school that doesn't have football is a very different story. At those schools it's much easier, and for some of them it's a no-brainer in the other direction as they can make money and add enrollment in the long run. That's why you continue to see new D3 programs every year, and the new D1 programs are at smaller schools like Robert Morris and Bellarmine (and I could name a couple of others who are seriously considering it right now).

Waldo - you guys get off cheap. An endowed scholarship here is $250,000. Annual scholarship costs, with no endowment, would be about $567,000 for a fully funded men's team. That said, I still believe it will happen here eventually, and I say that as a former administrator in the department who still has very close ties. As the sport continues its growth, it will happen at other big-time D1 schools as well...just not as quickly as many in the lacrosse world would like.

As I mentioned about Stryker's point, which was echoed by Oaks, it's valid to say that a new varsity team at a MCLA school, especially a bigger school, could harm the club program. The same is true of almost any new varsity sport at big schools - in most cases the club team drops down a notch (although in almost every case it continues to exist). However, I have never heard of any club team, anywhere, challenging their own school's decision to add a varsity team in their sport. I believe that would be a myopic view to take. I continue to use the men's soccer example here because it's the one I'm closest to. The club team, knowing full well that most of them would not make the varsity team, were instrumental in getting the varsity team approved seven years ago. They believed it would be good for the game, and their alumni who played club come back every year for team reunions, donate to the team and support it every way they can. Those guys were not thinking of themselves as much as pushing soccer at Michigan to the next level.

[OAKS]

Dont get me wrong, there are a few team in the bottom 2 divisons that the upper level mcla team could beat, and have, as, if my memory serves me, florida state beat one of the lower level d2 deep south conference teams, i want to say lees mcrae? a year or two back.

FSU beat Deep South regular season co-champion Mars Hill 22-9 last year. There is a large drop-off in DIII competitiveness in the bottom 1/3rd or so, as well in the bottom part of DII, and I would venture to say that the top 30 or so MCLA teams could beat these teams on a regular basis. There are numerous examples from the past few years.

Also, just because a team is a varsity team doesn't mean they have all the money they need. Many teams fund-raise and put up money for their own sticks and stuff.

[SLDINI]

I agree with JP, but I will be more blunt in my take on the matter. It's all about the money for an athletic department at a Big National School with a Div. 1A football, adding lacrosse will come down to money. I am not talking about ticket sales or regional TV (hypothetical money). Lacrosse will be driven by endowments and major gifts (real money), and we are not talking $50-$100K, because if you look at the national average of income from an endowment its about 5% of the total value. So if you plan on having a well funded team at about $500k per year (which is low, I know our varsity women's team gets more than that every year) you would need an endowment of $10 million to fund the program in perpetuity. I am sure a lot of people will wonder why this is but you have to look at a school like mine we have 27 varsity sports with an annual budget of $44 million, and only two maybe three sports make what they spend back if they are lucky and that is in a good year. So why would a large public institutions add another sport to drain resources? In many cases they don't they cut sports no 1A football school has added lacrosse to my knowledge in 20 years they have only cut them (we cut wrestling and volleyball in the same time) I would argue that lacrosse will only grow at the large public schools when or if the benefits out weighed the cost. And in the case of my school it would take a lot of money to make that argument work.
Notice I touch on money not Title IX because that is another argument all together.

Other things I think people have to consider in the posts that I have read in this thread, is why would a small regional public school add lacrosse in an area where there is no other natural rival to play? What benefit is there for a Chico/Sonoma to play a New York Tech? Especially if they do not have the money? I can see why small privates do it they need to entice students to come and pay full tuition, create new donors and raise the exposure of the school and such. But in California for the most part the public schools are not lacking for students actually many are over enrolled, they are lacking donors and that is where I think you can make the argument but it is a costly one.

Finally do we really think that if a MCLA school were to add a varsity lacrosse team that the MCLA would not allow the club to continue? I can understand why we do not take clubs from programs with existing varsity teams, but the reverse argument does not make a lot of sense, and I think a lot of the varsity schools would understand.

Steve Dini

[Zeuslax]

Something that I forgot to add earlier as to why a school would want to add lacrosse is that the game is very "collegiate". It looks good and is still considered by most as a college game. Advertisement value can be huge, especially directed at high schools with better academics......At Ferris State the Advertising and Marketing department loved our team. That's why we were the only club program with pics in their recruitment trifolds, mailers, and web sites at the time. They saw it as a means to tap high schools with students that they thought we quinessential.

Lacrosse is still predominately played in "better" communities with better schools, which could draw a potentially better student. From what I understand and I'm not sure about current statistics, but men's lacrosse at the varsity level typically has very good team GPA's. If I'm not mistaken the highest on avg. as a mens sport?

[StrykerFSU]

Finally do we really think that if a MCLA school were to add a varsity lacrosse team that the MCLA would not allow the club to continue?

I was thinking along the same lines, that maybe the MCLA would take such instances and evaluate them individually but it would seem from JP's post that would not be the case. Your school adds varsity, your club is out of the MCLA.

[Zeuslax]

I was thinking along the same lines, that maybe the MCLA would take such instances and evaluate them individually but it would seem from JP's post that would not be the case. Your school adds varsity, your club is out of the MCLA.

......Hopefully with some notification which would allow some adjustment period for the current MCLA team.

[Gregg Pathiakis]

On a similar topic, we just created a new collegiate league in New England. One of the purposes of the league is to give a home to UMass club and UVM club who don't have a home anywhere else. We're also made up of schools with only club teams, but it is definitely a perfect place for those with varsity. We hope to lure away some NCLL teams in the coming years as well. We hope to provide a structure as strict as the MCLA, only on a more localized level. See the press release here.

[John Paul]

I was thinking along the same lines, that maybe the MCLA would take such instances and evaluate them individually but it would seem from JP's post that would not be the case. Your school adds varsity, your club is out of the MCLA.

Only stating the rules as they are now. Hasn't happened yet. If it happens, we'll take a good look at it.

[Madlax16]

and the biggest part, playing for the NCAA championship. That in my oppinion, is WAY more gratifying, and covetted, than if i were to play for the club national championship. I had a bigger sense of pride when i got an athletic scholorship to play last year than i do saying that i play at the club level. In my oppinon its all about cost, and playing for something that in my oppinion means more.

Ok then here is the obvious question: If you liked it that much and think its that much better and were on scholarship, why are you at Nebraska?

K, well to clear up some confusion in my earlier post, i went to st andrews, and left due to financial reasons. I loved playing at that level, but unexpected financial things came up, as they tend to do in life. My family then moved to omaha this summer. I had to decide to go to community college, or send out applications to all of the instate schools and pray that some one would accept me. I got in to UNL the week before classes started. And that is why i am currently at nebraska.

[scooter]

K, well to clear up some confusion in my earlier post, i went to st andrews, and left due to financial reasons. I loved playing at that level, but unexpected financial things came up, as they tend to do in life. My family then moved to omaha this summer. I had to decide to go to community college, or send out applications to all of the instate schools and pray that some one would accept me. I got in to UNL the week before classes started. And that is why i am currently at nebraska.

Sorry to hear about your situation, but I for one am glad to have you in the MCLA. I doubt many other people around have knowledge of NCAA lacrosse, and I'm sure your insight will come in handy in the future when comparing the 2 leagues, as well as how to run your team. Also, it sounds like you are doing a mighty fine job turning around the Nebraska lax program, which was in desperate need of tweeking

[John Westfall]

These are all tough questions. Is NCAA really better then the MCLA? Perhaps MCLA is better. If you are looking at going to a traditional NCAA D3 school that has a name for it's self you may end up paying $25,000-$35,000 Dollars a year to go to College and play varsity Lacrosse. Where as you could go to a Michigan, Texas Tech, Colorado State, Florida State or Arizona for far less and have plenty of money for those $1500-2000 Dollar Team dues. I guess I could go on a bit. The truth is there are some huge financial disparities in the MCLA and I believe that our top programs in our League are taking away from NCAA D2 and D3 talent on the varsity level. These are tough issues to tackle. There also are concerns here that some of the top Teams in the MCLA are also run by those who run the MCLA and are getting top sponsors for their programs.

I wont go any further because I'm afraid that I will step on some toes and to bring this up is not meant in that manner at all. I just see some serious issues that need to be resolved to make this a great league and eventually work towards Varsity College Lacrosse across the board from Coast to Coast the way it should be. I also have some serious concerns with the departure of US Lacrosse overseeing the league and our relationship with US Lacrosse. These are only my opinions and again not meant to step on toes. I have been very ill as of late and am a bit out of the loop of the politics of the league but these are just things I see first hand starting up a small program in the southwest. For our Team at UNM to play at Division A where we are suppose to play we will have to become competitive with the likes of Colorado, Colorado State, BYU, and Utah in a short period of time. This is a tough thing to do for any new program but for us to play as a big University in Division A that is what we must do. It is a huge undertaking for a place like New Mexico that has very little High School and youth Lacrosse. I am hoping to change that with the new High School league in Albuquerque this year but to compete with all these big money Teams that have 6 figure budgets is almost an impossibility. All I am saying is the playing field is not level by a long shot and something needs to be done to make the playing field a bit more level for all the 200+ members of the MCLA, and not to take anything away from the NCAA but to compliment each other. If I have offended anyone I apologize, but as anyone who has played for me would tell you I call it the way I see it.

Again I apologize if I have offended anyone. These are only my opinions.

All the best,

John