NCLL teams joining MCLA?

[SDSULAX]

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.

Just what exactly brought you to come up with that concern, if I may ask?

[mholtz]

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.

...John

There are going to be financial disparities at all levels. Ohio State's football team has a significant advantage over that of Northwestern, and they are in the same conference!

Is the MCLA run by "top coaches"? Yes and no. There are great coaches that aren't in leadership, and there are coaches in leadership that aren't all that great of coaches. I'd say both of those situations are the minority.

The reason that the great coaches are mostly running the MCLA is that these volunteers love the sport more than most, and want to see it succeed.

Do some of the best MCLA coaches get better sponsors? They probably do in some cases. Would I like to have John Paul's budget? You bet. Does his budget gurantee he wins games? Absolutely not.

Money is one part of it. Dedication of the staff, and players is much more important.

And are we taking talent from NCAA D3/2? I can tell you for a fact that my program is. I specifically (and I know many others do) recruit against the Wheeling Jesuit's and Wooster College's of the world. Why is that a problem? If someone chooses to go to MSU because they want a "big school" environment then good for them.

Just my $0.02

[LaxRef]

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.

Um, that's based on the (hopefully) fallacious assumption that you're paying to pay lacrosse and have little utility for the education involved. Not that paying $30,000 per year necessarily gets you a better education than paying $10,000, but at some level there must be people who think that $30,000 education is worth more or they wouldn't pay for it.

I went to a small private university for undergrad and to a large public university for grad school. In my experience, the teaching was a lot better at the small private university, and I think it was worth the extra money. YMMV.

[somrandomguy]

And are we taking talent from NCAA D3/2? I can tell you for a fact that my program is. I specifically (and I know many others do) recruit against the Wheeling Jesuit's and Wooster College's of the world. Why is that a problem? If someone chooses to go to MSU because they want a "big school" environment then good for them.

Also, frankly, I think a lot of this has to do with the prospects for playing time as well wanting to attend a big school. There is really very little financial incentive for most college lacrosse players to play college lacrosse, as outside of the elite Division 1 level, receiving significant scholarship money for lacrosse is a slim prospect. This means that most collegiate players are playing for the love of the game rather than money, which is also why student-athletes are willing to pay 2000-plus dollars to play collegiate lacrosse in the MCLA. With two colleges that a student likes roughly equally, I would venture to guess they will more times than not choose the school where they see the greatest potential for playing time. Not to slight Michigan State, or any other program, but at least the perception is that a club team will be nowhere near as deep as a varsity team. So often one will choose a lesser team where they'll play over a better team where they may not play.

That's just my opinion, though.

[OAKS]

Also, frankly, I think a lot of this has to do with the prospects for playing time as well wanting to attend a big school. [snip] Not to slight Michigan State, or any other program, but at least the perception is that a club team will be nowhere near as deep as a varsity team. So often one will choose a lesser team where they'll play over a better team where they may not play.

There are a lot of reasons kids choose colleges. Location, size, friends (if staying close to home), etc. etc. I do think Matt brings up a good point and that a 'big college feel' can and does have a very large pull, especially in a state where there are no big colleges with a program. I don't know about your state, but growing up in North Carolina, none of my friends were fans of Greensboro College or Guilford or Catawba, Mars Hill, etc. It was Carolina, Duke, NC State, and occasionally Wake. Being an NC State fan all your life will have a larger pull than the prospect of playing D2 Lacrosse for a place like Lees McRae for many kids in NC (I'm not trying to slight those schools, but it's just the lifestyle of the state).

[Sonny]

I just see some serious issues that need to be resolved to make this a great league

This is ALREADY a great league. 10 years and counting. Great teams, great conferences, and great national championship tournaments.

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.

If true... why not talk things over with your MCLA Conference Director first before coming online publicly?

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 Tf Colorado, Colorado State, BYU, and Utah in a short period of time.

Play a season or two, before you run with the "big dogs." UNM hasn't even played one single MCLA regular season game EVER - yet you are already complaining about the tough competition.

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.

There isn't a level playing field at the NCAA level. Do you think that Wagner competes at the same (Div. 1) "level playing field" as Virginia or Syracuse or Johns Hopkins?

THINK about things before you speak again John publicly. This isn't the first time you have had diarrea of the keyboard. Your constant "moaning" is frankly tiresome.

[John Westfall]

Listen, before the whole World comes after me and beats me up. These are only my opinions. I hope I am wrong on some of these things. This is the way I see it and it is as plain as that. There are issues of Ethics and if you guys can't see that then I have no more to say. It is not a level playing Field the way it is set up right now. I really feel strongly that US Lacrosse or another governing body should oversee this League. Again that is only my opinion and I have a right to that. It does not mean that I am right, it is only an opinion and is not a personal attack on anyone. So chill your fires.

Sonny, These are my opinions leave at that. Yeah, have you been pushed into a Tractor Trailer Truck and had your whole life changed? I have had to fight for my life so don't even go there with my health. As for getting up with John Robinette I do need to get up with him and find out more facts. I do admit that I do not know all the facts. But this is what I see so far. Again I hope I am wrong. There just seems to be some ethics questions in my mind and that is my opinion and I have a right to that.

Sonny, you are wrong. New Mexico was a USLIA Team in 1997 when I was here before in the LSA and has played in this league before. Now I am not complaining I am just stating that it is very hard to start a program from scratch from grass roots with a limited budget compared with what is out there today even in Division B. Yes, we will play on the Division B for a couple of years and develop and go from there.

[murphlaxtx]

I feel that many programs (not all) struggle to keep up with the elite teams because of internal factors. I took over a Baylor team this year that has struggled to keep a coaching staff. In turn, it makes it much harder to prepare for the future both financially and when it comes to recruiting players. I don't believe it has anything to do with unethical practice, tipped scales, a stacked deck.....whatever someone may want to call it. I was brought in to this program to bring structure, balance and stability to a program that competes with A&M, UT, Tech, etc for recruits and money. Look at BYU, Colorado St, Michigan, and many others and you see programs with coaches that have been there for some time and built a strong program. That tenure with the team brings connections (including sponsors). They develop relationships with companies and such because those companies see that they are dealing with a stable environment that would be equally beneficial to them. I, in no way, feel that these teams have an unfair advantage because of their position on the board either. I sat in on their business meetings in late summer and saw no evidence of anything other than a well maintained plan (and a group of people that want to see this league grow on many levels and in different aspects). I welcome the opportunity to try and make Baylor an elite program. I know it will take some time and a lot of work, but isn't that what they had to do to get where they are?

[onpoint]

I'm feeling like writing a little, so . . .

I also disagree that the playing field is not level (and I know I'm not saying anything particularly groundbreaking here). At CSU, we receive little to no support from our university. This is true at 99% of MCLA programs. We have built our program from the ground up, virtually all because of Flip Naumburg. We have no admissions pull. We have no recruiting capabilities. We don't even get to play on our own fields until March. Our school is even considering putting up buildings in places where fields now exist. Everything that we at CSU do, we have created for ourselves, up to and including very cool events at INVESCO Field and the Pepsi Center. Everyone at our level has this opportunity. Does everyone at this level have that commitment? That's another question entirely.

I was once asked by a player of a Division III school why we at CSU take everything so personally and have such an "us against the world" mentality. I took that as a tremendous compliment to the perserverance of our program in the face of many levels of adversity. These challenges come from places as near as within our own university to nationally within the MCLA to as broad as the perception of what it means to be a "lacrosse team/player" in the general community at large. Everyone here faces those challenges - and overcoming them is what makes a program successful at our level.

My personal opinion is that the MCLA is not for "club" teams. The days of drinking beer on the sideline are long gone for our league. That being said, "club lacrosse" is not an entirely bad thing. Thus, the MCLA is not for everyone and I think we are better served to make sure all the teams at our level are committed to putting the MCLA's best foot forward before we take on more teams that we can't support. The MCLA's job is not to babysit programs until they are ready to compete on a national level.

Instead of complaining that all of your dues (theoretically) are going towards a national tournament that you feel your team never has a chance to win (theoretically), why not buck up and get better? We don't need to give a ribbon to the 10th place finisher of the egg on a spoon race. Life is not always fair.

If teams are unhappy with the level of competitiveness, here are 3 suggestions.

1. Get better so you can compete for a national championship.
2. Play independent of the MCLA and define your own goals.
3. Be content with the fact that you HAVE a league like this to be in and have fun.

To me, this is the fundamental problem with our Division B. We are all club, after all. No matter how you slice it. Why do we need to segregate at all? (I know I will hear a host of reasons why - but competitiveness was a HUGE factor in splitting to begin with).

Finally, for those who say that they are not afforded the opportunity to compete at a high level in the MCLA, look no further than last year's two finalists. Neither CSU nor CU get a stitch from the outside. They are two strong programs that have built themselves into what they are.

[murphlaxtx]

What it comes down to for Baylor, is preparing the equivalent of a business plan. Show the people around you that you are serious and you will build support. I equate it to a drop of water landing in a puddle. The drop makes the initial impact.....then the ripple goes into effect and spread to neighboring areas. If you build a good foundation and continue to build off of it, you will become successful.....regardless of what other teams in your conference are or are not doing. I have been at the healm of this program for 4 months now and I am already receiving emails and messages from players that graduate from High School in 2010. Why? because we are busting tail to make a name for this program and the changes are extremely evident.....in how we carry ourselves on and off the field, how we interact with other programs, how we project ourselves to fans...the school....the business sector....and the league in general. I could never discredit a team's success, nor would I try....whether on or off the field. 99.9% of the time it is well deserved.

[Danny Hogan]

To me, this is the fundamental problem with our Division B. We are all club, after all. No matter how you slice it. Why do we need to segregate at all? (I know I will hear a host of reasons why - but competitiveness was a HUGE factor in splitting to begin with).

totally agree...

[Campbell]

I'm feeling like writing a little, so . . .

I also disagree that the playing field is not level (and I know I'm not saying anything particularly groundbreaking here). At CSU, we receive little to no support from our university. This is true at 99% of MCLA programs. We have built our program from the ground up, virtually all because of Flip Naumburg. We have no admissions pull. We have no recruiting capabilities. We don't even get to play on our own fields until March. Our school is even considering putting up buildings in places where fields now exist. Everything that we at CSU do, we have created for ourselves, up to and including very cool events at INVESCO Field and the Pepsi Center. Everyone at our level has this opportunity. Does everyone at this level have that commitment? That's another question entirely.

I was once asked by a player of a Division III school why we at CSU take everything so personally and have such an "us against the world" mentality. I took that as a tremendous compliment to the perserverance of our program in the face of many levels of adversity. These challenges come from places as near as within our own university to nationally within the MCLA to as broad as the perception of what it means to be a "lacrosse team/player" in the general community at large. Everyone here faces those challenges - and overcoming them is what makes a program successful at our level.

My personal opinion is that the MCLA is not for "club" teams. The days of drinking beer on the sideline are long gone for our league. That being said, "club lacrosse" is not an entirely bad thing. Thus, the MCLA is not for everyone and I think we are better served to make sure all the teams at our level are committed to putting the MCLA's best foot forward before we take on more teams that we can't support. The MCLA's job is not to babysit programs until they are ready to compete on a national level.

Instead of complaining that all of your dues (theoretically) are going towards a national tournament that you feel your team never has a chance to win (theoretically), why not buck up and get better? We don't need to give a ribbon to the 10th place finisher of the egg on a spoon race. Life is not always fair.

If teams are unhappy with the level of competitiveness, here are 3 suggestions.

1. Get better so you can compete for a national championship.
2. Play independent of the MCLA and define your own goals.
3. Be content with the fact that you HAVE a league like this to be in and have fun.

To me, this is the fundamental problem with our Division B. We are all club, after all. No matter how you slice it. Why do we need to segregate at all? (I know I will hear a host of reasons why - but competitiveness was a HUGE factor in splitting to begin with).

Finally, for those who say that they are not afforded the opportunity to compete at a high level in the MCLA, look no further than last year's two finalists. Neither CSU nor CU get a stitch from the outside. They are two strong programs that have built themselves into what they are.

Very well said Alex.

The playing field is not level, but as others have said it never will be. The really great thing about the MCLA is the opportunity it affords club lacrosse. Every club program has gone through its "keg on the sideline" phase which was fun and all, but now we have a league where you can compete for a National Championship...on TV. So whether you are Michigan or UNM it all boils down to how much the team wants it.

When I started coaching at Texas State the team was in pretty bad shape. The next year we got an excellent class of freshman, mostly out of high school programs in Texas, that decided they didn't want to be just a "keg on the sideline" kind of club. The decisions they made over my three years there like raising dues, committing to out of state travel, committing to practice, and getting more organized had a huge impact on the image of the team. The players were proud of the team, the league took notice, and the school even started to pay attention to the lacrosse team. The key is the players made the decision to do it and what they have is a direct result of their commitment to that decision. Does that mean Texas State has a huge budget and is at the top of the league? ... No, but every school is going to grow at different speeds and it has a lot to do with how the program is managed. I think Texas State has great things ahead of them, they have a motivated team and great coach to help them out.

So, it make take UNM 3 years to get on a more level playing field and it may take 10 years. Overall I think we are in a better place with the MCLA. Also, to add... I think it is good that we parted ways with US Lacrosse and are now on our own. We need to be able to make decisions that are in the best interest of this league and I don't know that we would have that being under US Lacrosse.

[mholtz]

What it comes down to for Baylor, is preparing the equivalent of a business plan.

This is very important for creating or reviving a program. I inherited a team with many great players, and a good lacrosse foundation, but there were many other problems with the team including a significant debt, bad vendor and university reputatiuons, and a non existant alumni base. These weren't directly the result of any one person, or one event, but they were all very real.

When I got the job at MSU the first thing I did was sit down and create 10, 5, 3, and one year plans for the program with the 1year building into the 3, 3 into 5 etc.

The 1 year plan included a whole page hand written of things we needed to accomplish. There were only 2 things on the entire page that had anything to do with "on the field". We did pretty well in our first year on the field but we actually did much better off the field in ways that will not be apparent to the average Joe fan. In fact we were able to start working towards our 3 year goal in our first year.

You have to have a vision and a plan and you have to execute on that plan. It takes commitment, and time from the entire program (head coach, assistants, captains, players, managers, etc). The great programs in the MCLA have been executing plans like this for years (UM, CSU, UCSB, BYU, etc) because they have coaches with a great vision, and commitment to executing that vision.

If all that there was to running a program was walking out onto a field with a stop watch, and a whistle, then anyone could do it, and everyone would. I don't mean this as criticism of anyone opinion, but instead as an insight into an "up and coming" program that has been 70 miles north west of a great program for the past 5-10 years.

My suggestion to new programs would be to stick with it. Make a plan. Don't just plan out todays practice, or just scout the next opponent. Identify the programs weaknesses, and how you can improve on them. Identify the strengths and how you can exploit them. Use your talents. Get help from neighboring programs. Consult with "experts". Do whatever it takes to get there.

It takes more than a year to build a program. I can't say that my team will win a national title, or even a conference title, but I can tell you that we will execute our plan for this year. If we are succesful on executing our plan then the team will be successful on and off the field.

Ok. I better get back to work. My boss is gonna kill me.

[Campbell]

You have to have a vision and a plan and you have to execute on that plan. It takes commitment, and time from the entire program (head coach, assistants, captains, players, managers, etc). The great programs in the MCLA have been executing plans like this for years (UM, CSU, UCSB, BYU, etc) because they have coaches with a great vision, and commitment to executing that vision.

This is critical. A program that is going to grow and be successful long term is one that involves all levels in the plan. The second half of your statement is important too, and something JP states now and then. Teams need to find coaches for the long term or at least a plan for attracting coaches and maintaining a plan from year to year. This means organizing and administering a plan from the top (coach) down. Many clubs suffer from club presidents that take too much leadership, limit the coaches, and then graduate leaving the next president scratching his head and starting all over again. Those clubs don't grow, or they grow very slowly. Clubs that can't secure good coaches for the long term or on a regular basis could fill that consistency to some degree, I think, with an active alumni base. The better a program gets the more the alumni are going to want to be a part of it.

It would be interesting to have a MCLA workshop where some of the coaches who have built these great programs could talk about what it takes to get there.

[John Paul]

A workshop is a great idea. The problem is, the programs that need it most wouldn't show up. The ones that have coaches that care about making a long term commitment to make the team better on and off the field could learn a lot from the coaches who've been at this awhile (just as we learn a lot from others). The ones without those coaches haven't made the first, necessary step yet anyway.

That said, finding that kind of coach is extremely difficult. The list that gets thrown out here all the time includes guys who've made tremendous personal sacrifices to build their teams - often setting aside or limiting careers for little or no financial gain (or even at great cost). The unifying factor among the perrenial top programs is a coach who considers himself a "career coach." Among those programs, even the coaches who have a regular job to support their coaching habit think of themselves as coach first, other job second.

So how does a program, especially one with no track record of excellence, even attract someone who can do the job and commit to it for a long run? To be honest, I don't know. I think at many of our schools it happens by accident. I certainly had no intention of making a career of this when I took over the team 10 years ago (and it was purely club back then in every aspect). I only know that if you want your team to become what the top programs are, you have to find a coach who can do it and wants to do it and give him the power to get it done.

As for a level playing field - that's what our eligibility rules are for. The playing field is as level as it can be. What do we do to level it more? Take away school support from teams that have it? Make admissions tougher at schools where it's easy to get in? Disallow sponsorships? Put a cap on budgets? Disallow full time coaches? Does any of that serve the game or the kids who are playing it? Alex is right - you want to play in the MCLA and compete at the highest levels, make it happen.