Increased Game Fees for 2007

[Ryan Hanavan]

The last thing I want to ask before I take my beautiful new bride out for a fancy dinner (don't worry, I'm not using our travel money).

Is this legal to make these hikes after we make our schedules? It seems kind of tough, especially for the teams that bulked up on games under the idea that the old prices would still be the same.

Just curious, I'm sure someone that's been around longer might be able to answer this.

Thanks!

[cjwilhelmi]

Just FYI: In the GRLC, the hometeam foots the entire bill. If Team A is hosting a neutral game between Team B and Team C, Team A is billed.

[Juergy]

Kyle, in regards to your last post, I think your claim that UPS students pay less for a game than Whitman students is wrong. Here is why. If you come to Whitman for a game, and Whitman has to pay for the entire game, that means Whitman is paying for you and Whitman to have a game. I realize that the next year we go to UPS, and UPS picks that up and it is cheaper, but why should our series cost you less than us? So if you believe everyone deserves home games, then you should realize that it should be the cost of the series that you pay, not the cost of home games. And by saying you have stuck yourself out for the league in the past, that might be true. But what you think is fair is based on what UPS's position is. And no doubt, Whitman's position dictates my position to a certain extent. But here is the question. Why should we, Whitman College, be penalized that HS lax isn't in our area? The fact that there isn't HS lax here is why we don't have refs.

And to end. In the past it was 5-10 dollars difference. Now it is you pay nothing extra, we pay a lot extra. What this comes down to is that you don't think you should pay to play at Whitman when you come here because it is our home game. That is unfair because we deserve home games and we travel to your place every other year. And if you think it is still unfair, let's talk about travel costs and time. You rarely have to stay overnight, based on your geographic postion. Ask me how many times I stay in a hotel. A lot more than you. And do I complain? No, because I am happy to be in this league. This is about equalizing the playing field for all. And you are basically advocating making it untenable to play in this league if you go to school outside the metro areas. Yes, you pay more. But you should pay for playing games here and realize you owe it to us to come here, and pay for that, just as we owe it to you to come to your place.

That is all. Our positions seem unreconciable. But when we as a league make it impossible for others to play, no more league, or at least reduced league.

[Juergy]

Sorry, to finish my point. (I have trouble thinking of everything I have to say at once). Back to my point about paying for the series rather than the game. You are essentially asking us to pay a lot of extra money for the right of a home game. We honor our committment to you, you should do the same, and realize this is a series rather than simply a "UPS home game vs Whitman" and a "Whitman home game vs. UPS". And finally, the reason this becomes impossible for the league is this. Yes, kids that go to Whitman have money. But after kids pay all this money to go to school here (and even state schools aren't cheap), do you expect me to go to the team and say "shovel out an extra 600 dollars each (or whatever it is)" while some kid at UPS pays an extra 100? That is 600 (and this is a randomly generated number, note) on top of what we already pay? And we pay way more for travel, as I already noted due to our geographic position. Come on. Some people aren't going to want to pay and thus play. And this situation is for way more teams than Whitman in the PNCLL. Are you in this for the league, or so some kid at UPS doesn't have to pay more. I am sorry if that offends you, but that is how I see it. This is about the "have's" vs. the "have not's", and for you to make inferences about what is fair and not fair as a "have" is not very accomodating or understanding. (I realize the rediculousness of using the terms "have" and "have not" with college kids, almost all of whom are from well-to-do backgrounds, but I think these terms illustrated my point. So don't kill my on my terminology).

And to say that before it was only 5-10 dollars extra that each team payed to subsidize and thus OK and now it is more money for refs and thus "unfair" makes your argument even more wrong in my opinion. Is it based on the principal (sp?) of it (which if it was, 5-10 would be as bad as 100-200 or whatever) or because you really don't want to pay more and it is just a convienent argument to say it is "unfair" now so you don't have to help us out??????

I guess this could go on forever. Good night.

That is all. I'm finally going to bed.

[Dan Wishengrad]

#36:

WE (the PNCLL) didn't do anything but react to a new official's contract by crunching numbers. Nobody is out to screw anybody, and I would remind you that your own Coach Schmitz is a member of our Executive Board and has been actively participating in our discussions about this issue. Dave is still the PNCLL Treasurer, regardless of his coaching status for 2007. And the fact remains that costs have gone up, and we have to pay them somehow. We can all howl at the moon, or we can adopt a plan to pay the bigger bill.

I would also like to point out, since the example has already been made, that Whitman College historically pays all lacrosse costs for the team. The Missionaries never used to have to pay any player dues. Has this changed? If not, the increased cost for refs to travel to Walla Walla won't come out of the player's pockets, as it will at most every other school.

[Kyle Berggren]

Sadly, I think quite a bit in concretes & try to apply them to real life. My UPS rose colored glasses do exist to some point, I'm having a tough time reconciling where that line is on this subject especially, but I'm sure it's there... From my Maroon & White goggles I'm reading things that appear to be requiring other's to pay an expense that is above and beyond the normal expenses associated with playing games in the conference. I hope this example will show better what I'm thinking. I'll do my best to keep it small & concise, but I have no guarantees. While I respect (encourage, & would fight for) your right to have/express your opinion, I see this as the difference between a Conservative & a Liberal Viewpoint. It will be tough to reconcile, but here's my example,

I'm picturing this as Teams A, B, C & D. Which team is which doesn't matter, nor should it.

Assume the teams are B, C, & D are all have local officials while team A does not. The cost of having one game between B, C, & D is X amount, while the cost of the game at team A is X*5 due to referee travel.

If this was a series, which is always the goal, both teams would travel an equal amount to play games. Costs should be relatively similar.

I struggle with the implications of this question, Why should one game cost more than another? the answer is location. Who's responsibility is that? the home team? It's difficult to say, but the location of Team A created the costs, do Teams B, C, & D have to bare it because their part of the conference?

I've thought about this example in the extreme, we have 100 teams all averaging an officiating cost of Y. If we have a single teams who's costs for a home game range in the neighborhood of Y*5, should each team share in the cost? or should Team 101 bare the cost? It's not easy, but I'd make a case that Team 101 should bare the cost.

I know that we operate in reality not a black & white world, but I believe it's important to begin here to find a solution. I do believe some examples used earlier are attempting to share this burden as though this conference was a partnership. It's not. We have 19 competing teams, our budgets, commitment, dues, & people are different. We do not share any other financial responsibilities, including travel costs, why should we share officials costs? Team A's & B's players pay different amounts based on any number of things, including school support. We do not give, nor do we ask for all monies pitched in by the school to be tossed into a pot for the good of the league to share in costs. We do not ask that every team pay $15k so that can be equally split amongst our 19 teams.

To simplify the argument, a likely parallel is that Teams B, C, & D share in the shipping costs of officials to Team A. Same product, different location, everyone's responsibility. A product costs a fixed amount, & everyone should share in the shipping costs, regardless of whether or not they can stop into the store & pick it up.

It seems my example was very long winded to get to something as simple as shipping costs, but I'm going to leave it be. Again Juery, you can take shots at my credibility & suggest that I'm out for UPS kids to pay less than Whitman kids, but that's not my goal. I realize every team here runs a tight budget & it's players work very hard to meet that budget year in & year out. Quite frankly Whitman is in a better situation than Montana & SOU, nor do I think Whitman should bare the costs of these schools home games. I don't want any player to have to fundraise extra to provide for another. Through my glasses, it appears that you are demanding that other players fundraise so that you don't have to pay the costs associated with your team & it's geographic location. It seems as though you're justifying it by saying we're a conference, so we share the costs, but this would be the only one. This appears to be another color of glasses, not clear by any means.

I don't know what the right answer is, but regardless of what someone says in this thread I'm going to try & bring up the flipside. It's important we see/discuss all sides of the issue. I do believe I'll vote for option 1, while I am adamantly against it in the long run.

It's been a late night & I've got a long day tomorrow but I look forward to reading your response. I hope to catch some input from SOU, WOU, CWU, WWU, & Montana soon as well.

It should be clear, my opinions & arguements are just that, they're mine. They don't represent the PNCLL Board in anyway.

[Juergy]

Dan, to answer your question, the school pays a lot. But this year we already, before this increase, now pay 200 dollars. Keep in mind though that we pay a lot to go to school here, and basically the money the school gives us comes out of our tuition money. I could prove that with a comprehensive breakdown if of college tuition funds if you would like. And yes, I realize Schmitz is on the board. I realize this was a board decision. And as I said already, my first post was heated and attacking toward the board, and it should have been less accusitory. I don't think the board is "out to get us". However, I do think that what is "fair" and "unfair" is largely determined by your position as a team, and just look at the majority of the board and where they are from.

Dan, yes the costs have to come from somewhere. I don't deny that. My groaing about this issue has more to do with how the increased costs are being taken up unfairly in my opinion. I accept we have to pay more, but everyone else should have to pay the same.

Kyle, our points are unrecconciable. We could drag this out forever, but it is basically a difference of viewpoints as to what we see as "fair" and "unfair." Is it fair we have no officials over here? Is it fair we travel more? No. But we travel more. We do out part to be in this league. The reason we should all pay for the officials, and not share each other's travel costs, is we share the games. You share the game here at Whitman. You should split the cost with us, rather than what option 2 of this rediculous resolution would do by making us pay this entirely. Again, if you approach it as a series, then what I argue makes sense. The only thing we share in this league is games because there are two teams playing those games. So this is the only thing we should share. But we come from different viewpoints and we are both stubborn, so nothing is going to budge. These games in Walla Walla aren't just Whitman games, they are your games too. We go to Tacoma, you owe it to us to come here, you evenly pay for this game. How about this. And no, I will not play you in E-burg. Actually, the way we will play UPS or any school other than CWU in E-burg is if we play all the league games in E-burg. That seems fairest if the board is saying UW and GU should play there, for example (that was the example used in the email).

Just so you know. If you want precident from other sports as to what is seen as "fair" and "unfair," just look at the Northwest DIII Conference here in Washington and Oregon. Teams pay for travel expenses themselves. But officials, who travel just as much as ours do, are split evenly. You know why? Because those games are shared. That is all for here. We aren't going to resolve this issue.

The fairest for this year, as we already scheduled games assuming the old format, is to split it like in the past. I don't know why that wasn't discussed. If this is a league issue, then approach it as that. Don't force it on us at the last minute because it is convienent. Giving us two weeks notice before our first game strains our budget costs and expectations. Is the board afraid of making someone angry because the costs are going to be higher so it is easier to shovel all the costs on a few teams so only a few complain????

[PNWLaxer]

If some teams think that a $200 team dues fee is high think about some of the other schools who are charging $750-$1000 and more. They all pay tuition to attend their school (I know some schools are more than others so please do not comment on that), most pay some sort of facility fee on top of it plus books, rooming etc. They somehow have to come up with this extra money as well.

Also I do not see what the importance of playing at "home" is and why it is such an important aspect of playing club lacrosse at the University/College Level. From all of the teams I have seen, which would probably number about half of all teams in this league (outside the recent expansion) most do not draw peanuts for fans. I could understand if it was basketball or football and this game was played before thousands of adoring fans but the largest crowd at most games total under 100 if not under 50.

The guys on most of these teams have been playing lax for a number of years, very few players come as "walk ons." PLU is one exception to this rule but I know the staff their actively recruits in the school but they do not draw a large fan base from what I remember. I was in Idaho recently and saw a game and yes there was a crowd but it was mostly parents, other family members etc. I do not remember seeing a lot of other University students. SFU has not played at their University in years, they play in the surrounding community and still do not draw outside from family and friends.

I do agree though that this league should not be subsidizing OOC games. The league should take care of itself and its teams in conference first. OOC games are optional and I think these games more than home games justify and promote the sport based on showing how competitive and highly successful the team is. But other teams in the league should not be helping to pay for teams who schedule extensive OOC games as they are selling their individual team not the league. The costs of these OOC games should be covered by the individual teams playing in the game.

[Juergy]

My point about the 200 dollars isn't saying that it is super high. I realize how much others pay. But what I mean is that when we pay 200, that isn't all we pay. The school could stop subsidizing club sports and our tuition would go down. Thus, we indirectly pay dues probably as high as yours. That is the point I was trying to make. We probably all pay the same or near the same (we actually I bet pay more b/c of our travel, and will pay A LOT more after these resolutions), whether how we pay is indirect or direct...

[Timbalaned]

Doubt you guys pay the 2000-25000 that guys at Oregon pay each year.

[woulax23]

I personally think that in order to keep this league together as one this season it would be best to share the costs. It is a temporary thing and it is something that just needs to be done. However I am not a fan of the idea of this as a long term solution to the problem. I feel like over the course of time it really is unfair that some schools should have to foot a higher bill than others. We have thirteen games scheduled this season and only three are at home so the second solution would actually be better for our team financially...... (if i am understanding the whole thing correctly, which i might not be...... i do go to Western Oregon where all you need is a pulse to get admitted), but i am in favor of the first solution for right now. I do believe however that in making this, what i see as a, sacrifice the outer teams need to plan on this being a temporary thing. Whether that means increasing your team dues at Whitman for next season, we pay four hundred and fifty dollars a player with little to no school help, or preparing your school for a much larger budget this spring for next season if you are Idaho, or going balls to the wall on fundraising in the spring. Plus keep in mind that since the bill will be strung out over a month to month preiod you will have an opportunity to fundraise, knowing what you need to pay at the end of the month. So basically i would be in favor of sharing the fees this season assuming that the outer schools will be coming to the AGM next year with the plans and abilities to pay extra if that is the outcome of the meeting, which it sounds like it will be. Obviously these are just my opinions and i have to talk out our options with other leaders on the team so don't bank on WOU's vote in any particular direction as of right now.

Side note: i don't know if this has been suggested at any AGM's or anything, but we are going to be contacting local highschools and trying to set up a week long clinic for the students at their schools. It would most likely be like a Monday, Wednesday, and Friday night thing where we would provide our gear to a group of students and teach them the game. Since every team in the PNCLL has the resources to do this, Gear, kids, and local high schools with out teams, it would be a relatively easy fundraiser with no need of funds to be used. Just crunching some quick numbers; if you got twenty kids out at forty dollars that is $800, if you did two, week long clinics at two different high schools that would be $3,200. This would get your school involved in the comunity, get the high schools interested, and possibly generate some local interest for officiating. We are planning on trying to get in on a pep assembly at a couple o high schools where we do some stick tricks and some other cool stuff to get the kids jazzed up and wanting to sign up. Just something to think about, i don't know if it is a possibility for other schools.

P.S. Feel free to flame me as much as you want, i am able to take criticism fairly well and i don't mind people taking their frustrations out on me...... after all..... D-poles do it all the time:-)

[Ryan Hanavan]

Also I do not see what the importance of playing at "home" is and why it is such an important aspect of playing club lacrosse at the University/College Level. From all of the teams I have seen, which would probably number about half of all teams in this league (outside the recent expansion) most do not draw peanuts for fans. I could understand if it was basketball or football and this game was played before thousands of adoring fans but the largest crowd at most games total under 100 if not under 50.

I disagree with you on the importance of home games. It is a sense of pride that these kids get about playing in "their house", even if it is the SFU community, it is still the SFU community, not some random location. Also, a possible reason we get such small turn-outs is because we only play 2 games a season here. Most people get gold-fish memory with this set-up and have to ask every year "do we have a lacrosse team?".

If we all want to promote growth, home games should be a part of it. There needs to be that sense of pride associated with the team, otherwise I'd just say go men's league, scrap eligibility, scrap organized ref's and have everybody throw their sticks in the middle of the field and divvy up teams accordingly.

This is a collegiate league and with that should be home games. I was fortunate to play in front of >1000 people and I have great memories from those games. I have also played in front of <100 people in Missoula and those <100 people acted like a >1000 crowd with tail-gaiting to boot. I don't think crowd sizes are too important unless we start charging for seats. I think it really comes down to a sense of pride for these kids, to say they got to play in front of their friends/family for the University of fill in the blank.

[Sonny]

Feel free to flame me as much as you want.

No flames please. Keep things civil and debate the topic at hand (not the poster).

[Steno]

I have to agree with Ryan on this one - anyone who has every played at Whitman knows how fired up our fans get. Home games are awesome.

Also, I think you through in an extra zero, Timbalaned. Doubtful that anyone at UO pays 25 grand to play.

[Ryan Hanavan]

What about installing a more formal schedule for the future. If every team in A is going to play each other, and if every team in B is going to play each other, start a mandatory home this year, away the next. Arrange it more like an NCAA schedule. It might even lead to more on-field rivalry? Nothing better than Hobart coming to the Carrier Dome to play for the Kraus-Simmons Trophy. I would love to have an "Idaho Cup" between BSU and Idaho some day, but we would have to play home one year and away the next. This type of balance might also help promote the ref growth?

Right now I see a potential burden on this years schedule that might create hard feelings. Some teams that have made multiple trips to us or us to them might end up having the extra burden again this year? It's a catch 22.