Increased Game Fees for 2007

[TheBearcatHimself]

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 don't know where Willamette falls in the "have vs. have not" debate, but let's put it this way: Willamette has eight league games this year. In this scary new $350 system, we would pay a whopping $800 more than using last year's system, total. With our 21 rostered players this year, that equates out to the wallet-scorching sum of $38.10 per player for the season.

And THAT is if you get ZERO help from anyone or any fund source other than player funds alone. So in this absolutely mind-melting, sky-falling, worst-case scenario of the revolutionary $350 per game/ per team theory, Willamette would only be paying an extra $38.10 per player? That's before we count in any fundraising, before we count in any school help (crossing fingers), and before we count in any other sources of funding i.e. alumni, donors, etc. I don't think that is worth so much debate is it? Yes, other teams might have more games, but even in some crazy scenario where a team with 10 rostered players plays 10 league games, that still is only $100 more per player (again only if you are operating solely on player dues).

This argument over not wanting to pay more money because we live in the I-5 corridor seems completely flawed and I am confused that more teams aren't stepping up to the plate to endorse this revenue-sharing system for at the very least one season before heads can knock at the AGM over a better solution. Maybe my opinion doesn't matter cause you think my team doesn't matter, but I'm putting it out on the table and this $350 per team/per game solution is not bad when you get down to the nuts and bolts. In my eyes at least.

[Kyle Berggren]

Bearcat, your team & opinion matter. I'm especially happy to have your input & questions. We need to flush out some of the implications of these changes.

Please keep in mind the $350/game played is a minimum cost. If your local officials travel, you may get officials from Washington & those costs will have to be paid. I have hardly looked at the schedule for the season, but when Oregon hosts OOCvsOOC games you've lost 3 officials from the pool per game. I believe you have 10 in Oregon. As officials are turning down & accepting assignments we're seeing officials scheduled at games from all areas. I know of at least one occasion a Washington official will be at SOU & someone will have to pay the bill. What's extra painful is that we don't schedule our own games anymore, we can't control many of these costs. I still think option 1 is one of the best ways to get through this in the meantime, but longterm we have some problems to solve.

This is one thing I greatly dislike about either system, officials from your local area could travel elsewhere (because crew chiefs are needed, etc) & you may have to play a much more expensive game while someone has a cheap game down the street. I don't know how to reconcile that fact, but there has to be a solution. Maybe it means same region, same day game, share the cost of travel, I don't know. We'll obviously bring numbers to the AGM to hammer out details, but to keep costs down we need each team to have what would amount to home officials.

The mileage costs don't affect some conferences as much as the PNCLL. For instance, the WCLL still pays dues per game of between 200-250 (I don't have the number with me, but it's been tossed around in discussion).

Ryan, the schedule can work that way in the A, but the B has too many teams for it to be practical. All teams are in different places, & while it would be ideal to play everyone in a series (I do agree), playing an OOC schedule for the teams that want to is nearly impossible if we schedule 11 games for them. It also raises the overall game fees for teams, as well as travel costs. The divisions have changed several times over the last few years, as well. A home away series while idea, isn't exactly the norm in the PNCLL. For instance, some teams will host the some of the same teams they did last year (SOU @ Whitman). If we continue to grow, it could make sense to have two divisions that only officially meet in the playoffs, but we're still too small for that as well.

[Band]

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.

What other teams charge their players for dues is so beyond irrelevant here that it's hardly even worth addressing. First of all, kids that pay $30k for tuition are not the same kids who go to schools that charge $10k for tuition. You don't go to a cheap school because you have access to extra funds. Secondly, a school charging $1000 has a completely different program than one charging $200. I seem to recall one such team making a California circuit last season - not many other teams can do that. Thirdly, regardless of how much a student has paid for dues, that specific amount has already been calculated into their budget for the school year. Johnny Tralala was told in August that he needed to pony up $1000 for dues? Great. I bet if you told him in February that he needed to toss in a couple hundred more he might have to scramble because he already spent that $200 on candy and porno.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

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.

Ryan, we are already trying to do this. . .play league games home and away. . .but this is the FIRST YEAR in a decade that the teams stayed consistent from one year to the next. When a team joins the league. . .or changes divisions. . .or even when one leaves, it throws off the balance and makes it impossible to reciprocate every game played the previous season. It is our goal to send Idaho to SFU one year, and have the Clan travel to your campus the following year.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

So I got an email today about ref fee increases. The two options essentially put teams outside of the Portland, Seattle/Tacoma, Vancouver, Boise metro areas at a major disadvantage. Basically one option is bad, and the other is totally worse. The worst option for the schools outside of the metro areas will be adopted because it greatly favors more schools in this league. There are only five schools (Idaho, Whitman, GU, UM, and SOU) outside these areas (yeah, I guess Eugene is kind of far from Portland, CWU is kind of far from Seattle). The justification for these options is that it will encourage us to play at half way points like E-burg. Sounds like no one wants to make the extra travel. Well, we don't want to travel every freaking weekend. Why don't we deserve homegames like everyone else? Why don't other schools want to travel? All I hear coming from these league meetings is complaining about traveling. Well, our closest travel is four and a half hours away. Too bad. It's life. This isn't high school lax anymore. We can't help that we are in the middle of nowhere and there is no high school lax here which means there are no refs here. You say recruit local refs. Who wants a ref from Walla Walla reffing a game who has never picked up a stick or seen a game? Come on. I remember when BSU petioned for membership, and all the Seattle teams were saying how the refs there weren't good. So I doubt you'd accept some bozo from Walla Walla reffing games. This shows how selfish this league is. All about me, not about the league. Let's screw the schools who are disadvantaged enough to have to travel way more as it is, and make them pay way more cash. No surprise. This was all drafted by people from teams in the western half of this league. Why don't you try and kill lacrosse over here. Man, I'm mad. Nothing gets me more than selfishness.

First off, despite the fact that my moniker is PLULax. . .I no longer coach at PLU or have anything to do with their program. My only college lacrosse job is working for all of you and trying to keep our league strong. There is no "west-coast bias" here.

And with respect to Rick's suggestion of 2-man crews on A vs. B division games. . .I proposed that weeks ago but I guess it violates our contract with the MDOC. Maybe if we're lucky someone's car will break down on the way to Spokane and then we can have a cheaper game. I agree it makes no sense to send 3 officials at $300-$400 each all the way to Spokane for an A vs. B division game. . .but at this point I don't think we have a choice. If we can get these officials to carpool, it will save us hundreds of dollars on these games. Keith will work hard to try to assign officials to these games that live close to one another so they can carpool and save on travel costs per the contract.

For 8 years I've been involved with this league we have begged (even required) teams to nominate official candidates. It has never happened. There was never any reason for the Eastern teams to care about this, because they paid the same as everyone. . .now there will likely be motivation to recruit some officials on the East side.

I think plan 1 offers a pretty reasonable compromise. All of the teams in the league end up paying extra to subsidize games with expensive ref fees. . .but the teams that are actually causing these additional costs will pay a little extra. Nobody is happy. Everyone in effect is getting screwed.

The biggest problem in my mind is timing. I think the plans proposed are totally reasonable. . .but at the last minute they are just plain brutal. I think we are hearing a lot from GU and Idaho for obvious reasons. . .but I know a school like Lewis & Clark, that is always strapped for funds, is also going to see their budget increase by 30%. . .it's not going to hurt them any less.

I wish we could have had this discussion in September, but nobody knew the MDOC-MCLA negotiations would affect our league so dramatically.

[Chris Larson]

Jason,

You're spot on about the timing issue. I don't think the MDOC appreciates that teams/leagues plan their budgets 6-18 months in advance.

I have repeatedly asked that negotiations take place no less than 1 year prior to the expiration of the current contract. I'm pretty certain that this language does not appear in the current contract. I will however ask that our Executive Board look into the timing of the next negotiation.

This contract though was, however, unique in two ways: 1) Because the MCLA is a totally new organization, we had to start from scratch on this contract. Our history as the MDIA gave us a great starting point, but no true leverage; and 2) the economics of travel have changed dramatically since we last negotiated with the MDOC.

I can remember the last time a new travel rate structure was negotiated. It ate up a $10000 league surplus in the UMLL. That's shocking!. I haven't had the time to sit down with our CAA and calculate the change from last year based on the new terms.

I do believe that having a good relationship with the CAA is important. Our CAA works very hard to contain costs for our league. He demands that crews travel together unless they can justify it to him. His philosophy is that if officials' costs drive the league (or teams) out of existence, there will be fewer opportunities for the officials overall. I sometimes think that certain individuals negotiating on behalf of the MDOC don't always see this because their local situation may be much more different than that in Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Texas, or South Carolina.

One result for us is that some quality officials we have used in the past will see fewer games because of poor proximity to games. Perhaps some CAAs can be allowed some leeway to negotiate special travel rates for these outlying officials/games so we can maintain a beneficial opportunity for all parties.

One thing to remember is that the MDOC always negotiates from a position of power. They don't expect (nor should they) that their game fees will go down. They then usually ask for a large increase fully expecting that they can negotiate down to a more reasonable rate. I think the MDOC needs to consider what's best for the game so they don't "kill the golden goose".

[PNWLaxer]

My point about fees is that everyone has to make up the difference. I did put that at the end of the sentence that was quoted and therefore may be out of context slightly. The bigger budget teams have to come up with money just like the smaller ones.

I am sure every team here has a preseason budget be it big school or small, established program or new program. This new increase affects everyone and each player has to dig into the money pit to cover it. I am sure not everyone going to these big dues teams has unlimited purse strings. Each student has a budget they can afford to pay for lacrosse and each has different resources they can tap into to help pay for it.

[chonk]

To the guy from U Oregon that said something about $2,000 player fees, don't you think flying to Madagascar for a game contributes to these fees? Eat a cupcake and stop talking, this doesn't concern you.

The real problem here seems to be that new ref fees were implemented this season, after games, budgets, schedules etc. were made. In reality, if I were to send in my taxes late, do you think the IRS wouldn't say anything? So, why is it that these new fees can be made so late, and be expected to be followed through? Now, I'm not suggesting that the refs don't deserve extra, the costs of gas are high, but not much higher than previous seasons. What we should do is ignore the change, pay the fees we were all expecting, and next year implement the suggested changes. Even billing out later is a rediculous idea. It's only making teams that should be practicing go off on little fund raising expeditions to cover the unnecessary costs of games. Like the GU guy said, we should drop a ref for non division games. Contracts that were written in steady times where refs didn't have to travel eight hours to the middle of nowhere don't really apply to our situation.

[Mark Brown]

Option #2 is fairer in the long term without a doubt but how many teams would remain in the PNCLL?? Would it mean losing MT, Idaho, Gonzaga, etc?? If so, it simply isn't an option.

I can remember the last time a new travel rate structure was negotiated. It ate up a $10,000 league surplus in the UMLL.

I believe that a substantial portion of the League surplus should be used to cover this unexpected expense. Isn't that what a surplus is for? I'm not suggesting the League goes bankrupt over it. In fact I think it would be wise to set aside part of the surplus to sponsor a free ref certification clinic to travel to some of the remote areas of the PNCLL (there are currently similar free clinics going on in other remote parts of the lacrosse world). In short, any option that means teams leave the PNCLL isn't an option, and the surplus was already paid for by PNCLL teams and should be used in this time of need.

[Kyle Berggren]

That's the plan Mark. Jason & I kicked around a few new ideas, & we'll let you know asap. The rest of the board needs to talk about it, the numbers need to add up, & then we'd amend option 1 for the season. I hope it does work out, it would be huge for the conference, & help us out in our time of need. Besides, I wouldn't have to debate anyone here or play devil's advocate anymore, I could sleep better, not listen to any of my players complain, & everyone would be as happy as possible in this situation. Even me, the option 2 long-term solution guy, I could live with paying more if this solved it.

Not following the contract is not an option. In the past the PNCLL negotiated our own contract, now, the MCLA negotiates for everyone. We did slightly better than the NCAA D3 rate, but we're obviously still very affected in the PNW. With my limited understanding, if we were to break the contract for the season, we'd have to convince our CAA to do it (I don't think that will happen, he's an attorney & has been going to bat for us for quite some time), fire all the Union officials & hope the find some other qualified individuals to do it (aren't we already in a shortage?)... and not send any teams to the MCLA tournament... So it's out.

Mark, you are correct that it's all timing as the problem. I believe it was mentioned at the meeting fees could go up 20-30 bucks a game, we simply don't know so plan for more, this was just unexpected & late notice. Officials do deserve travel monies, but if we're going to pay someone $400 to drive to Spokane, it would be nice to have the option of flying them & using companion fares. I flew to Spokane with a friend this Summer, rented a car, & it cost us each $140, no where near $400. As of now, that's not an option, but I don't think many officials would say no, don't fly me out there, I'd rather spend 10 hours in the car round trip. We'll keep working on those options as well.

[Ryan Hanavan]

Not following the contract is not an option. In the past the PNCLL negotiated our own contract, now, the MCLA negotiates for everyone. We did slightly better than the NCAA D3 rate, but we're obviously still very affected in the PNW. With my limited understanding, if we were to break the contract for the season, we'd have to convince our CAA to do it (I don't think that will happen, he's an attorney & has been going to bat for us for quite some time), fire all the Union officials & hope the find some other qualified individuals to do it (aren't we already in a shortage?)... and not send any teams to the MCLA tournament... So it's out.

It is Superbowl week so we do need a little controversy! Besides, it will take some of the distraction away from our players before they begin their seasons. It was either this or I was going to ask my assistant coach to go Ray Buchanan and wear a dog collar to practice tomorrow, in honor of media day.

I'm glad to see with all the uncertainty and potential troubles that lie ahead, the PNCLL teams seem to still be united and working together towards a solution.

[laxref53]

I am the conference assigning authority for the PNCLL. I fully understand the concerns you have been expressing regarding the new contract. I want to address some of the non-money topics that have been raised in the various posts to this forum.

The number of refs available for games in the upcoming season has increased. The problem remains that most of these new refs come from the I-5 corridor and from established high school leagues where they have undergone substantial training and vetting before being invited to work at the college level.

It takes some time to develop a ref. There's much more involved than simply reading a rule book. We use established high school leagues to train refs. The good news is that leagues are now coming into being in central and eastern WA and have been around for a short time in the Boise area. The OR & WA high school officials associations are very active in reaching out to these new leagues and developing training programs for refs. In a few years I expect to be able to increase the availability of college refs in these areas.

It will take some time but the future is looking better. The teams in the PNCLL can assist by being more careful in the future years when it comes to scheduling. They need to coordinate their scheduling. They need to consider travel alternatives to maximize refs in a particular region for games. The travel fees are not going to decrease-- look at the current NCAA contracts-- they forbode increases.

Reducing the number of refs on games is not the answer. Assigning two refs on a game of any type refuses to recognize the quality of today's game, sacrifices field coverage, raises safety of the game concerns, and could spell disaster-- the cancelling of a game-- if a ref is injured or fails to make the game for any reason. There are enough refs to cover the games-- they just are not always geographically convenient or at a level of proficiency where they can be used on certain upper level games.

Keith MacFie
D-XI Assigning Authority

[chonk]

You say it will diminish the quality of the game to have fewer refs. I say that if it causes any team to drop from the league than it's your responsibility to allow the players to play. We don't join sports teams so that we can go bankrupt and eventually quit. There really is no reason for 3 refs in non division games, two refs can do the job just fine. I know this really isn't the topic of this thread, but lets be reasonable. High school games go fine with only one ref while college games need three? How is that logical to ask teams that aren't really playing a division game to pay out the nose so they can appease the 'powers that be.' The contract is wrong, that's the issue. Again, if we put this into real world terms, if I have a job the only requires one person to do but my boss decides to put three people on it, it not only becomes an issue of money, but an issue of over efficiency. It's not good business policy to hire more workers than you need, or did the guys that wrote the contract not take DECA?

[Dan Wishengrad]

Thanks, Keith! And thank you for personally recruiting lacrosse refs for the PNCLL from among your fellow high school football refs and developing these guys over the years into lax refs.

Folks, the future really isn't so dismal. A silver lining to paying higher fees for refs is that the increased money is itself a powerful recruiting incentive for new candidates. Help Keith help us by finding a couple solid young sports officials from your city where there is no lacrosse other than your college team. There are capable and eager young adults working part-time as men's rec league, high school and youth basketball and football games, often for relatively low wages. Find a couple good ones. Tell them in college lacrosse they can earn $125 game fees plus generous travel compensation. Put them in touch with Keith or Fred Zensen. If these recruits are willing to travel to Seattle/Tacoma or Portland a couple times a year and commit to working Fall tourneys in Ellensburg and other cities, they CAN become certified college lacrosse refs.

Having at least one or two of these lacrosse refs in each PNCLL city should become a long term commitment by the League. Speaking only for myself, I would support using a little of our PNCLL surplus to compensate candidate travel to sanctioned ref training clinics.

[Dan Wishengrad]

And to Chonk I say, respectfully, that you might consider just allowing Coach Hanavan and Mike Band to speak for the Vandals here. They are the leaders of your team and their words carry weight with all of us. Anonymous player postings do not. Your suggestions are not feasible. We have entered into a national agreement with the refs, we can not unilaterally change it because we don't like it. Using two-man crews is a non-issue, as Mr. MacFie has stated above.