Increased Game Fees for 2007

[Ryan Hanavan]

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.

I agree Dan, I think this is a reasonable goal. It might be harder to get permanent ref's based in Moscow/Pullman right now, but Spokane/CdA should be a strong possibility. I did participate in a training session for high school ref's up in CdA last year and it sounded like several of the high school officials were interested. Hopefully a couple emerge out of those several and we can knock down some of the travel for the eastern WA, northern ID and Montana schools.

I'll call the high school games again this year and try and actively recruit. If only we could get a couple more local high schools to pick up programs...

[TheNino57]

Fortunately, CWU is still relatively close to Seattle/Tacoma so, unless a referee has to travel from Oregon to cover a CWU game, I don't see either option costing us much of a dramatic difference. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't actually crunch the numbers on this one since I no longer handle my team's finances and I don't have the numbers in front of me to crunch.

Many folks keep bringing up the point about "this option doesn't seem viable as a long-term solution." I say we should all vote on things for this season. With the way our league changes each year, (this being the first in many years where no programs joined or fell from the league) it is best to wait until next year's AGM to come up with a solution for that season. Let's vote on a bandage for this season and let next season take care of itself (and the year after that can take care of itself, etc.).

[Jana]

Not saying this is a better or worse method, but this is how your northwest female counterparts are structuring umpire fees for 2007:

Fees are negotiated by the regional governing bodies - NWWLA and WWLUA. All teams pay a flat fee per game - $85 - so that equals $170 total per game. The fee is broken down into an average of umpire costs (there are 5 levels of umpires and fees for USL, $70 is around the high average per game), plus a flat travel stipend of $15 per umpire. Most umpires work 4-5 games per weekend for the NWWLA. We ask for the fees to be reported by our Umpire Liaison at the Fall Meeting so we can plan our budgets. We pay a higher travel stipend for umpires flying to Boise, and no stipend for umpires that are local residents, or traveling anyway with their own teams.

We've put the responsibility on the umpires to plan their own budgets from a set stipend amount, rather than dealing with mileage, etc. This motivates them to carpool, stay with friends, economize their meals, etc so they have more money at the end of the weekend.

Regarding all the teams sharing travel expenses for umpires - the logic is that we are all investing in the game, and the fairest method to determine seedings for the NW championship is to have all the teams play each other once - which requires umpire travel costs. We also want lacrosse to grow and flourish east of the mountains, and putting the umpire travel burdon on them entirely would a bridge too far and we would lose teams we need to get our automatic qualifier to the WDIA National Championship.

I don't know if this edifies the conversation, hopefully yes.

Sincerely
Jana Lauderbaugh
President
Northwest Women's Lacrosse Association
www.nwwla.org

[RefZee]

I have followed this thread - pages - and finally decided to respond. The game fees and travel package were negotiated at the National level by the MCLA, so it is not a PNCLL board issue. The difficulty is the timing of the agreed upon contract, much later than the PNCLL annual meeting. It is unfortunate that the PNCLL did not have time to prepare for the impact of this new contract. I am sure teams will be better prepared in 2008 since the contract continues, with only a $5 increase in game fees. However please do not be mislead by assuming that there will much of a change in the number of officials, in 2008. i.e. in 2007 Oregon COC ranks increased by 1 and dropped 2. WA increased 5 and dropped 1. ID increased 2 and dropped 1.

Many of you have suggested recruiting "local" officials to officiate your games, in order to save paying large fees per game. This is a noble and laudable approach, and I applaud it. But remember, just as it takes a few years to develop a lacrosse player, it takes a comparable number of years to develop a lacrosse official. Simply picking up a stick does not make you a skilled lacrosse player,and simply donning the stripes does not make you a qualified lacrosse official

US Lacrosse, College Officiating Committee, has prescribed qualifications to be met in order to be certified to officiate at the collegiate level. The first and perhaps most critical criterion, is "extensive" high school and or men's club officiating experience. It generally takes 3 to 4 years for anyone to become comfortable and capable at officiating. Former players sometimes have difficulty making the transition, as officiating is an entirely different mindset, especially positioning. It is not simply a case of knowing the rule. Recognition, judgment and application of the rule are most important, as you are all aware.

In an effort to provide the most highly qualified officials to the PNCLL, CAA Keith MacFie, working with his peers, and the PNCLL Board will be using the PNCLL FALL TOURNAMENT at CWU to invite and evaluate promising new officials. These candidates will be invited to try out. Based upon their performance, they will either be asked to apply for COC status, or given a list of areas in which they need to improve. This will provide PNCLL teams with rookie officials who are much better prepared for the collegiate game.

Both the Oregon and Washington Officials Associations are recruiting heavily in all areas of both states.This for high school officials...and training is ongoing for the upcoming season. The Idaho group in both Boise and CDA, have been mentored by both organizations, with training sessions in both Boise and CDA in each of the past 2 years. Moreover, WALOA is forming an Eastern WA Chapter to recruit and train new officials in that area of the state.

I simply wanted to let PNCLL teams know that officials also recognize the difficulties of a operating with a limited pool of qualified collegiate officials, and are making efforts to deal with the issue. Your assistance, by surfacing people interested in officiating is welcomed, with the caveat that it will be a few years before you see them on the field for your games.

Best of luck to all of you this coming season, in 11 days we'll be on the field.

Fred Zensen

[Kyle Berggren]

A quick add, the CWU tournament is not an official PNCLL tournament, but geographically it's a good location to have officials evaluated. I'm sure when new officials are cropping up in Eugene or Eastern Oregon we can find a more suitable tournament to work with...

[Movin' a Couch]

I just read the first few pages of this thread, meaning that I have not been keeping track of this discussion. I'm a little embarrassed that Juergy has been unilaterally representing Whitman; I think that a certain level of tact on this forum leads to greater productivity. And I don't necessarily agree with his comments.

I hope I'm not repeating someone else's suggestion. Would it work for all of the schools to split the costs evenly (don't call me a communist) as long as the remote teams schedule fewer games? This way eastern teams wouldn't have to increase their costs so dramatically, the western teams would get more bang for their buck (which reflects the actual lower costs of their games), and our league would be more united or something. The eastern teams could maybe schedule friendly scrimmages with each other to get a little of the experience that the western teams would get with their more rigorous schedules. They could work out fields among themselves, and they wouldn't pay anything for referees. This is, I suppose, probably only relevant for future seasons. (I don't have any solutions for this year. Some will bite the bullet harder than others.)

-One of Whitman's other player-captain-coaches

[TheNino57]

Would it work for all of the schools to split the costs evenly... ...as long as the remote teams schedule fewer games?

Peter, why should the Eastern teams schedule fewer games? Maybe the teams in the conference could all pay an equal share for the required league games, but then if teams schedule any OOC games or additional in-conference games (on top of their required league games), then the home team could handle all of the expenses. The home team, of course, could then try to arrange agreements with the visiting teams about sharing these expenses.

Perhaps?

[Movin' a Couch]

The reason I thought that the western teams should be able to pay the same flat rate as the eastern teams and schedule more games is to account for the higher costs of all eastern home games. If splitting costs evenly is ever an option, then we need to address the unfortunate distribution of referees. Splitting everything evenly is unfair to the western teams, because they would have to increase their budgets disproportionately to their actual increase in costs (i.e. subsidies for the eastern teams). I think that I'm suggesting that UPS schedules 10 games, Whitman schedules 8 games, and they pay the same amount. In reality, I think that still amounts to subsidies for the eastern teams, because the western teams pay so little for ref transport and lodging. However, the western teams would get the advantage of two extra games, and who knows the value to a team for that kind of experience (we all know how important a few extra games under your belt can be come playoff time). The fees for extra games could be negotiated on a game-by-game basis (just like you suggested, TheNino) by the participants. Hoping that all makes sense.

[Ryan Hanavan]

However, the western teams would get the advantage of two extra games, and who knows the value to a team for that kind of experience (we all know how important a few extra games under your belt can be come playoff time).

The one thing I want to accomplish as a coach here in Idaho is to get more games for these guys. They have been playing a 6 game schedule for the last couple of years and it would be nice to play more, rather than continue at the minimum. I would also argue that Montana, who has a real shot at a national title, should also be able to play more games than fewer games. The problem should not affect the schedule, or penalize the "geographically challenged" teams. If anything I hope our solution allows us to schedule more games. We need to promote growth before we pull back. I understand that we sometimes need to take a couple steps back before we move forward but, in this case, I don't think we need to do that.

I mentioned earlier the idea of playing a more NCAA style schedule and Dr. Stockton mentioned that this was the first year we have maintained consistency in the existing teams. If this holds then I think it should be tabled in future meetings. It is also possible that we split the league by regions (east and west) and organize our playoff similar to the way the SEC does it?

[Kyle Berggren]

Peter,

You've hit my concern right on the head, & also said it much more eloquently than I (PLU alumnus explains it all). Western teams costs are increasing at a far greater rate than the cost of the games. I donate money to our program each year, & it's difficult to watch it leave at a disproportionate rate to the cost of our games.

I can't seem to make your idea work smoothly, but I'm just trying to talk it though, please point out anything I'm missing. If Team A pays $5k for 10 games & Team B pays $5k for 8 games, we'd be paying different amounts per game... We might as well let Team A schedule as many games as they want at that rate, at this point we all play varying amounts. It's also difficult to figure the extra 2 games toward playoffs, either they count, or they don't, & many of us would rather pay to play an OOC game than an extra inconference game (that doesn't count). It could be cheaper for SOU to travel to california to play a game than for us to send officials to SOU to ref 1 of those extra games.

I truly hope that no one drops from the conference this year. I don't know what the solution everyone will agree on for '08, but we've got to use a system that works toward addressing the actual costs. We can't control the cost of the games, not in the slightest. We can't control if officials car pool, after this season we'll know who does & who does not, but we can't control it. We also can't assign officials until we're near the season as we don't know who will be available. We will have to pay the bill as soon as it comes. To give you an idea, & these were very rough numbers I was working with (off the top of my head)... Officials for an 80 game period in '06 $35k (I think that included per diem, not sure), in '07 $86k in near worst case scenario. We can't expect that to be the final number (it should be lower!), but a few more cars going over the mountains & our small surplus won't pay the bill. The conference will be bankrupt.

That doesn't mean we're in trouble here, it just means we have our hands full monitoring & forecasting costs. We're lucky Keith has continued to works so closely with us, or we could be in a completely different situation. I don't want the $86k number to scare people, that assumes a lot goes wrong (such as 3 cars go to Missoula & Whitman), but lots of things happen in a season. Some costs will be nearly completely erased (such as an injured official not making a trip), & many officials will carpool. Again, until the game happens, we can only make an educated guess.

One of the reasons I like the idea of holding teams responsible for the actual game costs is because it simplifies these issues. Teams like Montana have always been getting fewer home games than anyone else because of geography. Well, those costs do go up, but they won't pay for the game when they travel. Their actual league bill could go down. If a team doesn't use a charter bus, costs could actually go down/game, but again, we don't know the actual officials costs until they occur. Each weekend is different. When teams schedule, I'm sure many would be more willing to travel to avoid those costs. I know that teams paying the bill would be more likely to schedule multiple games over the weekend to lower the average cost/game (as officials travel for 1 weekend is the same mileage for 1 or 2 games. As of now we have a few very expensive weekends like that on the schedule, we'll end up sending 3 officials a long distance for a single game... That game could cost $1200....

This is just a portion of what we've been exploring. I know Jason & Keith have been at this like a full-time job lately, we truly have been trying to find the best solution available.

Ryan, we absolutely need to talk about the NCAA style scheduling option each year. I can see it happening, but as lacrosse keeps growing, so will the conference. We'll lose a team, gain two. Seattle U been trying to start a team, Eastern Washington is going to need a team, St. Martin's is interested, UW-Tacoma is now a 4 year, & I don't even want to think about how much Oregon Lax has grown. I'm not sure how long it will be, but continuing the A on that path is the easy part. I'm not sure how to implement it effectively in the B.

[TheNino57]

Not to get off the subject, but as far as game scheduling in the B Division is concerned, I think the system that we are using now has been the most ideal since CWU has been in the conference. All of the natural rivalries remain intact (save for Lewis & Clark) and it allows, generally, for less travel. It allows for every team to play each every other year. It also makes for easier scheduling (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, Coach Schmitz) and teams know exactly who they will be facing in the upcoming season, other than OOC games. Unless we have a very dramatic change in the number of teams participating in the years to come, I think that we should keep the system we have