Week #12 4/18 - 4-24 Score Reports, Thoughts and Predictions

[whitcd]

Nebraska chose to be in B Division but due to having 1-A football, they are ineligible for post season at conference and national level. I believe they would be considered a "B" division team regardless of them having to be an "A" division to be eligible for post season. My question is why does the UMLL have a requirement for 3 OOC games to compete in conference post season when it is not a national requirement for post season play. Do other conferences have this requirement? From this thread below, it doesn't appear that the PNCLL does. Thats all i could find at this point.
http://forums.collegelax.us/viewtopic.php?t=8030

The UMLL is not the only conference with this situation of a team's game are still considered in conference outcome but is ineligible for post season play. The WCLL has the exact same situation with Chapman. Both conferences are handling they're influence on conference standings similarly.

[Rob Graff]

1. The MCLA National A/B rules define Nebraska an "A" team. That is what controls for St. Olaf. St. Olaf has met it's three game requirement.

2. The UMLL incorporated by reference the 3 OOC (div A) requirement into it's bylaws as a requirement to participate in it's end of season tournament many years ago in recognition that OOC competition is necessary for teams to improve. This was voted upon by alll teams at the time. It was not foisted upon the league by the MCLA/USLIA.

[Chris Larson]

Let's say for example that a Division 'A' team only plays 2 OOC 'A' games and 1 OOC 'B' game. What is the MCLA's stance on this, and what is the UMLL's stance on this?

Nebraska is an A team in the eyes of the MCLA because they are an institution that sponsors 1A football.

Their conference allows them to play a
B schedule. I'm fairly certain that they are not eligible for the GRLC B Division playoffs. They cannot be ranked in the MCLA Division B poll.

They are, however, eligible for A Division MCLA All America and Academic All America awards.

All of these things because they are an A team.

For A Division teams, the MCLA requires 3 out of conference games for at large Tournament eligibility. This does not impact Automatic Qualifiers. The UMLL requires 3 out of conference games for tournament eligibility

St Olaf has met the standards and in fact, discussed it at length with Rob and I when they scheduled the game.

END OF THAT DISCUSSION.

My question is why does the UMLL have a requirement for 3 OOC games to compete in conference post season when it is not a national requirement for post season play. Do other conferences have this requirement?

The UMLL instituted the out of conference rule for 2 reasons:
1.) To protect the championship eligibility of a highly ranked team that might get upset in the conference tourney (which nearly happened in 2003).
2.) To make our conference better by encouraging teams to see other teams from different regions, see different styles of play, see different officials. All of which would add up to a better lacrosse experience and growth in knowledge and experience.

FYI, the GRLC mandates out of conference games as well which is why their teams are quite willing to play our teams.

[fischman]

On a lighter... and more lacrosse related note... I think this years UMLL tourney could be one of the best ones yet. I really feel that anything could happen in any game. Most of the teams are very evenly matched despite what some scores of individual games might say. There could be some very exciting games.

Good luck to everybody next week!

[Mavlax25]

I heard through the grapevine:

SCSU - 7
UWSP - 5

Where does that final score place everyone?

[Champ]

..

[fischman]

come on man... that is understood... and does not belittle the rest games.

[whitcd]

IF that was the score, then I think this would be the outcome per Rob's tiebreaker post:

CASE 1: ASSUMPTIONS:

St. Cloud wins one of three, and has a 2-5 record:

Mankato Beats UWSP

All 4 teams are 2-5. Head to head does not define the order (i.e. no one team has beaten all others.)

Next - goals allowed in head to head games - least goals is highest seed.

By my count, ISU let in 14 (combined) v. Marq/MSU/SCSU --Marquette let in 23 (combined) v. SCSU/ISU/MSU, Mankato let in 24 and SCSU let in 28.

Under this scenario SCSU is out and other 3 are in. Seeding 1-3 is the top 3, 4 is ISU, 5 is Marq and 6 is Mankato

The UMLL instituted the out of conference rule for 2 reasons:
1.) To protect the championship eligibility of a highly ranked team that might get upset in the conference tourney (which nearly happened in 2003).
2.) To make our conference better by encouraging teams to see other teams from different regions, see different styles of play, see different officials. All of which would add up to a better lacrosse experience and growth in knowledge and experience.

Thank you Chris for the response. Both are very good reasons to have this requirement. I have absolutely no problem with reason two; I loved my two trips to the west coast and experience a different game, on the field as a player and how it was officiated. I just have to question number one. What exactly is "highly ranked". Is this just being ranked in the top 25 or top 10? To me it is just kind of protecting the best team in conference play, regardless of what COULD happen in post season play. To me if a team wants to have a chance of an at large bid, just in case of what happens at conference play, they would most certainly play the required out of conference games required for National post season, not conference post season.

To be final, I just think this rule should be discussed again at the next meeting. To be ineligible for post season play due to eligibility reasons in one thing. But to require a team to spend extra money outside of normal conference travel is another. Basically this year, the league is penalizing one team who has down year which can turn into financial problems also. I've played more than one game with 13 players and it downright sucks. But what can you do? Will this solve everything, no.

This is just my suggestion as a former player who still actively watches actively in conference.

[whitcd]

...

[Tretiak3]

Chris, Rob, Thanks for the explanation.

[Rob Graff]

To be final, I just think this rule should be discussed again at the next meeting. To be ineligible for post season play due to eligibility reasons in one thing. But to require a team to spend extra money outside of normal conference travel is another. Basically this year, the league is penalizing one team who has down year which can turn into financial problems also. I've played more than one game with 13 players and it downright sucks. But what can you do? Will this solve everything, no.

WhitCD - The league is always willing to discuss changes. I'm uncertain, however what you want to change? I presume it is elimination of the OOC rule?

What follows is my personal opinion on this topic:
I think most teams find it valuable to have such an experience, for the reasons you mentioned. And with more and more HS talent emerging from MN Hs ball, our teams should continue to be competitive in OOC games. And I think that those new players will be seeking out such schedules as a requirement for their participation, not something they don't want to do.
End opinion.

But - again - I encourage all teams attend and participate in the two league meetings.
Rob

[whitcd]

Removing the 3 required out of conference games would probably be the only way. Maybe just require at least one out of conference game for in conference post season eligiblity? Its not that hard to find at least one team in the area to play out of conference. If the teams want the advantage of playing at least 2 more they will no doubt schedule them.

I just want to say I am not saying the current requirement is bad, but just wondering what others think.

[Rob Graff]

My respone to your point Whitcd is as follows:

I'm aware of ONLY UWSP not meeting their OOC reqirement at the A div. level in my years as League Director.

And it is my understanding that the only reason they did not is an unexpected denial of funds from the Student Govt at the wrong time.

I believe it will not happen again.

If there were a lot of teams struggling to do this, I could understand the argument for limiting it. But I'm not aware of any other team struggle to get them done.

Rob

[msum26]

Well said Rob

Even if the UMLL decided to drop the 2 (for B) or 3 (for A) OOC games i think many teams would still play them and more!

OOC games are necessary for growth of a team. in the words of Pete Moosbruger you only get better by seeking out better competion and playing them and so what if you lose.

Corey Samora
MSU-Moohread

[fischman]

To be perfectly honest, the OOC games are the biggest thorn in the side of many smaller programs. That said, there are still very important. I have been in charge of scheduling the OOC games for St Olaf the last three years and I must say that every year I am stressed and struggling to find some games.

This could all be avoided however if teams get on the ball early. I know I could have saved my self a lot of hassle if I just would have scheduled the games early in the fall. My suggestion to all teams who are perpetually struggling to find OOC games is to assign one member of the team (not an officer, they have other stuff to do) to get them scheduled EARLY. There are no shortage of GRLC teams that are willing to play UMLL teams.

Also, OOC games are the only way for the nation to see how competitive the UMLL is. Aside from Duluth, this is the only way our league gets respect... UMLL teams did very well in OOC games this year and people notice.

Yes, the driving may suck. We drove to southern Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska all to play only one game a weekend. But come on, driving 10 hours to play a lacrosse game beats sitting in a dorm room drinking crappy beer any way... They may be a hassle to schedule, but OOC games are great for the league and fun for any team.