Ideas for changing CCLA Div. B Awards process

[tjg1012]

There needs to be major changes to this process, and it will be the one topic I bring up in the Fall meeting:

There needs to be a comprehensive report on each player through the voting process, not just name, team and position. I understand you can look up stats (though I'm willing to bet few did). We should include them in the voting correspondence. Also, each Coach should be able to include a paragraph or two about each player.

We should find a way to all get together, in person, to do the conversations and voting (it can be done if we wanted to, at least North and South). This allows for a better understanding of each player, and limits the (somewhat) anonymous voting that you cannot be held accountable for.

Of all the positions (excluding HM) 3 teams were represented a total of 17 times and the other 9 teams in 9 spots. We also need to limit the number of players one Coach can nominate. Counting HM (as far as I can see) Dayton is represented 11 times. It is hard to argue that there is not more parody with the talent in this league. Of the 120 starters in the league, not one starter from Dayton was below the top third in talent and accomplishment?

I am not trying to state that UMD deserved any more than it got (I do not believe that to be the case, with the exception of #15 who is a freshman and has alot of time for awards), nor am I faulting Dayton for being so well represented. They worked within the rules and other teams voted for their players. I do, however find it hard to believe that the young men were represented properly, and I refuse to believe that this is the best we could do.

Tim Gallagher

[Zeuslax]

This has to be a large topic in the fall, period! Tim, I couldn't agree with you more. Some of your ideas are valid and should be explored. We have to start vigorously enforcing some of our rules. Unorganized team structure doesn't create an atmosphere for accurate observations during a game. We played a few teams this season that struggled to have a proper table staff and without any coaches. Also, I'm a little concerned that our (CCLA B) agreed to decision making process that was determined at the fall meeting wasn't accomplished thoroughly. Personally, that is my biggest concern. I like the idea of the committee. It seemed to improve the process a little. However it needs to be balanced by division.

[Andy Sharp]

I agree that many teams are in need of reliable table staffs, but until the league ships in outside professionals for every game we will always have conspiracy theories and even then . . .

Make note that two South teams forfeited their right to have players elected for the awards and that the top 4 teams had a record of 17W-3L against teams in the conference, while the bottom 5 teams had a record of 2W-17L with multiple games not even being completed. Are there good players on every team? Yes, and every team had players earn recognition.

Each team was asked to list prospects on March 30th, if a team did not respond, are we to blame for your choice? The board is already looking into forming a clearer timeline with deadlines lined up and publicized following the fall meeting and utilizing more detailed nomination forms.

If we were to use more detailed nomination forms, would we open our awards process to the LaxPower affect, where teams rack up goals whenever possible to boost their rating? This is a can of worms that I would recommend staying away from; lacrosse is widely inflicted with excessive assists and inflated save percentages as it stands.

This year's timeline was very tight with the last conference game being played Thursday night, the same night the voting forms were sent out, and the names being due to the award maker Sunday morning.

An updated list of contacts was included with the voting form, everyone was free to council other teams or publicize their players, and ideas of and links to data sources were included in the directions.

It's up to the voter to educate themselves and after looking at the votes only a couple of the 310 votes caught my eye as suspect, all the others were within reason and even those that caught my eye were not consequential.

The assumption that because there were two of us from the North that it affected how votes were computed is hogwash. The votes spoke for themselves and the league Secretary oversaw the calculations/determinations.

There is no doubt that our conference is in need of serious housekeeping and you can expect our fall meeting to be eventful, please bring detailed proposals and make your ideas known to the board well in advance.

[Zeuslax]

I don't think anyone is crying conspiracy theory and everyone knows that it was done to the best of their ability. Everyone understood and anticipated potential issues with the voting. This is why the committee was created; to back up the voting and ensure that there were limited errors. We also voted in the fall to have equal representation from both divisions. Regardless of the oversight, metrics used and calculation/determinations this wasn't the case!

[detlaxhead]

We also voted in the fall to have equal representation from both divisions. Regardless of the oversight, metrics used and calculation/determinations this wasn't the case!

Anthony,
No we did not vote that at all. Please review your meeting minutes. I am not really sure what your complaint is. Please simply tell me what you think went wrong and I will be happy to address it. Tim, I offer the same service to you free of charge.
I sat in on the sub-committees conference calls. I thought everyone did a great job. Charlie, Andy and Mark busted their balls to vet this list, and even called coaches who forgot to submit things like coach of the year.
I will agree some of the technical aspects of this need tweaking. I would like to see firmer date set for each step, and in the future i will also request that both A and B release the teams together. And obviously A went with 3rd team and B went with HM. However, I can not stress that the goal here is not to insure equal representation among sub-divisions. It is to reward the best players in the conference.
If you feel you have a second team player that should be first, why blame the sub-committee? Idema is Offensive Player of the Year, Jehling was the top attackman vote getter, and Wierenga was second in points from attack, and first team last year. Pretty stiff competition. Adams was 2nd of 3rd last year if memory serves me. Still a great honor, named back to back.
If you feel he was stiffed, why not look at your other coaches, the ones that voted? Or look at yourself, and ask why didn't I do more to talk my player up?

[Zeuslax]

Owen,

I encourage you to reread my prior posts in this thread! Kind of interesting that you make this personal by inferring my thoughts and motives for prior posts. Your comments are out of line and quite honestly I’m not sure where they are coming from. Since we should comment to the post and since you have always been a person I respect I will do that here. Obviously this isn’t the place to fully discuss conference details either. I’ll save that for the fall.

No we did not vote that at all. Please review your meeting minutes.

Then what did we agree to? I sent multiple emails out prior to the voting to the entire league and our board representative handling this matter asking to clarify and confirm the process. This wasn’t done! My notes show that we would have team voting and a committee to oversee the voting. This committee would be balanced by division; one coach from each division and with the corresponding board member taking their results and broadcasting the results to the league. I don’t have anything in my notes that say that the board member would be involved in the process. Nor would I have voted yes to this. Now, again, since I said this once and it didn’t seem to get through to a couple of you. No one is claiming conspiracy or a bad job by the people involved. However, when asked for confirmation of the process and the details for the voting. This did not happen. So what’s my issue you may ask? That again, we say we’re going to do something and we don’t do it. I don’t write because I’m concerned about my players. I would never do something like that. This is the one thing that most of the players in the MCLA have for recognition. It’s important that we get it as close to right as possible........From 1st team to H.M.

If you feel you have a second team player that should be first, why blame the sub-committee? Idema is Offensive Player of the Year, Jehling was the top attackman vote getter, and Wierenga was second in points from attack, and first team last year. Pretty stiff competition. Adams was 2nd of 3rd last year if memory serves me. Still a great honor, named back to back If you feel he was stiffed, why not look at your other coaches, the ones that voted?

It is very interesting that this comment would come out of your message! Who gave you this impression? Who’s blaming the subcommittee? This is an invalid statement that has no basis or ground. If the complaint is not understood why would you assume that this is my issue? My concern is for the league and our growth. You are correct, very tough competition up and down the board. Not just at attack!!!!! Also, Wierenga isn’t second in points scored, maybe you mean votes?

why not look at your other coaches, the ones that voted? Or look at yourself, and ask why didn't I do more to talk my player up?

I have by stating that we have to enforce our rules! Period. If we don’t have teams that can properly host a game, communicate, without head coaches, etc…….how can we expect them to vote properly? Also, why should we have to talk our players up? This is not the responsibility of the coaches? So, the coaches that talk more earn more respect for their players? Philosophically this is a flawed approach…..in my opinion. Our players should speak for themselves during the games they play in.

It is to reward the best players in the conference.

You are correct!!!

[tjg1012]

I was pretty clear with what I thought went wrong/should be changed, and it had nothing to do with the people involved, rather it had everything to do with the process.
1) More comprehensive info for each player to be reviewed by the coaches
2) We should try to get together in person
3) We should limit the amount of players from one team ( not substantially, but reasonably)

These are not issues for you to address (whether or not you plan to charge me). These are issues I would like to discuss in the Fall, and was simply giving notification that I plan to bring it up, in case anyone wants to prepare something to add to the discussion.

[detlaxhead]

Anthony, I apologize if my email was seen as a personal attack. I did not mean it to. I respect you and your success. I am just a bit frustrated that the good job these guys did is being attacked. So I am sorry if it came out that I was anti-anthony. It was not meant to be at all.

Thas said you and Tim are off base. Let me hit the points quickly, because it is important that we discuss the process and I enjoy a good discussion.

pt 1. Divisional Commisioner does not vote. That was not what was proposed or accepted. The AC, if you don't mind, chairs the sub-committee and votes. Think of it easily as why else have 3 people?

pt 2. Blame the Committee comment. In this case it is probably my annoyed bias coming out. Having done this before and having received all the pissed off emails from coaches who felt they were jobbed. Naturally I jump to it, because I have received it. So I will give you this one. I shouldn't post during long work days.

pt. 3 We need to follow our rules. We did in this case. I see that you have other very valid concerns about team quality. This is why we took the step to the sub committee. Last year in the A-division the 4 place team in the north had more all-CCLA players then the three teams above it in the rankings.

pt. 4. the best of the best. We agree, beautiful. Also I met this sweet black defenseman this past weekend who says he helps you guys out and plays for the Pitt city team. He was supposed to say hi to you, though maybe now he shouldn't.

Tim 1. More Information. I agree with this point. But I think this falls back onto your fellow coaches. Do they scout? Do they take notes? Hopefully, but I also feel a reminder couldn't hurt during the voting process. To aid in that we definately need to tweak the timetable to firm up deadlines for both the coaches and the board.

Tim 2. Try and meet together. If coaches at the b-level want to have a conference call next year I am sure that could be arranged, but I am not sure we can get everyone together to vote. I can't see CMU or NMU budgeting time to travel to one another in season just to talk about all conference. In the past people have used a forum to discuss it. Perhaps we can add opening a forum thread, to coaches only, as a job function of the committee.

Tim 3. Limiting players. Why?

It's 11pm, and I have been at work since 7. I am not going to check this for spelling of grammer.