WCLL All Conference Team

[dtrain34]

OUCH!

What is the problem, aren't these boards for discussion?

You admit in your email that the process is flawed...it appears to me that all anyone is talking about here, are some of these flaws.

That is what discuss helps to do, identify the flaws, and hopefully make improvements for everyone in the future.

[sohotrightnow]

Agreed dtrain34. Congratulations are in order to those who were selected. That being said, it is useful to discuss why certain teams and individuals are/are not selected to these teams.

[SDSULAX]

Great idea, Let's start another thread where the constructive ideas can be collected and reviewed to improve the process. I will start one right now.

[Theflow]

All anyone wants out of the league on everything is acountability. Anytime the process or criteria is kept a secret, and there are results that may be suspect, there are bound to be questions. This is a good place to talk about it, and there is a hope that things can be better explained. Congratulations to those that got picks, and I am sorry to all of those that got slighted. There are players that fit in to latter category that are more obvious than others.

HERE IS MY SOLUTION:

I have been a hs coach in the past in a state where each coach does a write up for the players they want nominated. It is not just a name, but it is their stats and a few sentences about why they should be selected. Coaches can nominate an equal number of players, and no team gets more or less for making the playoffs. Then, a group of coaches that is selected by each division (they are voted in by ALL of the coaches, not chosen by a few), has a meeting (could be over the phone as long as everyone has the same names and stats in front of them). The selected coaches from each league have the responsibility of presenting players from each team within their league. Since they play every team, they know the players much better then what is on paper. It is through that process in which each select team is voted. It is not perfect, but I think it is a much better balanced system then what we have today where only a few vote, teams have unequal representation with how many nominations they have, and only lists of names are turned in.

Just my thoughts. Open to debate...

[NomaBlueCollar]

Please Noma fans don't just get "defensive" (no pun intended) and say they should win, but try to take a step back and try to look at this objectively. I know that it is hard for you to believe, but there are other good schools, with better players. Particularly this year. And before you question my 'credentials,' I was a coach in this league for 4 years, have seen the selections in question play, and was a former selection myself; a long, long time ago (sigh..."old ass man dog, old ass man). Plus, you don't have much of a leg to stand-on, considering the scores of the bigger games this year.

Cito Williams is an absolute stud and deserves first team. He is arguably the best attackman in the league this year. Maybe Noma deserves a defenseman too, for arguments sake let's also give Pringle the nod based on past performance and reputation (whether you disagree or not). But two out of the three defenseman, plus the goalie. Come on...
...
So seriously, you answer one question for me (not being negative or condesending, I honestly want to understand this). Is the coaching that bad at Sonoma (which I don't think it is) or is there a completely unfair bias? Look, it is one or the other, so I would like to have an honest answer.

Its a bit interesting you speak about taking an objective look at the situation, when you're only points are "come on" and dogging the SSU coaching... Instead, its probably more like the great defensive system and coaching Doug Carl has implemented and taught so well to some already talented players. SSU always has always produced solid defenders, why is this a surprise to you? Pringle and Riddle are repeats from the year before, and i think Keebler was either 2nd or 3rd team. If a player improves, why can't he climb the selection ladder as well?

And to say that theres an unfair bias, i would have to say you should check into how the voting and selections are made before you jump to things like that... im not sure about how it works either, but im pretty sure that the committee isn't just SSU coaches, but probably more like coaches from EVERY team. Some coaches are busy with their own teams and their schedules dont cross some of the teams whose players are worthy of selections. So what more can they do than go by the numbers, and word of mouth? Dont address this as if Sonoma did something wrong.

[Theflow]

And to say that theres an unfair bias, i would have to say you should check into how the voting and selections are made before you jump to things like that... im not sure about how it works either, but im pretty sure that the committee isn't just SSU coaches, but probably more like coaches from EVERY team.

We have established that NOT EVERY COACH GETS A VOTE, only a chosen number do, and NOT EVERY TEAM HAS AN EQUAL NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS.

[SDSULAX]

The number of nominations per team is discussed and agreed upon at the league meeting in the fall, all teams were present, nobody objected to it then, why get so excited about it now? Let's try to discuss this without all of the emotion.

[biola_defense]

We have established that NOT EVERY COACH GETS A VOTE, only a chosen number do, and NOT EVERY TEAM HAS AN EQUAL NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS.

Every tema receives an e-mail asking their coach to nominate 5 of his players for the all-league selections. maybe some teams/coaches need to figure out that they need to turn in their nominations so players won't be left off.

[dtrain34]

As I have tried to stress, what is most important is the kids and the opportunity that they have during their four years. Not a select few, but ALL of the kids playing in our league. And they all should receive fair recognition. No one player or team is bigger than the league or the game.

I said that SSU is well coached. That is more than obvious.

You said, "im not sure about how it works either." This isn't correct, what you mean to say is, that you are sure that you don't know how the selection committee works.

I do. Sonoma is the only team that has two voices in those meetings.

Your most valid points are that certain players were highly selected last year. This is what we have all been talking about, it has been a problem for a while. I hate to break this to you, but you are supporting my argument (and what has been discussed for three pages now). Last year Brandon Hays won Defensive Player of the Year and wasn't first team, because the others were. A few years ago, Ryan Brittain was Defensive Player of the Year, and was 2nd team to the Sonoma goalie.

I know what I said was very negative, I was hoping to not start an angry "Oh yeah, well you're an idiot," back and forth type of thing. I asked for the Sonoma fans to try to look at this from on outside point of view, the view of the other 20 some odd teams.

You can still be a great parent, friend, alumni, supporter of the program, etc. and admit that it is a problem. There isn't anything wrong with that. You should always have pride in your squad, but don't let the blue-collar covering keep you from having a fair and unbiased understanding of the greater good of the league.

Sonoma has gotten to the point, where they are more concerned with their own promotion and glory, then that of the west coast. One of the great things about our league, and why it has grown to the dominance that it has had, has been the brotherhood so to speak and unity of all of its players.

Everyone that has been to the dance talks about how great it is, how special, when the last WCLL team remains in the National Championship that all the other WCLL teams are cheering loudly for them against their opposition. One of the more famous pictures of the last few years was when Sonoma won the national championship; the players are seen running to the stands where all the other WCLL teams are standing in ovation and cheering wildly for their victory.

This was ruined last year when the entire Sonoma team, including some its coaches, were rooting loudly against UCSB (after they had lost to them the day before) and going to the fence behind the cage (during the game) asking the goalie to fight.

This, among other things, might help restore a sense of "unity." Which used to be West Coast lacrosse's greatest attribute:

1. Change the play-off format so that it is more fair to the better teams, doesn't penalize the stronger conferences, and keeps our best teams in the final four (and thus, in the national tournament)
2. Change the all-league voting so that is more wide based, or "fair," or limit it to play-off teams, or whatever....or get ride of it. Teams have their own awards that kids will appreciate.
3. Rotate the league President (who shouldn't be connected to any team in the league, and actually should probably be a referee) and committee members every two years
4. Make referees responsible for the reviews that they receive. So that ultimately the games are more similarly officiated between the north and the south (the Northern refs right now are completely different, and in my opinion, WAY more informed and overall better).
5. Have the final four at a neutral site every year.

That is about it for now. Thanks and good night. Wash your hands before you leave.

I hope that this would at least open a little bit of fair, unbiased, educated discussion; either here or at next year's meetings...

[Theflow]

We have established that NOT EVERY COACH GETS A VOTE, only a chosen number do, and NOT EVERY TEAM HAS AN EQUAL NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS.

Every tema receives an e-mail asking their coach to nominate 5 of his players for the all-league selections. maybe some teams/coaches need to figure out that they need to turn in their nominations so players won't be left off.

I think you missed my point. Those coaches are not voting, they are nominating their own players. That is not the problem. The problem is who is VOTING for the players, which is not every coach, but rather a select few. I think that should clear things up.

[Theflow]

1. Change the play-off format so that it is more fair to the better teams, doesn't penalize the stronger conferences, and keeps our best teams in the final four (and thus, in the national tournament)
2. Change the all-league voting so that is more wide based, or "fair," or limit it to play-off teams, or whatever....or get ride of it. Teams have their own awards that kids will appreciate.
3. Rotate the league President (who shouldn't be connected to any team in the league, and actually should probably be a referee) and committee members every two years
4. Make referees responsible for the reviews that they receive. So that ultimately the games are more similarly officiated between the north and the south (the Northern refs right now are completely different, and in my opinion, WAY more informed and overall better).
5. Have the final four at a neutral site every year.
.

Points 1, 3, and 4 are the best one's you have made all year.

[WCLLPREZ]

Hey guys,

I really hate having to do this every year but since my integrity has been directly disparaged once again in this thread and the integrity of the both Sonoma coach and WCLL President (who is a team administrator at Sonoma) was also questioned, I will again to set the record straight. There are no secrets in our process and if you are associated in the leadership of a member team, you should know that. If not ask your coaches about it.

At the league meeting this fall, THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP, vote on the selection process. It was agreed that all teams would get a minimum number of nominations (5) and then based on a team's finish in the next to last poll (wait for explanation to follow) teams who were ranked in the top ten would receive an additional 5 nominations; ranking in the 11-25 spots earns another 3 nominations. Rationale: in theory the best teams have the better players and they deserve the opportunity for recognition. The league also voted to add a new category to our All Conference team; the Defensive Short Stick midfielder.

Why did the WCLL change and use an earlier poll and why is there no DSSM category listed? The WCLL was superseded by the MCLA in terms of the date needed for announcement of the teams (to expedite the All America selection process), in the eligible categories for selection and in the number of players who could be selected to the First and Second teams.

All head coaches were sent a nomination form to complete and return to the WCLL Vice President (me); who is charged with administering this process. The names were collected and a ballot was developed. The coaches were also given an opportunity to send in a brief bio/synopsis for each of their nominated players which were compiled into a single document and included with the ballots sent to the selection committee. A committee was selected by me that was equally balanced between the four A Divisions and included coaches who have by my judgement, been active in the league for a sufficient time and whose teams have played a diverse schedule both within and outside our A Division.

In the B Division, all coaches were sent the nomination form due to the limited number of teams in the entire division (10). Nominations were not received from two coaches and thus players from those teams were not included on the ballot. A ballot was then sent to the eight coaches who returned nominations and only 6 returned them which made the entire process quite limited.

Back to the A Division, the original selection committee consisted of 8 COACHES, two from each division. No team had multiple people on the selection committee and every Quarterfinal team was represented. This committee was selected before the entire process began. In the nomination process, I was informed a particular coach was no longer associated with his team and thus removed from the selection committee. In addition, one coach who was also on the selection committee submitted his team's nominations after the deadline and the ballot was sent out to the committee. After the late receipt of that team's nominations a revised ballot was sent out but that was after two completed ballots had already been received. Neither coach cared to send in a revised ballot despite being advised they could.

On the ballots, the selection committee was asked to rank their selections from best to worst and the player received a specified number of points based on their relative ranking. The point totals were tabulated for each position and an initial placement on the All Conference teams was made by me. That first go around included a first team with 4 attackmen and midfielders due to the breakout of the point totals which included several ties. This list was sent to the selection committee on Friday night to get the committee members thoughts and in the hope of having the final team selected so they could be announced during the Championship game.

There was some discussion about the relative placement of several players but I didn't have feedback from all the committee, probably due to their involvement in the playoffs.

Over the weekend, I re-read the MCLA guidelines and determined that the initial selections were not in compliance with the standards and the teams were reviewed with the League President. The current teams were selected. If a tie was involved, placement on the higher team went to the player with more seniority (mostly seniors). In the LSM/Specialist category, the players were listed based on the highest number of points received from either category.

Mr. Dtrain, I enjoy your posts in general and you sound very knowledgeable about the workings of the league. I probably know you and who knows, you may even be a coach in the league. You have implied that I and the Sonoma State representatives have "rigged" or
padded the votes.

"I do. Sonoma is the only team that has two voices in those meetings" this is just not true. Only their coach had voting privileges!

Mr DTwizzle: your comments are slanderous, without merit and show your ignorance about the league and our processes.

"How does a team that goes 7 and 7 and does not make playoffs get four selections? oh thats right santa clars'a(sic) coach was on the votong(sic)committe(sic). I guess you have to play for them to be selected. a Goalie that has a .566 save percentage gets second team? really? If I had to guess I would say the Sonoma Guys and Santa Clara guys got together and made the list by themselves."

Have you seen my team play this season? Have you seen any of the players selected play this season? You got our record correct, 7-7 but did you notice that we were 4 goals from a 10-7 record, a Central Division top ranking and a playoff spot? In addition we would have beaten 3 teams in the top 25 were it not for 4 goals.

You are correct I am on the voting committee, why shouldn't I, I have been a coach in this league for 21 years. My votes held the same potential value as the votes received from all members of the committee. Apparently, some coaches in the league felt differently or possess a more discriminating eye than you do when it comes to evaluating talent.

For anyone who has additional comments or questions about the process or the methods involved, feel free to contact me by email, PM or telephone.

Lay off the personal attacks of the many individuals who have devoted significant amounts of their time to the game, their teams and the league. Better yet, give back and Honor The Game!! Start coaching, become an official, run for league office. Do something except anonymously complain on a messgae board.

Gary Podesta

[jmaxwell2]

Sonoma has gotten to the point, where they are more concerned with their own promotion and glory, then that of the west coast. One of the great things about our league, and why it has grown to the dominance that it has had, has been the brotherhood so to speak and unity of all of its players.

Everyone that has been to the dance talks about how great it is, how special, when the last WCLL team remains in the National Championship that all the other WCLL teams are cheering loudly for them against their opposition. One of the more famous pictures of the last few years was when Sonoma won the national championship; the players are seen running to the stands where all the other WCLL teams are standing in ovation and cheering wildly for their victory.

This was ruined last year when the entire Sonoma team, including some its coaches, were rooting loudly against UCSB (after they had lost to them the day before) and going to the fence behind the cage (during the game) asking the goalie to fight.

Let's just blame it all on Sonoma. For the past 6 years that I have been reading posts on this site, I have seen extensive criticism and trashing of Sonoma and their players, especially by the supporters of Santa Barbara and former players from UCSB. As a player for Sonoma, they are not allowed to respond to these remarks that is said about them and their team in this forum, although I am sure some Sonoma players do read these comments. So in the end, when you feel that Sonoma should stand behind UCSB and cheer them on, ask yourself, why should they?

[bulax6]

This system is flawed. I'm only speaking from a division B persepective because that's what I play in, but look at the facts. Jimmy Shirley is a solid goalie. However, he ranked 6th in the WCLL in save pct. That's out of ten teams in division B. Irvine finished the regular season at sub .500 (6-7) but somehow he was named Defensive Player of the year. He is a solid player, but I think there were others more deserving. I don't see why Division B only got two teams instead of three and honorable mentions like division A. Plus they only got two midfielders on the second team? Weird. I thought there were more deserving players all over the conference awards. I played against them. But when coaches have no way of seeing all the players play, and only a certain amount of coaches form the league will vote, it's bound to be flawed.

[Theflow]

Thanks for a better breakdown of the process, Gary. I still think it could be improved to equal things out, but that will be up to the voters in the meeting. There are still questions to why some standout players did not make it higher on that list.

Off topic, it is still really frustrating to hear from people on this board, certainly from the VP of the league, a poll voter and a man of influence the following:

"Have you seen my team play this season? Have you seen any of the players selected play this season? You got our record correct, 7-7 but did you notice that we were 4 goals from a 10-7 record, a Central Division top ranking and a playoff spot? In addition we would have beaten 3 teams in the top 25 were it not for 4 goals"

The same arguement could say that "ASU was two goals away from not beating any top 10 teams," or how Chapman, Colorado, Sonoma, and countless other good teams were a few goals away from winning major games this year. Yes, close games mean that maybe there was more equality on the field, but what matters is the score at the end of the game, not what might have been. I'm pretty sure Arizona didn't get a small trophy in the mail for losing by 2 to UCSB last sunday.