A Look Ahead to 2008 and a Proposal

[Dan Wishengrad]

I do believe that Montana (along with WWU) both belong in the A division, but I don't want to see either team make that jump without being prepared.

Dan- I'm glad that you sparked this discussion because if it started at the league meeting we would all be there for weeks...
I enjoy all of your comments on this subject as it will be something that I will be debating over for the next few months... but don't expect an answer about a Grizzly move anytime soon.

Kevin, I value your comments more than you know. I wanted to start the discussion now for the very reason you cite: We need to hash it all over and reach some kind of consensus over the summer where we all want our conference to be in 2008 and beyond. The annual meeting is the time to move important issues like these to a vote, not to begin the discussion about them.

Ultimately Montana lacrosse belongs to you guys, as this league belongs to the membership of teams. If I were on your coaching staff you know now what my position would be. But I am simply a volunteer to the league and to Husky Lacrosse, one who has a public platform here to get the discussion started. Do what you think is best for all concerned and I will be there to back you up and cheer you on, except if you happen to be playing the Huskies!

Remember that the Executive Board may study and make recommendations, but these big issues will be decided by the membership. I don't get a vote, nor does Jason, Kyle, Marilyn, Bubba, Dave or Josh. Keith does have a veto power of sorts over all of us but he is a wise man and rarely uses it. We actually owe Keith a huge debt of gratitude, so let me be the first here to thank Keith and all our officials for covering our expanding scheduling demands this past year. Great job!

I'll look forward to hearing more on this from you all over the coming days and weeks. Anyone from WWU care to post an opinion or two?

[woulax23]

I'm glad i amuse, i was not trying act as if i had any sort of insider information about Montana's program. I was simply pointing out that in the three years that i have been in this league Montana has gotten good recruits. In fact the only real backup i have for this comment is the fact that i specifically remember posts from the past in which Montana's prospects were listed and they were long prestigious lists. Hi-line you yourself have made posts regarding the fact that you guys have gotten DIII players and east coast high schoolers who could have played at the varsity level to come and play for your team. I understand that you guys don't have high school lacrosse in Montana, but all i meant was that despite that fact you have done an excellent job of attracting players with great skills from parts of the country besides Montana. If you guys feel like you came across a couple of good years of recruiting and you are afraid that you won't be able to keep that going then that is one thing; but i don't think you can down play the numbers of quality players that you have been able to get to come and play for you. I do completely see you point about school support and the absence of a definitive all-encompassing head coach to keep the program alive after your core group leaves. In fact it is one of my biggest fears about our program after our core group of leaders leave. I completely understand that you guys have your reasons for not wanting to move up, i was just giving an outside point of view on how good your program looks. WOU will be happy to play Montana again next season if they go for a repeat of their Division B national championship, but we will also be happy to congratulate you on your wins if you move up. Either way I just hope that you can keep the good funk, wherever it's coming from, alive.

Sidenote about the moving up of B teams in general: A lot of my guys have talked in the past about the subject and some of the less mature speakers have made comments to the effect of "those guys should have to move up because they are good." Well I think that sets a bad image for the B's. I do feel like a better way of determining Divisional status is neccessary, but eventually we are going to have to stop pressuring our good talent to move up. My opinion is that we need to have this set and then we just need to let the bottom talents catch up or else the B's will always be seen as a holding tank for teams until they are good enough to play in the B's; and i would hate to see that happen. So i guess i am divided on this whole issue.......

[Sonny]

Remember that the Executive Board may study and make recommendations, but these big issues will be decided by the membership. I don't get a vote, nor does Jason, Kyle, Marilyn, Bubba, Dave or Josh. Keith does have a veto power of sorts over all of us but he is a wise man and rarely uses it.

You let the team reps (many of which are team presidents (students) that change on a yearly basis) have the only voting power in the PNCLL? How exactly is that productive in managing a conference that controls 20+ college teams, manages a large conference schedule each year, not to mention thousands & thousands of dollars?

[Kyle Berggren]

Sonny the teams vote on things such as this at the AGM. UPS gets a vote, & I gladly discuss it with our leadership, & we vote. The same is true of the other programs. The Board has been making recommendations & building smaller proposals for discussion at the AGM & dealing with the issues that come up during season, not forcing it down their throats as gospel when we're all present. Now, it may not always seem that way, but it's the goal.

This season for example dues increased about $100/team per game. It was all last minute, & we hashed out our options, did all the math, & decided to get a vote from the membership. I ended up doing a lot of the math, & thank goodness we ended up pretty close. But that's been our job for as long as I can remember. We decided on the Final Four venue, to many team's dismay, but thankfully with our Board's illness' this year.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Sonny, I introduced a resolution for vote two years ago that each elected member of the EB get one vote, equal to the vote of one team, on all these procedural matters. The motion was defeated.

As Kyle said, those of us on the Board who are affiliated with a club have some sway (usually but not always!) as to how our own team votes. What I find to be just plain wrong is that we have a President who gets no vote in open session. Our current President is an "independent" -- unaffiliated with any team (despite still carrying the "PLULax" moniker here), and as such must sit back when these issues are voted on. I really think we need to change this. We have a leader now who is responsible, who acts in good faith and consistently in the best interests of our organization, and who has given an awful lot of time and energy to the PNCLL that could have been spent with his wife and young children instead. We owe Jason (and Kyle) not only a great big thank you for our PNCLL Tournament at Curtis, we owe him a vote!

[Sonny]

There is absolutely no reason that the conference executives should not have a vote in all league matters, as should conference members in good standing. Furthermore, most corporations are set up in a manner that allow the conference executives to run the day to day operations (conduct the general business, run the meetings, and set the agenda) of the organization (in this case, the PNCLL).

Teams that are not in good standing should not receive a vote, nor should they be in a position to vote on prospective new members to the conference.

The time to move the agenda forward within your conference is this summer by the PNCLL executives, not at the all-day scheduling meeting in September or October.

[LaxTV_Admin]

I've been trying to talk about the reprecussions of great B teams moving up to A in another thread...but please allow me to chime in.

I'm afraid that many great B teams are thinking about moving up to A, maybe as soon as next season (Westminster, UVSC, Montana, St Johns). I'm afraid that after those teams move up others will follow (UNC, NAU, St Thomas, and others).

I am not a member of the PNCLL, but I can speak to this. I do not believe St. John's has any intention of moving up to the A division. They are looking to go Division III once they get enough money (This has been discussed at length in another thread).

Additionally, I cannot speak for the other teams, but I know the individuals I speak to at St. Thomas are not interested in moving to A (at this time). The reason being is they can only draw from about 3,000 kids. As many of the B division schools in your league know it is difficult to get the talent required to compete with a BYU or Oregon with such a small number of kids coming to the school.

If the future of the B division remains as it is today, I think you might see more schools the size of St. Thomas stay in the B division. It is tough enough for a school drawing 10,000+ kids to compete with the top A division teams. Having a 1/3 of that is even more difficult. Also, this is just an fyi for this forum, not trying to debate the future of the B division. That is an entirely different debate...

[Blake]

I think Kevin's point can be illustrated pretty well by an experience I had my freshman season at Utah.

Fall of 2002 we (the Utes) played Montana in the Gem State tournament. This was before UM was anything to write home about, and our boys beat them up pretty good.

That was Mason's second year as the head coach at the U, and he was benefiting from his first recruiting class, which was somewhere around 15 freshmen. The vast majority of them were from the Salt Lake area, and the others were from pretty close by (Boise). Seven of those freshmen started on the squad that season.

Essentially, teams like Utah, CSU, and Oregon are going to reload every single year because of all the available local talent, so long as they have a competent coach. Montana is doing so well because of the leadership, not local talent. Yes, they have a large student body, but the vast majority of them are from Montana, and because Montana does not have lacrosse, the large student body doesn't really do anything for them.

And besides, they were easily the classiest team to beat the crap out of me during my time at Albertson. If they treat future ACI teams the same way, I wouldn't much mind if they stuck around.

[TheNino57]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Westminster supposed to go NCAA in a few seasons?

[BigheadTodd]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Westminster supposed to go NCAA in a few seasons?

last I heard it was in the near future, my guess 5-7 years. They are currently NAIA, so they still have alot of work to do.

[Jana]

We have a leader now who is responsible, who acts in good faith and consistently in the best interests of our organization, and who has given an awful lot of time and energy to the PNCLL that could have been spent with his wife and young children instead.

I fear making Jason's head swell far beyond what chiropractic can cure...but I feel compelled to chip in - Jason also does a lot for the PLU women's team, their head coach has had to travel on Army business this season and also underwent surgery and Jason really stepped up to help - especially when PLU was hosting 10 other teams in Tacoma, in some serious mud and rain.

The NWWLA is wrestling with the same issues of voting power and we'll be working on updated articles of incorporation this summer. We are leaning towards giving more decision making weight to the executive officers, and expanding the board to 8 members. If you want to be a decision maker, you must be prepared to do some heavy lifting at the league level, and put in the time and effort that makes the league run well.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

There is absolutely no reason that the conference executives should not have a vote in all league matters, as should conference members in good standing. Furthermore, most corporations are set up in a manner that allow the conference executives to run the day to day operations (conduct the general business, run the meetings, and set the agenda) of the organization (in this case, the PNCLL).

Teams that are not in good standing should not receive a vote, nor should they be in a position to vote on prospective new members to the conference.

There was a fear and concern that teams would be over-represented if the executive board was granted voting powers. Essentially, they are afraid that board members who represent league teams would in essence be granted two votes - one for their team and one for their board position.

We (the EB) do make day-to-day decision that effect everyone. . .but on that long, arduous Saturday in September every year I have the podium but I don't have a vote. I have only the ability to try to influence the voters to make decisions that are in the best interest of the league.

And for the record, teams that are not in good standing do not get a vote.

The time to move the agenda forward within your conference is this summer by the PNCLL executives, not at the all-day scheduling meeting in September or October.

I completely agree with this. Last summer we worked harder than ever before to prepare for the meeting and try to put forward issues and an agenda that could be dealt with quickly and efficiently. . .but it seems there is always one issue that eats up 2 hours of our lives and rarely gets resolved. . .we will again plan our best for the meeting, and part of that is what Dan has done here - bringing issues to the table early to get a finger on the pulse of the league's member teams.

[nlyon02]

oh remember this years fun talk about where playoffs should be. That had to have taken atleast 1 1/2 hours.

[Dan Wishengrad]

oh remember this years fun talk about where playoffs should be. That had to have taken atleast 1 1/2 hours.

Good post, and you are dead on! I'll state again my personal opinion which has not changed in the decade I have served on the EB:

The Final Four should be rotated between PNCLL cities which have a significant presence of youth/high lacrosse players who will be the event's fan base. These are the kids we want to showcase our league to, they are our future. This is what we formally committed to doing as a league back in the late '90s, after holding the original four or five PNCLL Final Fours at Delta Park in Portland as part of the PNLA tourney. We have held the event this decade in the following greater metro areas:

2007 Tacoma, WA
2006 Portland, OR
2005 Vancouver, BC
2004 Seattle, WA
2003 Portland, OR
2002 Tacoma, WA
2001 Vancouver, BC
2000 Portland, OR

But youth lacrosse is spreading, and other cities deserve their chance too, in my opinion. Spokane, Bellingham, Eugene, Boise and other PNCLL cities could be potential hosts. Any school in one of these cities has the summer to put togther a proposal to host the event and deliver it to Jason. We could discuss the pros-and-cons of the different venues here on the CollegeLAX forum. If everybody has considered the options in advance of the meeting and the EB has issued its recommendation, we could have a quick final discussion/Q&A at the AGM and then call the vote.

[Steno]

Please, never again in Vancouver. The drive mixed with a border crossing seeemd inconvenient for everyone except SFU, and maybe Western, though I don't remember if they were there that year.

Anyway, Eugene seems like a viable option, but Boise and Spokane are the most intriguing. However, I am unaware of facilities in either of these places. It would be nice to switch it up and bring the tourney East.