Div A Subdivisions

[Arklax]

Illinois and lindenwood scored 20 goals on the 3rd seeded team during the regular season.

Well, then if the gap is that big I propose:

Div A
Illinois
Lindenwood


Div AA
Arkansas
Kansas
Illinois State
Iowa
Kansas State
Memphis
Nebraska
Mississippi
Missouri
Missouri State

......
I don't see the validity of the developmental division. Other conferences have teams that lose all or most of their conference games, yet those teams never have to play in a developmental division. Baylor struggled in the '06 season, and then last season could have very easily (2 goal loss to UNT) made playoffs. Central Michigan is another example of a team that made a quick turnaround.

Now, I'll speak for my own team here. We played OOC games. We'll play more next year. We deserve a shot at making the playoffs. We pay dues to conference and the national body just like everyone else, so our access to the conference playoffs should be just the same. I'm sure there are other teams in the proposed developmental division who would echo those sentiments.

I like Knox's idea. But, I don't care either way how the teams are distributed for talent/performance purposes, I only care that there is some geographical sense to it.

[cjwilhelmi]

Jared, the gap really is that big in our conference. The next tier I would have Mizzou, Mo State, Illinois State and then everyone else. The gap is there. What we need to do is come up with what is best for the conference, not just the LU and Illini and not for the teams trying to move up like Arkansas. I like both of Coach Stevens proposed and have talked with him at length about them.

The other thing that I would add, and Jared I'm really aiming this at you and teams in your situation, is using the A/AA model, what about the top three teams in A and the top team in AA make playoffs. That way, as you said, if a team is in AA and is underrated they have a chance to prove it against the playoff teams in A. This idea is two fold. 1- it gives the conference EB a chance to see what that team has and how the conference can help with their transition up. 2- it will help diminish the idea of developmental since that team could win the conference and therefor the AQ.

As a member of the EB, here is what I want to really look at: I want to make sure that our conference tournament is as strong as it possibly could be. I want to make sure that teams are playing with a goal in mind, which is why I love the idea of relegation. I really dont care if someone's feelings get hurt because the conference is doing what is best for its self as a whole.

[A.J. Stevens]

Option #3

We could just leave things the way they are. The A teams have to approve any team moving up or entering the A division.

Illinois
Illinois State
Lindenwood
Missouri
Missouri State
Kansas

Pending an EB discussion
Iowa
Kansas State

[LaxTV_Admin]

What about this:

GRLC East
Illinois
Illinois St.
Iowa
Lindenwood
Memphis
Mississippi

GRLC West
Arkansas
Kansas
Kansas St.
Missouri
Missouri St.
Nebraska

Each team would be required to play the other teams in its own division, once. Playoffs would be made up of the top two teams in each division.

This would free up teams to play as many OOC games as they would like and geographically helps with travel for intra-conference games.

Not a member of the GRLC, but if I were the one setting it up, I like this proposal, with the caveat that I would either do:

1. Top three from each division, with the top team from each getting a bye
2. Top two from each division, two wildcards, and first two teams getting a bye.

A couple other thoughts. The UMLL has had a similar issue over the past few years with Duluth and Minnesota being the cream of the crop and everyone else being behind by quite a bit. I think that will change over the coming years as some teams begin to develop. Ultimately though the onus is on the teams to get better. It seems to me Coach Stevens is suggesting ways in which to help teams get better.

I also agree with Coach Stevens that if you want to be good or compete in the A division how far you have to travel should not matter. Marquette traveled to Kansas State (10 hour drive) for three games 2 of which we thought didn't count towards Out of Conference (turns out they did). We also traveled to Nashville (10 hours drive) for two games. We will be traveling to Atlanta this year for games and possibly to Virginia. If you want to do well in your conference or nationally you have to travel.

Anyhow, good luck with this. I am completely intrigued with what will happen. It sounds like it should be an excellent board meeting.

[NELAX21]

You took the words right out of my mouth. The 3 of the top 5 teams argument is from this past season. In 2 years that could all change and all 4 of the top teams could be in the same division.

That would be great! We can realign the subdivisions when that happens. The GRLC started in 2003. Let's look at the teams in the finals each year.

2003 Washington over Illinois
2004 Missouri over Illinois
2005 Lindenwood over Illinois
2006 Lindenwood over Illinois
2007 Lindenwood over Illinois

Illinois and lindenwood scored 20 goals on the 3rd seeded team during the regular season. I want to see the teams in the GRLC get better but it is not going to happen without some change.

AJ, would you be happy if you were put in the west with Nebraska, Kansas and Kansas State? when you could play illinois state and iowa who are a lot closer and would save you money to go make a trip OOC?

Thats works for me. Travel should not be an issue for a team competing in the A division. This proposal is meant to reduce the required games. If travel is your number one concern then maybe you guys are not ready. That is unless you only plan on playing the required GRLC games to avoid unnecessary travel. The purpose of this proposal is to give teams a little more flexibility in creating a schedule that works for them. Lindenwood had two required games canceled this season. Is it fair to make a team sit nearly two weeks without a game because the opposing team does not want to play them?

We actually plan on make a couple trips OOC this year, but we don't have everyone in our program that is willing, or even has the funds to pay over $1000. We are doing a lot of fundraising to try to help that but we are trying to change and entire attitude from what the club used to be. We have gotten rid of the "beer ball" mentality and have a lot of young dedicated players that if we raised dues to $1500 would not be able to play. It not a matter of commitment to the team, it a matter of actually finacial commitment that is possible for our team at this point. I am all for playing less conference games so that we can make a more flexible OOC schedule. I just see having 2 teams right by us in our conference not be in our sub-division pointless. If it turned out that we were in the north conference we would have no problem making the trips to Illinois, Illinois State, or Iowa. I just would rather make the trips to Kansas, KSU that we can go play and come back in one day, and then use our money that we have budgeted for hotels on a trip to Minnesota, or Texas.


Also, as high school lacrosse grows in the states in our conference you will see other teams contending with Illinois and Lindenwood. Its a lot easier to get a kid from Chicago to go to Illinois than Nebraska. We don't have much instate talent at this point. high school lacrosse has only been around for 3 years. As that grows so does our talent pool. Almost all of our starters are from out of state. Look at the top teams in the MACLE, most of their kids are in-state kids. With no scholarships, it is very hard for an out of state kid to pay tuition and then on top of that pay $2000 in dues.


Sorry for the rant but i just don't see the negative to geographically splitting the conference. If we did that, looking at it from this past year you would have illinois, lindenwood from the north. Missouri State i would guess arkansas from the south. Missouri and Kansas State from the west. I don't see how that is unbalanced, 5 of the top 6 teams made the playoffs with illinois state at 5 not making it... which they didn't with this past playoff system.

[Matt_Gardiner]

What about this:

GRLC East
Illinois
Illinois St.
Iowa
Lindenwood
Memphis
Mississippi

GRLC West
Arkansas
Kansas
Kansas St.
Missouri
Missouri St.
Nebraska

Each team would be required to play the other teams in its own division, once. Playoffs would be made up of the top two teams in each division.

This would free up teams to play as many OOC games as they would like and geographically helps with travel for intra-conference games.

The only thing I would like to add that may be strongly disagreed with is that the first criteria for seeding (not qualifying) is National Top 25 ranking. It would lead to the best chance of having the best matchup in the finals. It means that a 5-1 team from one division could leapfrog a 6-0 team from the other division. They would still meet in the semi-finals, but it would eliminate the chance that a National #16 could be 4th seed with a 5-1 record, while the #2 and #3 seeds are unranked nationally. If we are really looking at our set-up and trying to think ahead, we should also consider some measures to try and ensure the finals would be the marquis match-up, not the semi-finals.

[scooter]

anyone consider just doing away with divisions? It would take some trust of other teams in the conference, but just have a mandatory 5 conference games.....top 6 make playoffs, and then seed accordingly.

Not saying this is the greatest solution, but why not let it be considered?

[bste_lax]

On more thought, I really do like the A/AA idea.

It allows Illinois/Lindenwood (as well as the other A teams) to play a minimal selection of conference games then allows them to play OOC.

For the AA teams, it gives them something to fight for. I know from my experience at Iowa and from hearing the guys the past couple seasons, they get those first couple L's in conference and the team slowly falls apart as there is "nothing to play for" as there is no chance to make playoffs.

Even if Iowa were in the A, it would give them that extra bit of motivation to win something to stay in the top division rather than get relegated. Every game really does have some importance behind it rather than battling against Nebraska or K-State for the honor or not finishing in last place (which Iowa has basically done the past two years).

So if something like this was in place, you play everyone in your subdivision and play one crossover type game so a team in the AA can see how they match up against teams in the A.

I am not saying I am against the other methods mentioned in this thread, I think those would work as well, but this relegation method intrigues me a little.

[KnoxVegas]

I am on board with the A teams need to play more OOC games to be competitive nationally but I do not think that this should come at the expense of intra-conference competition. We are a conference first after all. It is good that we are discussing this at a time when our conference needs to step up, in both divisions.

I believe that in a conference this big, we need to have divisions. It allows for conference play, while cutting down on some of the travel and the costs that come with such travel. There will always be haves and have nots. That is true in life as well as the MCLA. We should not set up our conference to be centered on what is best for Illinois and Lindenwood. They are not the only ones that pay dues. At the moment, they are the top of the A Division. That is agreed. But I do not think that we should be realigning the divisions on an annual or bi-annual occasion.

Stability in both division must be achieved if we are to move forward. If you look at the division that I propose, allows for five conference games per team. Take the top three teams from each division. Rank them as Matt has proposed and play out the playoffs.

Require member schools to play a minimum of four OOC games. There needs to be better cooperation between member schools and communication when it comes to school A hosting an OOC game and bring in member school B (and C & D & E). If we work together, we can do this.

I think that there needs to be a timeline that all A Division teams (as defined by the MCLA) to exit the B Division and begin play in the A Division. I propose three years in the B Division to get your act together and then move up in year four.

While I once liked the proposal of the AA or X Division as it was once called, I know think that we need to have a strong A Division and B Division, that is made up of member schools that understand their obligations to the league. We cannot leave teams behind, as we move forward but then again if the member schools do not live up to their conference obligations, they should first be put on probation for a period of a year and then evaluated. If the conference feels they are not worthy of membership, then they are asked to leave. They can reapply after two years.

I do not consider this conference or any conference in the MCLA as a "beer league," while some might. There is too much at stake to take this league lightly.

[NELAX21]

Ethan, i guess i didn't really look at your proposal for splitting the conference before, i really like that idea. I agree with everything you just said. I really like that split and the 4 OOC game rule. It would really push teams to get out there and make a name for the conference, or at least try to bring teams in and experience what our conference has to offer.

Also, i don't know if the beer league comment was in response to my previous statement, but i just wanted to state that no one on our team thinks of this as "beer league", we did have players with that mentality, not one of them are still with the team

[cjwilhelmi]

You know what would be really cool? In the AA division, bring the top two teams to the conference tournament and have them play one game for the right to go up to the A division. It could go between the B game and the A game on championship sunday.

[cjwilhelmi]

We should not set up our conference to be centered on what is best for Illinois and Lindenwood.

Who said that? It sure wasn't Coach Stevens, Coach Hood or myself.

Stability in both division must be achieved if we are to move forward.

I agree completely.

I think that there needs to be a timeline that all A Division teams (as defined by the MCLA) to exit the B Division and begin play in the A Division. I propose three years in the B Division to get your act together and then move up in year four.

I would love to have a place for teams to develop and get better. However, I thought that we agreed that Div B is not a developmental league. You just stated that it was and will be in the future. A developmental place for teams to "get [their] act together".

While I once liked the proposal of the AA or X Division as it was once called, I know think that we need to have a strong A Division and B Division, that is made up of member schools that understand their obligations to the league.

If you want to have a place for teams to develop, as you earlier said, then we need to have the AA division as Coach Stevens suggested. I too agree that we need to have a strong A and B. As far as I see it, in order to have a strong A and B we need to get rid of the teams that do not make it strong since we are only as strong as our weakest member. I am actually ok with just getting rid of teams, however I think I am in the vast minority on that topic. So we need to have a developmental division. If you want to make Div B a developmental place then cool you can have all of them, however that will hurt Div B more than it will help the conference as a whole.

So as Coach Ritz has pointed out we need a place for teams to develop and grow. We can't/won't take them in A and water down the competition pool and have more games with 20+ scores. Either we place them in B and make it a developmental division or we create a developmental division within the A structure like the AA. If we want a stable A and B then this is the perfect way to do it. Any team moving up to A is automatically put into this division. Any team that is causing problems is put on probation and into this division. Any new team goes into this division. It is the perfect solution. It gives the stability that you guys are asking for in that in the "main part" of the division that only one team will change every year. Any team serious about playing in Div A should have no problem with the travel. All the teams in A play each other and all the teams in AA play each other. If they want to play eachother then they can, no one is making them. The top three in A go to playoffs along with the top team in AA. That way if a team is underrated they still have a chance to win it all and go to nationals (Jared's concern). You can play anyone you want and all teams have the exact same travel commitments (Dan's concern). This is the best idea that satisfies everyone's issues.

[KnoxVegas]

We should not set up our conference to be centered on what is best for Illinois and Lindenwood.

Who said that? It sure wasn't Coach Stevens, Coach Hood or myself.

I did and please do not try to insuate that anyone else did. I think a large portion of this conference thinks this. If I am wrong, please prove me so. The above is not meant as a slight to Illinois and Lindenwood, so please don't turn it into that. It is easy to see that both of those teams are at the forefront of being the models that other A teams in this conference should follow.

I personally believe that all A Divsion teams (as determined by the MCLA) should be in the A Division. The B Division is not a developmental league at all but why should the B Division be made to deal with deliquent A Division teams? Why can't the A Division police itself? As long as this conference believes that A teams that need time to develop can play in the B Division (where they are in eligible for post-season play), I am willing to compromise. I believe that in time there will be parity in our A & B Divisions and this can come by allowing Arkansas, Memphis and Nebraska to play in the A Division.

East and West Divisions make moe sense to me than North/South. Under my division proposal, we can do what the SEC does in football where you play each team in your division and then each team is assigned a team to be a permanent rival from the opposite division, along with two rotating schools to be played each year. This make 8 league games. The rest of the schedule is to be made up of OOC games.

[Troy Hood]

Great idea, Ethan. Just too many conference games. We had seven scheduled this season and only played five due to issues that have already been discussed.

Again, as I outlined in my earlier post, I'm not suggesting that everything be centered around Illinois, LU and Harding. I am suggesting that the conference schedule be set up to allow teams the freedom to schedule games outside the conference; thus improving our collective ability to compete.

I'm OK with whichever way we choose. I'd schedule U of I regardless of whether or not we're required to play them or not. It's the kind of rivalry that makes us better. The overriding point that I'm making is that we're better for going outside the GRLC instead of playing ourselves to death. Look at the WCLL and the RMLC. Great examples.

[KnoxVegas]

Then go with five conference games and the freedom to schedule whomever they choose. The top two or three from each division make the playoffs.

I just do not want to see the regular conference season devalued, for the sake of playing OOC games. If schools want to do that, then go independent and play for an at-large every year.

And what does Harding have to do with any of this?