Div A Subdivisions

[bste_lax]

1) It would still be the A Division, just a "subdivision" like we had with the Big Ten and Big 12, there is just a system now determining who is in which subdivision. We would still have the AQ.

2) I believe the WCLL used to do this for many years until recently so it has been done by at least another conference.

3) The only person I have seen so far who has greatly opposed this idea on this message board has been you. Also, I wouldn't count on how people talk on here as their 100% vote come conference meeting time.

4) To my understanding, only a few teams will actually have a vote on this issue as I believe only A teams get to vote and it sounds like some could be going on probation so that could change some things.

5) I like to number my arguments/points.

[beckner11]

I'm not necessarily fired up about the idea either but thats just cause I haven't really had the time to sit down and really think this system thru all the way. Until I can do that, I'll be slightly skeptical.

[A.J. Stevens]

If you do not like the idea of a AA division give reasons why. If you say why maybe we can fix it. In the current proposal a AA team could end up earning the AQ to nationals by way of winning the regular season and winning the Div A conference tournament. The AA reg season champ will have the easiest path into the GRLC tourney. If you have a surprisingly great year it will show. It gives you the opportunity to play for everything you want.

[Jolly Roger]

One weakness is that A teams will not schedule regular season games against AA teams (poor gain/loss ratio currently seen in A/B matchups), so AA teams will be forced to go out of conference to get those better games.

I'll be honest that this seems, from the outside, to be a thinly veiled attempt by the elite or near-elite teams in the GRLC to limit the games they have to play against "less than challenging" opponents. Michigan has been working this angle for years. They'd be happy if they played 0 CCLA games.

Maybe the solution is something that has a more national flavor, in which the super-elite teams (BYU/CSU/MICH/UMD/LU?/ILL?, etc) have their own "National Conference". They only play each other in season and have a final 4 (which is JP's dream). How teams get into that classification is a whole different can of worms.

[bste_lax]

One proposal I would have to the A/AA system is make the A teams play at least one game against an AA team (random draw at the conference meeting).

Also, I would only be for this system if there were at least 10 teams in A. If there is less, I don't think the system would work that well if the AA only had 3 or 4 teams.

[NELAX21]

If you do not like the idea of a AA division give reasons why. If you say why maybe we can fix it. In the current proposal a AA team could end up earning the AQ to nationals by way of winning the regular season and winning the Div A conference tournament. The AA reg season champ will have the easiest path into the GRLC tourney. If you have a surprisingly great year it will show. It gives you the opportunity to play for everything you want.

One big reason i would be against it is for scheduling OOC games. If you were trying to make your schedule and you saw that a team was in AA and not really seen as an A team in their conference would you really want to schedule them? Or make a trip to play them when the better teams in the conference are kind of looking at them like the red headed step child?



Div A
Illinois
Illinois State
Kansas
Lindenwood
Missouri
Missouri State

Div AA
Arkansas
Iowa
Kansas State
Memphis
Nebraska
Mississippi

but, the more a look at this i am actually starting to come around to it. I just have a couple things on it. Kansas is in the A division, but last year they went 1-6 in conference and 2-9 overall, and lost their coach from this season. Is that the kind of season that would deserve to stay in the A division? the other 2 teams that only had 1 conference win are both in the AA divison, one of those teams won 6 games last year. To me if we are judging this on winning and loosing they are also in the AA division. If we did it this way i think the rest of the teams are where they should be, with 3 teams coming from B and one that hasn't been in the MCLA the past year. So that would leave 5 teams in the A divison and then 7 teams in the AA fighting for 1 playoff spot.

What does everyone think about expanding the playoffs to 6 teams, AA gets the 5 and 6 spot and the top 4 got to the A divison? That way half the teams in the conference make the playoff, all the AA schools play each other, all the A schools play each other and 2 AA schools get to prove they can travel to the conference tournament in a short notice and make their case to play in A for the next year.

Also, do we have a set number in each division every year? will it always be a 6-6 split that it was proposed at first or do we say that the A will never be smaller that 4 or 5 and never bigger than 7 or 8 and then adjust the playoff spots to how many teams are in each, like if we have 8 in the A and 4 in the AA, the AA will only have one spot and the A will have 5.

[romo8]

Originally I was skeptical of the AA division idea. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense. It fosters competition and growth in the tier 2 division A teams, while still giving them something to play for. It makes sense for the development of the league.

The only possible problem would be something along the lines of what Dan said. Teams like Nebraska, Arkansas, K-state etc. would benefit from being in the same sub-conference, but still need to compete against better-developed teams in the league ("steel sharpens steel" as the marines say). I don't know whether the best way for these teams to meet those needs is with letting them be accountable for scheduling tougher ooc games, or by requiring a Division A team to play a game against a division AA team (Random draw).

But all in all I think this idea makes sense. If the aforementioned problem is the biggest problem created by this set-up, then we're in good shape.

[A.J. Stevens]

Kansas is in the A division, but last year they went 1-6 in conference and 2-9 overall, and lost their coach from this season. Is that the kind of season that would deserve to stay in the A division?

If Iowa and Kansas State were put into a possible AA subdivision it would be because of organizational issues not competitive. They both chose to not play a required GRLC road game this past season. And nearly every team in the GRLC A is looking for a new coach.

What does everyone think about expanding the playoffs to 6 teams, AA gets the 5 and 6 spot and the top 4 got to the A divison?

I am not opposed to a six team championship with two AA teams. We will have to see how the other teams feel about it.

Also, do we have a set number in each division every year? will it always be a 6-6 split that it was proposed at first or do we say that the A will never be smaller that 4 or 5 and never bigger than 7 or 8 and then adjust the playoff spots to how many teams are in each, like if we have 8 in the A and 4 in the AA, the AA will only have one spot and the A will have 5.

The current proposal is for six teams to remain in the A subdivision. I hope we will not always need a AA subdivision.

[A.J. Stevens]

The only possible problem would be something along the lines of what Dan said. Teams like Nebraska, Arkansas, K-state etc. would benefit from being in the same sub-conference, but still need to compete against better-developed teams in the league ("steel sharpens steel" as the marines say)..

We will play you.(you owe us a trip) I'm sure Illinois State would play you while you are in town. You guys will have the same problems Illinois is having. We can not get top 15 teams to come to Champaign. Instead we travel to them with an agreement that they will come to Champaign the next year. It is rough at first but how bad do you want to climb. We had to go to Atlanta & Provo, UT. in 07'. This coming spring we owe a trip to Arizona. BYU is coming to Champaign in 09'. It will eventually even out.

[FeartheFlow]

The idea of AA is a good one I believe. It's just very difficult for teams that don't have in-state high school lacrosse to compete. Most kids at a state school are from that state, so for the teams that do not have it (or if they do, it is still extremly small) they simply have a smaller amount of kids coming in with experience, and more likely those kids who do come in aren't as good. Depth is the biggest issue.

The whole idea that a team should be good simply because they have Division 1 football is not fair. It should be based more on in state high school lacrosse than anything, which is why the AA division makes great sense.

Good job to those in charge trying to make the conference stronger by doing this

[NELAX21]

Kansas is in the A division, but last year they went 1-6 in conference and 2-9 overall, and lost their coach from this season. Is that the kind of season that would deserve to stay in the A division?

Iowa and Kansas State were put into a possible AA subdivision it would be because of organizational issues not competitive. They both chose to not play a required GRLC road game this past season. And nearly every team in the GRLC A is looking for a new coach.

So are we basing the AA on orginazational problems only then? It seemed that in the previous talks in this most of it has been about being beaten by a large amount of goals or consistantly losing. There has been mention of missing league games but it seemed that most of the talk was about competing on the field. I guess im just wondering what the criteria is for moving the teams up and down. It is assumed that if you elect to not show up to a game that you are having other problems and should be in the AA divison at least. but what happens when, and i would hope that we don't have to deal with this problem, that every team makes every game, and every team is relatively competitive but still only win 1 conference game in the A, and there are 3 teams that played very well in the AA, does that team stay up? do all three teams that deserve to move up get to? could we leave only 3 teams in the AA?

[Madlax16]

Kansas is in the A division, but last year they went 1-6 in conference and 2-9 overall, and lost their coach from this season. Is that the kind of season that would deserve to stay in the A division?

If Iowa and Kansas State were put into a possible AA subdivision it would be because of organizational issues not competitive. They both chose to not play a required GRLC road game this past season. And nearly every team in the GRLC A is looking for a new coach.

What does everyone think about expanding the playoffs to 6 teams, AA gets the 5 and 6 spot and the top 4 got to the A divison?

I am not opposed to a six team championship with two AA teams. We will have to see how the other teams feel about it.

Also, do we have a set number in each division every year? will it always be a 6-6 split that it was proposed at first or do we say that the A will never be smaller that 4 or 5 and never bigger than 7 or 8 and then adjust the playoff spots to how many teams are in each, like if we have 8 in the A and 4 in the AA, the AA will only have one spot and the A will have 5.

The current proposal is for six teams to remain in the A subdivision. I hope we will not always need a AA subdivision.

I agree it would be a much favorable if the tourney was expanded to 6 and allowing the top 2 of the AA to the conference tourney. That would make it more fair for those that would be put in the AA division, and more desirable to the team that would be on the list. However, im still all for not having it than having it. But AJ im just wondering if Kstate and Iowa would be in the second due to organiational problems, would those teams that kept their noses clean the past season get a chance to play in the standard A division?

[A.J. Stevens]

Generally a team that has all of their ducks in a row organizationally will become a quality team on the field. A team could find their way into the AA subdivision either competitively of organizationally. There are so many what ifs along with just as many reactions/results. The intent of the proposal is to move the top AA team to A each season along with moving the bottom A team over to AA. You control your own destiny.

[Madlax16]

Ok thanks for clearing that up.

[NELAX21]

i agree, being on 3 very different teams here having your ducks in a row helps on the field... you still need talent but you can do more with what you have. I am glad that you started this post, if this had just been brought up just at the league meeting i would have been against it. I like that a lot of people have gotten to propose ideas and tweak other peoples.
Right now i am really liking the A AA split with a 6 team play off. I am open to other ideas but to me this seems best for the conference as a whole A and B. the B teams are not "stuck" with A teams that cant compete in the A and the top A teams get what they want with the fewer conference games. The developing teams get what they want with a chance to prove themselves and still have a chance to make the playoff.