Div A Subdivisions

[Troy Hood]

I'm OK with the idea of playing one AA team if it will help serve the purpose of development. Iowa and KSU still owe us games, plus, I'm anxious to see what Arkansas has built recently.

The six team play-off structure is something I'd like to avoid if possible. A six-team B and a four-team A are exactly the right size for one facility to host the conference tournament on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday. If we increased it, we would either need to:

1. Have multiple sites for Friday night games as we did before, OR,
2. Add an extra week for Quarterfinal games at individual school sites (a la WCLL).

If someone has a better idea on how to accomplish this in an equally cost - effective manner, throw it out there.

I like the fact that we are discussing this now instead of in September. Well done, boys.

[NELAX21]

I am not familiar with the schedule of the playoffs, could you fill some of us in on what the schedule has been with the 4 team A with the B and the 6 team A with the B

[NELAX21]

Also, a solution to the friday night games, play at a place where the host has more than one field. Nebraska would be willing to host, and we have at least 4 fields that we could use for free. only 2 problems with having it here are 1. we are in the upper northwest part of the conference so the southern teams would have a long ways to get here. 2. none of our fields have bleachers to hold fans. Either way it is 2 turf fields that wouldn't have to be paid for and a indoor facility if weather is bad.

[bste_lax]

I'm OK with the idea of playing one AA team if it will help serve the purpose of development. Iowa and KSU still owe us games, plus, I'm anxious to see what Arkansas has built recently.

The six team play-off structure is something I'd like to avoid if possible. A six-team B and a four-team A are exactly the right size for one facility to host the conference tournament on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday. If we increased it, we would either need to:

1. Have multiple sites for Friday night games as we did before, OR,
2. Add an extra week for Quarterfinal games at individual school sites (a la WCLL).

If someone has a better idea on how to accomplish this in an equally cost - effective manner, throw it out there.

I like the fact that we are discussing this now instead of in September. Well done, boys.

Possible ideas:

1) I am guessing the Tourney will be held in the St. Louis area? If it is held at Lindenwood, play one of the AA/A games and one B game at Lindenwood while playing the other AA/A game and B game at Soccer Park/another decent place.

2) Play both the AA/A first round games the week before at one somewhat central place OR the A team hosts the AA team.

[Arklax]

Question, though, on the 4 A teams/2 AA teams playoff (assuming we can pull it off logistically at whatever site (with KC and St. L being the most ideal, central locations)), how is the team that moves up decided? i.e., #1 AA loses in the first round, but # 2 AA wins and therefore advances further in the playoffs? Who moves up then? I think #1 AA should move up regardless of what happens in the playoffs.

I also think that (even though I'm still more on board with an east/west north/south split), IF the developmental division does come to fruition, it would be best to keep it a four team playoff with one AA qualifier, even if that could leave our team out of the playoffs. If we really expect two AA teams to be competitive come playoff time, then we shouldn't have a developmental division in the first place.

[Michael Martin]

Some people have been busy posting over the weekend! On a personal note, Saturday was the best day I have had a a lacrosse spectator. Saw the MO HS championship decided in overtime and then found an establishment with cold beverages and Duke-Cornell tied at 3-3.

I am in favor of the AA, X, or whatever division. perhaps we should call it the Midwest division to remove any stigma. Our conference in both the A and B divisions has teams which fall into one of these levels:
1 - elite (nationally ranked)
2 - competitive
3 - lower tier
4 - new (unknown)

We, as a conference, need to address the best way to grow the sport at all levels. Yes, we are all now undefeated and have dreams of playoffs and championships. This fall we will hear the bravado of students and coaches regarding the quality of their teams. Reality sets in next spring and then we have problems. In my experience as a player, referee, and coach, there is nothing more exciting than a competitive lacrosse game. Mismatches are a nightmare. One soon hopes nobody does anything stupid and no one gets hurt.

Who could be in the Midwest (AA) Division?
A - any new team - they are in the conference, play at your own risk (not playoff eligible)
B - Disciplinary cases - again, play at your own risk (not playoff eligible)
C - lower tier teams - (playoff eligible by choice)
D - Teams moving from B to A - minimum one year (playoff eligible by choice)

Having worked with lower tier teams in both high school and college the most important thing for improvement is to play competitive games. We need to minimize the number of forced mismatches scheduled. We have large schools located in areas that are not yet hot beds of lacrosse. Each will mature at a different pace. In my first season at Rolla, I would have loved this option. We played Harding and SMS, now MSU, then the number one B team in the nation. Neither game was much of a learning experience. Last year the B division dropped the x-over tournament, facing the reality that the distance between competitive levels outweighed the geographic distances between teams.

Playoffs - I, personally, do not believe having "nothing to play for" limits a teams development. The disciplinary cases of the last 2 years have all involved playoff eligible teams. I have read the postings and yes, you pay the same dues, you should have playoff options. If the A playoffs could be expanded to 6 teams, at least one Midwest division team should be included. All playoff eligible Midwest division teams would play each other, best record gets the lowest seed(s) in the tournament. The A division would play each other to determine the higher seeds.

The Midwest division would give us a place for new teams, a disciplinary alternative to expulsion, and an opportunity for teams to mature at their own pace.

[cjwilhelmi]

I'm just glad that we're getting all this worked now and not hashing this out in the fall.

Here are a couple issues that I have that need to be worked out on what some of you have been saying.

1) I am not completely opposed to having 2 AA teams in the playoffs but that makes a huge problem - If we are only doing a 1v1 relegation how do we manage having two teams in the playoffs? I would not be completely opposed to have a 2v2 relegation but I don't think we're there yet.

2) If we are going to have a 6 team playoff then we need to find a two site location. I don't know if Coach Hood is going to propose that we hold it at Lindenwood again but I that with the budget we should have next year that we could do some cool things. What about having a 5 team playoff? We take the top two in AA along with the top three in A. The AA teams play friday night (Coach Hood can we as a conference do three games on friday?) not only to advance into the tournament but also to see who goes up the next year?

3) We could always change the number that are going to be relegated each year at the conference tournament when the EB meets. Lets say that we have a situation, like this year, that two teams do not fulfill their obligations. The EB could potentially vote that two AA teams come up the next year to fill that void instead of the usual one. That way everyone knows by early summer who they have to play the next year.

Just some more thoughts for y'all.

[Arklax]

1) It does create a problem. I think that if we are prepared to do a 2 team relegation, then we shouldn't even have a developmental division.

2) While it may add excitement/intensity to the game, having one single game decide who moves up is unfair. #1 AA goes 5-0 in the subdivision, #2 AA qualifies at 3-2 and pulls off a close victory over #1 AA. If we are supposed to be bringing up a team based on their overall competitiveness, then season record alone should be used.

3) Honestly, there are some potentially messy situations if we let the EB and EB alone decide who can be relegated. If on the field performance is not enough to determine relegation (i.e., what happened this year), I would hope that every A/AA team has a vote in the matter. I understand the EB serves so that teams don't have to meet/take votes all the time, but this particular issue could cause unnecessary conflict.

[Madlax16]

I'm just glad that we're getting all this worked now and not hashing this out in the fall.

Here are a couple issues that I have that need to be worked out on what some of you have been saying.

1) I am not completely opposed to having 2 AA teams in the playoffs but that makes a huge problem - If we are only doing a 1v1 relegation how do we manage having two teams in the playoffs? I would not be completely opposed to have a 2v2 relegation but I don't think we're there yet.

2) If we are going to have a 6 team playoff then we need to find a two site location. I don't know if Coach Hood is going to propose that we hold it at Lindenwood again but I that with the budget we should have next year that we could do some cool things. What about having a 5 team playoff? We take the top two in AA along with the top three in A. The AA teams play friday night (Coach Hood can we as a conference do three games on friday?) not only to advance into the tournament but also to see who goes up the next year?

3) We could always change the number that are going to be relegated each year at the conference tournament when the EB meets. Lets say that we have a situation, like this year, that two teams do not fulfill their obligations. The EB could potentially vote that two AA teams come up the next year to fill that void instead of the usual one. That way everyone knows by early summer who they have to play the next year.

Just some more thoughts for y'all.

Like my buddy dan stated earlier, we have many fields a our school that we could choose from with no cost to us at all. Two of which are Extremely well kept turf fields and an indoor facility. Just a nice little fun fact to keep in mind.

[cjwilhelmi]

1)

3) Honestly, there are some potentially messy situations if we let the EB and EB alone decide who can be relegated. If on the field performance is not enough to determine relegation (i.e., what happened this year), I would hope that every A/AA team has a vote in the matter. I understand the EB serves so that teams don't have to meet/take votes all the time, but this particular issue could cause unnecessary conflict.

I envision it more of "this team was last in A" and "This team was first in AA".

[NELAX21]

ok, well now i want to get in on the numbering my responses.

1. The 5 team play off sounds good to me, i would really like to see 2 of the AA teams in the playoffs, even if one of those teams does not move up the next year it shows they are on the right path and they gain the experience of making a trip that is not set from the beginning of the season. (i would always budget and prepare for it, but you never actually know if you are going until the end of the season) I also think that the playoff game between the AA schools if it is done that way should not be the deciding factor of who moves up.

2. If we have 2 teams from the AA that are ready to move up after next year we will? or will we still just take one from A to AA and one from AA to A?

3. Also, i do think that having the EB make all the desicions on who moves up/down could get kind of messy. We can still take votes in the summer with out all meeting in one place, at most there will be 12 teams right now, if we make sure we have current numbers of coaches and presidents why don't we just call? If you don't return the call with-in a week you foforfeitour vote.

4. If all of the teams in the A division are have good seasons and the bottom team would go to AA and create lop-sided games. do we move the one AA team up and leave all of the A schools? I don't see teams like Illinois, Lindenwood, and Illinois State or Missouri State ddroppingout of the A any time soon, they all seem to have very solidly run programs. I would include Mizzou but i don't know what direction that they are going in right now. That is 5 of the 6 A teams. If kansas has a very solid year and lets say Nebraska and Kansas State both make the playoffs and both have proven to be ready for A do we move both up? one up and none down? Even though the "worst" team in A had a good season and belongs in A we still move them down?

[Arklax]

1)

3) Honestly, there are some potentially messy situations if we let the EB and EB alone decide who can be relegated. If on the field performance is not enough to determine relegation (i.e., what happened this year), I would hope that every A/AA team has a vote in the matter. I understand the EB serves so that teams don't have to meet/take votes all the time, but this particular issue could cause unnecessary conflict.

I envision it more of "this team was last in A" and "This team was first in AA".

What I meant was, on-the-field performance aside, IF a team doesn't play a game/plays an ineligible player, etc., I don't know if relegation is a proper punishment AND, if it is a form of punishment for said team, should not be delegated by the conference EB alone.

Let's assume the division was already set up for this past season. Let's also assume Iowa was last, and K-State was next to last in the A division. Iowa is relegated regardless because of their record. K-State's potential relegation (based on their inability to play all of their games) should be up to the conference, not just the EB. This eliminates any conflict of interest, real or imagined.

[A.J. Stevens]

Like my buddy dan stated earlier, we have many fields a our school that we could choose from with no cost to us at all. Two of which are Extremely well kept turf fields and an indoor facility. Just a nice little fun fact to keep in mind.

Illinois, Missouri and a few other schools will have two turf fields available next season. It is not an issue of having fields. The issue is that the assigning official tells us that he can only get top rated officials if we hold the event in St. Louis or Chicago. (St. Louis being more central for the GRLC)

[A.J. Stevens]

What I meant was, on-the-field performance aside, IF a team doesn't play a game/plays an ineligible player, etc., I don't know if relegation is a proper punishment AND, if it is a form of punishment for said team, should not be delegated by the conference EB alone.

Let's assume the division was already set up for this past season. Let's also assume Iowa was last, and K-State was next to last in the A division. Iowa is relegated regardless because of their record. K-State's potential relegation (based on their inability to play all of their games) should be up to the conference, not just the EB. This eliminates any conflict of interest, real or imagined.

The EB recomends punishment while the teams approve it. That is how the bylaws are written. As I said before we can all make up a million what ifs along with responses. In the end the EB will recomend a punishment and the teams approve or decline it. There will be some automatic punishments written into my proposal. A team will know the punishment for choosing to not play a required game before they make the choice. My proposal will be to have the top AA team exchange places with the bottom A team based on the regular season subdivision record. Any other movement would require an EB recomendation along with a vote of all A/AA teams unless the bylaws require a different action based on the issue.

[Madlax16]

Im definitely coming around to the A-AA divisions. However, i would still like to bring up Knoxvegas's idea for the East-West division at the league meeting. That one i still am very keen on.