MCLA Changes For Upcoming Year

[buffalowill]

Maybe JP can help me this...
The NCAA Division Breakdown is not done simply by school size correct? There are several other factors involved include attendance, budget,,etc?
Could the MCLA mirror the NCAA breakdown, but lump DI and DII schools together? Any more questions in this post? huh? what?

One problem with just following NCAA guidelines would be our NAIA members. A problem with strict enrollment cutoffs is that traditional NCAA conference matchups, rivalries, etc may be hindered. If some of your big rivals or BCS conference opponents are in a different division it does take a bit of the luster and significance away. But are there really that many instances where this could happen? BC and Wake Forest are somewhat small. Northwestern, TCU, Vanderbilt, Pacific, Davidson and Stanford are significantly smaller than most of the schools in their NCAA conference as well.

[OAKS]

So if the D2 is not a developmental league are all teams that are technically in the large division by the rules set going to be forced to play in D1 this year. Seems to me if there is no developmental part of it, teams should be in the correct division whether they go 0-13 or not. They can still schedule D2 games if they want, but they should have to play those D1 league games.

On that same note, if that happens, will D2 teams playing in D1 be required to play in the D2 league, and if not, would a moratorium be on the table in the future to not allow D2 teams to move up?

[buffalowill]

Ultimately, a goal of the realignment/restructuring of the MCLA is to eliminate the notion of a team "playing up". That phrase implies that divisions are talent/performance based rather than an institutional decision.
It will be a challenge for those involved on how to "properly" restructure the membership. I don't think any teams can or should be grandfathered into the MCLA D I, because that would create a performance divide from the onset.
In the meantime does anyone know (or want to try to come up with) a list of MCLA members and their NCAA/NAIA division (NAIA has two divisions as well!). That way we could at least see what a revamped MCLA would look like under NCAA division alignment. Would there be enough teams in D III? Would certain geographic areas/current MCLA Conferences be affected disproportional to the point that conferences in certain divisions would not have enough teams?

[buffalowill]

MCLA, NCAA Division Breakdowm

DI FBS
UCLA
USC
Stanford
Cal
Arizona
Arizona State
UNLV
Nevada
San Jose State


DI FCS
Cal Poly SLO
San Diego State
UC Davis
San Diego


DI (Non-Football)
Santa Clara
St. Mary’s
LMU
Pepperdine
Pacific
Fullerton
UC Irvine

DII
Chico State
Sonoma State
UC San Diego

DIII
Chapman
Claremont Colleges
UC Santa Cruz
Cal Lutheran Occidental
Occidental

NAIA
Biola


I know the WCLL is not the greatest example....it is a fat and bloated conference. Does the MCLA begin to move away from purely regional conferences?

[Karl Lynch]

Sonoma State is not a D II team, nor is TSU in my conference. They are D I teams and will stay that way. I have not seen any proposal to force a small school that wants to be D I down to D II. I seriously doubt that is going to happen.

I believe more people are concerned with D I teams that are playing in a conference at the D II level.

The LSA has handled that situation by placing restrictions on the D I team that is playing down. It has worked fine for our conference. Other conferences may have other opinions about that.

[Jolly Roger]

It will be in everyone's best interest to have this decision fianalized at the December 2007 MCLA meeeting for implementation in the 2009 season. This will give team and leagues the opportunity to schedule and administer in anticipation of the change.

[John Paul]

Already on it fellas. Tim Gray, Northeastern coach and PCLL president, is heading up the research to make recommendations to the BOD on how to manage the split going forward. If you have suggestions, he's the guy who should hear them.

By the way, for the last two or three years the MCLA has not allowed D1 teams to be recognized as D2. There are a few conferences that have allowed one or two D1 teams to play primarily D2 schedules, but the MCLA recognizes those schools as D1 with no exceptions. We have not mandated it yet (and probably won't until we've finalized how we're going to split everyone in the long run), but the consensus on the BOD seems to be that the practice of allowing D1 teams to play D2 schedules should end.

[Zeuslax]

It's seems like another critcal component of the classifications include the acceptance process of new teams.....

[wheatonlax20]

President Paul,

When and where will the MCLA by-laws be posted? I think that a lot of people have been looking for these and I am hoping someone (JP or otherwise) can point me to them.

Thanks

[Tim Gray]

President Paul,

When and where will the MCLA by-laws be posted? I think that a lot of people have been looking for these and I am hoping someone (JP or otherwise) can point me to them.

Thanks

The By-Laws haven't been fully approved as of yet. They were presented to the conference directors at the summer meetings, there were some changes that were deemed necessary. Those are going to be made, and then voted on again at the December meetings. So, therefore, they cannot be posted yet.

[Troy Hood]

Will:

I thought I'd address your question about NAIA member schools represented in the MCLA. I was asked to do this a couple of years ago. If my information is inaccurate, please accept my apologies.

Albertson College, Caldwell, Idaho - MCLA 2
Biola University, La Mirada, Calif. - MCLA 2
Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa - MCLA 2
Lewis-Clark State College, Lewiston, Idaho - MCLA 2
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Mo. - MCLA 1
University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, Mich. - MCLA 2
Northwestern College, Orange City, Iowa - MCLA 2
Savannah College of Art & Design, Savannah, Ga. - MCLA 2
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. - MCLA 1
Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Ore. - MCLA 2
Southern Virginia University, Buena Vista, Va. - MCLA 2
Taylor University, Upland, Ind. - MCLA 2
Westminster College, Salt Lake City, Utah - MCLA 2

New teams that are going to be on the field this season include:

Davenport College - Grand Rapids, MI
Tennessee Wesleyan College - Athens, TN
Missouri Baptist University - St. Louis, MO

I'm unsure what their plans are for competition this season.

As mentioned earlier, this is purely academic as it won't effect our definition come December.

Regards,

[John Westfall]

There sure are opinions from just about everyone except for those in this boat. I am not up on the rules nor have I been reading the current MCLA By-laws. I just don't understand all the problems with this issue. For a new program starting up in an area that has little or no Lacrosse it takes time to build. In my case, in a place like New Mexico there is very little Lacrosse at all but we are doing everything we can to change that and to put in a local feeder system to the University of New Mexico. It is paying off as we have a couple of kids out of the Rio Rancho High School program now playing for UNM. We also have started 4 new High School programs in Albuquerque that were never there before. In 08 we will have 3-4 additional programs started in Albuquerque to give us a total of 8 High School programs in Albuquerque and I know there is talk of growth in the Santa Fe area. It is a baby step process for us in New Mexico.

Programs like Utah State, Alabama, Wyoming, and New Mexico would all struggle at the D1 level. In fact in Utah State's case they have been at the D1 level and are going down to D2 so they can develop. I believe Texas Christian is playing down also. I can only speak for New Mexico and we are developing but playing at the D2 level is needed for us to develop or it is just not going to happen for us. If we had to play the likes of BYU, Colorado State and Utah on a regular basis it would not benefit the UNM program. We do however play some of the D1 programs away from the RMLC that are not as competitive as Colorado State or BYU like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and that has been helpful to us. This year we would like to play Arkansas but I believe they also are in a developing period and are D2.

I know for the University of New Mexico, we needed to be at D2 for a couple of years much like programs like a Wyoming or Arkansas. We don't have the resources of most of the large D1 programs in the MCLA. I plan to move New Mexico to D1 in the next 1-2 years if we continue to develop and keep bringing in some great local talent. But if this ruling passed on size, a program that may start at a place like New Mexico State down in Las Cruces, New Mexico maybe like the 09 season would be affected terribly and there would be no way for them to compete with the likes of a Utah or Colorado State in the RMLC and I believe it would hurt the growth we have in the sport at least here in New Mexico. Again New Mexico is a very different place from the rest of the Country.

If this is in fact going to be the law in regard to judging programs by size by where they play from the beginning when they start those programs then I think the Coaches at D1 Schools that are playing down to develop should have a say on this. I believe there should be a policy to enable a program to play down for 2-4 years so they can develop and then be mandated to move up where they belong in D1. Just my two cents from coaching one of these Teams.

All the best,

[Jolly Roger]

John,

D2 is not playing down - it is not a developmental league. Let's all remove this phrase from our personal lexicons.

There are plenty of examples in which a large school is not competitive with it's peers. The question is, do we want to create a nebulous standard for the benefit of 6-8 teams (among our ~200), or do we want a very sound, quantifiable standard that everyone understands all the time even if it creates difficulty for a few teams. I prefer the latter.

The job of the MCLA is not to develop new teams or youth programs or lacrosse in non-traditional areas. We are in place to provide an opportunity for teams who meet our standards to compete on a playing field leveled by consistent eligibility and administrative standards. If our member teams/conferences see the opportunity to contribute to these areas of development in addition to meeting MCLA requirements - great. Many teams already do so and I applaud them.

If a new program can't cut it in a league, they may need to develop outside the MCLA. There's nothing stopping them from competing against MCLA teams while they develop, and individual conferences can manage that as they best see fit (eg. developmental designation within the conference). These teams should not be administered by the MCLA though.

[John Westfall]

I can't speak for the whole country but UNM would not make it if we were playing the likes of BYU, Utah, Colorado and Colorado State. But in a year or two we will be ready. For a new program like New Mexico State which should come on line in 2009 it will be tough. In our state it is about developing Lacrosse weather you disagree or not. I can't speak for programs like Utah State or Wyoming but I know in our case as a 2nd year program we would not make it in the RMLC D1 right now but we are improving and will be ready soon. These decisions in the by-laws need to be made by people who coach programs like Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, U of Memphis, Ole Miss and Arkansas. There are augments like Alabama that have been D2 for many years that we are not sure when they will go D1. I just believe that you can't build Rome in a day and there needs to be a developmental clause for programs that are at big schools. Until you coach at a place like New Mexico you really don't know.

All the best,

[Jolly Roger]

I coached at a place where, when I started, I had to teach every player how to cradle. In time that program made it to nationals. We took our lumps, we learned, and we decided to get better as players, coaches, and as a team.

I'm suggesting that the MCLA isn't responsible for your development for the next "year or two". If you can, make an arrangement with the RMLC or the LSA or the WCLL to be some kind of an associate program and gain valuable developmental experience with the goal of gaining admittance and competing as a viable MCLA D1 program - if, in fact, the yet to be determined D1/D2 split places you in D1.