MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[John Paul]

As you probably know, the Winter MCLA Board of Directors meeting is this Friday at the IMLCA Clinic. Here are some details:

Friday, December 14
9am - 4pm (ish)
Philadelphia Downtown Marriott (check the hotel listings for the room)

Our BOD meetings are open to anyone. They have grown a bit as more people have become involved and interested, which is a good thing. However, in order to continue to run efficient meetings, a few things to keep in mind:
1. Physical space in the room is limited. If our meetings start to draw more observers, then we will start securing bigger rooms. If they start getting really big attendance, which is our hope, then we'll close the BOD meeting and start doing a general membership meeting in addition. (Along these lines, we cater the meeting for BOD members. If you are attending as a guest, please understand we can't feed everyone.)
2. The only people sitting at the BOD table should be BOD members, and the only people speaking or presenting during the meeting should be BOD members - HOWEVER, anyone wishing to present an agenda item may request some time through their conference director (as long as it gets to me before the meeting) or directly to me. Conferences have one rep each.

The Winter meeting, as opposed to the summer meeting, is much more of a quick and dirty update and final preseason prep meeting. The summer meetings are where we often make major policy decisions. With that in mind, and as previously discussed, agenda items for this Friday include:

Website (the MCLA website - which we are in the process of upgrading to make it a much more valuable information resource rather than just an administrative tool).

Tournament (This year in Dallas and next year in ???)

Bylaws (Our bylaws are going over a much needed overhaul, and we hope to have the new ones finalized and passed before the season)

MCLA Process and Procedures (refining our system for what teams and individuals need to do and how to regulate those things)

Code of Conduct (for coaches and players)

Sponsors (trying to finalize a major deal right now)

Budget update (always on the agenda)

Division 1/2 split criteria discussion (initial discussion which will lead to a summer meeting decision)

[LaxRef]

Tournament (This year in Dallas and next year in ???)

Minnesota, right?

[scooter]

Sponsors (trying to finalize a major deal right now)

oooo, sounds fancy. Hope all goes well

[onpoint]

I'd love to hear some people's ideas on this Div. I/II thing. Should Div. II be a "developmental" league? Or should it be it's own thing? My personal opinion is that with the ability of some of the teams in Div. II, we may be watering down the honor of being a national champion to have two national championships at our level. I don't think teams should be playing in Div. II just to win a championship. My leaning is more towards Div. II as a developmental and skill level split rather than a school size split. We have seen the Div. II national tournament cause heartache in both of the years it has been in existence.

My answer to those who say that certain big schools have more resources than others to compete at a higher level is to look at Lindenwood and Sonoma State, among others. Those are schools and programs that have committed to becoming nationally competitive teams. Not to knock any particular team, but there are certainly teams that does not belong in Div. II with regards to their university's commitment to their program. Is winning a Division II championship in club lacrosse really the goal?

[Karl Lynch]

I don't view DII as a developmental league, rather as a division with small schools (About half the MCLA is made up of small schools). I completely understand why some small schools want to play up, but I also understand why most small schools would like to stay were they are.

The NCAA recognizes the same distinction. The NCAA does not expect Salisbury State to play Virginia. They are both national powerhouses in lacrosse, but different enough that the governing body recognizes a different division. Salisbury has won, I think, 3 in a row, and nobody is saying they need to move to a higher division. Salisbury is staying in D III with the express intent to just win the D III crown.

Yes, I think it is a very worthwhile goal to play for a small school and try to win a DII championship.

[Hi-Line Lax]

if the Divisions were split by school size the Div II tournament would be just as competitive as Div I... assuming you'd have schools like UCSB & Sonoma in Div II. To me this is better than a "developmental league" because it provides an opportunity for everybody to compete at a high level. Otherwise you'll continue to have teams like CSU & BYU working hard to keep "weaker teams" off their schedules and those teams get tossed into a bad situation.

It's also pretty hard to get a good idea about Div II as a whole now since national scheduling has really only been a factor for two seasons... I don't think anyone can effectively evaluate the progress there in such a short amount of time.

[onpoint]

I agree with you guys for the most part, but Salisbury plays by a different set of rules than does Duke, for example, and SSU's competitive field is at a better overall balance than is our Div. II. Our Div. I and II play by the same rules, and has been proven the last two seasons at the tournament, many of the higher ranked Div. II teams are at "developmental" stages as is.

I believe that, excepting a few of the top echelon of schools (of which CSU is NOT, by the way), we are all going through the same pitfalls and problems as anyone else. We all have to fight with the school for field time. We all have to fundraise and/or charge a high amount of dues. We all have our own issues. This is part of the dreaded "c" word that we all fight to dismiss, but frankly, very few of us are able to get around (read: "club").

If you want to compete at a high level for a national championship, wouldn't you want to play the best possible teams at your level? If you are not ready to make that sort of committment, then . . .

Do not get me wrong, because I love the MCLA and I respect the troubles that comes with trying to compete with the "big boys" every year (I think this is relative, by the way, as Duluth, Lindenwood, Oregon, ASU, etc. have all made significant jumps in their programs' overall stature since I came into this league 9 years ago - all have made committments from their coaching staffs and universities to field competitive PROGRAMS, not just teams). But, and I believe Catlax Man said it some time ago, this isn't 10 year old soccer. Not everyone needs a trophy.

I hope this doesn't turn too negative, because while I may feel a certain way about this doesn't mean that I don't respect our league and our Div. II.

[LaxTV_Admin]

I hope this doesn't turn too negative, because while I may feel a certain way about this doesn't mean that I don't respect our league and our Div. II.

It shouldn't and you are not the only person that has an opinion about D2 that is not exactly positive. I think that you bring up valid concerns and points, that must be addressed in order for the leagues to co-exist.

In my opinion, Division 2 should exist like Division 1 exists today for the MCLA. I have a few caveats to that

1. MCLA board at some point needs to make a distinction other than DI football as what determines the league the team plays in. (I believe this is already in the works.)
2. I think there has to be a plan in place to handle teams that currently are playing "up." It would be unfair to the Sonoma, Duluth, and Lindenwoods of the MCLA to get moved to D2 after they have competed at the D1 level for so long.
3. I think that we must understand D2 and D1 will be different styles of play. It is not that D2 is not talented, but the whole concept is that they have a smaller pool of talent to draw from, thus they are less likely to be able to get as many excellent athletes as a D1 school. (Please do not take this out of context. I am a strong advocate of the D2 league and how good the teams are. In the UMLL St. Thomas beat a D1 team just last year, so it is proof that this concept is not full proof). With that said, teams must learn to be content in D2 and competing for the D2 championship.
4. D2 must be held to the same standards as D1 teams are. This means the national tournament must be a priority for the teams, and bids are accepted when they are received as well as not leaving early. (Not taking shots. Being honest about what must happen in the future).
5. D2 programs must make the same commitment that D1 programs make in order to compete at a high level.

If all of these things get put into place the D2 league can be successful. If you look at the UMLL, I think our league has done an excellent job with the D2 league and look at the league as a whole. Our D2 conference might be one of the stronger ones in the nation. St. Thomas and St. Johns are both excellent teams who have proven they can compete at a high level.

Am I completely off base????

[Jolly Roger]

Alex,

Thanks for your insightful comments. Your points bring up a couple in my mind and I'm interested in your thoughts and I have some additional comments to share:

1. How does a team move from developmental to D1 in your model? Is there a committee? Are there certain standards (quantified?) that must be met.

2. Do teams that were one time competitive but have lost whatever made them such, get relegated? Based on??

3. How do newly elevated teams get the "usual suspects" to play them once they've been elevated? (I see this as an old problem in a new package)

I believe if there is to be a divisional split, it has to be quantifiable, school population, football status, color of the AD's eyes - whatever. Otherwise you end up with abstract ideas deciding the fate of teams, which opens up a lot of room for derision.

I wasn't around for the first few USLIA tourneys, but have seen teams that weren't ready to play at the event before D2 was ever a consideration. The end result was two-fold. First, certain powerful teams got an easy win in their first game. Second, these teams (most from newer conferences) went back and raised the bar for their peers. The next year, these teams were more competitive and some of them have developed into national powers.

Now remember, we've more than doubled the membership over the past 5-8 years, a majority of these teams would fall into the D2 hopper. I think we have to allow those teams the chance to understand what it's all about, go back to their peers and raise the bar. The rest will take care of itself.

Maybe we need to raise the bar for membership in D1 to differentiate, say minimum GPA requirements, year round academic progress, higher MCLA dues....

[John Paul]

A lot of the points and arguments you guys are putting forth here have been discussed in depth at previous BOD meetings. Just to clarify with my perceptions of where the BOD is now...

The Board is fairly unanimous that they do not want Division 2 to be developmental. Because of general resource differences (most commonly players and size of town - which affects the draw for coaches), it seems to be the concensus that smaller schools generally, with a few notable exceptions, cannot compete with larger schools. However, we have heard repeatedly from smaller schools that want a similar competitive environment to what the D1 schools have amongst their peer programs. We're focused on providing that.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has formally proposed forcing smaller schools that have the ability and desire (and tradition) to compete at the D1 level to move down to D2. I don't see that happening.

We are all committed to providing a D2 that holds teams to the same standards of compliance and organization as D1. We simply want a mirror of D1 for smaller schools, with perhaps one or two slight adjustments to take into account fewer resources if necessary.

We are focused on clarifying the way we determine D1 vs. D2 and the process for playing up. That's it. A lot of people are critical of the D1A football process we use now because on the surface it doesn't make sense, but a solution is not as easy as simply picking a school enrollment size as a cutoff (school enrollment is sometimes harder to define that you would think, and for some schools it fluctuates year to year). We have good people looking at possible solutions.

The whole "developmental" aspect of this is really a separate, bigger and more important issue. Do we, as a national organization, have the resources to help teams develop? If we want developing teams in our league, how do we administer to them differently? How do we make the experience the best it can be for the teams that have already developed? How do you define who is a developed team and who is still developing? Those are the bigger issues we're trying to tackle right now.

[onpoint]

You would ask the hard questions, wouldn't you, JR? Obviously there are many caveats to work out at that point, which according to JP, will never come to pass anyway.

I agree, Coach Paul, this is a bigger issue for me as well. Truthfully, this was going to be my letter to the BOD, but figured it would be heard just as well on this forum and I don't proclaim to have solutions, just questions at this point.

No matter how the Div. I/II split is handled in the future, there are going to be a lot of teams (I don't know, maybe 45-60 or more) in the MCLA that are in the vague "developmental" or transient stages. There are the big football schools in non-lacrosse areas without the interest from student-athletes (can't compete at Div. I and aren't eligible for Div. II playoffs) and there are the smaller club programs at Div. III-type schools that don't have stable coaching or athletes at all (bottom-tier Div. II programs with no real plan of moving their programs forward).

The RMLC has had the problem in the past with a group of students who are gung ho about starting up a team bringing a great presentation to the conference, applying for membership and being accepted. Fast forward to the not-to-distant future and those same students are graduating in four years and leaving a floundering program that's ready to fold while owing substantial monies to the conference.

While we are a great umbrella for all of the club programs around the country, I think we must be careful as an organization about inviting programs that are not ready to take on this type of committment in.

[John Paul]

I could not agree with you more Alex.

[Pinball]

i think it is viewed differently as to what region/conference you are a part of. I think that the UMLL has solidified that they view the Div 2 similar to NCAA Div 3- while other conferences view it differently. I think when Tim Grey comes out with his report at the meeting, it will further clarify the intention behind Div 2.

This Discussion is all because of USD's decision after two consecutive titles they decided to move up and so their biggest rival of Claremont decided to follow- so they set the precedent that when you start winning to head on up. Just look at Montana this year, they only followed what has been done before them. I ABSOLUTELY HATE THIS! Do you see Mt. Union (football), Augsburg (wrestling), Salisbury and other schools that have domination at a certain level (i cant remember all).

Do not use the Sonoma State argument as they are a larger school (9,000) compared to that of most D2 schools (ie- SJU=1,800 southwestern= 1300). Duluth is 11,000 and have D1 sports, just not football.

But there are larger schools in D2 like UC-Irvine (20,000). no idea what to do with those schools that are fairly new.

Division 1 football is a horrible measure as there are only 3 division 1 football teams in the whole UMLL area (one of which is Wisconsin-Madison which is not even a MCLA school).

[Hi-Line Lax]

is there a possibility that the MCLA would ever choose to govern true developmental teams? For example, there have been talks in the PNCLL about programs at Portland State, Eastern Washington, and North Idaho College trying to get their teams into the MCLA but they currently have no real guidelines to follow... I guess I'm saying that I see a need for some sort of organization to oversee the transition of teams to a more comprehensive MCLA program (with all of the structure, etc.) so new teams have a more clear idea on what it means to be a virtual varsity club. I'm not so sure the MCLA is set up to do this now, but it could be in the future I think.

[Jolly Roger]

I'm not so sure the MCLA is set up to do this now, but it could be in the future I think.

This should be a conference task. They know these teams better and also know what it takes to succeed/survive in the MCLA. Some conferences use mentor teams successfully.

A number of years back the USLIA had what was called "independent" teams. It was a nightmare to administer.