MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[Sonny]

e-mail the registrar.

For 200+ MCLA (and growing)... each season?

[Steno]

Well, running a league as successful as ours seems like it would be a big venture, Sonny, and it takes a lot of work. And I think that once you did it once, you wouldn't have to do it every year. For the initial survey, you could always have the team reps e-mail them to their conference heads, who compile and send them the BOD. Simple. I mean, let's look for solutions, not problems.

[Danny Hogan]

. For the initial survey, you could always have the team reps e-mail them to their conference heads, who compile and send them the BOD. Simple.

you'de think...

[Steno]

Well, I guess I am just naive as to the bureaucratic intricacies of our organization. Maybe instead of catering meetings we could use that money to pay for a part-time secretary whose job it would be to take of this? Or do we have one? I mean, it sounds like a couple days of work tops. Hey, if you give me 800 bucks and the list of MCLA teams I'll do it over winter break. I'll always postpone thesis work for real cash.

[John Paul]

We could throw money at almost any problem to solve it. Historically, we've depended 100% on volunteers. Only recently have we started paying small (almost token) stipends to some of the people who do the most work for us. (We also cater our BOD meeting, yes - one of the least things we can do to cover our group.) One of our current group could certainly call every registrar. We routinely do other tasks that are significantly more time consuming.

The question is, is this the best way to solve it? If it is, we'll find a way to do it.

[Kyle Berggren]

I've been talking about this with our Board & some other coaches & my question each time is why are we trying to split? What's the point of division 2? We seem to think it's for smaller schools to compete with like schools. I've brought up Matt's point about a 10k school having roughly 5k males to pull a team from, etc, etc, etc. The real question is what are we trying to do? Through this debate, I've started to truly see why some folks want to thin the MCLA's numbers drastically. We have a large discrepancy between how teams are run from top to bottom.

I don't like the D1, D2, D3 split because we're not the NCAA. Those divisions control how many scholarship athletes are on each team, & we don't have that problem, as we have very few if any scholarship athletes. The teams that do, are probably competing for Div 1 Championships every year & won't be in the D2 regardless.

I hope we're trying to allow small school's to compete on an even playing field. We may have been too eager & grown too fast, I don't know, but our membership is our membership, we've got to try & serve them as best we can. If we're trying to create a small school conference, the current split doesn't work. It's not terrible, & I understand why it was created, however we can probably do better. For me, having UVSC compete in D2 has been strange. They'd be the second largest school in the PNCLL... but want to compete in D2... I'd want to prevent that. 26k students is a ton to compete with schools at about 1k.

What do most conferences view D2 to as? If it's small schools, lets make steps toward that. Define it, what's small? 7k? 6k? 5k? It surely has nothing to do with scholarship athletes on their NCAA teams, but then again I could be really missing the boat on why schools chose to be classified a certain way. Any number we set would be arbitrary, if a team is close to it, perhaps we give conferences leeway to keep a team in D2, but allow the MCLA to move them up if they win the conference 2 years in a row or prove to be a dominant team in some other way. I don't know, I'm just talking here now, any ideas are great. It's going to be tough to classify, realistically, there's going to be 20-30 teams that are probably furious anyway we do it. Allowing conferences a little bit of leeway to help the teams that don't fit the criteria but truly belong in D2 would be beneficial. Perhaps we don't want that power with the conference. Maybe teams should petitions the MCLA Board to make those decisions with input from the team's conference. I watch the way teams vote in our AGM year after year & I worry that we don't want to leave the vote to people tied so closely to the outcomes.

[Dan Wishengrad]

If these independent teams are playing "required schedules" who do you require them to play? I don't want to travel to them, give them one of our weekends, & a part of our budget & not have it count toward playoffs.

My proposal doesn't require any MCLA team to play an independent, non-MCLA team Kyle. On the contrary, it simply suggests that new start-up teams should not be voted in as new MCLA members until they can demonstrate the organizational, administrative and competitive level to sustain admittance to our organization. And it states that IF they do find teams to schedule and play, that they should pay for the privilege of having MCLA-sanctioned officials work these games. I think most people here believe one of the problems with our national organization is we have grown too fast and admitted too many teams which either are not truly ready to be full members or are not able to sustain this level over time. Membership in the MCLA should be earned, not automatically granted as a right just because a new school start a lax club.

On the other issue, we agree philosphically on what MCLA D2 should be -- a small school division so colleges like yours can compete with other small schools and not against the big public universities. Your issue with my proposal, as I see it, is only regarding how the NCAA Division II type schools fit in, and this was definitely the issue I wrestled with the most. JP notes the inherent problems with using undergrad enrollment as a "hard-and-fast" dividing line. I concur with this analysis. So if we use the NCAA I, II and III model -- with all DI teams playing in MCLA D1 and all NCAA DIII schools playing in MCLA D2, we can modify, perhaps, how and where the "medium-sized" schools would fit. UVSC is a great example, I would say that on a case-by-case basis they would definitely be assigned to MCLA D1, based on huge enrollment and demonstrated success of their lacrosse program over the recent past in the RMLC. Granted, they might be hostile to having to play BYU and CSU, but I would argue they have more in common with the Cougars and Rams than they do with Ft. Lewis College.

Jason makes a better counter argument to my proposal regarding a small DI school like St. Mary's. An even better rebuttal to my proposal would be look at my own alma mater, UOP. Pacific ( which is DI in all sports) has struggled for years in the WCLL and the MCLA, failing to win a game even in D2 in recent memory. Perhaps the time has come for teams like the Tigers to either get serious about playing MCLA lacrosse or to not even be a part of our league. My proposal could well force the issue for this kind of team, one way or the other. I agree with Jason that the St. Mary's example is a tough one, and have no ready answer for this except to say that the Gaels have been in the WCLL upper division about as often as they have been in the lower division over the years anyway, and perhaps exceptions could be made in rare cases -- for very small NCAA Div I and/or II schools to play "down" if that's a permanent decision where they should be sited.

The D1 football model has proven to be no longer fair or reasonable -- it was simple and easy but just didn't create the "level playing field" for the small schools. If using undergrad enrollment is also too fraught with problems, then we need a different solution, and I still believe my proposal -- or some modified version of it -- could prove to be workable and fair, at least for the vast majority of current MCLA member teams. NO proposal will magically solve all the problems we face, but we need to try to come up with something which comes close, at least IMHO...

[John Paul]

The D1 football model has proven to be no longer fair or reasonable -- it was simple and easy but just didn't create the "level playing field" for the small schools.

I'd be interested to hear why some people feel the D1A football criteria we use now is not fair. How would it differ drastically from any new model we choose? I've always been open to changing it just because of perception - on the surface it's a strange thing to base our divisions on. But when we chose to use that method a few years ago, it was because we examined many of the suggestions being put forth now (enrollment, NCAA division, etc.), and at the time it was the option that forced the fewest number of schools to change divisions.

If we choose a new criteria there may some teams forced to move up. Assuming newly determined D2 teams are still allowed to petition to move up, and assuming their petitions were all granted, nobody would move down. To me, this whole classification process is more about outside perception than anything else. It would be nice though to get to a system that most are comfortable with.

The bigger question remains defining an MCLA team - regardless of division. What is the MCLA trying to be, and then how do we really get there? The general concensus, from our history and from reading posts on here and talking to many MCLA players, coaches, alumni and "outsiders" view of us, is that we are a place for highly organized, non-varsity college teams. We need to redefine what that means and figure out how to monitor and enforce it. Some think once we do that we should just have one division. I'm not one of those people. I think we should have one for bigger schools and one for smaller schools, but I'm much less concerned about how we determine who's big and who's small than how we determine what it means to be an MCLA team in the first place.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I'd be interested to hear why some people feel the D1A football criteria we use now is not fair.

Because in my opinion it only accomplished one important goal when instituted -- causing the least disruption to our existing format with very few teams having to move up or down. But it failed in creating a true "small school" division. The well-organized, well-coached little colleges are worthy members of the MCLA, but they have not nor will they EVER be able to compete against your Michigan team, JP. They just don't have the resources or the sheer number of athletes to draw from. But they pay the same conference and league dues that the Wolverines do, Coach, and they are no less important to our viability and credibility as a national organization -- in my humble opinion.

I think once we do that we should just have one division. I'm not one of those people. I think we should have one for bigger schools and one for smaller schools, but I'm much less concerned about how we determine who's big and who's small than how we determine what it means to be an MCLA team in the first place.

I agree Coach, and like you I am affiliated with a large public university that has thousands and thousands of male undergrads to draw from. Our shared perception might be entirely different, however, if we were involved with coaching a tiny college with 500 male undergrads. We both might be much more concerned with the definition of who is big and who is small, or with the competing philosophy that D2 should be just a "dumping ground" for competitively weak or developing teams. Neither of us seem to hold that opinion of what D2 should be.

But I DO concur that the really "big" issue is how we define -- and thereby limit -- membership in the MCLA to teams which will be serious "virtual varsity" (for want of a better term) members, now and every year.

[TheBearcatHimself]

It's going to be tough to classify, realistically, there's going to be 20-30 teams that are probably furious anyway we do it.

I don't think we can say that the status quo is fine just because people will get angry.

For another football example, in NCAA DIII Mount Union and Linfield have been "dominant" for many years, yet there is no one clamoring for them to move up to DII anytime soon just because they are really really good. I think that there are widespread misconceptions about the mission of what D2 really is. I think we must adopt a similar viewpoint to our D2 as the NCAA has their DIII because we operate under a similar system. Explaining this to teams that do not traditionally compete in DIII will be a hurdle, but the end result can only be positive.

The biggest hurdle will be these "developing" teams. I think the board must acknowledge that the game is spreading and "developing" especially on the Left Coast, and that for many years now we will be faced with "developing" teams.

I think that a pure number split can still work. I think that the 8,000-9,000 range is the number to look at, this is what I argued for at my leagues AGM. (If you are worried about fluctuation use a 10 year average, make the team itself report this number if it takes too long, I know it took me about 10 minutes to find every team in the PNCLL's enrollment #'s this fall when I posted on the PNCLL forum) This number will be law for existing teams, but a guiding point for new and "developing" teams. It will be up to individual conferences to patrol new and "developing" teams and keep competitive balance. And competitive balance is what the spirit of these divisions is all about.

I'd be interested to hear why some people feel the D1A football criteria we use now is not fair.

I do not think that the D1A rule is unfair (there really are no D1A football schools hurt by this rule, maybe Wake Forest? Vanderbilt? Unclear on their particular situations, don't quote me on that), but I do feel it leaves no guidance for D1 schools without D1A football and D2 schools with large enrollment numbers. The enrollment numbers are much more indicative of the bodies available to throw into the war machine.

[Pinball]

I'd be interested to hear why some people feel the D1A football criteria we use now is not fair.

because no one plays D1 football in the UMLL. We play hockey. ie- St. Cloud, NoDak, UMD, Mankato

[Rob Graff]

Pinball:

The D1A rule is irrelevant to the UMLL. Our conf. rule is based upon school size and it just so happens that the results comply with MCLA rule.

Rob

[Pinball]

Pinball:

The D1A rule is irrelevant to the UMLL. Our conf. rule is based upon school size and it just so happens that the results comply with MCLA rule.

Rob

but dont the MCLA guidelines trump anything that the UMLL may have?

What is that number?

[Rob Graff]

No, I don't interpret it that way.

At present, to have our teams MCLA eligible, we just have to not violate the rules.

And we don't violate them - the only 2 D1A football school teams (Iowa state and UofM) play in Div 1. And MCLA rules allow others that want to play up to do so. And the other 6 D1 teams decide to do so.

Pm me if we need to talk further about UMLL business.

Rob

[Sonny]

Allowing conferences a little bit of leeway to help the teams that don't fit the criteria but truly belong in D2 would be beneficial.

That is the crux of the current problem. The little bit of "leeway" at the conference level creates problems on the national level.

Although we have the current criteria (1A football = MCLA Div. 1, everyone else = MCLA Div. 2), certain conferences are publishing and promoting different ideas on what Div. 1/Div. 2 is at a local level. The UMLL does it differently then the PNCLL and both conferences do things differently then the WCLL or GRLC.

There are two types of "problem" teams that continue to be difficult to slot that effect this issue more then anything else:

1. Large state schools that are remote from lacrosse communities and/or have little or no lacrosse historically. See schools like Nebraska, Arkansas, Alabama, Utah State, Iowa, Ole Miss, LSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, Northern Arizona, etc.

2. Large (mostly urban) commuter schools that are have brand new lacrosse clubs with little or no major college athletics/Division 1 football. These are schools that are trying to generate a buzz on campus and begin to develop their own brand of student life on campus after years and years of being a "suitcase" college. See schools like Metro State in Denver, Utah Valley State (near BYU, outside SLC) or Cal State Fullerton. These schools have large student populations and are normally located near larger cities. However, they maybe brand new to playing lacrosse (and the MCLA).

Both of these types of schools present problems because they don't really fit into the current system of slotting MCLA teams based on 1-A football status.

Whatever criteria is chosen, it must be easily quantifiable, fluid from year to year, and easily understood by all parties involved. 1-A football status fits the bill, but I don't think it really applies to MCLA lacrosse.