MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[LaxRef]

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

Iowa State plays DI-A football. Minnesota has a DI-A football team, but you could argue that they do not play DI-A football.

[Dulax31]

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

Lake Superior State (Under 3000 students) has D1 hockey, but they are definitely not a big school by any means, just because you have a division 1 sport does not mean you have a large student body to pull from, but with football, most D1 A football schools do have a large student body, not to mention the facilities at their disposal.

[BigheadTodd]

From the final poll, 2 of the top 10 teams do not have DIa football. 5 of the top 15 do not. 7 of the top 25. I do not want to single out any particular teams that have D1a football that have proven they can't compete in D1, but there are plenty. Just my two cents, but I feel that the MCLA should be like the USA was designed to be, with most of the power residing with the states, and the national government there to resolve disputes.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

I've been reading this thread and having discussions with coaches in our league, and if we really want a big school/small school split, we must use enrollment figures. If our goal is to split teams purely on lacrosse ability, it becomes extremely difficlut to think of any black and white plan that would allow this.

Personally, I like the idea of utilizing enrollment numbers of undergrads to determine placement of teams. . .leaving the option of course for schools to play "up" if they chose to do so.

The trouble we're all having is determining a "magic number" for enrollment. Depending on where the cutoff lies, there will most definitely be schools that belong in D2 but end up in D1 based upon our cutoff number.

Personally, I like the idea of a "soft" number. . .something in the neighborhood of 5K or 6K undergrads. . .and then allow for schools within, say, 10% or 15% of this number to petition their CONFERENCE to play at the D2 level. That allows for some fluctuation of enrollment figures, and also allows for schools right at the borderline, who truly belong at the D2 level, to remain at that level. This provides a nice big and small school split, without punishing teams that end up right above whatever "cutline" the MCLA establishes.

I've heard from some mid-sized schools that fear a move to D1. . .For those who fear that a move up to D1 will destroy their program. . .should we really cater to programs that are this volatile? I personally don't believe so. . .

Like JP, I don't think the current system is all that different from what I've proposed here, and it may not really need fixing at all. . .but if changes are going to take place, I would suggest that any "magic number" of undergrads voted upon this weekend would allow some amount of minimal flexibility to allow some small changes in enrollment without having to re-classify teams because their school just addded 75 undergrads. . .

[Sonny]

When I looked into this issue a few years ago (and did some analysis), a number like 5 or 6K doesn't really work.

There seems to be very few MCLA schools in the 5K - 15K range. It isn't till you go over 15K, do you begin to see more MCLA schools appear again.

I'm not sure what the solution is.... But there are lots and lots of current MCLA Div. 2 schools with large student populations over 5K. If the figure was that low, you would have a very small Division 2. Maybe only like 30 - 40 teams nationwide.

[Sonny]

From the final poll, 2 of the top 10 teams do not have DIa football. 5 of the top 15 do not. 7 of the top 25. I do not want to single out any particular teams that have D1a football that have proven they can't compete in D1, but there are plenty.

Interesting points and food for thought.

[TheBearcatHimself]

Don't EVER say I didn't do my homework, here is the COMPLETE list of MCLA D2 2004-2007 average undergraduate enrollments provided by www.uscollegesearch.org:

Conference Board members, and whoever else can use this, please take notes and use these numbers to help solve this issue of a happy split:

Teams with D1A Football in Bold

PNCLL:
Pacific Lutheran: 3,247
U Puget Sound: 2,619
Whitman: 1,424
Lewis and Clark: 1,709
Willamette: 1,749
College of Idaho: 774 (smallest)
Linfield: 1,534
Western Oregon: 4,729
Southern Oregon: 5,493
Central Washington: 8,050
Western Washington: 11,564

WCLL:
Biola: 2,797
Cal Lutheran: 1,816
Cal State Fullerton: 23,385 (largest)
Occidental: 1,703
Pepperdine: 3,068
San Jose State: 20,711
UC Irvine: 16,223
UC Santa Cruz: 11,075
U of Pacific: 3,093

RMLC:
Colorado Mines: 2,559
Ft Lewis: 4,285
Met. St: 17,688
Regis 5,446
Western St: 2,325
Wyoming: 8,550
Utah State: 17,903
Westminster: 1,878
Northern Arizona: 13,905
University New Mexico: 16,414
Utah Valley State: 20,946
Northern Colorado : Can’t Find
Montana State: Can’t Find

CCLA:
Michigan:
Calvin College: 4,263
Ferris State: 9,235
Grand Valley State: 15,211
UM Dearborn: 6,615
Hope College: 3,015
Northern Michigan: 7,575
Saginaw State: 7,059
Rose Hulman: 1,581
Taylor (Upland): 1,843
U Dayton: 7,138
Carnegie Mellon: 5,224
Grove City: 2,323

LSA
Austin College: 1,196
Sam Houston: 10,855
Southwestern: 1,309
Stephen F Austin: 10,246
St. Edwards: 3,105
UT Arlington: 15,449
Trinity: 2,356

GRLC
Augustana: 2,230
Wheaton: 2,418
Depaul: 12,436
Cornell College: Can’t Find
Dordt: 1,420
Northwestern College: 1,243
Creighton: 3,765
Nebraska-Omaha: 10,694
Nebraska: 17,968
South Dakota: 5,147
U Arkansas: 12,502
Harding (Ark): 3,982
Memphis: 15,296
St. Louis: 9,821
Missouri-Rolla: 3,698
Rockhurst: 2,034
Washington University: 6,695

UMLL
Augsburg: 2,913
Bethel: 2,652
Carleton: 1,936
MSU Moorhead: 7,044
St. John’s: 1,880
St. Thomas: 5,469
North Dakota State: 8,973
North Dakota: 9,122
Wisconsin-Eau Claire: 10,165

PCLL:
Coast Guard: 877
New Haven: 2,537
Central Conn.: 9,443
Maine-Orono: 8,220
Bridgewater St.: 7,080
Framingham St.: 4,042

SELC:
Eckerd: 1,572
Palm Beach Atlantic: 1,964
Savannah Art: 4,249
Kennesaw St.: 11,977
Georgia Southern: 12,648
Emory: 6,316
Coastal Carolina: 4,405
Furman: 2,789
Appalachian State: 12,112
Davidson: 1,679
Elon: 3,900
High Point: 2,623
UNC Charlotte: 14,388
Liberty: 5,403
Tennessee Wesleyan: 795
U Alabama: 15,318

Breakdown:
776-5,000: 50
5,000-7,500: 12
7,500-10,000: 9
10,000-15,000: 13
15,000+ : 11

It doesn't take a statistician to tell you that the meat and potatoes of Division 2 resides in the 1,000-7,500 range. While there is not a statistical correlation between size and success in MCLA lacrosse specifically, I do not believe you can argue that over time greater numbers will not benefit a program.

[A.J. Stevens]

The GRLC moved Nebraska, U Arkansas & Memphis up to Div I in the AA subdivision. The GRLC is making a strong effort to treat Div II as a small school div rather than developmental..

[LaxRef]

Nicely done, Will!

FWIW, I think if the MCLA has tons of teams and its survival and ongoing success isn't dependent on getting as many new teams in as possible, then it's perfectly reasonable to say, "Hey, here are our D1 requirements, here are our D2 requirements, and you're welcome to join when you meet those requirements." If there's a big school somewhere that can't meet those requirements, or doesn't want to, they just don't play in the MCLA until they do. Thus, if you wanted to set the cutoff for D2 at 10,000 (or whatever), you can do so.

Keep in mind that the numbers Will presented may suffer from some of the problems we listed earlier (students abroad being counted, part-time students being counted even they aren't eligible, schools that skew female may have a smaller pool of men to draw from), but they have the advantage of being an objective standard.

The other problem that we face is a bigger one: our society seems to have gotten used to the idea of "moving up" to a higher level of competition. In Minnesota, small high schools can move up to a higher division (based on enrollment numbers). In boxing and wrestling and other sports with weight classes, you can move up a weight class if you want to. And so on.

To try to stuff the smaller D1 schools down to D2 based on size is and will remain unpalatable to many, so you may need to consider a provision for schools "moving up." If done, it should be done in a way so they can't switch back and forth on a whim (e.g., if you move up, you stay up for 4 years).

The consensus that I think I see is that D2 is not and should not be developmental, so D1 schools (based on enrollment) should not be able to move down. Either come ready to play D1, or wait until you're ready for MCLA D1 ball.

It may make sense to have some guidelines about teams trying to get into MCLA (e.g., suggesting that established teams schedule full scrimmages against these teams the year before the new team wants to become an MCLA team. Have the new team host the game, pay for officials, etc., and have the officials and the current MCLA team report on whether the new team has their act together before admitting them).

[dgr01002]

I wanted to chime in on this discussion about referring to D2 as "developmental". That's ridiculous. If that is the case then should NCAA D1-D3 teams be referring to the MCLA D1 teams as "developmental"? BYU, great "developmental" program you've got going there! It is a ridiculous discussion - especially when talking about a D2 national championship. The smaller schools due to sheer numbers will have good recruiting cycles and bad ones. At bigger schools, they have the opportunity to be competitive every year. If that D1 program falters - that is a LEADERSHIP and ORGANIZATIONAL problem, certainly not due to the odds of finding more quality athletes. The only valid argument is when talking about school enrollment numbers. D2 should be a smaller school league. Just like NCAA D3 is compared to most every NCAA D1 program, with a few exceptions of course. Lacrosse is growing rapidly on the high school level and that is why programs are popping up in colleges all over (big and small). To imply that just because a student chooses to go to a small college in TN or Ohio versus a major university to play "reputable" lax seems small thinking. What's the point of even "developing" a D2 program? What's the incentive for potential recruits? What does that "developmental" D2 team tell the recruit: "Hey, we have no shot at a championship, but one day, we might be accepted to MCLA D1 by the time you are a senior." Think about it. The entire MCLA just goes backwards. Many D2 teams are building and have built very strong programs and cultures and hopefully, setting competitive examples for the teams that are struggling along. Many NCAA D3 programs with small student numbers go through the same problems up north due to small enrollment numbers - and the fact that recruits can now choose to play competitive lax on the club level at another school of their choice. This fact doesn't make that D3 team any less valid and it doesn't classify that program as "developmental". The next year - they could have the best program in D3.

[Sonny]

The GRLC moved Nebraska, U Arkansas & Memphis up to Div I in the AA subdivision. The GRLC is making a strong effort to treat Div II as a small school div rather than developmental..

Understood.... However, you guys are also defining a (new) "quasi" third level of play which does not exist in the MCLA or in any of the other conferences. While it does meet the MCLA's current rules/regulations, this decision by the GRLC adds another "log to the fire" about the nine conferences treating Div. 1/2 differently.

[fsusg]

The numbers Will found do give an objective standard, but those are just averages from 2004-07. If you did a split involving enrollment, would you do the actual or do the averages? For some schools, those averages are extremely less than the current year...i.e. Cal State Fullerton is listing their enrollment at 35,040 (avg. 23,385) and Harding is 6,760 (avg. 3,982). If you did a cut-off point and hypothetically said anyone over 6,500 is Division I, the Harding would be Division I based on actual, but Division II based on the averages.

By the way, Northern Colorado's actual enrollment is listed at 10,799 and Montana State is 10,832.

[LaxRef]

The numbers Will found do give an objective standard, but those are just averages from 2004-07. If you did a split involving enrollment, would you do the actual or do the averages? For some schools, those averages are extremely less than the current year...i.e. Cal State Fullerton is listing their enrollment at 35,040 (avg. 23,385) and Harding is 6,760 (avg. 3,982). If you did a cut-off point and hypothetically said anyone over 6,500 is Division I, the Harding would be Division I based on actual, but Division II based on the averages.

By the way, Northern Colorado's actual enrollment is listed at 10,799 and Montana State is 10,832.

I seriously doubt that the enrollment of CSF went up by that much in a few years. You're talking a difference from the 3-year average of 11,000! It is likely that the 35,000 number includes graduate and professional students and the 23,000 number does not.

I'd say use the three-year average or something similar. That way, if 10,000 is the cutoff and a school that usually has 9,900 students over-enrolls and gets 10,001 students one year they won't need to switch twice in a two-year period. You could use exponential smoothing weighted a little more heavily to the present if you wanted to, although some people's eyes will glaze over as soon as you start talking about it and won't like it or even try to understand it. (You know who you are! )

[Danny Hogan]

I wanted to chime in on this discussion about referring to D2 as "developmental". That's ridiculous.

care to comment on the best D2 teams of the past few years electing to play up?

[Beta]

Question.

If the B/II Division is viewed in comparison to NCAA Division criteria, then why are largely populated schools that for 0-fer allowed to move to and compete in the smaller division if the main purpose of the B/II Division is to serve smaller schools and not based upon a team/program's ability?

Even new programs with large populations play in the smaller divisions, what is the reasoning behind this? If the answer is "because they're not ready to be competitive in the A division" then wouldn't that negate the "not based on talent" definition?

It seems rather contradictory to say "ok, you're a new team/program so you need to play in this division for a few years...then when YOU'RE ready to move up..you can go to this one" and then say "well, the other division is only separate because of school sizes, and not based on competitiveness/talent".

Not here to start a debate (although that already seems to be taking place), I am just asking clarification for a straight answer.