MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[LaxRef]

No matter how we decide to split this, there are going to be "developmental" teams, regardless of your personal feeling of what that word means. There will be Div. II schools who WANT to play "up" and Div. I schools who NEED to play down.

There may be D1-size teams that need to play down, but maybe they just don't do it in the MCLA. I don't think you can say that there will always be teams in the MCLA that need to play down.

[CP18]

FYI, there is no such thing anymore as D-IA Football, you are either Division I FBS (formerly IA) or Division I FCS (formerly IAA). Sorry, had to plug the new nomenclature.

Regarding this thread there will never be a perfect solution. For discussion purposes, the best way to truly classify teams is by coaching and organization structure. The teams that have them, whether small school, or large, DI or DII, help the MCLA be what it is designed to be. Teams in DI or DII without good organization or coaching leadership tend to pull down what the MCLA is about and bring back the roll out the ball on the field and play intramurals/club mentality.

Talent levels will vary, but you can always guarantee a team with a committed coaching staff and organization will be prepared to play and represent the MCLA well.

[LaxRef]

FYI, there is no such thing anymore as D-IA Football, you are either Division I FBS (formerly IA) or Division I FCS (formerly IAA). Sorry, had to plug the new nomenclature.

I think ESPN has decided to go with "the subdivision formerly known as I-AA."

[Dan Wishengrad]

Can anybody report on the meeting, and specifically the discussion of a new D1/D2 split? Did the BOD reach a consensus on how this might be changed for 2009?

[Rob Graff]

Dan:

I do not believe that any specific proposal was approved. I do believe many points of view were heard, including the "if it's not broke" theory.

I'm of the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" theory. And I'm not really sure about why we're focusing so much on this issue. Is this issue of special importance to you or your conference and I've missed it? Or are you just curious? I presume your UW Huskies are a D1 team by any measuring stick.

I've thought about this issue a bit since the summer meeting, and here are some brief thoughts I've had:

It appears that there are two "concerns" driving this debate:

A - What is the purpose of D2, and

B - How do we deal with outliers - either D2 teams with enrollment sizes that mirror a traditional "Land Grant State University" (which also traditionally have NCAA D1A football teams) OR D1 Football schools with poor lacrosse programs that want to not get "killed" by other more established programs in D1.

In reverse order - In sports leagues, (as opposed to the civil rights arena) outliers should never drive policy (stryker/Jac, feel free to discuss tyranny of the minority/majority as noted in DeToqueville's Democracy in America with me in another thread). They should aspire to conform to the existing rules, with appropriate granfathering as required. I do not see either outlier described above as necessitating national reform.

And the Board has already noted that D2 is a functioning, valid league in and of itself. And the teams in it are positively responding to that declaration. D2 teams are - in most conferences - becoming more and more professional in appearance and management. It's not just the top 5-10 teams that "look/feel" like a D2 team now. Are there outliers? Certainly. But I'd be willing to be a soda of choice that the majority of D2 teams are significantly more organized than ever before.

What's left to debate on this point? Most likely the "new/developing" team argument - i.e. what do we do with new team that are developing, but would have to play (for example in the WCLL) Arizona, Santa Barbara, UCSD and Sonoma in their first year? I feel that any problem with new/developing teams should be addressed at the conference level. First by NOT ADMITTING THEM if they are not ready. I'm convinced that at least 75% of the problems people report with new teams would never have taken place if conferences took a harder line on admission. UMLL has been as guilty on this point as other conferences, but we've remedied our errors quickly, and sought to learn from them. To wit - about 3 years ago, we had a presentation from "St. Mary's" in Winona. They had previously been members (when it was the MCLL). We admitted them in a close vote, but they didn't appear for the fall meeting before the season in which they were to play for the first time. We immediately expelled them. Contrast that with Augsburg - where we demanded to see a bank statement, proof of facilities, support from the school - etc...

Second way of dealing with them is to not be afraid of punishing those that do not comply with rules, but punishment should be proportional, and in conformance with past decisions and punishments..

Third way is to be creative as the GRLC did, but sunset those "creative" solutions so there is an incentive for the new/developing teams TO DEVELOP. If the GRLC leaves their current "hybrid" structure in place without an endpoint, the 1AA teams will not feel the necessary pressure to develop.

Fourth, if a team is administratively ready, and will merely take some lumps - then either be ready to do that, or ...... We all took lumps when we started. And there are many threads on this board that discuss the value of such "lumps" in motivating teams and showing them what is possible.

[Hi-Line Lax]

That's too bad that there wasn't a hard line reached by the BOD... I was under the impression that this was what they were there for. I'm still confused as to how if other conference were to follow the GRLC and have a D1A how that is really different from 3 leagues (right now it only works as a "sub-group" because it effects just one conference). To me that is pretty much just giving the conferences the ability to override any kind of national consensus and that seems like it could set us back. This isn't to knock the BOD at all, I'd just like to see them with a little more power I guess.

[Matt_Gardiner]

It is not three divisions or like three division because Division 1A is Division 1. Nationally there is no distinction between D1 and D1A.
The only difference is Division 1A is a subdivision not created based off of natural rivalries or geography, but on field competitiveness. It is really no different than the CCLA being split into the north and the south, just a different criteria is used. Division 1A teams are full-fledged division 1 teams and fully eligibile to win the GRLC and even win the MCLA D1 title. A distinction was made to benefit teams for scheduling purposes.

The only small difference is this is probably the first time that one subdivision has a different set of rules for the playoffs as D1 gets the majority of the playoff spots. So unlike the two CCLA subdivision which split the playoff slots evenly (i think), the GRLC has one subdivision getting all but two playoff spots.

[Jolly Roger]

The best way to make D2 viable and vibrant and eliminate the "play up culture" is to create a cut off and ALL TEAMS regardless of current divisional alignment, compete in their newly assigned division. This might mean that Sonoma, Duluth and Lindenwood would compete in D2.

Thoughts?

[scooter]

The best way to make D2 viable and vibrant and eliminate the "play up culture" is to create a cut off and ALL TEAMS regardless of current divisional alignment, compete in their newly assigned division. This might mean that Sonoma, Duluth and Lindenwood would compete in D2.

Thoughts?

disagree...Those teams are legitimate top 15 schools year and year out at the highest level offered. To force them to play down hurts not only these teams, since they wont be forced to play at the high level they desire, but also the other division 2 teams who won't have a prayer against them. I think if you want to and are able to compete at the d1 level, you should be allowed to.

[Dulax31]

The best way to make D2 viable and vibrant and eliminate the "play up culture" is to create a cut off and ALL TEAMS regardless of current divisional alignment, compete in their newly assigned division. This might mean that Sonoma, Duluth and Lindenwood would compete in D2.

Thoughts?

Why don't you ask Johns Hopkins if they would like to play NCAA D3 lacrosse?

[Jolly Roger]

So you believe that the divisional difference is competitive, not based on size.

Interesting....

[essn1064]

Rightly said

Also with the GRLC Div 1A and Div 1AA there is mobility.

The team that finished first in Div 1AA moves up to Div 1A and the team to finish last in Div 1A moves down to 1AA

Therefore keeps progress and further development

[A.J. Stevens]

Rightly said

Also with the GRLC Div 1A and Div 1AA there is mobility.

The team that finished first in Div 1AA moves up to Div 1A and the team to finish last in Div 1A moves down to 1AA

Therefore keeps progress and further development

There is no relegation. If a team in the div 1A subdivision fails to function at an acceptable level both on and off the field they can be moved down by the conference. If a team in the Div 1AA subdivision proves they can function at an acceptable level both on and off the field they can be moved up by the conference. It is the hope of most coaches in the GRLC that we do not need a Div 1AA for more than a few years.

[Hi-Line Lax]

Thanks for the clarification on the GRLC... I didn't know that the subdivision teams could still compete for the conference championship. That is more similar to the North/South split we have had in the PNCLL-B.

[A.J. Stevens]

ALso

The top two teams in the GRLC AA subdivision receive the 5 and 6 seeds in the GRLC tournament along with the top four teams in the A subdivision.