MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[LaxRef]

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?

As I mentioned above, part of our national culture is allowing individuals or teams to "play up" and compete at a more difficult level should they desire a greater challenge. This happens in high school sports (small schools play up into the large school division), NCAA sports (same thing; as someone said, you wouldn't make Hopkins play DIII lacrosse because they're a smaller school), sports with weight classes (boxing, wrestling, crew, martial arts), and so on.

Because of this, I think any plan to keep teams from "playing up" is going to meet great resistance. OTOH, keeping big school teams from playing down will not get as much resistance. Would you let a 200 lb wrestler compete in the 140 lb weight class just because he isn't very good and can't beat anyone in his own weight class? Of course not.

[Zamboni_Driver]

I guess I intrepretted some things incorrectly...

I thought the MCLA just outlined what was eligble for national competition for D1 and D2....not that they decided for each team what schedule they needed to play, or what each league must mandate for its winners...is that true or not?

The way I thought about it, a team could play any schedule they wanted, and a league could run its own championship, but if their winner didn't match certain criteria they didn't get to go to nationals...and at large bids had to meet certain criteria as well...is that correct?

[Jolly Roger]

As I mentioned above, part of our national culture is allowing individuals or teams to "play up" and compete at a more difficult level should they desire a greater challenge.

In our arena, the "play up" mentality will continually dilute D2 of it's top talent peers, because of the inherent bias that it isn't the "top" level of play. This doesn't do a service to the universities that truly belong in this SIZE-BASED (not skill based) division.

Why did USD and Claremount "move up"? Because the bias is that D2 wasn't the top level of competition. I'm not judging their decision, just using them as an example in this discussion.

If the top D2 teams that are truly D2 sized keep "moving up" or "playing up" we should just eliminate D2.

[Dan Wishengrad]

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.

Yes of course UW will always be D1, Coach, but my query had little to do with my team but more as a continuing member of our conference's executive. We had been told on this website earlier this year that the split between divisions was going to be changed before '09, hence my curiosity and interest. Montana became dominant in the PNCLL D2 in '07, and could have chosen to remain in the small school division under the 1-A football model. I believe they belong with the other "big" schools, and luckily the Grizzlies decided to petition up on their own anyway. But had they remained, the inequity that I see would have also have remained.

We have some very tiny schools in the PNCLL -- College of Idaho with under 1,000 undergrads and Whitman with 1,400, to name two. These teams meet the MCLA criteria and model, and pay the same dues to the national league and the conference. But COI and WC are playing against -- and being "ranked" against -- some large public universities which simply don't have 1A football teams. IMHO this is not what D2 should be, and I was led to believe this would be changing. Of course I accepted the status quo when it was voted in by the MCLA BOD, but we are discussing the issue here, and this is a healthy debate.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here, Rob, but believe this is a separate issue from how to divide the big universities and the small colleges. "If it ain't broke" and isn't changed, than non 1A football universities -- like Western Washington in the PNCLL -- could well decide to remain indefinitely in D2 and could become as dominant as Montana had, and would be entirely within their rights to stay where they are. But with 12,000 undergrads and cheap (relative) in-state tutition, WWU will continue to have a decided advantage over a school like COI. This is my interest in this continuing discussion, and I remain an advocate for a true small school division without large universities. But whatever the MCLA BOD ultimately decides, I will support that decision, too.

The other point raised in this thread, about small schools like Hopkins which "play up" succesfully is a specious argument, IMHO. D1 schools of ANY SIZE which recruit and offer athletic scholarships are entirely different from little MCLA schools which do not do so.

[LaxRef]

Dan-

I completely get the argument about the potential damage done by letting large schools play in D2. I don't yet get why letting smaller schools play "up" to D1 is a problem. Could you elaborate?

I think your argument about Hopkins playing up being a specious argument is a specious argument: you seem to say the argument is bad because Hopkins is able to play up because of scholarships, yet we have many small schools that play up successfully in the MCLA, so you can't say "the small schools can't play up in MCLA because they don't have scholarships in D1 in MCLA" when in fact teams do so successfully without scholarships.

[Zeuslax]

In our arena, the "play up" mentality will continually dilute D2 of it's top talent peers, because of the inherent bias that it isn't the "top" level of play. This doesn't do a service to the universities that truly belong in this SIZE-BASED (not skill based) division.

This is one of the larger topics that need to be debated in my opinion.

[CP18]

I agree wholeheartedly with you here, Rob, but believe this is a separate issue from how to divide the big universities and the small colleges. "If it ain't broke" and isn't changed, than non 1A football universities -- like Western Washington in the PNCLL -- could well decide to remain indefinitely in D2 and could become as dominant as Montana had, and would be entirely within their rights to stay where they are. But with 12,000 undergrads and cheap (relative) in-state tutition, WWU will continue to have a decided advantage over a school like COI. This is my interest in this continuing discussion, and I remain an advocate for a true small school division without large universities. But whatever the MCLA BOD ultimately decides, I will support that decision, too

How many 'big' non Division I FBS (IA) schools are out there that play DII and do not play up? The team I coach, Texas State, is a school with 28,000 students, but the University plays Division I FCS (IAA). Technically, we could play DII, and tomorrow become a contender for a DII MCLA national championship but chose to compete in DI.

The University of Texas - Arlington is playing in DII because the do not play football, yet they are pushing 30,000 in enrollment as well. Granted, when you factor in commuters, non traditional students, etc., the pool of potential players is not as large, but still considerable.

If these large, DII playing universities develop organization, and strong coaching, as well as attract players that have high school experience, they quickly elevate to the top ranks of DII. You also have to remember, some of the small DII MCLA schools have an advantage on attracting players, as many of their Univeristies are expensive and private, and would tend to attract students who come from private high schools, where lacrosse is prevelant.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Dan-

I completely get the argument about the potential damage done by letting large schools play in D2. I don't yet get why letting smaller schools play "up" to D1 is a problem. Could you elaborate?

Devils advocate argument -

If the number of team in D1 increases, teams will have to play more games within their conference - thus diluting the competition and reducing opportunities for Top 25 teams to add other OOC T25 games to their schedule, making it almost impossible to pick the at-large bids.

[Zeuslax]

Devils advocate argument -

If the number of team in D1 increases, teams will have to play more games within their conference - thus diluting the competition and reducing opportunities for Top 25 teams to add other OOC T25 games to their schedule, making it almost impossible to pick the at-large bids.

We're seeing this in D2 without any movement......just with the addition of so many new teams. The teams that actually travel and are looking for OOC competition are seeing shrinking availability.

[onpoint]

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

Interesting....

In our arena, the "play up" mentality will continually dilute D2 of it's top talent peers, because of the inherent bias that it isn't the "top" level of play. This doesn't do a service to the universities that truly belong in this SIZE-BASED (not skill based) division.

Why did USD and Claremount "move up"? Because the bias is that D2 wasn't the top level of competition. I'm not judging their decision, just using them as an example in this discussion.

If the top D2 teams that are truly D2 sized keep "moving up" or "playing up" we should just eliminate D2.

Exactly. Our Division 2 is currently set up as a de facto skill-level split, whether we want to admit it or not. It is a Catch 22. If we make ALL small universities play in Div. 2, we will lose some of our most important Div. 1 programs. But if we continute to allow them to play "up" a division, Div. 2 will cease to have relevance in terms of a "national champion."

[Rob Graff]

Guys:

I politely, and respectfully, disagree with Mr. Smith and JR. Why does the NCAA have different divisions? Because they recognize the inherent differences between various sized universities - and yet they have allowed universities that wish to invest in the sport (like a Duke in Basketball, a Maine in Hockey, a UMass in Soccer) to play at the D1 tier. The NCAA also recognizes that certain programs have a historical tie to Division 1 and did not force them to go to a different divison when the divisional structure was being re-visited a few years ago.

Explain again which D2 team with these huge enrollment is going to dominate D2? If I recall, the "other team" in the D2 championship the past years is St. Johns - whose student population is all male and 1800 students.... There are small NCAA D2 schools and BIG NCAA D2 schools.

Does the fact that the SeaGulls won the DIII national championship become devalued because it's DIII? - And I'm personally aware of at least two schools (not UMLL) that are considering a move to D2 from D1 because they feel that D2 is an association of "like minded" programs.

We've chosen a bright line rule.
We've acknowledged history (allowing Sonoma/Lind/UMD to stay D1)
We've seen Small and Bigger schools succeed in D2.
We've allowed the conferences to maintain their leadership in how they comply with the MCLA requirements in this area.


Again, why are we fixing something that by these measuring points, is not broken?

Rob

P.S Dan - my recollection is that after the Summer 2007 meeting, we agreed to review the rule - and made no committment to change it. But my recollection has been proven incorrect before.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Dan-

I completely get the argument about the potential damage done by letting large schools play in D2. I don't yet get why letting smaller schools play "up" to D1 is a problem. Could you elaborate?

I don't believe that letting small schools play up is a problem, LaxRef, and don't think I ever said anything of the kind. If a small (relative term) school -- like Lindenwood -- has built a solid program and can compete against the biggest schools in the MCLA, I am and have always been in favor of this. The specific proposal I offered earlier in this thread says all big universities should play in D1 and all tiny colleges in D2, unless a small school petitions to "play up" which I think is fine and dandy. The rebuttal to my proposal from Kyle and others was with regard to how the medium-sized DI-AA and DII schools are handled under my proposed delineation. This is, I concede, a valid argument.

I think your argument about Hopkins playing up being a specious argument is a specious argument: you seem to say the argument is bad because Hopkins is able to play up because of scholarships, yet we have many small schools that play up successfully in the MCLA, so you can't say "the small schools can't play up in MCLA because they don't have scholarships in D1 in MCLA" when in fact teams do so successfully without scholarships.

We can agree to disagree. You have also read something into my argument (i.e. "you seem to say") that I have not, or have certainly tried not to make. I am not against letting any small school play up. I have never been against this. Of course I may have a different definition of what a "small school" is than you do, or someone else does. I don't believe that UC Santa Barbara, Simon Fraser or Minnesota-Duluth are "little colleges" that should be allowed to compete in D2. This is simply personal opinion. I think these three schools fall under MCLA D2 definition only for lack of a DI football program, but rightly belong in the MCLA D1, where all three compete well and are always or in most years nationally ranked.

IMHO recruiting some of the nation's top high school lacrosse players and offering them athletic scholarships (as Hopkins does) is indeed a different situation than that faced by little MCLA colleges of 700-3,000 undergrads which do not. In my own conference most of the little colleges compete in all other sports amongst themselves, and not against Oregon or Washington or even "medium-sized" Western Washington (which historically has over 10,000 undergrads).

Last year's PNCLL D2 title game pitted UM vs WWU. Both schools had deep rosters filled with players who had high school lacrosse experience. The previous year Montana beat PLU, a small college with only one or two kids who had ever even touched a lacrosse stick before arriving on campus. The Lutes battled valiantly in that '05 PNCLL D2 title game, but eventually lost out to the deeper, more experienced group of Grizzlies.
This inequity has been partially self-remedied by Montana's successful petition to move up permanently to compete in the PNCLL's D1.

My own personal opinion is that MCLA D2 should allow PLU to compete against it's own historic sports rivals like Puget Sound, Willamette, Lewis & Clark, Linfield and Whitman. I believe that D1 should be by far the bigger division nationwide, with only 30-60 true "small schools" in the D2 division. I favor a much lower enrollment cutoff than other folks here do. And I agree with Coach Graff that the far bigger issue is we simply have too many programs which have been admitted nationwide which are not ready for our level of competition in either division. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and value discussions like these which are constructive and informative.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Rob. Here is what I remembered seeing posted after the summer meeting, which of course I did not attend:

Andy Sharp wrote:
KnoxVegas wrote:
But the NCAA has three division, while we have two. So to call them Division 1 and 3 is a little disingenuous don't you think. Division 1 and 2 seems more equitable. We are not the NCAA, we are the MCLA.
What I would like to see us move towards is a break point better than DI football. DI and DII are not much different (what's the count on DII schools anyway?), the real differentiator is DIII vs the others. Schools with 2-5k competing with schools 3 to 10 times their size is where I'd like to see a line drawn, but the problem has always been what # of students is the break point. I say, forget #s, go with the tried and true standard the NCAA has labored over.

It's been a few years since I've seen a listing of participating schools along with their size and NCAA divisions. I have not researched the repercussions of such a change, but would like to see the MCLA move towards it. For those of us at DIII schools it would be nice to have the playing field a bit more level and see the confusion of whether it's a developmental league put to bed.

17 of the 31 players on last year's Calvin team never played before coming to college.


This issue was discussed. It will not change for this upcoming season, but there is going to be research done this fall, with a proposal to be be voted on in the winter meetings for the 2008/09 season that a new definition be used, aka school size. Too many teams have already begun scheduling this season for us to make this change for this year.
_________________
Tim Gray
Head Coach
Men's Lacrosse
Northeastern University
gray.t@alumni.neu.edu
Commissioner PCLL
pioneerlacrosse.com

Back to top

Emphasis added in BOLD. I made the assumption -- wrong or right, that Coach Gray was accurately reflecting what was decided at the summer meetings, and our own conference EB used this as a starting point for our own internal discussions about the issue.

[Adam Gamradt]

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.

Hi-Line, it isn't a question of the National Board having enough power, nor did they fail to act, the discussion will continue, and any changes will be adopted in the Summer Meeting in August. Just because they did not come down with a hard and fast rule, doesn't mean they could not. As someone who was lucky enough to attend, I can tell you there was, and will continue to be debate about this matter.

As a member of a conference with a fully functional and successful D1\D2 split, I'd be very hesitant to adopt the approach taken by the GRLC. I'm certainly not knocking their approach, but I agree with Rob, if it ain't broke.

I'm not convinced that there is a need for a hard cap on the size of the school, specifically when it is used to allow or to force a team to play in a different division.

A better measure is organizational competence, coaching, funding, and lastly, historical success. Granted I'm not sure how you could measure that empirically in a way everyone would agree on, so think of this as more of a guideline. That is the essence of the D1 football guideline as I understand it. Allowing the conferences to make these decisions recognizes the regional differences that I argue lie at the heart of our leagues success in growing the sport we all love across the nation. What works in Minnesota might not work in Montana. Let the conferences decide if what's in their area's best interest.

Seriously, what is the problem you want to see addressed? The perception that D2 is a developmental league? Or do you think it's unfair for a big school with a terrible program to compete for a D2 title? I am really not sure what the argument is at this point.

If the argument is that we have to fight the perception that D2 is a "developmental" league, then I reject this as a problem with perception, and not a real problem with the structure of the MCLA. Assume for a moment that the argument is that the MCLA D2 is just a place where you groom your program for D1 status. Then can you not make the same argument that the MCLA D1 is just a place to groom your program for the NCAA D1?

I know for a fact that the BOD has the best interests of our league in mind. If you don't like how they operate, or if you think they are not serving your needs, get involved in your conference, and come out to the league meeting and make a presentation. There were very few D2 people there, and I think we could all benefit from more input from those organizations.

This is a good message board discussion, but even so, no one has convinced me exactly what the problem is, much less that it's a problem that needs immediate action. This discussion is an interesting symptom of the growth of lacrosse around the country, and is certainly relevant to the greater discussion of what the purpose of the MCLA is, and what it means to be an MCLA team.

I don't want to be harsh here, but I do want to help set the record straight. I've read the minority complaints about the BOD not doing their job, and the money wasted on the BOD having their lunch catered, and I will defend a group of men who take time away from work, time away from their teams, and time away from their family to serve others.

I do have one complaint about the meeting. The lobster was cold, and the caviar was fishy.

[Rob Graff]

Coach Gray was certainly correct in that research was to be done - he was the person in charge of it. My recollection was that he was going to report and if, after hearing the report, we wanted to explore change, we would do so at this meeting.

The meeting minutes support this research, and that Tim was in charge. The minutes do not obligate Tim to make a proposal, although, as head of the committee making the proposal, he certainly could do so - and - I'd presume that was Tim's intent with his post - a post he made prior to his completion of the research.

Thus, I think that Tim and I were both correct.