MCLA Board of Directors Meeting

[Dan Wishengrad]

This sounds entirely reasonable to me, Rob. But you can see why I believed that a decision was to be forthcoming. I have not been clamoring to change the current status quo by any means. When the BOD enacted the D1 football criteria I might have found it a little odd, but accepted it as a decision made after careful deliberation at the time. I simply sought to add my own insights and opinions to this thread now because I believed that a change would be forthcoming. I stand by my posts, but if no change is ever made I can certainly live with that, too.

I just personally continue to hope that the smallest schools that pay an equal amount of dues to our organization someday, somehow be given an opportunity within the MCLA to compete amongst themselves, on an even playing field. My thanks go out to all you volunteers who struggle to improve our league and to help it evolve.

[Adam Gamradt]

Tim's research was outstanding. I'm not sure if it's acceptable to make that data available publicly, but he demonstrated the resulting changes to the conferences based on a hard cap at various levels of enrollment.

[LaxRef]

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.

Sorry if I misinterpreted; it's a long thread and I probably need a road map to keep track of everything.

[LaxRef]

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.

Not necessarily. Conferences could have divisions: play everyone in your division and a smattering of opponents from the other division. This works in many sports.

In any case, they need at least 2 OOC games, so it's not like there would be no OOC games to help with at large bids.

[Rob Graff]

This sounds entirely reasonable to me, Rob. But you can see why I believed that a decision was to be forthcoming.
I just personally continue to hope that the smallest schools that pay an equal amount of dues to our organization someday, somehow be given an opportunity within the MCLA to compete amongst themselves, on an even playing field. My thanks go out to all you volunteers who struggle to improve our league and to help it evolve.

Dan: I now see where things were coming from - i.e. the post you quoted. Thanks for the clarification.

I do believ that small schools can be successful under current scheme- and exhibit #1 is St. Johns (MN)

Rob

[Dan Wishengrad]

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.

Sorry if I misinterpreted; it's a long thread and I probably need a road map to keep track of everything.

No problem!

There are so many of us here, with divergent viewpoints and different agendas, but I believe "it's all good". Our MCLA organization is headed by bright, competent volunteers who all have passion for lacrosse and a sincere motivation for making the MCLA a great club lacrosse league. I truly wish to thank all of you who serve on the BOD, who serve as Conference Directors, or who simply take an interest and an active role in helping us to grow and evolve.

The specific issue about splitting up our approximately 200 member schools into divisions is a very worthwhile discussion. While I am the first to concede Coach Graff's "if it ain't broke" credo, I think there is always room for discussion and "tweaking" of the model, nevertheless. I do NOT believe (and won't opine here) that we have a serious, critical issue of inherent unfairness to little schools within our MCLA family. I just believe that if we get down to "brass tacks" there might be a better way to split the divisions specifically to help the smallest schools who realistically won't ever be challenging BYU for MCLA D1 supremacy.

I offered a proposal after careful consideration, but if nobody likes it or thinks it can work -- hey I won't go sulking off in the corner either! I'll continue to throw my ideas out there, and maybe one day will even come up with a worthwhile one!

[Adam Gamradt]

Dan,

I've missed some of the subtleties of your argument. I'm definitely going to review it again as soon as I get our new website up to release quality.

[Sonny]

Coach Bowman,

I had to delete your post because it was causing a problem with this thread. Please repost.

Sorry!

[John Paul]

I don't personally prescribe to the "if it ain't broke" philosophy in many cases. As many brighter people than me have said, "the enemy of great is good." If we can find a better way, we should change. However, in this case, I'm not sure if there is a better way than we are currently using. We had a vigorous discussion on this topic on Friday at the meeting. We've had similar discussions at several previous meetings, including the two that led directly to our current system several years ago. We have yet to find a better way. Since conferences have built their memberships over time to fit the current system (and this system was originally adopted to fit the conference makeup at the time), any national change now would result in great scenarios for some conferences and horrible results for others.

Much, much more important is the bigger question of better defining an MCLA team and enforcing that definition. As we head down that road over the next couple of years we'll get a better picture of the needs of our bigger and smaller school teams and what we do with developing teams (if we can define them).

There is great interest in this and other topics we address at every meeting, and there is great passion from both levels. However, as Adam mentioned, I'd love to see that backed up with more participation. Our meetings are open, and we're always looking for help. The first step to becoming involved is coming to the meetings to see what we do and how we do it and to network. We absolutely need more good D2 people involved. I've heard people complain that we don't have enough D2 representation on the EB and the BOD, but I have yet to see a lot of D2 coaches step up to the plate. Even if you just attend without the intention of getting involved, it would give you a chance to see if the guys who run this thing are doing it in a way that you'd like to see and with everyone's (D1 and D2) best interests in mind.

Additionally, attending the IMLCA clinic is a great chance to network in the men's lacrosse community outside of the MCLA. I know resources and time are tight for many of our teams, but I can't overstate the value of attending if you're serious about improving your abilities as a coach and getting more integrated in the lacrosse world.

[BigheadTodd]

Additionally, attending the IMLCA clinic is a great chance to network in the men's lacrosse community outside of the MCLA. I know resources and time are tight for many of our teams, but I can't overstate the value of attending if you're serious about improving your abilities as a coach and getting more integrated in the lacrosse world.

I agree wholeheartedly. I went the 1st season and I think I paid under $500 for everything. Flight, cabs, hotel, registration and food. It is smaller and had more thought out clinics. Also, with it being smaller, I was able to go up and talk to some of the speakers after their presentations. I credit Jim Berkman of Salisbury with finally explaining how to implement a WORKING zone defense, that cut 7.4 off my team's goals against average that spring.

[Pinball]

Although St. Johns is a good example as a team that prospers under the current system i believe that there is a better way. The problem (or whats broke) is that in MANY conferences it is the goal to move up to D1after you have a few good seasons. i know USD, Claremount, Montana and Missouri State (i think it was them?) each have there own reasons but from the outside looking in- they were the top teams and they moved up. It is a trend.

[Zeuslax]

Although St. Johns is a good example as a team that prospers under the current system i believe that there is a better way. The problem (or whats broke) is that in MANY conferences it is the goal to move up to D1after you have a few good seasons. i know USD, Claremount, Montana and Missouri State (i think it was them?) each have there own reasons but from the outside looking in- they were the top teams and they moved up. It is a trend.

Exactly......and fundamentally speaking it is more than a trend. It's a perception issue, it's a competition issue, it's a quality of communication issue, it's a logistical issue, it's a scheduling issue, etc......

It is probably safe to say that a vast majority of the teams that may not fit the current MCLA definition reside in DII. Difficulties associated with scheduling, coaching, budget, travel and the necessary level of communication needed from one team to another are bigger issues (at least observed and experienced at a larger frequency) prevalent in DII. Much of these perceptions are perceived to be drastically alleviated by a move to DI. My observations are that these issues are outside of the surface issues of increased level of competition and general D2 connotations.

[DanGenck]

Although St. Johns is a good example as a team that prospers under the current system i believe that there is a better way. The problem (or whats broke) is that in MANY conferences it is the goal to move up to D1after you have a few good seasons. i know USD, Claremount, Montana and Missouri State (i think it was them?) each have there own reasons but from the outside looking in- they were the top teams and they moved up. It is a trend.

Those teams should move up, perhaps with the exception of Claremont.

USD, Montana, and Missouri State are all schools with larger enrollments and larger universities in general (by larger, I mean, larger than most DIII NCAA schools).

[LaxRef]

FWIW, I just read in the paper that the NCAA is considering creating a D-IV because they have a great variety of school sizes in DIII and not all of the schools have the same philosophy with respect to athletics.

[Beta]

FWIW, I just read in the paper that the NCAA is considering creating a D-IV because they have a great variety of school sizes in DIII and not all of the schools have the same philosophy with respect to athletics.

I would hate to see how pathetic an athletic program is if it cannot get D2/D3 status. Talk about "everyone gets a trophy". If their philosophy is that bad...they need to rethink having athletics.

Are they going to add whiffle ball and tug of war as new sports? Not 4-square though...doesn't meet Title IX reqs.