MCLA D-II Expansion: The Fight that Wasn't
by Jac Coyne |
Lacrosse Magazine Online Staff | Coyne
Archive
John Robinette was ready for a fight.
The president of the Rocky Mountain Lacrosse Conference and head
coach at Fort Lewis (Colo.), Robinette had all of his data and
arguments lined up as he headed to the association's annual summer
meeting in Atlanta looking to battle for his cause: expanding the
Division II tournament from 12 teams to 16.
He brought up the idea at last year's meeting, but was shot down.
Even though he had some concrete arguments - like the fact that
there are more D-II teams in the MCLA than D-I and they are all
paying the same amount of dues, yet the big boys have the 16-team
field and D-II doesn't - the board wasn't ready to make the
commitment.
So Robinette went back to the drawing board during the year,
culling up more information to help his cause while urging D-II
teams to lobby their conference representatives for expansion. When
he arrived in the ATL in early August, he had his ammunition lined
up and ready for use.
After Robinette brought up the issue again and was ready to make
another stand, he was blindsided. With very little debate or
discussion, the MCLA unanimously passed the expansion.
"I was coming prepared to fight with figures and percentages, and
showing the quality teams that were left out, but I never really
had to say much," said Robinette. "I think most everybody realized
that it was time and I was happy to see that."
The tournament wasn't expanded to reward the division because of
its size or fiscal contributions to the association, the bulk of
which goes to putting on the championships. It was expanded for the
right reasons: Division II has drastically improved, earning the
opportunity.
"What really precipitated the decision at the board meeting was
there weren't any teams that got plastered in the first round of
the tournament or didn't have a good, strong team organization,"
said Tony Scazzero, the president of the MCLA. "There weren't teams
having difficulty getting to the national tournament, or had not
gone out and played some out of conference games, or had not done
well against tournament teams. It was a good time to move them up
for four more berths."
"We kind of looked around the table, shrugged our shoulders, and
said there was no bad lacrosse in the Division II tournament and
there were good teams left out that could have made a stink," added
Ben Clark, the president of the Pioneer Collegiate Lacrosse League
and an assistant at New Hampshire. "It made sense. If the only
reason laid out was that they were paying dues and had more teams,
I don't think anyone would have gone with it."
The "we've paid our dues" card may be a logical one for many in the
MCLA Division II base, but the board has shown it is more concerned
with rolling out the best possible product in order to grow the
brand, regardless of whether D-II, which makes up 55 percent of the
total MCLA teams, pays the bulk of bills.
During the 2009 national tournament, Division II showed it was
worthy of a larger showcase.
The first round, usually the realm of blowouts and rag-tag
automatic qualifiers, was marked by two one-goal game and the
lowest seeded team, Stonehill, posting a competitive performance
against Northern Colorado. There were no mismatched helmets or
teams with barely enough players to cover the field, which has been
present in the past. The rest of the tournament was equally
compelling, with clutch individual performances and several
dramatic games, including a come-from-behind victory for St. Thomas
over Dayton in the championship tilt.
But the on field action was just part of the equation. Many MCLA
board members were convinced of the need for expansion before the
field was even picked simply by the difficulty they had in
determining the entrants.
Unlike previous years when determining the at-large process was a
breeze, '09 was a bear, forcing the committee to really crunch the
numbers to find the best candidates. In the end, numerous worthy
teams were left out of the mix, including Grand Valley State - the
'08 runner-up - along with Elon, Grove City, Southern Oregon and
Creighton, all of which would have likely acquitted themselves
quite well in Denver.
If there was one omission that made the board embrace the idea of
an expanded field, it was GVSU. A young team with one of the better
players in the nation - Lacrosse Magazine's Preseason Player of the
Year Cameron Holding - the Lakers played a stiff schedule, but had
the misfortune of losing to the eventual top four seeds.
The presence of more bids is coming a year too late for Murle
Greer, the GVSU head coach, but even though the Lakers' bubble
burst, he doesn't get caught up in what could have been.
"Sure, last year we would have loved it, but I don't want to be a
team on the bubble," said Greer. "I want to be a team that gets in
anyway."
Greer envisioned there would be additional bids this year, but he
felt it would likely be an increase to 14 teams, keeping the byes
for the top two teams. The bump to 16 teams is great because the
increased opportunity will likely act as a catalyst for more teams
to make the tournament a goal. However, Greer, like many D-II
watchers, gets a little skittish when contemplating the quest of
fulfilling the board's confidence.
"I'm excited. I'm all about the growth of the league. But I guess
there are still questions about whether if everyone is invited,
everyone is going to go," said Greer. "I'm a little nervous about
that, but it's a step in the right direction."
"It's kind of put up or shut up now," said Robinette. "A lot of
people were clamoring for this, and now they have it. We need to
definitely make sure we do it right."
The concern is well-founded. The board votes on a yearly basis
about the size of its tournaments, so a reversion back to the
unkempt days of D-II could potentially lead to contraction. Working
proactively, many conference commissioners are establishing new
protocols for their respective leagues.
"Before the playoffs start, I'm talking to every team and every
team has to tell me 100 percent that they are going to the national
tournament if they win," said Clark. "If they say there's a five
percent chance they won't be able to do it, we're holding them out
of the conference tournament. Rather than replace a team at the
end, we're going to replace them at the beginning."
"We don't want it to come down to where a team wins a conference
bid or an at-large and has to come back and say, ‘Oh, man, we
didn't plan accordingly' or ‘We didn't have money in the
budget to do this,' because that would not sit well," said
Robinette. "If you think that you have a shot at this, even
remotely, you need to plan accordingly and be ready to go if you're
asked to go. If not, what are you playing for?"
Preparation is the key for Greer.
"When we first went to the national tournament my first year, we
didn't budget for it and then all of a sudden there was a lot of
money we needed to come up with," he said. "A lot of guys were
really scared about it. It's a real concern because some just don't
plan for that stuff and some guys can't afford it at that time of
year. We got through it, but it was touch-and-go for a while.
"As Division II, we don't want to be looked at anymore as the
warm-up league for Division I or a beer a league or anything like
that. We want to hold our own and take responsibility for being
there and making the trip. The problem is if one team doesn't go,
we're right back to where we were a couple of years ago. With 16
teams, that's definitely a scary thing."
Scazzero, the MCLA president, isn't as worried because he's
familiar with the drill.
"These same things were present in the very early days of the
Division I tournament," he said. "It's a path we've gone down
before. There were some teams that declined their Division I berths
early on in the history of this. That's why I relate those two
together. As the divisions evolve, we're starting to see those same
things occur.
"More teams are interested in going and are planning on how to get
there and are prepared to handle that expense of a national
tournament trip. The competitiveness rises up and the
inter-conference play comes along, they get a coach who does the
job, and they integrate more closely with the school. All of those
things have built up in Division II in the last three or four
years, just like they did in Division I at the very beginning."
Perhaps the most concerned conference president is Clark, who has
seen a couple of PCLL D-II automatic qualifiers drop the ball.
Salem State [now an NCAA program] bailed on the 2005 tourney at the
last minute, forcing the PCLL to forfeit its bid in '06. Because of
school conflicts, conference champion Coast Guard had to step aside
at the last minute in ‘08, and an overmatched Framingham
State team went in its stead.
Even though his league is going to a zero tolerance policy, nothing
is guaranteed in his conference or others. With one misstep
potentially derailing the hard-won gains, it's tough not to lose
some sleep.
"I try not to worry about, but if you ask me if it's in the back of
my mind? Yeah, it is," admitted Clark.
Hopefully, Division II will step up to the plate and prove that the
fight was worth it.
Another Division on the Way?
Just as D-II catches up with Division I in terms of
tournament berths, there is already talk of expanding the number of
divisions within the MCLA.
"It's possible that we'll see a split somewhere down the road and
that's part of the intriguing future of the MCLA," said Scazzero.
"How do you break it up? Is there a third level necessary? Is it on
the top end or the bottom end? Is it slightly small conferences? I
don't know the answer to those things, but there is something
coming down the road because we're reviewing it. Our Visions
Committee has done a great job at looking at all of the factors and
putting it on the board's table so they can discuss and come up
with a good direction."
I'm trying to figure out whether this makes sense to me.
With Division II just now reaching the organizational point where
it can be trusted with an expanded tournament, I can't see the
formation of a Division III considering all the work it would take
to get it up to speed. This means a third circuit would be placed
"above" the current D-I - a Premier League of sorts.
There are certainly enough teams to divide the MCLA into a third
tier, but is it necessary to further stratify it? And what would it
be based on? And would the addition of a higher division
potentially widen the gap between the haves and have nots?
I'm sure the MCLA will make sure they have the infrastructure
developed to make a move like this, but I wonder if this would just
be a benefit for a handful of teams or the association as a whole.
At this point, anyway.
Slides & Rides
- The coaching attrition rate in MCLA Division I continues
its march upward. The most recent surprise announcement was by
John Galvin, the head coach at Colorado, who is stepping down
effective immediately. Galvin guided the Buffs to the national
championship game in 2006 and followed that up last year with a
berth in the national semifinals. Also, the Mark Pano era has ended
at Boston College, meaning a quarter of the coaches in the '09
tournament field will not be around in 2010 (BYU and Colorado State
hired new coaches after the firing and retiring, respectively, of
the previous coaches).
On a side note, count me as Galvin fan. He's a very engaging coach
who would be a strong addition to any staff in any capacity. I'm
not sure of his plans, but I hope Galvin resigned because of
something else in the lacrosse world. I've spoken with Pano briefly
and he appeared to have the Eagles on the right course, so
hopefully he lands somewhere.
- Even though Cameron Holding has transferred out of Grand Valley
State, Greer is quite optimistic about his team in 2010. "We've got
a great freshman class coming in and I've got a couple of tricks up
my sleeve," he said.
- In his blog on Collegelax.us, Florida State head
coach Bill Harkins wrote that the Seminoles will play rival Florida
at Doak Campbell Stadium prior to FSU's spring game on Saturday,
April 10 at 3 p.m. Two thumbs up to the FSU athletic administration
for giving these two MCLA powers a chance to showcase their skills
on a cool stage.
- Jared and Jacob Houghton, who both played in 2007 for Denver
University, have returned from their Mormon mission and have
decided to transfer to BYU. According to a BYU release,
both were offered scholarships for the 2010 season by DU, but opted
for Provo instead. The identical twins, who both check in at
6-foot-3, 215-pounds, will certainly give the Cougars a boost in
the midfield. Seventy-five players are expected to try out for the
BYU squad, with practice beginning Aug. 31.
