Scholarships in the MCLA

AGuyThatLikesLax

I didn't think MCLA schools could offer scholarships for playing lacorsse?

"One really impressive thing to note from the press release is the announcement that Great Falls’ program will be able to offer scholarships for some players."

http://mcla.laxallstars.com/great-falls-to-add-mens-lacrosse-program/

503laxghost

There are no "MCLA schools".

There are NCAA and NAIA schools which have club lacrosse teams who play in the MCLA.

From the NCAA school perspective, club lacrosse is not under the athletic department, therefore it is not a sport.

The NAIA perspective is much fuzzier.

Great Falls is a NAIA school.

AGuyThatLikesLax

Yeah, I know. By MCLA school, I meant schools that play in the MCLA.

I thought for a school to play in the MCLA, that the school or team could not offer scholarships for a person to come and play lacrosse, reguardless if it was an NCAA or an NAIA school, club, virtual varsity, or varsity team?

Personally I'm torn on whether NAIA teams should play in the MCLA. I think there is an unfairness in that there are fully funded NAIA schools going up against self funded club teams that are hurting to play league dues. But on the otherside, there are many self funded club teams that are doing really well. But now if the NAIA schools are giving scholarships out to play, I think I would start leaning more towards them not being in the MCLA, or make them become a D1 team?? I don't know?

Could someone tell me if in fact teams are allowed to give scholarships to lacrosse players in the MCLA?

ChrisCurtis

@AGuyThatLikesLax I would recommend reading up on the MCLA Operating Policy as it seems to lay out very well what the MCLA allows. In answering your question two sections stick out.

1.4 Teams.
(a) MCLA participation shall be open to all intercollegiate men’s lacrosse teams that are recognized organizations at their academic institutions, but that do not compete in the NCAA.

3.2 Players.
(a) To be eligible to participate in MCLA sanctioned play, each player must:
(iii) not have been paid to play lacrosse (field or box) (whether currently or in the past), except for scholarships for tuition or other school costs;

My understanding of the above says that an NAIA team recognized by its school can give out scholarships as it wants. I cannot say whether any NAIA schools in the MCLA actually hand out scholarships or not though.

rperry013

As for the schools who cannot have a NCAA team (i.e. Title IX), Club Lacrosse Scholarships are Great. My question is, what happens to that athlete's NCAA eligibility after receiving 3-4 years of (hypothetical) Club Lacrosse Scholarship ... then transfers to a NCAA program?

503laxghost

@rperry013 Simplistically, NCAA eligibilty is connected to when a student is enrolled in school fulltime, not when they start playing a sport. NCAA D1 has a 5-year rule where all 4 years of eligiblity must be used in 5 years. NCAA D2/3 have a 10 semester/15-quarter rule, which would allow a student to have a gap in attending college and still maintain eligiblity.

Playing 4 years of MCLA and then going NCAA D1 for a year would work.

Theoretically, one could play 8 years if they attend school full time only in the spring, and plays MCLA first, then NCAA D2/3, as NCAA D2/3 would not recognize the 'club' sport?

rperry013

I never thought of it that way 503laxghost (school in the spring only, hmmm). Hopefully, there will be nothing stopping student-athletes from receiving scholarships ... regardless NCAA, NAIA, MCLA, NCLL, etc.

503laxghost

@rperry013 - fwiw

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/03/10/sports/20080310_SCHOLAR_GRAPHIC2.html

AGuyThatLikesLax

@ChrisCurtis Interesting. I guess I was wrong. Thanks for the insight.

lscheidemantle

please help what is the name of this head its urgent
http://www.e-lacrosse.com/2002/tech/mmtip3.jpg

JonnyB29

lscheidemantle said:
please help what is the name of this head its urgent
http://www.e-lacrosse.com/2002/tech/mmtip3.jpg

It's the old Gait/deBeer Wizard....

ekeown

The head is a Gait Wizard

NadzitsagaLacrosse

Yes, MCLA schools that are NAIA CAN offer scholarships, and at this time is fairly "unregulated" because NAIA does not yet consider lacrosse to be a "varsity" sport. Some state NCAA schools that have MCLA teams have very active club sport programs and provide in-state tuition to club-sport athletes that qualify academically. Also, out west there is WUE (Western Undergraduate Exchange) where students in one western state can attend a state university in another western state at a reduced rate. Also, dont forget about ACADEMIC and MERIT scholarships these are four-year schalorships. Do your homework. Check this article out

http://laxallstars.com/how-parents-and-kids-can-make-the-best-college-decision-together/

Cam

The coach is probably just lying to get players to look at his program. Private schools will give anyone who applies some form of scholarship unless they are both very wealthy and really at the bottom of their incoming class academically.

DRLax

It is important to recognize that there are scholarship limits for programs at all levels. A D1 program will have only 12.5 scholarships, and D2 only has 10.8 I believe. This means that the notion of a "full ride" scholarship is a complete myth. Even in D1, there may be only one player on a team that receives a full scholarship.
What I am more concerned with is how many programs in the MCLA can manage to entice some players by allowing them to just not pay dues? So far, none of the coaches I have talked to ever let a player play for free, but a few did say that they would consider it for a talented hard luck case. As a coach myself, I think that allowing that to happen would require me to raise dues on the rest of the team to create "scholarship" program, but I think that defeats the purpose of the MCLA.

BCGeneral30

Why would that defeat the purpose of the MCLA?

DRLax

That is specifically the dilemma I ponder, "What is the purpose of the MCLA?" If it is to get as many people as possible the opportunity to play in college, then there is no problem with subsidizing that participation. If the purpose is have an organization that provides competitive lacrosse for programs that don't have varsity lacrosse, there is also no problem with scholarships. Now if the purpose of the MCLA is to have a governing body to maintain a fair and level playing field, allowing scholarships or players without dues warps that playing field in favor of programs that can afford to do so. As a coach, I forget sometimes that the MCLA was built upon the backs of programs that were created and run by students, where the notion of a few players being more valuable than others was considered absurd.
I guess that in the end, I feel that college, and especially "club" sports should be about taking ownership of your experience. When a player doesn't have to financially invest anything into their opportunity to play, how can they be truly involved in the program? Would I love to see everyone get a chance to participate, to not have to pay to play, and for everyone to have the same chance at success...absolutely. Since that is not the case, and thousands of talented players sit on the bench or get cut from large programs every year, I look to the MCLA as a place for those players to rally and say, "I play for the love of the game." The culture HAS changed to one where even teams in the MCLA are made up of players who play for a school because dollars given mean more to them than dollars invested. I don't believe there is any stopping this transition, and I will likely give out discounts to players in need in the future, but I do not think it is the purpose of the MCLA to see how much we can be like the NCAA, and one of the biggest steps is this evolution in recruiting.

SharkAttack08

DRLax said:
That is specifically the dilemma I ponder, "What is the purpose of the MCLA?" If it is to get as many people as possible the opportunity to play in college, then there is no problem with subsidizing that participation. If the purpose is have an organization that provides competitive lacrosse for programs that don't have varsity lacrosse, there is also no problem with scholarships. Now if the purpose of the MCLA is to have a governing body to maintain a fair and level playing field, allowing scholarships or players without dues warps that playing field in favor of programs that can afford to do so. As a coach, I forget sometimes that the MCLA was built upon the backs of programs that were created and run by students, where the notion of a few players being more valuable than others was considered absurd.
I guess that in the end, I feel that college, and especially "club" sports should be about taking ownership of your experience. When a player doesn't have to financially invest anything into their opportunity to play, how can they be truly involved in the program? Would I love to see everyone get a chance to participate, to not have to pay to play, and for everyone to have the same chance at success...absolutely. Since that is not the case, and thousands of talented players sit on the bench or get cut from large programs every year, I look to the MCLA as a place for those players to rally and say, "I play for the love of the game." The culture HAS changed to one where even teams in the MCLA are made up of players who play for a school because dollars given mean more to them than dollars invested. I don't believe there is any stopping this transition, and I will likely give out discounts to players in need in the future, but I do not think it is the purpose of the MCLA to see how much we can be like the NCAA, and one of the biggest steps is this evolution in recruiting.

Amen.... seriously amen. This is what I have been preaching time and time again. The MCLA provides so much more than lacrosse. This is an experience in which young men get to take ownership of something and be a part of or run an organization like they would in the real world. The best programs (at least in the beginning) are the one in which off the field activity is taken just as serious as the on-field experience. The programs that don't take ownership at the student level are the most vulnerable.

I have been saying for years now that the MCLA is missing out on cashing in on this idea. This is what sets them apart. I believe there should be an initiative on the end of the MCLA to inform and empower member teams. Make sure they understand the importance of taking ownership in what they have and creating something longer lasting. It's not just about lacrosse.

AGuyThatLikesLax

How long until the NAIA starts to sponsor lacrosse? How many NAIA schools have lacrosse? 35-40? I know the WHAC has started a lacrosse tourney of some sorts for their schools with lacrosse. How long, 5-10 years?

CoachJolyMBU

50 to be recognized by NAIA as an "emerging sport" closer to 75-100 to get things more organized from there (conferences, tournaments, etc.)

6x6

DRLax,
I think you are making generalizations or incorrect assumptions. Do you think that every kid on a "club" team is "financially" invested and paying their own dues. So no parents on any of the 200+ teams is paying for their kid to play, either by actually writing the check or giving the kid enough discretionary $$ and support for him to pay his dues? A kid may be making the Dean's list every semester, never misses practice or a game and generally busts his ass but he isn't "truly involved in the program" because he isn't "financially" invested? You also seem to suggest that a kid going to a private school that costs $40k a year and getting a lax scholarship of $5k or $7,500 can't be financially invested as a kid paying $600 dues at a school that costs $15k to attend? I suggest that those receiving a scholarship and the demands that comes with accepting it, may be more invested in their program.

I'm assuming the "absurd" notion that some are not treated differently or more valuable in the MCLA is simply you reminiscing. Some kids are given special treatment on teams. Especially when the president (or board members) of the club may be the one getting special treatment because he's one of the best players.

In summary, I believe the level playing field argument is really up to each individual program. Traditional MCLA programs have proven they can be very sucessful and NAIA programs with scholarships have shown that just because a school is treated as a varisty sport, doesn't guarantee anything.

DRLax

6x6,
Before I posted I considered all of those arguments you made, which are all very valid. I realize that the game has changed, witnessed the transition during my own playing days, which included both private school and public MCLA schools. I am not going to argue that "money earned is better than money given," as college in general is a process of students learning to manage finances vs. aspirations.
As I stated at the end of my comments, I would love for the MCLA to manage to be all things to all people, but it isn't. The decision we face moving forward is how to level the field without doing harm to the institutions or restrict opportunity for growth. This should not be, "up to each individual program," but rather should be a consensus among member schools to ensure that there aren't abuses of the system. Efforts have already been started to realign the divisions in the MCLA, as the old BCS school model no longer fits the evolution of the competitive balance.
I am curious if the new paradigm will include the regular use of scholarships and incentives by programs that could potentially become varsity soon? I don't believe most players today would mind paying a little more if it meant they could land a star recruit who will help them compete at the next level. The NAIA may be less than a decade away from having their own tournament, but that doesn't mean they should. What I can say for certain is that schools that have not traditionally had support from their schools, and are in no position to subsidize players, will never be able to consistently compete with the schools that do. This may sound like old news, or me "reminiscing" for a simpler time, but I think it is sad to see traditional rivalries give way to cold fiscal reality, and for players to not have a link to or an understanding of the history of club lacrosse is simply criminal.

6x6

DR,
You make valid, well thought out points and I agree the MCLA has probably made a long transition from it's beginnings to what it is now and will continue to evolve.

I guess I failed to articulate my point about each program having the power to keep the playing field level with NAIA schools or those with strong school support. As long as schools are playing under the same rules and guidelines, it is up to each program. Just because a school has a fulltime coach paid by the school doesn't guarantee success or one with a part-time poorly paid or volunteer can't compete for a NC. I'd suggest the successful ones have higher dues, travel to ooc games and consistently run their programs at a high level.

Thisguy161

A couple of points of consideration in the NAIA debate:

1. Not all the NAIA schools give out "scholarships" to play, and of the ones that do, they are not all equal. Its not as if every NAIA team is giving out large amounts of scholarship money. Some give out none. Some give just a little bit. Roping all the NAIA teams together as doing the same thing is incorrect. Something like the Podesta proposal to make them all be MCLA-1 would be very difficult for many of those squads, since most are among the smallest enrolments in the MCLA and can struggle for numbers and many would be unable to compete.

2. Its not as if these NAIA schools hold every advantage. The large state schools often have much larger enrollments and much smaller tuitions. It can be hard for NAIA schools to find enough players sometimes. The larger universities can find players that just decided to attend school there. Often, NAIA schools dont have the name recognition of these larger schools when it comes to decision day. Many of the NAIA schools have higher tuitions as well, so its hard to say these players arent financially invested.

3. Having a scholarship to give doesnt automatically give an NAIA school the leg up on the most talented players. Student-athletes will (most of the time) make a decision based on a litany of factors, not just if they can get a scholarship or not. Players are going to go to the school they like the most, usually.

4. While some of the NAIA schools have found great success, it's not as though the MCLA has become dominated by them. You still have your Colorado State's and BYU's and Grand Valley's and Dayton's on top of the heap. The NAIA and NCAA schools can compete together. You will always have schools with some advantages and disadvantages. And in the end, the players get to get an education and play lacrosse. That seems pretty neat.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories