Skip navigation.
Home
Walax
Home

Should the Middle School League have a "State Championship"?

Submitted by walax on Fri, 2006-09-08 21:20.
Yes
65% (26 votes)
No
35% (14 votes)
Total votes: 40
» login or register to post comments | 447 reads

Democracy? I don't think so.

Submitted by belax on Thu, 2006-09-21 08:14.

Take a look at these numbers. It's a small sampling, but I believe it is true. Good work ladies and gentlemen.

» login or register to post comments

It's Official - No Middle school State Championships!

Submitted by walax on Wed, 2006-09-20 13:13.

By an almost overwhelming majority, coaches and board members dropped the Middle School state championships this year at the board meeting held this week.

» login or register to post comments

A lesson in life

Submitted by belax on Thu, 2006-09-21 08:09.

I guess it's a good lesson in life. The kids will learn that somebody else will make decisions for them in their best interests for the rest of their lives. I think it's called "paternalism".
The system worked fine. Why change it?

» login or register to post comments

MS Finals

Submitted by BlindJustice on Thu, 2006-09-14 15:10.

MS is a "developing league". The players, and coaches, should be focused on gaining skills and knowledge. A "State Finals" at this level places the emphasis on making it to state. Decisions made in game scheduling, practices, and game participation are made to ensure the team wins a state championship.

A State Championship for Middle School detracts from the goals of this league. There is plenty of time in HS for State.

» login or register to post comments

That's BlindJustice, alright..

Submitted by ex-lax22 on Fri, 2006-09-15 00:55.

Your statement 'Decisions made in game scheduling, practices, and game participation are made to ensure the team wins a state championship' certainly provides a blind, blanket indictment of all involved. I'm guessing some think the thousands of volunteer hours parents, coaches, etc put in were for some grander purpose.(??)

» login or register to post comments

A & B has given developing teams a chance to "compete"

Submitted by ex-lax22 on Thu, 2006-09-14 08:57.

I've been very impressed by the league's drive to generate new growth and create opportunities for new teams to find an “appropriate level" of play. A & B is a designation by the club or coach. Nothing more. If a single team club has an exp'd crew and wants to enter "A" they can (e.g. Northshore in 2006).

Arguably, any of the big (read "growth-oriented clubs") e.g. MI, Bell, Bain, Iss could dissolve their A teams into one level set of teams and pound most teams in B (or some that errently entered A last season) What would be the point? What segmentation in those clubs allows is for is a youth club (and/or HS coach building his program) to identify experienced kids, ready to learn advanced skills and game strategy while allowing the new ahletes to learn to throw and catch, scoop and cradle so they can advance effectively to the HS level. It also provides a "warning label" to a new/young team coach to "schedule at your own risk" and not get games where it’s 10-0 end of 1st Q and a team is running their offense and then tossing the ball over the end line to keep the score down. The A/B Divisions were aligned so teams didn't "have" to play each other until the playoffs at which point they'd get a chance to prove themselves if they had misclassified themselves in B or simply developed well in season.

I would expect the A Division to continue to expand (like I assume D-1 Varsity will) until a majority are in it. There's no reason MI, Bain or Iss couldn't field 2 or 3 "A" teams if they determine they have a sufficient number of exp'd kids -- and the solo teams will continue to get better.

Let's not question club's/peoples's motives for how they coach their kids or complain about what structure’s in place. If someone's got a proactive proposal, they should lay it out. I'm sure the "powers that be" will include it in the annual debate on structure.

There's no clear answer on the structure . Many good people have debated the issue long and hard. The one thing most are clear on: Promote and grow the game, create a place for kids to play and find competitive games (read “appropriate level”), let them all reach for the brass ring by having a route to the playoffs.

I doubt anyone could show me a kid that didn't sign-up for or who'd quit lacrosse because he's on a "B" level team. He wouldn't know it and it wouldn't matter. Show me a new team that had to play ANY team from MI, Bellv, Bain, Iss, QA, UP, Snohomish, Northshore each week their first season and I'll show you 10 PARENTS looking for their baseball mitts. (The kids would still want to play!)

» login or register to post comments

So what is best?

Submitted by Bob on Wed, 2006-09-13 10:18.

Is it best then to have an A and a B group at each youth level? Then have an A playoff and a B playoff?

» login or register to post comments

yes

Submitted by belax on Wed, 2006-09-13 21:15.

It works at the HS level. This way like talent plays like talent, and as programs progress they move up just like HS.

» login or register to post comments

It's counter productive

Submitted by OUFG84 on Sat, 2006-09-09 09:35.

At this point in Washington Lacrosse we are still primarily focused on developing the sport. Having state titles at this point just causes big divisions and you end up with "select teams" (the A division) within the regular league. If you want a select team that is what Starz is for.

I think having such a gap between the A and B team discourages many from participating.

» login or register to post comments

Submitted by ex-lax22 on Thu, 2006-09-14 08:52.

» login or register to post comments

Why bother?

Submitted by belax on Mon, 2006-09-11 08:51.

Keeping score in games, that is. A lacrosse game is a competative event. So, there will inevitably be a winner and a loser. Have you ever tried to coach a bunch of kids at this level? practice is fun for about the first week, then they want to play, compete. Winning and losing are both parts of development. If you want to see even more kids leave the game out of frustration, then go ahead and drop playoffs. Playoffs are part of every other sport starting at the earliest levels. My boys have been involved in playoffs in everything from basketball through chess since they were in 3rd grade and they continue to come back win or lose.
Your final coment is baseless and false. We are human therefore competative it is our nature.

» login or register to post comments

Being Competitive vs. Winning

Submitted by OUFG84 on Mon, 2006-09-11 12:27.

I don't have an issue with competition or playoffs, as long as it's actually competitive and doesn't bring out the worst things competition sometimes can. We have plenty of time for that after we are better established (like little league).

The A and B divisions were started because some programs were stacking one of their MS school teams in an effort to win the title (without the title, there is no reason for this). Having the A and B divisions in a single playoff is absurd (like having the Seahawks play the UW, or a little league playoff between a triple A and a majors team).

Look at last years results, the games between A and B teams were all blowouts except in one case. I thought the goal was development, not "just winning". If the high schools went at it this way we wouldn't have 2 divisions, and 2 sets of playoffs. Because of the way HS has been set up, teams can compete at the appropriate level, earn a move up in division, and the talent pool grows. Even in Chess they rate the players, and the tournaments are set up by rating.

My concern is that when you have (one) playoff at the stage we are at (more inexperience than experience in the general player pool) people can be driven by "winning" more than competition, and the goal of development gets lost. It seems we have seen some of this even seep into the 5th 6th level, where some programs had considerable inequities between their own teams.

Just my opinion.

» login or register to post comments

I agree, but.

Submitted by belax on Tue, 2006-09-12 09:22.

Winning is not everything, but there is a significant difference in the level of play among the different programs at all levels. I have been coaching at the 3-4 and 5-6 level for 3 years, and am the person you are referring too. I would like to clarify your point, we had 2 teams at the 5-6 level last year, both of which ended the season undefeated against in state opponents, including post season tournaments. Both teams had joint practices all year long which truly increased the level of play on both teams. Everyone on both teams had the opportunity to play equally, so everyone improved. Our intersquad scrimmages were the most competative games either team had all year. So, the rumor of one of our 5-6 teams being somehow "select" is absolutely false.
Returning to the point of 7-8 playoffs, maybe the board should split 7-8 into division 1 and 2 along the same lines as the HS divisions. Because the same programs that are strong at the HS level also have strong 7-8, 5-6, and even 3-4 programs. Developing this sport in this State is a commitment, and it appears some programs are more commited than others.
Also, my opinion.

» login or register to post comments

Follow-up

Submitted by OUFG84 on Thu, 2006-09-14 15:50.

I was not thinking of a specific program at 5-6 when I made that comment. I can think of at least 4 that had significant talent gaps between their teams.

I agree with you that my original statement about the gap between the A and B teams discouraging play being false and baseless. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it was a stupid thing to say.

My main point was, and still is, based on the current goals of development given the stage we are at.

We still want brand new teams to develop and improve. If one of the teams you mentioned in your program played a new team, made totally up of rookies, that would be kind of purposeless and horribly one sided. Soccer, football, baseball , etc don't have this issue because it's rare for a kid to join up at 6th grade (much less 7th or 8th) never having played before. It's almost unheard of for a whole team of new players to show up. In our sport, at this time, it's actually pretty common. I just don't want that to turn into a problem when it comes to growth and development.

» login or register to post comments

I agree.

Submitted by belax on Fri, 2006-09-15 09:06.

It's also not fun for the adavance team, and as one of the other coments states. it is the parents who are more hurt by the disparity. More than 90% of kids would be inspired to improve. I don't disagree with you that the sport is developing, and that the leagues should encourage that.

» login or register to post comments

I agree.

Submitted by belax on Fri, 2006-09-15 09:06.

It's also not fun for the adavance team, and as one of the other coments states. it is the parents who are more hurt by the disparity. More than 90% of kids would be inspired to improve. I don't disagree with you that the sport is developing, and that the leagues should encourage that.

» login or register to post comments

what is the point?

Submitted by dlax2008 on Sat, 2006-09-09 02:19.

I think its a good idea to have that level of competition, but Middle School ballers may just need to be league champions. State Champions are reserved for Varsity players.

» login or register to post comments