2. If you are on a club team putting in that kind of work, you are the exception, not the rule

I thought that way, until I myself got involved with MCLA lacrosse. I didn’t even know there was a difference between NCLL, MCLA, NECLL, etc club teams. The only difference, as far as I can tell, between the NCAA, and the club organizations, are the rules governing them, and the support systems in place. The commitment by players, staffs, and schools vary widely at all levels of all institutions. You say NCAA IS BETTER THAN CLUB HAHAHA, I can point to Michigan the last 3 years and let them go play Rivier. You can say MCLA IS REAL, NCLL IS BAD BEER LEAGUE, I am sure Salisbury’s club team could man handle half the teams in the MCLA Div II, and half the teams in NCAA Div III. There is no qualifier that says my experience is different playing NCAA, MCLA, NCLL, or some independent club team. 

The guy who said Montclair State would destroy ASU or CSU earlier, thats a joke. My uncle played for Montclair, his name alone got me noticed by them, Kean, and a few others in Jersey. I have watched ASU and Colorado the last couple of years, and ASU wins that hands down. Dylan Westoff is a talented player regardless of the 4 letter tag you stick to his name and MSU would have difficulties with him no matter who he is playing for.

You’re saying that MCLA teams arent as committed as NCAA teams, you go tell that to the United States Coast Guard Academy. Those guys are dedicated, talented, and draw players from all over the US with lots of talent (From MD and CT and LI as much as anywhere else) They’re not playing club, they’re dedicated military men who, on top of doing all the things NCAA athletes do, are preparing to defend our country. Compare them to Mitchell, in the same town, who have been on the bottom of DIII for years. Briarcliffe right now, which is drawing a ton of Long Island talent, is better right now, than they were as NCAA D II squad. I know, I have seen them play at both levels. When they were NCAA D II, they had 12 guys, all incredibly talented players, and lost to DIII teams because they couldn’t run with you. That Briarcliffe team in spring 2008 would absolutely NOT be competing for an MCLA championship, thats for sure. Pagano has taken that team from a joke in the NCAA to a national contender in the MCLA because his school, his staff, and his team work to be there, not because theres a brand label saying the NCAA is this and the MCLA is that.

Where am I going with this? Well, I’ll tell you. The team and its players, staff, and school officials dictate what level that team competes at. Not the governing body they play for. There are varsity teams in the MCLA. There are talented NCAA D 1 athletes in the NCLL. There are kids who have no business playing college lacrosse in all of those leagues who pick up the sport to drink with their friends and can manage because they are great athletes (yes, there are, whether you like it or not, those guys in NCAA from D1 to D3.) 

With so few teams of “varsity” status out west, the MCLA is their varsity. I don’t even consider the MCLA a club league in the same way despite the bottom 100 teams in the NCAA (all divisions together) being at or around the same level, we don’t call them club. Rather than complain about who is better than whom, or what banner is better or who isn’t getting more exposure, revel in what we are witnessing in lacrosse. We get to see this game boom the way the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL exploded centuries ago. We are a part of this experience no matter what level we are participating in, and when I look back at my experience I am not going to care about which league I played for, I am going to care about the other great stuff that came along with it.

Playing post collegiate lacrosse where I do now, I get to go up against all conference guys from DII and DIII teams. The talent gap isn’t what people would think it would be. I’ve been able to hold my own against these guys even though I didn’t play at their level. I think there are a lot of great and committed athletes at MCLA school but the fact of the matter is that the coaching isn’t there for a lot of MCLA teams. 

I think that as the high school game continues to explode and NCAA lacrosse doesn’t grow, more and more high school athletes will turn to the MCLA. As a high school senior, would you rather play MCLA lacrosse at a school like Oregon or University of San Diego or would you rather play NCAA DIII lacrosse somewhere like Cortland State or Dickinson (NCAA DIII quarterfinalists in 2011)?

The MCLA gets a lot of coverage online because a lot of MCLA athletes are use to running their programs and know that the only way the MCLA will get coverage is if they cover it themselves.

     In reference to the issue of commitment. I dont think anyone is downplaying the sacrifice NCAA athletes make, but
it would be ignorant to simply list all the sacrifices without
addressing the advantages they have over an MCLA team. NCAA teams overall commit much more time than MCLA teams, that is not up for debate. But what hasnt been monetioned much is that they have the means to commit this time. Even at small schools, teams that are considered varsity rarely have to deal with the problems of even the most established MCLA teams. My particular MCLA team, which is not a top 5 DI we are a top 20 DII school, has regular 5am practices in the weight room or gymnasium during January leading up to the season. However, as rain is usually a problem and the school did not have a turf field until recently, we were often kicked out, even having gone through the proper channels in reserving the venue, by varsity teams that needed an indoor venue, including soccer and Women’s Volleyball who were not even in season. This would happen without warning leaving 35 willing and committed athletes out in the rain at 5am. The desire to put in the work or the commitment is there but the means are not. Also, an NCAA student-athlete has to be just that, a student and an
athlete, the athletic department and coaching staff takes it from there.
But in many cases, in most cases, there is no administrative staff for
an MCLA team short of the club officers and captains, and one or two
coaches. Sometimes the club sports dept will help but for the most part
the team budget, scheduling, equipment and apparel orders, eligibility
issues, travel etc. are handled by a group of 18-23 year-olds trying to balance a full academic course load with a full practice schedule.
    There has also been mention of the finances. Even if the NCAA player doesnt recieve a dime of athletic scholarship help, the financial burden is still several thousand dollars more for the MCLA player. Most MCLA teams that are committed, and there are many more than you would think, pay anywhere from $1000-$3000 to play in addition to the expensive equipment needed. I dont think theres any room for discussion, MCLA athletes commit more financially.
     Academics is a very tricky issue in this debate. In many ways MCLA and NCAA athletes are held to the same academic standards. The MCLA uses slightly modified NCAA DIII eligibility requirements. While we’ve established that the time commitment that would impede upon a students academic progress is greater in the NCAA, I would argue that they are given tools to balance the workload that do not exist in the MCLA. As club athletes, MCLA students are not given priority enrollment. This may seem like a small advantage but it can mean the difference between playing or not, or even fielding a team or not. Without this, it can be difficult to schedule around practices, especially in majors that require labs or a significant extra committment. In some cases, where budget cuts limit the number of classes offered, teams must deal with rampant ineligibility because students could not even pick up enough units. Do you think an NCAA team’s season would ever be threatened because of lack of available classes?
     Finally, with regards to exposure, I think it is naive to think that the MCLA takes time or fans away from NCAA teams. The bottom line is that, while there are 83 more schools in the 3 divisions of the NCAA than in the 2 divisions of the MCLA, the overall student population and the national name recognition belong to the MCLA. That translates into the highest number of NEW lacrosse fans. I have been around the MCLA for most of my life through my family and now Im playing in it. I am an MCLA fan so I want to read about MCLA lacrosse. Nothing against these teams but I am typically not interested, even if the lacrosse is better, in the outcome of the Mercyhurst vs Merrimack game just as they dont care about the Saint Mary’s – UC Santa Cruz game. Many people like myself read LAS and previously CollegeLax because thats where we can get information on the teams and the games we want to follow. If LAS stopped following the MCLA and stepped up their coverage of DII and DIII I wouldnt suddenly become a Tufts fan I would just stop visiting LAS (no offense).
     Overall there just arent enough NCAA teams to support the explosion of youth and high school players that love the game and want to continue to play. I think the Michigan model of transition is great but unrealistic for most schools. The way I see growth happening, especially in the west is not on the institutional level but on the conference level. For example, I can see a conference like the WCC adding somewhere down the line. All member schools with the exception of USF have a history of stable competative club lacrosse teams. With the exception of BYU and to a lesser extent USD, big time football wont pose a title IX problem, and the small school model matches some of the east coast demographics. I just dont think one team from any conference wants to be the first and/or only west coast team. Regardless of who moves up or when they do, growth at any and every level can do more to help the game than to hurt it.

http://mcla.us/news/2012/01/mcla-responds-to-selc-allegations/ 

My $0.02; I played at a Top 25 DIII school, had a lot of success there and a great time. We had several players get cut every season and they in turn transferred to other lower level NCAA schools and a few to big name MCLA schools. Now, I know these players excelled at the club level as I still kept in contact. One of the biggest reasons they excelled was they received a chance to play and become a better lacrosse player. At that same time can they step on the field now in say a summer tournament like Lake Placid, compete and be recognized. Probably not, because they never reached that level. The MCLA is a different level all together, a lower level at that. The attitude towards athletics is different because the commitment is less, but there is a lacrosse program for everyone so no matter where a player ends up if they are happy at that school/team then good for them.

The argument needs to cease, Arizona State would beat Southwestern in Texas; however, they would not come close to beating Montclair State or even St. Leo, two mid-level NCAA programs. So that’s that. If you’re happy playing lacrosse where you’re playing then be happy with your decision and don’t try to compare. Brag all you want about your school, your championships, and the points you scored for your school…but, when you step on the field against other players from other divisions and you can’t back it up it should be humbling. There’s a reason most players choose club over NCAA, that’s the lifestyle/culture of the school and the commitment to the team.

The MCLA does not allow teams at NCAA schools with varsity men’s lacrosse teams, so the analogy with the hockey club team is irrelevant.  It speaks well to their maturity, and may speak to the immaturity on display on both sides of this argument, but it’s apples and oranges when applied further.