He’s been a coach and/or an administrator in the MCLA essentially from the organization’s inception, so there's not much that Doug Carl hasn’t seen. In his current role as Director of Eligibility for the MCLA, Carl oversees one of the most important functions within the association.

To give a little insight into what he does – and maybe even dispense a little advice – Carl joins MCLA.us for a voyage on the “5 Questions” open seas.

MCLA: You’ve been in the MCLA for a long time and have seen just about every eligibility issue come up, occasionally with some serious repercussions. What’s the best advice you would give as programs assess their players’ eligibility status? What’s the first thing a coach new to the MCLA needs to understand about the process?

DC: The best advice is to make sure eligibility is checked and double-checked by one responsible adult. Many institutions want the players to handle all the logistics, which is all well and good in theory, but when you are talking about decisions regarding a program that might have a $100,000 operating budget, it makes sense to have oversight by the person who is seen by the outside world (and possibly the university) as the one ultimately responsible. As I wrote earlier, “Coaches, you might love your team, but you should not trust teenagers to make rational decisions when it comes to a game about which they are so passionate.”

MCLA: What’s the most common pitfall that teams fall into when it comes to eligibility?

DC: There are two big pitfalls. First, coaches sometimes go into the job thinking it is all about practice plans and looking good on the sideline. There is a lot of work involved that is not, strictly speaking, lacrosse.

Second, players are so passionate about playing lacrosse that they will delude themselves (and teammates, coaches etc.) about their eligibility. Some players have assumed they could "add a class later." Some players have assumed their team would never get to the playoffs, much less win. Two players assumed once they paid parking tickets, they could register, but then they couldn't get the classes they wanted/needed. Others assumed junior college classes counted. One player thought his appeal would be automatically granted, and others were just in denial.

It is possible – although I doubt it – that some just didn't know. Bottom line is you need to be a full-time student at the institution for which you are playing unless you are precluded by the institution from taking a full schedule OR are in the final academic term prior to graduation (in which case you need only take the class(es) necessary to graduate). Any other situation needs to be appealed to me via email. I have taught at both junior colleges and universities. I deal with the Americans with Disabilities Act every day, and am well versed as regards to the law in such cases.

MCLA: What’s the most gratifying part of your job as the Director of Eligibility? What’s the most challenging?

DC: The most gratifying part of eligibility is ensuring that every player, at the end of his four years, should be on the track to graduation. If not, it is their fault. I think we create a level playing field, but I really appreciate that we can, and do, make exceptions for things like co-op programs, student teaching, Americans with Disabilities Act, non-traditional academic terms, etc. I believe our eligibility process is much more streamlined and simple than the NCAA's. We have fewer rules and guidelines as we deal with one thing: spring lacrosse and the number of classes. By capping players eligibility at four years, I also think we are supporting the creation of post-collegiate lacrosse teams and leagues.

MCLA: Has the advent of the Internet made your job easier and helped avoid past issues? Has it streamlined the process at all?

DC: The internet both creates more work and makes researching easier. I get quite a few accusations regarding players who supposedly have used their eligibility and are still playing. Instead of calling the sports information director, I can now log on to a team's website and check to see each player's history. The problem is many teams – even in the NCAA – do not have accurate statistics. Luckily, our sport is still small enough that I can almost always track down the coach and get the answer. And, luckily, I think we can still trust the vast majority of our coaches to honestly answer whether a player participated in a given game/season. Overall it has been a great leveler. No one can hide. If you played, someone has video or stats.

MCLA: Eligibility aside, how has the MCLA changed since you first became involved? What are you seeing with the league that was unfathomable 20 years ago?

DC: The MCLA as a whole? Internally, I think we have evolved from a glorified frat/beer league to an entity that is a legitimate part of the greatest game in the world. We still have clubs that practice a few times a week and play ten games a year, but we also have teams that put in more practice time and play more games and are more visible on campus than some NCAA programs. Many of our programs have budgets that NCAA schools envy. And yes, I think some of our coaches are better than those at some NCAA schools. I think this can lead to a legitimate virtual varsity experience if a player wants, and for the player who just wants to play a few games, we allow that as well. High school players need to do their research and find the right fit.

Externally, I think NCAA lacrosse views us as a "Division IV" entity, which is a positive for us. We have redefined what "club lacrosse" can mean. That the NCAA lacrosse coaches talk with us regarding the referee contract issues, scrimmaging our teams, having our players on professional teams, having lacrosse professionals seeing the MCLA as a legitimate coaching opportunity, having the establishment view some of our coaches as legitimate lacrosse professionals. These things did not happen in the past, or happened in isolation. The biggest thing is that while the MCLA is still an organization of coaches, we now have a paid – therefor accountable – outside entity (Jac Coyne) looking out for our interests. This is a huge step.