Talk:Major League Lacrosse

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Major League Lacrosse/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Rating== Reasons I rated this article as Start class: Lack of references. The only references are in relation to expansion Lack of images - there's only the logo and a map All of the actual text is in a single section at the beginning No mention of the history of the league (though I suppose it's only 6 years old) No mention of the season structure (do all teams play all other teams, or do they play more against teams in their own conference, etc.) or playoff structure (How many teams make the playoffs? How is it decided who plays who? Single game elimination or best of 3/5/7?) --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The article MLL Team Capsules is out of date, poorly maintained, and orphaned. Perhaps it might get more attention if it was merged here. Powers ^T 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Each individual team capsules appear (or should appear) on the individual team pages. Redirecting MLL Team Capsules to this page makes sense to me. -Mitico (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe all the info on that page was taken from other pages already est. I redirected that page to the main one Smith03 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Machine and Ohio Machine

I don't care one way or the other,but would like to know how the MLL treats the Chicago Machine and the Ohio Machine. Does the MLL consider them one franchise two cities or two different franchise. any info or sources from the team or league would be great. Smith03 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-pro or Pro?

First discussion (2013)

There has been an edit war going on for a few months now on the correct description for MLL. The reliable sources in favor of the "semi-pro" label include the 2013 Wall Street Journal story cited in the article, which describes the players as part time players with other jobs. Merriam-Webster defines semi-pro as "paid to participate in a sport or activity but not doing it as a full-time job." That seems pretty clear cut that MLL is semi-pro. I am not aware of any independent secondary reliable sources provided by the editors who keep deleting the "semi-pro" description and the sourced salary info. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as one might guess since I've reverted similar edits before. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that the salary info needs to be in the first sentence, so long as it appears with the reliable source given somewhere in the article, to back up the semi-pro classification. Putting it right up frog seems a bit undue weight and argumentative. oknazevad (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Second discussion (2015)

@Cakeane: Please discuss here before making further changes. Be careful you do not blow the 3 revert rule by changing it back before consensus is garnered by the editing community. The reason that the term "Semi-Professional" is used is because of the definition of Semi-Professionalism is that a sport does not usually pay enough to be a fulltime job without side jobs. The 2013 WSJ (Not 5 years ago, 2) stated that they are semi-professionals. All of the sources you provided were unreliable and many were not even sources. Even then, they did not establish that lacrosse players in general make enough money to work full time. It is not a disparaging term to be semi-professional. Jcmcc (Talk) 23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Major League Lacrosse is considered a professional lacrosse league amongst many sources, the players, fans, and the League itself. It is not considered semi-professional so by deeming it one on wikipedia is inaccurate. The salary information is also no longer accurate per League sources, that information is not given to the public and I know the amounts listed are not accurate. It can be called the premier outdoor lacrosse league but not semi-professional as that is not what it is. If you look at any source online in recent years, it is considered a professional lacrosse league. A lot of players make a living off of playing in major league lacrosse with outside sponsors including Paul Rabil who makes over $1,000,000.00 per year now. These Players play lacrosse year round and are under contract for the entire year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeane (talk • contribs) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide Reliable Sources to back this up? I understand you probably have a much wider knowledge about the current state of lacrosse than me. (I am but a Wikipedia editor, the only sport I ever played was soccer when I was 12). But Wikipedia doesn't run off of hearsay or "primary sources". Wikipedia uses secondary sources. This means the primary source of information that belongs is information published by a reliable secondary source. When two sources conflict, it is up to the community to decide what will be used.

Not a single editor.

No matter how much knowledge you might personally have, it doesn't belong if you can't find a strong secondary source to back it up.

The sources you provided, the first, second, and third are great sources... but they don't contradict that the sport is a semi-professional sport. They dont establish that the players make enough money to sustain themselves fully. The 4rth, 5th, and 6th (as of this time of writing) are not reliable sources and fail WP:RS. I honestly don't care one way or another if lacrosse is *actually* a semi-professional or not. What I do care about is an accurate article. Accuracy can only be established on Wikipedia through Reliable Secondary Sources. Jcmcc (Talk) 02:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All I am trying to get across is that the source your are citing is inaccurate. The salaries have never been made public first of all which is why there are no newer articles stating anything contradicting the article you cited, however, the salaries listed are not accurate to today's standards which is why it should be omitted. As for the semi-professional/professional/premier, I don't know what constitutes as a "reliable" source to wikipedia standards. There are business journals calling it professional lacrosse, newspapers calling it professional lacrosse, etc. The NCAA (whom I deem to be reliable) recognizes it as professional lacrosse, which is why per NCAA bylaw 12.2.2.4 Draft List; "An individual loses amateur status in a particular sport when the individual asks to be placed on the draft list or supplemental draft list of a professional league in that sport..." It is noted that Collegiate players will lose all NCAA eligibility if registering for any draft prior to their Collegiate career being over in Major League Lacrosse. I do believe the community would consider Major League Lacrosse a professional league, and as I saw in previous edits, I am not the only one in the past who has tried to adjust it as so. Let me know what can be done so we can have the outdated source removed and add a definition that is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.109.66 (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Until you can supply a genuine, second-or-third-party reliable source, then it is the most recent, accurate information we have. Pretty much what we have here is an article from The Wall Street Journal, one of the most respected newspapers in the country, which explicitly calls it semi-professional (which means players are paid, but on a part time basis, not unpaid at all like you claimed) quoting salary figures to back up the statement, versus the say-so of a single person on the internet who makes claims that they're wrong without actually goving sources for the information. One belongs in the article, one does not. And it's not the say-soot an anonymous internet poster. oknazevad (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How about someone from the League Office who handles all of that stating that the article you are referring to is inaccurate. I believe that would be a bit more reliable than something from three years ago. The NCAA explicitly considers it a "professional" league as per their bylaws stated above. Again, there is no new articles because that information is not made public so the numbers you are quoting are inaccurate. If your job is to find accuracy in posts, then that should be taken down. Also, while we are on the subject, is woman's soccer considered professional? According to the wiki page it is yet the salaries range to no more than $30,000.00 per business insider (reliable source). Can that be explained????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Professional_Soccer http://www.businessinsider.com/womens-small-soccer-salaries-are-fair-2015-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.109.66 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Women%27s_Soccer_League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeane (talk • contribs) 12:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And here you go - Wall Street Journal (Reliable Source) stating it as professional lacrosse in a more recent article, 2014. Please adjust now. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323716304578483290272596484 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakeane (talk • contribs) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a 2014 Sporting News article that is consistent with the 2012 WSJ article. I have restored the cite to the 2012 WSJ article. I have also added a more recent CNN article from 2015. The text now says that salaries are "reported" in the $10-25k range. If someone has citations to reliable sources with different info, please add them, but do not remove existing cites to reliable sources. CUA 27 (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Third discussion (2017)

The question is not only one of sources, but one of common usage. In standard American English, the term "semi-professional" has an established meaning. It applies to the myriad local football leagues which consist of area players in their 30s and 40s. It can also apply to something like the American Ultimate Disc League, in which teams travel between regions, but there is almost no salary paid to players. To use this term for the MLL, a league which represents the highest level in the world of a traditional sport and which has its games shown on national television, is absurd.

The fact that the MLL's players tend to have other jobs is irrelevant. Even a league in which players have off-season jobs can be a professional league; if not, then the NFL and baseball's American League and National League would have to be deemed semi-professional until the mid-1970s. Almost all the players in baseball's minor leagues have other jobs (perhaps apart from the high draft picks who have been given large signing bonuses); yet no one doubts that these are professional leagues.

It's a matter also of self-identification (the MLL calls itself a professional league), and of identification by related bodies (the NCAA considers the MLL a professional league).

By all of these standards, this is a professional league. Furthermore, several sources have agreed with this characterisation, and have even demonstrated that some players make quite a lot of money indeed (with one player making a million dollars a year). The existence of a stray article here or there that uses the term "semi-professional" should not be enough to negate the established fact of this league's professional status.

So all of the instances of "semi-professional" to describe the MLL are fundamentally wrong, and should be replaced by the appropriate descriptor "professional".

Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue here on the talk page. I'm glad we both agree that the established meaning of "semi-professional" in American English is important here. Let's look at how WP:Reliable sources define the term. As stated above in a 2013 post, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines semi-professional as "paid to participate in a sport or activity but not doing it as a full-time job." That's exactly what the multiple cites in this article establish -- ie, MLL players practice once per week during summer months, and players cannot live off of the MLL salary alone. In light of this definition, your unsupported argument that "The fact that the MLL's players tend to have other jobs is irrelevant" is at odds with this reliable source. Your argument re self-identification is not persuasive either; Major League Lacrosse is not considered one of the "major league" sports, despite the fact that is calls itself one, just as Major League Ultimate was not considered major league. Finally, your argument that MLL is professional because it is on TV is not persuasive either. TV coverage is not the same as professionalism; NCAA football and NCAA basketball are shown widely on TV, yet the NCAA classifies both sports as amateur. CUA 27 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have left unadressed the implications of your position, to wit: if MLL players are semi-professional, then so were NFL players and Major League Baseball players (save for a small handfull) up until the mid-1970s, as almost all of them worked other jobs and could not support themselves entirely from from the income made from their sport. And all the players in baseball's minor leagues would have to count as semi-professional, as the pay rates when you get down to Class A ball are lower even than those in the MLL. Yet, clearly, no one takes this position. No one takes this position because it is at odds with the established usage of the term "semi-professional" in the context of sports.

Also, I did not claim that being on television alone makes an entity a professional league. I pointed to MLL's presence on national television (it has been carried in recent years by ESPN and by CBS Sports) as one of the factors that establish its status as a major league. By comparison, semi-pro leagues such as the American Ultimate Disc Leagues or Major League Ultimate tend to be carried at best on ESPN3, which is not a television network but an online-only platform.

Most convincing in establishing that the MLL counts as a professional league is the NCAA's classification of it as such. This on its own is enough to resolve the question, and to obviate any dissent.

When Wikipedia articles on the MLL and its teams insist on a highly unfamiliar usage of the term "semi-professional", this amounts to an abdication of the mission of Wikipedia to describe the world as it is by reference to the most relevant sources and authorities. The improper act of imposing a strange and idiosyncratic usage of a well-established term seriously undermines Wikipedia's utility and validity.

Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's weigh the competing definitions offered here for "semi-professional". On the one hand we have a reference to a reliable source, ie the Merriam-Webster dictionary. On the other hand, we have an editor's opinion that contradicts the dictionary definition but does actually define the term in a coherent way and does not point to any reliable sources. The choice as to which of those two definitions of semi-pro we should rely on seems clear. Furthermore, your pointing to the NCAA regulations as authority on the definition of semi-pro is curious. I have been unable to find any NCAA definitions of semi-pro; the NCAA definition is binary: a player is either amateur or not; there is no third option of semi-pro. The NCAA would consider a part-time player who collects a $50 stipend every week to be professional (ie, not amateur), whereas we both agree that that player is a semi-pro athlete. Lastly, your other points as to which other leagues evolved from semi-pro to fully-pro status and when seem far beyond the scope of this MLL article and related MLL articles; if you want to discuss those issues further, you may want to consider raising that issue on the talkpage of a broader article, such as the Sports in the United States talkpage. CUA 27 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

2018

I have reverted changes that were made without discussion here and without explanation in edit summaries. I removed the descriptor from the first sentence in the hope that will reduce edit warring, but left the descriptor in the second paragraph where more context is given (I.e., facts and cites re limited compensation and holding other jobs). CUA 27 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Real franchise lines

• Rochester 2001-08 -> Toronto 2009-10 -> Hamilton 2011-13 -> Florida 2014-current
• Chicago 2006-10 -> Rochester 2011-17 -> Dallas 2018-current

Not suggesting this be added but just posting this here for information Newyearbaby (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)