We have no one to blame but ourselves. We lost to Delaware & got beat badly by John Hopkins and Penn State. Pat Hobbs was wrong on the night that The Barn was named after Jim Valvano. He basically said he heard we were in the NCAA after we defeated Ohio State. I said to the people around me that I wouldn't count on it after last year plus I had doubts that the NCAA would take 5 teams from the BIG. It is what it is. We must play every game at 100% and cannot take anyone lightly.
OT: 2017 NCAA Men's Lacrosse Tourney - RU is out
- Thread starter Debtbubble
- Start date
Don't be nuts, any weight he has to throw around isn't going to be wasted on Lacrosse. When you're six or seven win team needs a good bowl, Delaney will step in.
RU was screwed, but don't go insane.
Maryland plays on grass, think we're good with it.
For the last time, Delaware was a bad loss.
Away to B1G teams Penn St. and Hopkins weren't. Scores aren't part of selection calculus. If it were, Hopkins wouldn't be in. They got beat by 100 goals to Princeton.
Lax can be played on turf or grass...with our style, turf is better.
Too many AQs, that is true..RU had a great season, but the bed linens were soiled against Delaware.
It does seem silly giving away some of those AQ's. At least with hoops, the AQ's aren't stealing any bids from top 20 teams.
It's kind of a catch-22.
NCAA rules say that a conference qualifies for an AQ if they have 6 teams. That is the AQ rule across all sports including BB. They're not going to get rid of that rule, because it would make conferences and conference championships meaningless. (That rule is the primary reason that Hopkins joined the B1G. And without knowing that Hopkins was likely to join the B1G for Lacrosse, there is more alumni pressure on Maryland to stay in the ACC. And if Maryland stays in the ACC, then Rutgers doesn't have a partner to move from the AAC to the B1G. So Rutgers fans can't be too upset about the 6-team rule.)
The tournament is a small tournament with 9 AQ and 7 AL teams. But there aren't enough D1 teams to go much larger. Maybe you can go to 18 teams or 20 teams, adding 1 or 3 AL bids. A 20 team field would probably add Rutgers, Hofstra, and Army, which seems reasonable.
Being ranked 12 trying to get in a 17-team field is the same as being ranked 48 and trying to get into the basketball tournament. Not impossible, but a long shot. The difference is lacrosse has a lot of parity at the top, and then a huge cliff to the next tier. So at #12, Rutgers can beat any team in the country, and no one is surprised at taking the #1 team to triple overtime.
Disagree wholeheartedly; to think that even though we play a Top 10 schedule we have to be basically flawless while other teams can go 8-6/8-7 and get in is absurd IMO. This is 1994 6-4-1 ND getting into the Fiesta Bowl ridiculous.
Joe P.
Penn St. Could have been 25-6. Goalie made great saves. Dominated in every facet of the game.....that was a real bad loss the score is no indicator on how bad that game was
Upsteam LaCrosse was not the factor for us getting in the B1G. That was maybe factor number 500 on the list
Lacrosse was a big factor for Maryland's decision.
They were ranked #1 a few weeks ago, finished in the middle of the conference, and did not even qualify for the tournament. They lost when they needed one or two more wins. It is the Rutgers story.
Too many ACC teams selected that don't deserve it. Still benefiting from their worn out reputation.
For the 1000th time...losing to PSU and Hopkins had no bearing on us missing the tourney.
Of course it did. If Rutgers beat PSU and Hopkins, they'd be in the tournament.
No UNC wouldn't have gotten in. The 5th place team in either conference DOES NOT make the conference tournament. Had they not made the ACC tournament they would be SITTING HOME this coming weekend.
The problem is too many automatic bids for weak conferences. The 17 team format is fine if that is corrected. I would then set up almost a P5 equivalent to football with the B1G, ACC, Ivy, Big East and Patriot league's getting AQs.
Let the grown ups talk here. Those were NOT bad losses. I know what I'm talking about and so does Cali.
ding ding ding,,we have a winner
Ive followed my other school Cornell for over 40 years
it is a good old boy committee...and despite winning national championships>Cornell is NOT a part of it
7 national championships(dating back to 1903) 13final fours & a legendary coach in Ritchie Moran
but ignored year after year we are not ranked pre season and we have to win our way up
but
I cant tell you how many years jHOPkins got in with a questionable record....this year again at 8-6
and I heartily agree
IMO there is NO ONE on the committee that has Rutgers back
I think people are confused. Our losses are not bad losses (besides the UD loss). But it is correct that if we win those games we are in the tournament. We have no room for error as Rutgers. We are new to the table and we will be stuck at the kids table until we kick in the door and leave no question that we belong.
Most of you guys sound like SEC blowhards.
"Monmouth got in!!!?" Cry me a river. If you don't like the situation ask the AD to leave the B1G and join an easier conference.
Take care of business and you are in. We lost 3 out of 5 conference games. SMH.
"Monmouth got in!!!?" Cry me a river. If you don't like the situation ask the AD to leave the B1G and join an easier conference.
Take care of business and you are in. We lost 3 out of 5 conference games. SMH.
Nobody north of Towson is part of it. That's why, in the late 90's, when Princeton and Syracuse were the 2 dominant teams they always met in the semifinals. That way a southern team always made the finals.
But that being said, if there were only 5 AQs both RU and Army would be in and nobody would be complaining.
No you don't... you play at your football stadium, which is turf. You getting that wrong makes me wonder if you've ever even watched a Maryland Lacrosse game.
2 thoughts
1 - B10 should have all 6 teams in the conference tournament. If Rutgers played the 3 seed and won that may have gotten them in. Downside may be if Rutgers beats the 3 seed they may lose the at large bid.
2 - the NCAA field needs to expand to 24. There is no harm to this since you get more teams included. The 1st team left out (RU this year) in some years is good enough to beat the #1 team (RU was #1 for a week and took PSU to triple OT).
- you would need to change it where the 1st 2 rounds are over 1 weekend. Round of 24 on a
Thursday / Friday and the Round of 16 on a Saturday / Sunday. This gives an advantage to the top 8 seeded teams. Then the quarters are the final weekend with the Final 4 using the format
they have now.
1 - B10 should have all 6 teams in the conference tournament. If Rutgers played the 3 seed and won that may have gotten them in. Downside may be if Rutgers beats the 3 seed they may lose the at large bid.
2 - the NCAA field needs to expand to 24. There is no harm to this since you get more teams included. The 1st team left out (RU this year) in some years is good enough to beat the #1 team (RU was #1 for a week and took PSU to triple OT).
- you would need to change it where the 1st 2 rounds are over 1 weekend. Round of 24 on a
Thursday / Friday and the Round of 16 on a Saturday / Sunday. This gives an advantage to the top 8 seeded teams. Then the quarters are the final weekend with the Final 4 using the format
they have now.
Don't be a putz. We can have a disagreement and still be respectful.
I didn't say they were bad losses. But they were still losses, and the losses hurt Rutgers. Rutgers lost 3 conference games (plus the loss to Del), and didn't make the conference tournament. With an RPI of 12, Rutgers was right on the fence. Unfortunately, the way things played out last week, we were on the wrong side of the fence.
It is hard to make the argument that Rutgers deserved to be in this year, because I don't know who you point to who got into the tournament that should be out to make room for Rutgers. Last year, I think Rutgers got screwed because Rutgers clearly belonged to be in over Navy, and some people made a strong argument that Rutgers deserved to be in over Hopkins. But this year, there is no one that Rutgers clearly should have displaced.
But had Rutgers won one of the games they lost, and certainly if Rutgers won two of the games they lost, Rutgers would have been in the tournament. So you can't say the losses didn't matter, because obviously they did.
I feel bad for you guys. You supported your team and had a legit resume, yet didn't get in. Blue bloods get a free ride in this sport more than any other. Neither Duke nor North Carolina deserved it over Rutgers. (edit: well, maybe Duke did, but UNC with 7 losses? RPI, schmarpi, they are being rewarded for losing to good teams and also for being in the ACC).
If any single game did Rutgers in, I think it was the Hopkins game. Win that, a game that should have (on paper) been won, and Rutgers is top 4 B1G. Obviously, winning the Maryland game would have done it as well, and that was within reach right to the end of that one.
This year was unique in all the years I've followed it, but I think the new circumstances are here to stay. There are now two dominant leagues, not one. It looks like the committee is going to protect these leagues (or at least one of them, as they did this year) and maintain a balance when it comes to the at-large bids.
There's a tension between a) growing the sport by keeping weaker conferences in the game with automatic qualifiers and b) putting the best teams in the tournament. This could be alleviated by expanding the tournament, but I don't expect this. There are only 70 or so teams playing the sport; the powers that be apparently don't want to water the tournament down, and are prepared to accept situations like this where a qualified team is left out.
It's not the first time (as you know) that the numbers game hurt somebody. In most recent years, until Virginia surprisingly took a step back, all the ACC teams probably belonged in the tournament, but one was usually left out.
It sucks, but as others have said, next year can be even better for Rutgers lacrosse...
If any single game did Rutgers in, I think it was the Hopkins game. Win that, a game that should have (on paper) been won, and Rutgers is top 4 B1G. Obviously, winning the Maryland game would have done it as well, and that was within reach right to the end of that one.
This year was unique in all the years I've followed it, but I think the new circumstances are here to stay. There are now two dominant leagues, not one. It looks like the committee is going to protect these leagues (or at least one of them, as they did this year) and maintain a balance when it comes to the at-large bids.
There's a tension between a) growing the sport by keeping weaker conferences in the game with automatic qualifiers and b) putting the best teams in the tournament. This could be alleviated by expanding the tournament, but I don't expect this. There are only 70 or so teams playing the sport; the powers that be apparently don't want to water the tournament down, and are prepared to accept situations like this where a qualified team is left out.
It's not the first time (as you know) that the numbers game hurt somebody. In most recent years, until Virginia surprisingly took a step back, all the ACC teams probably belonged in the tournament, but one was usually left out.
It sucks, but as others have said, next year can be even better for Rutgers lacrosse...
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think they really need to go to 20. There is too much parity at the top, followed by a sharp cliff than includes many of the AQ conferences. The only way to manage the parity at the top is to widen the bracket to include more AL teams.
But I don't think that's an option. The rule about 6-team conferences getting an AQ bid is a cross-sport NCAA rule. It is not a rule that is easy to change. So the number of AQ conferences is what it is.
So what they should do is expand the field for non-AQs and have the lower seeded AQs go through a play-in round.. perhaps against the last-in teams from the field.
If every D1 conference with 6 or more teams gets an AQ to the basketball tournament then you have a point. But I'm not sure that's the case.
With a 20 team bracket:
Week 1:
Thursday / Friday Play in games with seeds 13-20 (seeds 13-16 will have an extra game vs. the current format)
Saturday / Sunday round of 16 with seeds 1-12 being fresh
Week 2:
Quarterfinals (Saturday / Sunday)
Week 3:
Final 4: (Friday and Sunday)
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought in any sport that has a NCAA sanctioned tournament to decide the NC champ you have to have at least 6 to be CONSIDERED for an AQ.
Does every conference automatically qualify for a bid in BB now?
why do some RU "fans" always seize an opportunity to besmirch RU--be it lacrosse ,football or any sport--there's enough eating your own in NJ--we don't need more
All 32 basketball conferences get an AQ bid. Here is the list of 32 men's basketball conferences, and their AQ teams this year:
1. ASUN (Florida Gulf Coast)
2. America East (Vermont)
3. American Athletic (SMU)
4. Atlantic 10 (Rhode Island)
5. Atlantic Coast (Duke)
6. Big 12 (Iowa State)
7. Big East (Villanova)
8. Big Sky (North Dakota)
9. Big South (Winthrop)
10. Big Ten (Michigan)
11. Big West (UC Davis)
12. Colonial Athletic Assoc (UNCW)
13. Conf USA (Middle Tennessee)
14. Horizon (N Kentucky)
15. Ivy (Princeton)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic (Iona)
17. Mid-American (Kent State)
18. Mid-Eastern Athletic (North Carolina Central)
19. Missouri Valley (Wichita St)
20. Mountain West (Nevada)
21. Northeast (Mt St Mary’s)
22. Ohio Valley (Jacksonville State)
23. Pac-12 (Arizona)
24. Patriot (Bucknell)
25. Southeastern (Kentucky)
26. Southern (East Tennessee State)
27. Southland (New Orleans)
28. Southwestern (Texas Southern)
29. Summit (South Dakota State)
30. Sun Belt (Troy)
31. West Coast (Gonzaga)
32. Western Athletic (New Mexico St)
Similar threads
