OT: 2017 NCAA Men's Lacrosse Tourney - RU is out
- Thread starter Debtbubble
- Start date
Lacrosse is a little like hockey. Regional and strong old guard in traditional areas. Hockey has a 16 team field with 6 AQ's. The field is chosen without any human input. Committee only impacts regional locations and first round matchups. After formation of BIG Hockey, the cut line for at large is typically #14 in Pairwise computer ranking, as 2 conference champions are usually outside the top 16. Lacrosse needs to reduce AQ bids. I believe the at large selection is mainly RPI, but they could also implement a system which, while rigid, also eliminates bias.
B1G has to get representation on the committee. You can't reduce the # of AQ's. Expand to 20 teams. There's already 1 play-in game & 17 teams, so add 3 more teams & play-in games. Maybe even make them flexible like the NCAA MBB Tourney, so the winners aren't set to face the 1 through 4 seeds.
You are spot on about the sharp cliff. For example, I don't think any of the lower echelon AQ's could have beaten No. 3 OSU and taken No. 1 U. MD to triple OT.
Not to mention RU would bitch slap them in a 1 game Wild Card play in game if it was set up.
Funny how quickly things/fortunes can change.
They beat us just two years ago after we crushed them the previous year.
We'd beat that team by 10 goals today. Our talent level is considerably higher and deeper than it was even two years ago. That's if the ref allowed them to sit on the ball and pass it around for 5 minutes like they try to do. If not, it would be more. They played 1 top 20 team in Hofstra and lost.
RU currently would murder at least 5 of the teams in the field right now...and next year they get Charlembides and Trasolini healthy.
They need a nickname. Gotta love a Greek and an Italian leading the way for NJ's team!
It sucks that you all had a great year but didn't get in. But I don't think you go changing the rules just so you make the field.
For comparison:
Basketball has 68 team 32 AQs and ~351 D1 teams = 19.4% in tourney 47% AQs.
WBB 64, 32, 349 = 18.3%, 50%
MLax 17, 9, 71 = 23.9% 52.9%
WLax 26, 13, 112 = 23.2%, 50%
MHky 16, 6, 60 = 26.7%, 37.5
Fball 4, 0, 128 = 3.1%, n/a
If someone else want to keep running numbers for other sports for more data points then great but looking at these numbers MLax is about 1 AQ high. I hardly think its worth an exception to NCAA rules for one AQ spot. I don't see expanding the tourney as the right option either 20 teams would be 28.1%, 45%.
I think as a sport Lax is growing and more teams will be added to D1, and these numbers should take care of themselves over the next decade.
For comparison:
Basketball has 68 team 32 AQs and ~351 D1 teams = 19.4% in tourney 47% AQs.
WBB 64, 32, 349 = 18.3%, 50%
MLax 17, 9, 71 = 23.9% 52.9%
WLax 26, 13, 112 = 23.2%, 50%
MHky 16, 6, 60 = 26.7%, 37.5
Fball 4, 0, 128 = 3.1%, n/a
If someone else want to keep running numbers for other sports for more data points then great but looking at these numbers MLax is about 1 AQ high. I hardly think its worth an exception to NCAA rules for one AQ spot. I don't see expanding the tourney as the right option either 20 teams would be 28.1%, 45%.
I think as a sport Lax is growing and more teams will be added to D1, and these numbers should take care of themselves over the next decade.
There's a difference, though. A general standard of measurement is a Top 20 (or sometimes Top 25) for the sport. If we go with Top 20, Men's Lacrosse has the least chance to redress the balance for a top team being left out. Men's and Women's Basketball has it covered, Women's Lax has a pretty good chance of covering it, and Men's Lacrosse and Hockey are the least likely. Men's Hockey places 10 teams out of the remaining 54, while Men's Lacrosse places 8 teams out of the remaining 62.
Your top 20 counterpoint seems pretty weak as it sounds like an arbitrary number and not so much a standard.
In any given year what are the odds that a top 15-20 school will win the NCAA championship in their respective sport? Basketball there's a chance a Cinderella can go on a run and make a final four, but I think Syracuse was the last 5+ seed to win it all. WBB no chance, wresting = blutarsky = football, mhky I think that's pretty low too, lacrosse probably has the highest albeit relatively low probability.
I agree...often teams are pitted in such a way they cancel each other out...
and yes...CUSE being dominant made it seem like they were part of it,,,,back in the day
but today....Cuse does have supporters on the committee sometimes..because of their success.
For Rutgers to get in...we have to win with such success....that the CANT deny us...
The ACC shenanigans should have been answered with the selection committee saying NO to UNC and/or Duke. But the ACC controls the selection committee.
Therein lies the fundamental problem.
Therein lies the fundamental problem.
I'm not sure you can call it ACC shenanigans. All 4 ACC teams are ranked ahead of Rutgers in both polls and, most importantly, in the RPI.
The fundamental problem is the AQs. Not just the # of AQs or the % of teams that are AQ v lacrosse playing schools or how it compares to other sports. Without doing the research, I would guess that lax has a much higher % of teams that would not qualify w/out AQ than any other NCAA tourney. Not the case in a sport like hockey. This year there was one team, some years it's two. To go beyond 2 teams outside the top 16, there has to be incredible upsets in conference tournament.
If you look at the stats posted a few posts above your's it shows lax has basically 1 more AQ than average for NCAA tournaments. The irritating thing is that the one team excluded because of that is Rutgers. With the win over OSU and the head-to-head win over Army they were the obvious next team up.
If our record (same teams, same results) were swapped with UNC or Duke, they would still get in and we would not. I would bet my house on it.
OSU - 16 Duke - 11. Thanks to OSU for showing we belonged in the tourney. Revenge Squared next season.
RU would have won a game at least in this tournament, I am convinced. Very unfortunate they didn't get the chance.
It's not the best teams, which is a real problem. If they aren't going to change the number of teams, they should change how those teams are selected. Just seed the top 16 teams.
This current format is poor engineering. And how did Hopkins get a home game? What a joke.
It's not the best teams, which is a real problem. If they aren't going to change the number of teams, they should change how those teams are selected. Just seed the top 16 teams.
This current format is poor engineering. And how did Hopkins get a home game? What a joke.
And Denver was obliterating ND. Those assholes couldn't beat that garbage Marquette team in the BE tourney?
Prediction: They will fix this problem and accept more teams.. AS SOON AS IT IS DISADVANTAGEOUS TO RUTGERS.
I can see it now.. Rutgers gets in next year by winning the Big Ten.. but some highly ranked team that beat us in the regular season gets in because the field gets expanded and they are set up to play us in the 1st round.. at their home field.. and we lose.
I can see it now.. Rutgers gets in next year by winning the Big Ten.. but some highly ranked team that beat us in the regular season gets in because the field gets expanded and they are set up to play us in the 1st round.. at their home field.. and we lose.
...can't help but think of the posters saying 'we didn't do enough to get in this year' and shake my head in disbelief. This year was practically the central casting example of 'good ol'boys network'. It's 6-4-1 ND to the Fiesta Bowl all over again.
Joe P.
Well that's the rub. A committee member stated Army would have been next in. Two of their criteria are RPI and head to head which RU had over Army. When the committee doesn't follow their own criteria, then the committee is the problem. They put ACC teams in based off of past laurels.
I think the angst is that they beat them away by 8 goals only 5 days earlier. How do you then lose at home? Lacrosse is one of those games where home field is a true advantage.
Today Cuse lost. MD spanked Albany. No ACC in F4. Two B1G. Pi$$es me off. Committee probably laughing their a$$es off at us. RU Screw. Next year is payback time.
It will only be payback time if RU finishes better than 5th in the B1G. The committee will ALWAYS have a bias against putting 5 teams in from one conference.
But not when there are 2 conferences as strong as the B1G and the ACC. Before the rise of the B1G, the Ivy League was typically the 2nd strongest conference behind the ACC. The Ivies had a down year this year, but IMHO will from here on out will typically be in a strong position to put 2 teams in the tournament. Frankly, given the number of AQs, unless they expand the field I doubt we see 5 teams from any conference in the forseeable future.
They will not be expanding the tournament. If anything it is going to be retracting. There has been real discussion about lessening the number of teams.
Similar threads
