LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:26 am
Stony Brook, an 8th seed? Political BS!
And I need someone to explain to me(in precise detail) how ND and UVa are in this Tournament other than their past Lacrosse history or the name of their school?
Nuff Said!
Out of curiosity, where do you think they should be? They aren’t 1-3 and then lost to NW at #4 and Cuse at #5.
I can understand you wanting them above Florida potentially but they had worse RPI than both Loyola and Florida, so what is it that makes you think they should be higher and where you would have them?
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:26 am
Stony Brook, an 8th seed? Political BS!
And I need someone to explain to me(in precise detail) how ND and UVa are in this Tournament other than their past Lacrosse history or the name of their school?
Nuff Said!
Can’t help you out here Larry, but I feel the same way about UMass, UCONN, JHU, n Michigan. But then I wouldn’t know who to replace these teams with either. Splitting hairs when you start looking at the last 5 teams in and last 5 or 6 teams out.
I could see some upsets in this quarter of the draw. Princeton has a shot hosting Syracuse and Notre Dame has a shot against Northwestern. It would make for a dismal semifinal vs Carolina but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
By far the most compelling quarter of the draw for Doc and I. Loyola should get past JMU and BC Denver to set up a marquee matchup quarterfinal. The two teams have played only twice down through the years, and only at BC, and only in the 2nd round:
Arizona State should have been in. I would have had them over UMass. They had two significant wins over Rutgers and USC vs 0 for UMass.
Sucks for ASU, but at the end of the day they got the 8 seeds correct though I agree SB should have been 6 or 7.
I believe the bubble was particularly weak this year - I don't think anyone would lose any sleep if the field only had 24 teams, with two fewer marginal at-large teams and all seeds getting a first round bye.
Slightly OT but if you want to see real controversy, look over at the Men's selections. Biggest screw job in recent memory that ND didn't get in. Ivy with 6 teams in an 18 team field and the ACC just one? That does not pass the eye test or the smell test.
crazyhorse wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:10 am
Arizona State should have been in. I would have had them over UMass. They had two significant wins over Rutgers and USC vs 0 for UMass.
Sucks for ASU, but at the end of the day they got the 8 seeds correct though I agree SB should have been 6 or 7.
I believe the bubble was particularly weak this year - I don't think anyone would lose any sleep if the field only had 24 teams, with two fewer marginal at-large teams and all seeds getting a first round bye.
Slightly OT but if you want to see real controversy, look over at the Men's selections. Biggest screw job in recent memory that ND didn't get in. Ivy with 6 teams in an 18 team field and the ACC just one? That does not pass the eye test or the smell test.
Why does ND deserve to be in? Carc complaining that they beat Duke twice and UNC so they deserve a bid was funny to me. Those wins don’t help you this year. Neither of those teams made the field. Duke lost games to Syracuse, Loyola and Jacksonville. ND played 4 games this year against teams that made the tournament. They were 0-4 including a loss to OSU who got in over them. Harvard was the other bubble team and they beat three tournament teams in Princeton, Brown and BU. Harvard was 3-4 against teams that made the field and ND was 0-4. OSU beat ND head to head. Which team should ND have gotten in over?
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:26 am
Stony Brook, an 8th seed? Political BS!
And I need someone to explain to me(in precise detail) how ND and UVa are in this Tournament other than their past Lacrosse history or the name of their school?
Nuff Said!
Can’t help you out here Larry, but I feel the same way about UMass, UCONN, JHU, n Michigan. But then I wouldn’t know who to replace these teams with either. Splitting hairs when you start looking at the last 5 teams in and last 5 or 6 teams out.
The bubble was definitely soft this year and as you said who do you replace those teams with? ASU is the only team with a real complaint imo. And as I said yesterday, the committee just sent out a terrible message to coaches that it's better to schedule cupcakes(see UConn SOS 46 and UMass SOS 45) and go 16-3 than to schedule other good teams(ASU SOS 12) and go 11-8. If ASU had UMass or UConn's schedule is there much question they would also be 16-3 if not better? ASU beat Rutgers, USC and Stanford. UConn's best win was UMass and UMass best win was St. Joes. How can a committee of people look at those 3 teams and choose ASU to leave out?
USC v. UVA -- USC: This actually might end up being a good game. Picking USC because UVA.
Rutgers v. St. Joe's -- Rutgers.
Drexel v. SBU -- SBU
Syracuse v. Fairfield -- Syracuse
UMass v. Princeton -- Princeton, although I expect UMass will give the Tigers some trouble for a while.
Notre Dame v. Michigan -- Notre Dame, payback for the early season lapse.
Central Michigan v. NU -- NU
Duke v. JHU -- Duke; I'd love to see JHU pick off the Devils, but I am just not seeing it.
Jax v. Stanford -- Stanford; is this an upset?
Mercer v. Florida -- Florida
Loyola v. MSM -- Loyola
UConn v. JMU -- JMU
Denver v. Vermont -- Denver
The next round will be pretty fun.
I agree with these. Going off of Doc's post earlier about getting an NCAA tournament bid and winning conference championships: 3 teams in the tournament for the fist time in program history - very cool experience for those players. One of the fun parts about spring championships is that school is often over by the time the tournament rolls around so all you're doing is focusing on your sport (unless you are Drexel and have a trimester academic calendar). It always kind of reminded me of summer camp.
LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:26 am
Stony Brook, an 8th seed? Political BS!
And I need someone to explain to me(in precise detail) how ND and UVa are in this Tournament other than their past Lacrosse history or the name of their school?
Nuff Said!
Can’t help you out here Larry, but I feel the same way about UMass, UCONN, JHU, n Michigan. But then I wouldn’t know who to replace these teams with either. Splitting hairs when you start looking at the last 5 teams in and last 5 or 6 teams out.
The bubble was definitely soft this year and as you said who do you replace those teams with? ASU is the only team with a real complaint imo. And as I said yesterday, the committee just sent out a terrible message to coaches that it's better to schedule cupcakes(see UConn SOS 46 and UMass SOS 45) and go 16-3 than to schedule other good teams(ASU SOS 12) and go 11-8. If ASU had UMass or UConn's schedule is there much question they would also be 16-3 if not better? ASU beat Rutgers, USC and Stanford. UConn's best win was UMass and UMass best win was St. Joes. How can a committee of people look at those 3 teams and choose ASU to leave out?
crazyhorse wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:10 am
Arizona State should have been in. I would have had them over UMass. They had two significant wins over Rutgers and USC vs 0 for UMass.
Sucks for ASU, but at the end of the day they got the 8 seeds correct though I agree SB should have been 6 or 7.
I believe the bubble was particularly weak this year - I don't think anyone would lose any sleep if the field only had 24 teams, with two fewer marginal at-large teams and all seeds getting a first round bye.
Slightly OT but if you want to see real controversy, look over at the Men's selections. Biggest screw job in recent memory that ND didn't get in. Ivy with 6 teams in an 18 team field and the ACC just one? That does not pass the eye test or the smell test.
Why does ND deserve to be in? Carc complaining that they beat Duke twice and UNC so they deserve a bid was funny to me. Those wins don’t help you this year. Neither of those teams made the field. Duke lost games to Syracuse, Loyola and Jacksonville. ND played 4 games this year against teams that made the tournament. They were 0-4 including a loss to OSU who got in over them. Harvard was the other bubble team and they beat three tournament teams in Princeton, Brown and BU. Harvard was 3-4 against teams that made the field and ND was 0-4. OSU beat ND head to head. Which team should ND have gotten in over?
If you look at stated selection criteria, I believe ND has edge over Harvard (better RPI, SOS, avg RPI of both wins and losses). They were both 3-3 against the top 10, 1-1 against 11-20, and 5-0 against 21+ RPIs. Duke's RPI is 7. Those two wins count as significant. I think the committee started down a slippery slope to say those don't count as significant because Duke didn't make the tourney. When you sit back and take one final look does it makes sense to have 6 Ivies and 1 ACC? ACC was down, but not THAT down. Interestingly, ND's strong finish shouldn't factor in. Record in your last 6 games is a consideration for the women but not the men.
Lets face it, the committee was rewarding the Ivy League for the two seasons they took off because of their administrations fears related to COVID. At least in my mind that is what happened. (on the men's side)
crazyhorse wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:10 am
Arizona State should have been in. I would have had them over UMass. They had two significant wins over Rutgers and USC vs 0 for UMass.
Sucks for ASU, but at the end of the day they got the 8 seeds correct though I agree SB should have been 6 or 7.
I believe the bubble was particularly weak this year - I don't think anyone would lose any sleep if the field only had 24 teams, with two fewer marginal at-large teams and all seeds getting a first round bye.
Slightly OT but if you want to see real controversy, look over at the Men's selections. Biggest screw job in recent memory that ND didn't get in. Ivy with 6 teams in an 18 team field and the ACC just one? That does not pass the eye test or the smell test.
Why does ND deserve to be in? Carc complaining that they beat Duke twice and UNC so they deserve a bid was funny to me. Those wins don’t help you this year. Neither of those teams made the field. Duke lost games to Syracuse, Loyola and Jacksonville. ND played 4 games this year against teams that made the tournament. They were 0-4 including a loss to OSU who got in over them. Harvard was the other bubble team and they beat three tournament teams in Princeton, Brown and BU. Harvard was 3-4 against teams that made the field and ND was 0-4. OSU beat ND head to head. Which team should ND have gotten in over?
If you look at stated selection criteria, I believe ND has edge over Harvard (better RPI, SOS, avg RPI of both wins and losses). They were both 3-3 against the top 10, 1-1 against 11-20, and 5-0 against 21+ RPIs. Duke's RPI is 7. Those two wins count as significant. I think the committee started down a slippery slope to say those don't count as significant because Duke didn't make the tourney. When you sit back and take one final look does it makes sense to have 6 Ivies and 1 ACC? ACC was down, but not THAT down. Interestingly, ND's strong finish shouldn't factor in. Record in your last 6 games is a consideration for the women but not the men.
Yes ND won their last 6 games. But 2 were against a bad Syracuse team. One was against Marquette. 2 against a Duke team with 3 bad losses and the other was UNC who also lost badly to OSU. Other than Duke who did ND beat that you’d consider a good win this year? Who is the other top 10 team they beat?
crazyhorse wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:10 am
Arizona State should have been in. I would have had them over UMass. They had two significant wins over Rutgers and USC vs 0 for UMass.
Sucks for ASU, but at the end of the day they got the 8 seeds correct though I agree SB should have been 6 or 7.
I believe the bubble was particularly weak this year - I don't think anyone would lose any sleep if the field only had 24 teams, with two fewer marginal at-large teams and all seeds getting a first round bye.
Slightly OT but if you want to see real controversy, look over at the Men's selections. Biggest screw job in recent memory that ND didn't get in. Ivy with 6 teams in an 18 team field and the ACC just one? That does not pass the eye test or the smell test.
Why does ND deserve to be in? Carc complaining that they beat Duke twice and UNC so they deserve a bid was funny to me. Those wins don’t help you this year. Neither of those teams made the field. Duke lost games to Syracuse, Loyola and Jacksonville. ND played 4 games this year against teams that made the tournament. They were 0-4 including a loss to OSU who got in over them. Harvard was the other bubble team and they beat three tournament teams in Princeton, Brown and BU. Harvard was 3-4 against teams that made the field and ND was 0-4. OSU beat ND head to head. Which team should ND have gotten in over?
If you look at stated selection criteria, I believe ND has edge over Harvard (better RPI, SOS, avg RPI of both wins and losses). They were both 3-3 against the top 10, 1-1 against 11-20, and 5-0 against 21+ RPIs. Duke's RPI is 7. Those two wins count as significant. I think the committee started down a slippery slope to say those don't count as significant because Duke didn't make the tourney. When you sit back and take one final look does it makes sense to have 6 Ivies and 1 ACC? ACC was down, but not THAT down. Interestingly, ND's strong finish shouldn't factor in. Record in your last 6 games is a consideration for the women but not the men.
Yes ND won their last 6 games. But 2 were against a bad Syracuse team. One was against Marquette. 2 against a Duke team with 3 bad losses and the other was UNC who also lost badly to OSU. Other than Duke who did ND beat that you’d consider a good win this year? Who is the other top 10 team they beat?
I agree that record in last 6 games shouldn't matter - I mentioned that because the ESPN-heads having the meltdown were citing that as a reason to put ND in even though it's not part of the selection criteria for men. As to the third top-two win for ND, there isn't one - that is my mistake - both ND and Harvard were 2-3 against the top 10, not 3-3. I have no problem with OSU in and Duke out. In fact, I would be crying "foul" the other way if both ND and Duke had gotten in at the expense of Ohio State. My beef is with a 6th Ivy over a 2nd ACC when the stated criteria in the selection manual suggests ND has a strong case over Harvard. "Results over tournament teams" is not part of the stated criteria. They were essentially saying "yeah, Duke's RPI is 7 but we don't believe it so we won't give ND credit for those as significant wins". I just thank that's a slippery slope they started down. Yes, UNC lost badly to OSU but if you want to discount that win, shouldn't you then ding Brown because they lost to UNC as well as having another significant loss to UMass? If you did that, wouldn't that then devalue one of Harvard's top ten wins? Slippery slope.
I wonder if Stony Brook will have a little extra motivation to romp and stomp over Drexel due to Spallina’s former assistant coach being put into limbo there. Not to mention the NCAA seeding snub, which is a separate issue but another motivating factor. I wouldn’t want to be Drexel going into that game.
