2022 D1 Selection Committee

[tech37]

Does anyone beside some LaxBroJournos care about this great 'injustice'? Is there even a ND thread on this site? (BTW, sarcasm re:a ND thread.)

Search "Notre Dame Lacrosse" on Twitter. Many unhappy people. Personally, I think that the Committee did its best. The sad reality is that every game counts.

I was suspended from twitter for suggesting a national politician suck on a tailpipe for his tweeting blatant disinformation about covid vaccines. He went unsanctioned. I never went back. Best decision ever. BTW I never actually said the car should be running

Well... The general line of commentary is that ND is highly ranked in the media polls, had a six game winning streak, and the whole system needs to be revised.

Simple solution...expand the Tourney.

We all want to see parity and the Tournament field should be adjusted/expanded to account for the increase in parity. It's time again...

Two additional play in games, or 24?

Whatever works.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Does anyone beside some LaxBroJournos care about this great 'injustice'? Is there even a ND thread on this site? (BTW, sarcasm re:a ND thread.)

Search "Notre Dame Lacrosse" on Twitter. Many unhappy people. Personally, I think that the Committee did its best. The sad reality is that every game counts.

I was suspended from twitter for suggesting a national politician suck on a tailpipe for his tweeting blatant disinformation about covid vaccines. He went unsanctioned. I never went back. Best decision ever. BTW I never actually said the car should be running

Well... The general line of commentary is that ND is highly ranked in the media polls, had a six game winning streak, and the whole system needs to be revised.

Simple solution...expand the Tourney.

We all want to see parity and the Tournament field should be adjusted/expanded to account for the increase in parity. It's time again...

Two additional play in games, or 24?

Whatever works.

Maybe ESPN and the Crew can set up an NIT type tournament. “Everyone gets a trophy”.

[tech37]

Does anyone beside some LaxBroJournos care about this great 'injustice'? Is there even a ND thread on this site? (BTW, sarcasm re:a ND thread.)

Search "Notre Dame Lacrosse" on Twitter. Many unhappy people. Personally, I think that the Committee did its best. The sad reality is that every game counts.

I was suspended from twitter for suggesting a national politician suck on a tailpipe for his tweeting blatant disinformation about covid vaccines. He went unsanctioned. I never went back. Best decision ever. BTW I never actually said the car should be running

Well... The general line of commentary is that ND is highly ranked in the media polls, had a six game winning streak, and the whole system needs to be revised.

Simple solution...expand the Tourney.

We all want to see parity and the Tournament field should be adjusted/expanded to account for the increase in parity. It's time again...

Two additional play in games, or 24?

Whatever works.

I'll leave that to the logistics experts on here.

[MDlaxfan76]

we need a system, and one that's better than rpi or "whatever the committee thinks".

Straight RPI would have had Duke in and seeded, ND in, UVa in (but getting pasted by Duke having cost them a seed), Harvard and OSU out.

I've said for decades that DI lacrosse should go the way of DI hockey, and select and seed by RPI. These discussions do NOT happen on hockey boards, because everyone (coaches, players, fans) knows what the formula is, and that the committee will not mess with it. So there are no bias claims to be made.

Are you saying AQC's "eyes" shouldn't be part of the process? Duke has more MIAA guys than Harvard. They totally deserved to be in. They know where all the good crab spots are too!

The problem with just the RPI is there are so few games in lacrosse as compared to hockey. ND only played 12 games. That sounds like an awful season. You are basically there to practice.

Do they?

Actually, Duke has just one MIAA player, good player, junior, but doesn't start.

Harvard has two first year's from Gilman, both start.

Maybe you meant that Duke has too many from New York?

[HooDat]

Listening to Carc's comments? He doesn't understand how it works.

He says at 12:18..."isn't the goal to get the best teams in the tournament".

The answer, and I can't believe he doesn't know this....is an emphatic no.

Everyone gets this, right? The goal of the NCAA bid is to reward regular season play. That's it.

If the goal was to get the "best teams" in....in other words, to get teams that the peanut gallery thinks is most likely to win their NCAA tournament games? Simply go back to the old method, and use the USILA poll. Then guys like Carc get to choose who is in, and ignore all or part of what happened on the field.

The good ol' boys method.

Car doesn't seem to want to mention that Notre Dame had three chances to beat a tournament-bound team.

They lost all three. Where he goes from that, to the idea that ND were shoo ins for the Final Four? I have no clue. We don't know how good they are, because they didn't play many top teams. And when they did? They lost.

afan dropping truth bombs!

What is sad is how much attention ND is still getting - there is no way they earned a bid.

Both Army and jacksonville deserve it more than ND. Again - the only team they beat is Duke, and Duke wasn't that good!

[1766]

we need a system, and one that's better than rpi or "whatever the committee thinks".

Straight RPI would have had Duke in and seeded, ND in, UVa in (but getting pasted by Duke having cost them a seed), Harvard and OSU out.

I've said for decades that DI lacrosse should go the way of DI hockey, and select and seed by RPI. These discussions do NOT happen on hockey boards, because everyone (coaches, players, fans) knows what the formula is, and that the committee will not mess with it. So there are no bias claims to be made.

Are you saying AQC's "eyes" shouldn't be part of the process? Duke has more MIAA guys than Harvard. They totally deserved to be in. They know where all the good crab spots are too!

The problem with just the RPI is there are so few games in lacrosse as compared to hockey. ND only played 12 games. That sounds like an awful season. You are basically there to practice.

Do they?

Actually, Duke has just one MIAA player, good player, junior, but doesn't start.

Harvard has two first year's from Gilman, both start.

Maybe you meant that Duke has too many from New York?

Rutgers has a freshman from Gilman who isn't starting, but he plays a lot- Remi Reynolds. Definitely one to keep an eye on. He's the heir apparent after Ethan Rall moves on. Some people were saying he was the top D guy in the MIAA his senior year.

[suitcase10]

Listening to Carc's comments? He doesn't understand how it works.

He says at 12:18..."isn't the goal to get the best teams in the tournament".

The answer, and I can't believe he doesn't know this....is an emphatic no.

Everyone gets this, right? The goal of the NCAA bid is to reward regular season play. That's it.

If the goal was to get the "best teams" in....in other words, to get teams that the peanut gallery thinks is most likely to win their NCAA tournament games? Simply go back to the old method, and use the USILA poll. Then guys like Carc get to choose who is in, and ignore all or part of what happened on the field.

The good ol' boys method.

Car doesn't seem to want to mention that Notre Dame had three chances to beat a tournament-bound team.

They lost all three. Where he goes from that, to the idea that ND were shoo ins for the Final Four? I have no clue. We don't know how good they are, because they didn't play many top teams. And when they did? They lost.

afan dropping truth bombs!

What is sad is how much attention ND is still getting - there is no way they earned a bid.

Both Army and jacksonville deserve it more than ND. Again - the only team they beat is Duke, and Duke wasn't that good!

the same metric ( rpi)that is being used to tell us the ivy teams are all great and thus wins over them are great, is being ignored when it comes to duke and ND. i dont think many people really think that brown/harvard/cornell would be favored in a game versus ND or duke, so that would be the eye test, which we can all ignore so the good old boys network isnt in play ( funny to think a johnny come lately lax program in Indiana is in the
good old boys network but not legendary programs like cornell and princeton).
SO, instead we have to use some metrics, and the comittee has been very consistent thru the years with regards to that. and btw, as we all know, its not just the rpi which has duke and ND rated higher than teams that were selected, but most metrics. and somwehow, even in a down year for the acc, and a strong year for the ivies, the same metric we are using to tell us brown may have been very average OOC, but has a great RPI due to their in conference games, is being ignored when it comes to duke and ND. I am a ND fan, and as a maryland native, a duke hater, but to think duke has a 7 rpi, and harvard a 15? rpi and duke missed out is very stupid imo. the moving goalposts on this thread is comical.

[rolldodge]

but to think duke has a 7 rpi, and harvard a 15? rpi and duke missed out is very stupid imo.

This would make sense if RPI was the only consideration in making the decision about who to include.

A good case can be made for including ND using certain metrics (even using metrics that have been used in the past!) Unfortunately, these are not the metrics the committee decided to prioritize. "Big wins" won out this year and performance against the field (also as it has in the past).

FWIW, I am in favor of coming up with consistent criteria that is applied the same way each year.

The problem, IMO, is unrealistic expectation created by media coverage and the Media poll. I feel bad for Notre Dame, and I think a good case can be made for them in the tournament. But the #4 rank and Carc's statements are part of the problem. There's just not any metric by which ND is the #4 team in the country. That is all hype. And leads to unnecessary frustration. #4 doesn't even come close to reflecting the reality of them being a bubble team, which no one disputes, even if you think they should have been included. Bad polling leads to confusion about the selection process for the average fan, who doesn't get into nitty gritty details. Bad for the sport.

[HGK]

the same metric ( rpi)that is being used to tell us the ivy teams are all great and thus wins over them are great, is being ignored when it comes to duke and ND. i dont think many people really think that brown/harvard/cornell would be favored in a game versus ND or duke, so that would be the eye test, which we can all ignore so the good old boys network isnt in play ( funny to think a johnny come lately lax program in Indiana is in the
good old boys network but not legendary programs like cornell and princeton).

I don’t think they are in the “good old boys” network, I think they are in the ESPN/ACC $$$ network. No pun intended.

[suitcase10]

"big wins", SOS, "bad losses", are all mentioned relative to a teams RPI. you cant say ND didnt beat anyone just becasue you dont think duke is any good. i may not think brown cornell harvard are any good, but their RPI says x, and a team that beats them gets a "big win".

carcs and other lax fanatics post selection opinion had nothing to do with those selections. hes talking about the eye test, which we are forced to ignore ( as a fan of a indiana based lax program, no one has been forced to fight against the old boy network/biases more than ND). which is what it is.
every team had chances, not just ND, to have a better season. brown lost to unc and umass. yale lost to penn st. cornell got smoked by cornell.
at the end of the day, the committee has followed a certain metric throughout the years, RPI , which a week ago, most were fine with, because it said that 5! ivies were locks . ND did what they had to do, and RPI computers said they , like 5 ivies, this year, had earned it.

[ICGrad]

Maybe ESPN and the Crew can set up an NIT type tournament. “Everyone gets a trophy”.

I was thinking the ACC and Hopkins (and maybe Maryland, though they need the money) could break off and form their own league, and only play each other. At the end of the year, instead of a tournament, the elders could meet in a smoke-filled room and declare a national champion over all of lacrosse, and they could turn up their noses at the teams not in their superleague and mock them as inferior.

[1766]

Certainly, ESPN owning the Acc Network thereby having a vested interest in seeing it's products do well is an expectation. It's also part of the problem.

It takes a certain type of professional to move beyond that and be objective. AQC are clearly not able to do that. Nor does ESPN likely expect them to be. Promoting their products are part of their jobs as sales people, which is what they have been reduced to at this point. Objective sportscasters? Hardly. They are ESPN bros pushing product. Nothing more.

Their display after ND not being selected is completely and utterly embarrassing for them.

[rolldodge]

"big wins", SOS, "bad losses", are all mentioned relative to a teams RPI. you cant say ND didnt beat anyone just becasue you dont think duke is any good. i may not think brown cornell harvard are any good, but their RPI says x, and a team that beats them gets a "big win".

carcs and other lax fanatics post selection opinion had nothing to do with those selections. hes talking about the eye test, which we are forced to ignore ( as a fan of a indiana based lax program, no one has been forced to fight against the old boy network/biases more than ND). which is what it is.
every team had chances, not just ND, to have a better season. brown lost to unc and umass. yale lost to penn st. cornell got smoked by cornell.
at the end of the day, the committee has followed a certain metric throughout the years, RPI , which a week ago, most were fine with, because it said that 5! ivies were locks . ND did what they had to do, and RPI computers said they , like 5 ivies, this year, had earned it.

Duke is not a "big win". "Big wins" are wins over RPI #1-5.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"big wins", SOS, "bad losses", are all mentioned relative to a teams RPI. you cant say ND didnt beat anyone just becasue you dont think duke is any good. i may not think brown cornell harvard are any good, but their RPI says x, and a team that beats them gets a "big win".

carcs and other lax fanatics post selection opinion had nothing to do with those selections. hes talking about the eye test, which we are forced to ignore ( as a fan of a indiana based lax program, no one has been forced to fight against the old boy network/biases more than ND). which is what it is.
every team had chances, not just ND, to have a better season. brown lost to unc and umass. yale lost to penn st. cornell got smoked by cornell.
at the end of the day, the committee has followed a certain metric throughout the years, RPI , which a week ago, most were fine with, because it said that 5! ivies were locks . ND did what they had to do, and RPI computers said they , like 5 ivies, this year, had earned it.

I thought ND would get in. They were on the bubble. The reality is they beat a bunch of teams that used to be good and lost to good teams when they faced them. Schedule construction did them in. The eyeball test comes into play when you read wins and losses and the level of competition.

[suitcase10]

lots of opinions there.

youve seen the history of the comittee and its adherence to rpi. like it or not. Never has a team with a top 10 rpi been left out of the tourney, much less the 7 rpi. and left out for the 15 rpi? come on . a week ago, when someone said cornell has had a meh second half of the season, or that brown start OOC was average to below average, or that uva has gotten smoked agaisnt 2 of the top 3 teams they played, or rutgers- what did they do?-the answer was , and had to be " look at their rpi" . which was fine, right up until the comittee decided to historically off script.

[1766]

lots of opinions there.

youve seen the history of the comittee and its adherence to rpi. like it or not. Never has a team with a top 10 rpi been left out of the tourney, much less the 7 rpi. and left out for the 15 rpi? come on . a week ago, when someone said cornell has had a meh second half of the season, or that brown start OOC was average to below average, or that uva has gotten smoked agaisnt 2 of the top 3 teams they played, or rutgers- what did they do?-the answer was , and had to be " look at their rpi" . which was fine, right up until the comittee decided to historically off script.

Rutgers? They didn't lose to Ohio St. In fact, Rutgers beat them twice.

ND put themselves in peril with a 12 game schedule and playing mediocre teams outside of Maryland, and Virginia, whom they lost to. I'd blame your coach.

[Gobigred]

lots of opinions there.

youve seen the history of the comittee and its adherence to rpi. like it or not. Never has a team with a top 10 rpi been left out of the tourney, much less the 7 rpi. and left out for the 15 rpi? come on . a week ago, when someone said cornell has had a meh second half of the season, or that brown start OOC was average to below average, or that uva has gotten smoked agaisnt 2 of the top 3 teams they played, or rutgers- what did they do?-the answer was , and had to be " look at their rpi" . which was fine, right up until the comittee decided to historically off script.

You might look less uninformed if you'd read the NCAA's criteria for tournament selection. Or maybe you wouldn't.

[suitcase10]

sorry, where am i wrong there?

[ICGrad]

Never has a team with a top 10 rpi been left out of the tourney, much less the 7 rpi. and left out for the 15 rpi?

The fact that Duke had a #7 RPI invalidates the very notion of RPI.

Their best win was against the #9 RPI team. They lost to 3 teams with sub-20 RPIs - including to RPI 30 Syracuse - and lost a total of 6 games. A majority of their wins were against teams with RPIs in the mid-20 to 50-ish range.

The fact that that translates to a #7 RPI tells me that RPI is something that can be wholly disregarded.

Duke (and others) have figured out how to game the RPI system - lots of games against mediocre teams from mid-level conferences likely to end up with good records. Ironically, it doesn't even matter if you win or lose these games. This year the committee looked at their "accomplishments" and said "nyet." Good for them.

[crazyhorse]

lots of opinions there.

youve seen the history of the comittee and its adherence to rpi. like it or not. Never has a team with a top 10 rpi been left out of the tourney, much less the 7 rpi. and left out for the 15 rpi? come on . a week ago, when someone said cornell has had a meh second half of the season, or that brown start OOC was average to below average, or that uva has gotten smoked agaisnt 2 of the top 3 teams they played, or rutgers- what did they do?-the answer was , and had to be " look at their rpi" . which was fine, right up until the comittee decided to historically off script.

You might look less uninformed if you'd read the NCAA's criteria for tournament selection. Or maybe you wouldn't.

These are the metrics that the selection committee is supposed to use, straight from the manual:
Strength-of-schedule index.
Results of the RPI:
- Record against ranked teams 1-5; 6-10; 11-15; 16-20; 21+
- Average RPI win (average RPI of all wins)
- Average RPI loss (average RPI of all losses)
Head-to-head competition:
- Results versus common opponents
- Significant wins and losses (wins against teams ranked higher in the RPI and losses against teams ranked lower in the RPI)
- Locations of contests

Where in the criteria does it say "record against tournament teams"?

In my opinion, that's where they went wrong - introducing their own new criteria which devalued the Duke wins. They should have just stuck to the stated criteria if they wanted to avoid all this second guessing.