2022 D1 Selection Committee

[1766]

ND had an 11 game season. Detroit Mercy is meanginless.

They should have scheduled more OOC games. They certainly had their chance.

[nyjay]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

[wgdsr]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

[nyjay]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

Again, it's not a cap, it's more a presumption that needs to be overcome. What big program wants to schedule Army or Navy? ND used to play Army, but doesn't any more. Cuse schedules Army too, though makes Army go to the Dome every year (which is totally ridiculous).

[Farfromgeneva]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

Get rid of conference tourneys by not allowing that to satisfy the AQ and not count them into at large calculus (or voodoo or whatever they employ)? Just tossing it out there.

[crazyhorse]

ND had an 11 game season. Detroit Mercy is meanginless.

They should have scheduled more OOC games. They certainly had their chance.

I don't think that's the answer. By that logic, Harvard only had an 11 game season (playing 0-13 NJIT shouldn't count?) and that didn't stop them from getting a bid. The issue for ND wasn't their schedule, it was that the committee chose to devalue their Duke wins.

[wgdsr]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

Again, it's not a cap, it's more a presumption that needs to be overcome. What big program wants to schedule Army or Navy? ND used to play Army, but doesn't any more. Cuse schedules Army too, though makes Army go to the Dome every year (which is totally ridiculous).

i'm not privy to much scheduling info. one thing i know is no one is forcing alberici to play siena and for lord sakes njit. there are lots of teams out there. boston! had 3 ivies this year. replacements for the 2 above can be found from the 70+ teams out there.

we probably just disagree on one of your original points -- that too many multiple teams from one conference isn't optimal. me as a fan i want the best at larges in. i don't care what conference they're from. if there's a better way to get there via how teams get assessed, i'm not sure we've found a solution yet.

[ICGrad]

ND had an 11 game season. Detroit Mercy is meanginless.

They should have scheduled more OOC games. They certainly had their chance.

I don't think that's the answer. By that logic, Harvard only had an 11 game season (playing 0-13 NJIT shouldn't count?) and that didn't stop them from getting a bid. The issue for ND wasn't their schedule, it was that the committee chose to devalue their Duke wins.

Or, maybe, that the committee chose to place higher emphasis on Harvard's wins over Princeton and Brown than they placed on ND's two wins over Duke.

I mean you can do that without necessarily devaluing ND's wins.

[Farfromgeneva]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

Again, it's not a cap, it's more a presumption that needs to be overcome. What big program wants to schedule Army or Navy? ND used to play Army, but doesn't any more. Cuse schedules Army too, though makes Army go to the Dome every year (which is totally ridiculous).

i'm not privy to much scheduling info. one thing i know is no one is forcing alberici to play siena and for lord sakes njit. there are lots of teams out there. boston! had 3 ivies this year. replacements for the 2 above can be found from the 70+ teams out there.

we probably just disagree on one of your original points -- that too many multiple teams from one conference isn't optimal. me as a fan i want the best at larges in. i don't care what conference they're from. if there's a better way to get there via how teams get assessed, i'm not sure we've found a solution yet.

Hobart and Army used to play even prior to being in the PL together. Easy travel. But for an Army theres risk in those 21-35 programs. They’re the ones that get jammed up the most by the current system because playing your way out of there is probably the hardest thing other than getting to a FF

[wgdsr]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

Again, it's not a cap, it's more a presumption that needs to be overcome. What big program wants to schedule Army or Navy? ND used to play Army, but doesn't any more. Cuse schedules Army too, though makes Army go to the Dome every year (which is totally ridiculous).

i'm not privy to much scheduling info. one thing i know is no one is forcing alberici to play siena and for lord sakes njit. there are lots of teams out there. boston! had 3 ivies this year. replacements for the 2 above can be found from the 70+ teams out there.

we probably just disagree on one of your original points -- that too many multiple teams from one conference isn't optimal. me as a fan i want the best at larges in. i don't care what conference they're from. if there's a better way to get there via how teams get assessed, i'm not sure we've found a solution yet.

Hobart and Army used to play even prior to being in the PL together. Easy travel. But for an Army theres risk in those 21-35 programs. They’re the ones that get jammed up the most by the current system because playing your way out of there is probably the hardest thing other than getting to a FF

21-35 isnt optimal for the top 10 teams, but they're fine for the pat league teams. certainly vs njit. you're already going to have 3 of those pat teams dragging you down. you get a possible surprise and one of those 21+ make top 20.

you have to win your way up. then you'll be fielding their calls. or at least they'll be taking yours.

[crazyhorse]

ND had an 11 game season. Detroit Mercy is meanginless.

They should have scheduled more OOC games. They certainly had their chance.

I don't think that's the answer. By that logic, Harvard only had an 11 game season (playing 0-13 NJIT shouldn't count?) and that didn't stop them from getting a bid. The issue for ND wasn't their schedule, it was that the committee chose to devalue their Duke wins.

Or, maybe, that the committee chose to place higher emphasis on Harvard's wins over Princeton and Brown than they placed on ND's two wins over Duke.

I mean you can do that without necessarily devaluing ND's wins.

yes, that works as well to look at it that way. Gets you to the same place. If you accepted RPIs at face value, you would say one team beat a #3 and a #10 and the other beat a #7 twice. Essentially equal. Unless you change the numbers - value Duke less, or Brown more (which they probably did, since Brown was seeded).

[Farfromgeneva]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

people are so hung up on conferences, it's amazing.
i feel like i'm in an sec football reddit.

Conference play is a significant part of the season. It matters. And the RPIs of the other conference members (which initially get established through OOC games) matter significantly in terms of the RPI for each team. I'm not hung up on conferences, I just think we need to address the problem of strong conference gets all its members in, whether than 6 Ivies (at the expense of the ACC, PL, etc) or 5 ACC (at the expense of the Ivies, PL, etc.). Second place in the PL is a rough place to be for tournament purposes for some very good teams and that doesn't seem right to me..

i don't disagree with your thought there, but putting a cap on conference entrants isn't my solution.

and schedule better probably is closer. loyola with a good year often gets in. the rest of the patriot either hasn't learned how to schedule, or hasn't built their program to get the games they need. whichever situation they're in, they need to take that step.

Again, it's not a cap, it's more a presumption that needs to be overcome. What big program wants to schedule Army or Navy? ND used to play Army, but doesn't any more. Cuse schedules Army too, though makes Army go to the Dome every year (which is totally ridiculous).

i'm not privy to much scheduling info. one thing i know is no one is forcing alberici to play siena and for lord sakes njit. there are lots of teams out there. boston! had 3 ivies this year. replacements for the 2 above can be found from the 70+ teams out there.

we probably just disagree on one of your original points -- that too many multiple teams from one conference isn't optimal. me as a fan i want the best at larges in. i don't care what conference they're from. if there's a better way to get there via how teams get assessed, i'm not sure we've found a solution yet.

Hobart and Army used to play even prior to being in the PL together. Easy travel. But for an Army theres risk in those 21-35 programs. They’re the ones that get jammed up the most by the current system because playing your way out of there is probably the hardest thing other than getting to a FF

21-35 isnt optimal for the top 10 teams, but they're fine for the pat league teams. certainly vs njit. you're already going to have 3 of those pat teams dragging you down. you get a possible surprise and one of those 21+ make top 20.

you have to win your way up. then you'll be fielding their calls. or at least they'll be taking yours.

That’s how we got Lehigh on the schedule this year. Heard Albany was originally also committed to play Bart but then it got dropped late.

But yeah we beat GTown once when Warne was rebuilding the program and I’m pretty sure he lost Raymond’s number after that.

[Gobigred]

All people criticizing RPI: please tell us your preferred method for at-large selection and top-8 seeding.

What numbers should the committee use?

Should the committee have discretion, or (as in hockey) go strictly by a formula (whatever that formula is)?

My opinion: I strongly favor a formula, and RPI is as good as any other (and is moreover one that the NCAA might actually adopt, as opposed to KRACH, which is better in some ways but has zero chance of being adopted).

How about we use largely the same system as now but add a penalty element to teams that finish worse than 3rd (maybe 4th) in their conference? So this year, Princeton's OOC record would probably be enough to get them in (which I think is right, but Harvard would probably be out and ND or Duke in? This would also prevent the 5 ACC bid years and the 6 Ivy bid years, which I think we can all agree aren't optimal, and make conference play a little more meaningful?

If the sixth best team in a conference achieved more on the field than the second best team in some other conference, why should the latter be selected to compete for the national championship over the former? Ridiculous idea.

You're missing the point. It's not to say that the 6th best team in a conference can't get in, it just makes in harder for them to get in. If you're breaking tie between the 2nd place team in one conference and the 6th place team in another, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look to conference record to do that. I think Army is the most perennially screwed over team in all of the lacrosse when it comes to tournament bids. I think would address that issue. And seriously, cry me a river if you finish 6th in your conference and don't get a bid.

Why should it be "harder" for them than their resume already shows? Why is it perfectly reasonable" to give a team that finished higher in a weaker conference an edge over a team with a better resume? Sorry. Bad idea.

[ICGrad]

yes, that works as well to look at it that way. Gets you to the same place. If you accepted RPIs at face value, you would say one team beat a #3 and a #10 and the other beat a #7 twice. Essentially equal. Unless you change the numbers - value Duke less, or Brown more (which they probably did, since Brown was seeded).

You don't even have to devalue Duke to get there, because there's nothing essentially equal about it.

Harvard had a very good (over a team ranked 1-5) and a good win (over a team ranked 6-10). ND had two good wins (over a team ranked 6-10).

Harvard's VG + G > ND's G x 2

No one gets devalued, no funny math. Seems straightforward to me.

[nyjay]

we probably just disagree on one of your original points -- that too many multiple teams from one conference isn't optimal. me as a fan i want the best at larges in. i don't care what conference they're from. if there's a better way to get there via how teams get assessed, i'm not sure we've found a solution yet.

I agree that we all want the best at larges. Seems to me that this solution just solves a lot of the arguments about who's "best" as these arguments always seem to involve the last team in from a conference with a lot of other bids vs. a possible second or third team from another conference. I guess I'd prefer to err on the side of the team with the better conference record if it's close. And this year that means, I'd prefer ND to Harvard. Last year, it might have lead one fewer ACC team (i.e. Cuse, who got waxed in the first round anyway).

[nyjay]

Why should it be "harder" for them than their resume already shows? Why is it perfectly reasonable" to give a team that finished higher in a weaker conference an edge over a team with a better resume? Sorry. Bad idea.

I think of it more as a tiebreaker between two teams who are otherwise close. This year, it would have meant ND over Harvard. Last year it would have meant Army in over Syracuse (I think). And I think I like both of those results better than what actually happened.

[wgdsr]

yes, that works as well to look at it that way. Gets you to the same place. If you accepted RPIs at face value, you would say one team beat a #3 and a #10 and the other beat a #7 twice. Essentially equal. Unless you change the numbers - value Duke less, or Brown more (which they probably did, since Brown was seeded).

You don't even have to devalue Duke to get there, because there's nothing essentially equal about it.

Harvard had a very good (over a team ranked 1-5) and a good win (over a team ranked 6-10). ND had two good wins (over a team ranked 6-10).

Harvard's VG + G > ND's G x 2

No one gets devalued, no funny math. Seems straightforward to me.

ahh, maybe i heard this wrong, but wasn't it big wins and bad losses? and then if close, tie gooes to head-to-head? that's the way it's always been when we have these random 5 people comparing resumes.

if they're doing these machinations, i don't mind harvard in. but if they're following their own logic, notre dame is in also. not tosu.

[HGK]

yes, that works as well to look at it that way. Gets you to the same place. If you accepted RPIs at face value, you would say one team beat a #3 and a #10 and the other beat a #7 twice. Essentially equal. Unless you change the numbers - value Duke less, or Brown more (which they probably did, since Brown was seeded).

You don't even have to devalue Duke to get there, because there's nothing essentially equal about it.

Harvard had a very good (over a team ranked 1-5) and a good win (over a team ranked 6-10). ND had two good wins (over a team ranked 6-10).

Harvard's VG + G > ND's G x 2

No one gets devalued, no funny math. Seems straightforward to me.

ahh, maybe i heard this wrong, but wasn't it big wins and bad losses? and then if close, tie gooes to head-to-head? that's the way it's always been when we have these random 5 people comparing resumes.

if they're doing these machinations, i don't mind harvard in. but if they're following their own logic, notre dame is in also. not tosu.

Didn’t OSU beat ND?

[10stone5]

Terry Foy at IL is having a total meltdown,

Part of the reason that I feel comfortable with the Irish at No. 4, ahead of a Virginia team that beat them on March 26 and an Ohio State team that beat them on March 12 …

[ICGrad]

Terry Foy at IL is having a total meltdown,

Part of the reason that I feel comfortable with the Irish at No. 4, ahead of a Virginia team that beat them on March 26 and an Ohio State team that beat them on March 12 …

He's trying to be so diplomatic about it, too.