ivy league 2024

[Can Opener]

If it's important for whatever reason to have every conference represented, how about having 2 play-in games for the teams with the worst RPIs? Or even 3? Think of something else to call those games to avoid "expanding the tournment." Keep top 13 RPI teams.

I might feel differently next year when four Ivies get in , but I think I’m with you. I don’t want to water down the regular season but with 76 teams now playing and AQs in place to incentivize expansion, leaving room to relegate more AQs to play-ins seems appropriate with DI participation. Hockey has a 16 team tourney with 64 teams playing...

The real difference between the NCAA hockey and lacrosse is more about the number of conferences than the number of schools (acknowledging that these are correlated at one level)
Hockey - 6 conference AQs, 10 at large
Lacrosse - 9 conference AQs, 7 at large... and the ACC isnt one of those AQs but obviously always has multiple teams with high RPI

I would be a fan of expanding the field, but havent settled on a format that I think is equitable. Do we really want the lowest RPI AQs squaring off midweek in play-ins so whoever wins those contests gets stomped even harder by a top 5 team on short rest/prep? The direction NCAA hoops has gone with regional 10seeds needing to faceoff is an interesting wrinkle, just not sure how you approach it with a much smaller field (especially if you dont want to rehash conference matchups... the bubble this year included 3 Ivy teams for instance)

Lacrosse has 8 at large slots, not 7. Seems about the right ratio to me considering the relatively small number of D1 lacrosse programs and in line with the hockey ratio.

[nyjay]

I would be a fan of expanding the field, but havent settled on a format that I think is equitable. Do we really want the lowest RPI AQs squaring off midweek in play-ins so whoever wins those contests gets stomped even harder by a top 5 team on short rest/prep? The direction NCAA hoops has gone with regional 10seeds needing to faceoff is an interesting wrinkle, just not sure how you approach it with a much smaller field (especially if you dont want to rehash conference matchups... the bubble this year included 3 Ivy teams for instance)

I think expansion is the right idea - 20 teams in total, four play-in games. The four lowest seeded AQs host the four lowest seeded at larges in the play-in games. That gives the at larges a bid and a chance, but also rewards the AQs for winning their conference. Would also make for some highly entertaining "first" round games. So this year you'd have something like:

Penn State at Sacred Heart (winner to play ND)
Penn at Albany (winner to play Duke)
Yale at Utah (winner to play JHU) (no way to deal with the travel issues - maybe that's a deal breaker for this plan?)
Cornell at Lehigh (winner to play Cuse)

[xxxxxxx]

I don't see the NCAA adding teams, they are pretty consistent with their percentages of teams that get in. I think a second NIT type tournament could be well received but really have no idea what the college lacrosse community feels about one.

[FannOLax]

I don't see the NCAA adding teams, they are pretty consistent with their percentages of teams that get in. I think a second NIT type tournament could be well received but really have no idea what the college lacrosse community feels about one.

The men's basketball NIT existed before the NCAA sanctioned tournament. College basketball makes considerable amounts of money, and until college lacrosse brings in the lucre I think a secondary post-season tourney is a non-starter.

[nyjay]

I don't see the NCAA adding teams, they are pretty consistent with their percentages of teams that get in. I think a second NIT type tournament could be well received but really have no idea what the college lacrosse community feels about one.

you're probably right about that. all the tournaments seem to involve around 20% of the total teams, with mens hockey (16/60 - 26%) and soccer (48/205 - 23%) being the highest. mens lacrosse is at 17/77 - 22% - 20/77 would bring it right up there with hockey. my solution - which i think we can all agree on - increase the denominator as well.

[Cornell95]

Lacrosse has 8 at large slots, not 7. Seems about the right ratio to me considering the relatively small number of D1 lacrosse programs and in line with the hockey ratio.

There a bunch of ways you can present the numbers (you know the old saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics)
But I dont think you can say the ratio between hockey at large teams and lacrosse at large teams are in line, even with the relatively new (2022) single play-in contest and considering the top ACC team not an AQ slot because they havent secured a 6th team (there are zero scenarios where the ACC woudlnt have a team qualify)

Hockey has 64 D1 programs (contracting to 63 in 2025 I think) and only 6 conference AQs and 10 at large teams. 62.5% of the field is at large bids
Lacrosse has 77 D1 programs and continues to expand. 9 AQs and 8 at large teams. 47% of the field is at large. I could/would argue it is more accurately 10/7 or 41% of the field is at large, because the ACC being ecxluded from the AQ count because they dont have 6 teams doesnt reflect that there are zero scenarios where the ACC doesnt have a representative in the tournament.
Basketball has a much larger number of D1 programs, but 32 AQs and a 68 team tournament field, so >50% are at large.

With the water over the dam on having midweek play-ins, I dont see any issue with expanding to 20 teams, 9 conference AQs (10 if the ACC could add another team... is Title IX that much or a challenge that BC cant add Men's to their already strong Women's program? Maybe Stanford/Cal elevates their Men's clubs when they join the ACC in 2025) would put you right at the ~50% at large bid threshold

[IvyBrown]

Great Analysis. I was just going to start looking into the numbers and put the statistics together, but you did a much better job than I would have

Beyond that the simple eye test supports expanding
For example, Cornell could easily put together a string of games and run to the finals. There are teams that are not in the tournament that have beaten teams that are - therefore that tells you expansion should happen An expanded tournament will increase revenue, eyeballs and profit the sport in many ways.

[ctbagataway]

Follow the money for your answer. The NCAA pays the travel costs for the tournaments. They could care less how many at larges for AQ's there are or what the "eye test" says-- they just want a relatively consistent percentage of teams in the post season across the various sports. Men's lacrosse is the same as women's at 22%. If anyone has a gripe, it is basketball. 351 programs and only 68 make the tournament, under 20%.

Bottom line--every game matters during the season, and we (collectively, the league) needed to win more of the big games this year and the conversation would be different.

[NYlax222]

Tbh I don't think they Ivy's were snubbed this year just as I didn't think the ACC teams were snubbed in 2022. The RPI system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've come up with at the moment and all the teams know the system going in. The Ivy's had some great OOC wins, but a few too many that they let slip the other way. Yale blowing the big lead to Penn State, Cornell not getting over the finish line against ND, Harvard collapsing in the fourth quarter against UVA, Brown falling just short again Maryland, Cornell losing at Denver in a game where they were the better team -- any of these results flip and things look very different come selection Sunday. With only so many OOC games to compare teams, the margins are really thin.

Do I think 4 B1G teams getting in and only 1 Ivy getting in is a fair reflection of the comparative quality of the conferences? Absolutely not. But that's what happens when you have bid stealers and small sample sizes. At the end of the day I have no qualms with the system because ultimately it came down to the results on the field rather than hypotheticals. It was the same two years ago, and to this day I roll my eyes when people act like a ND team that lost to every good team they played and feasted on down ACC peers was actually the biggest threat to the best college lacrosse team this century.

As to '22, you are defending a selection system whereby the 4th ranked (by the coaches) team in country didn't get into a tourney with 17 team tourney. Whether its ND or anyone else, that isn't right. As to biggest threat, unclear, but the argument you cite wasn't the issue. Their game happened to be the only close one MD played. Yes, MD '22 was fantastic, though doubt they'd be favored over ND '24.

[10stone5]

Tbh I don't think they Ivy's were snubbed this year just as I didn't think the ACC teams were snubbed in 2022. The RPI system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've come up with at the moment and all the teams know the system going in. The Ivy's had some great OOC wins, but a few too many that they let slip the other way. Yale blowing the big lead to Penn State, Cornell not getting over the finish line against ND, Harvard collapsing in the fourth quarter against UVA, Brown falling just short again Maryland, Cornell losing at Denver in a game where they were the better team -- any of these results flip and things look very different come selection Sunday. With only so many OOC games to compare teams, the margins are really thin.

Do I think 4 B1G teams getting in and only 1 Ivy getting in is a fair reflection of the comparative quality of the conferences? Absolutely not. But that's what happens when you have bid stealers and small sample sizes. At the end of the day I have no qualms with the system because ultimately it came down to the results on the field rather than hypotheticals. It was the same two years ago, and to this day I roll my eyes when people act like a ND team that lost to every good team they played and feasted on down ACC peers was actually the biggest threat to the best college lacrosse team this century.

As to '22, you are defending a selection system whereby the 4th ranked (by the coaches) team in country didn't get into a tourney with 17 team tourney. Whether its ND or anyone else, that isn't right. As to biggest threat, unclear, but the argument you cite wasn't the issue. Their game happened to be the only close one MD played. Yes, MD '22 was fantastic, though doubt they'd be favored over ND '24.

MD would.
One of the all time teams, one loss over 2 years - by one goal in the national title game.

[random observer]

Tbh I don't think they Ivy's were snubbed this year just as I didn't think the ACC teams were snubbed in 2022. The RPI system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've come up with at the moment and all the teams know the system going in. The Ivy's had some great OOC wins, but a few too many that they let slip the other way. Yale blowing the big lead to Penn State, Cornell not getting over the finish line against ND, Harvard collapsing in the fourth quarter against UVA, Brown falling just short again Maryland, Cornell losing at Denver in a game where they were the better team -- any of these results flip and things look very different come selection Sunday. With only so many OOC games to compare teams, the margins are really thin.

Do I think 4 B1G teams getting in and only 1 Ivy getting in is a fair reflection of the comparative quality of the conferences? Absolutely not. But that's what happens when you have bid stealers and small sample sizes. At the end of the day I have no qualms with the system because ultimately it came down to the results on the field rather than hypotheticals. It was the same two years ago, and to this day I roll my eyes when people act like a ND team that lost to every good team they played and feasted on down ACC peers was actually the biggest threat to the best college lacrosse team this century.

As to '22, you are defending a selection system whereby the 4th ranked (by the coaches) team in country didn't get into a tourney with 17 team tourney. Whether its ND or anyone else, that isn't right. As to biggest threat, unclear, but the argument you cite wasn't the issue. Their game happened to be the only close one MD played. Yes, MD '22 was fantastic, though doubt they'd be favored over ND '24.

Yes, I am defending that system because it rewards the teams that actually win the games that are played on the field. ND didn't deserve to be anywhere close to #4 in any rankings; they were the 4th best team in the country in hypothetical games that happened in people's heads, but on the field every time they played a top team they lost. 2022 ND being considered an elite team is the most utterly fanciful fable I've seen in lacrosse in years. They had two nailbiter wins over an underwhelming Duke team (by their standards), and beat up on bad Cuse and UNC teams. Every time they played an actually good team they lost -- and none of those losses were 50/50 games. Georgetown smacked them around on their home field. UVA and OSU had good but not vintage seasons and they both beat ND comfortably. The Maryland loss was a good performance -- but it's literally the only performance ND had all season out of 10 games that would suggest they were a contender, which is why ND fans always talk about that game and never talk about anything else ND did that season. When your entire resume is based on one game, and that game is a loss, it just means the team didn't beat any good teams. It's like saying Cornell was a national title favorite this year because they lost a close game to ND.

And that brings me to this year's ND team; it's the height of "prisoner of the moment" thinking to compare them to 2022 Maryland. Maryland was beating ranked teams by 10+ goals on a weekly basis -- a 5 goal win for them was considered a nail biter. They trailed for maybe 20 minutes the entire year, and only twice did a team even end the game within shouting distance (credit to ND for being one of those two). They didn't go three midfields deep, but their starting offense was stronger than ND's, their poles were stronger, they had the best FOGO in lacrosse, and most importantly, they had four AA caliber SSDMs. And Entenmann is considered the better goalie, but McNaney was better statistically that year than Liam is this year by a decent margin. It was a team the likes of which we won't see for many many years. Compare that to ND this season, who is in a class of their own in a year where there aren't any other teams that look elite. Even then, they lost to a good but not elite Georgetown team at home, they were played to the last shot by a Cornell team that didn't make the tournament, and even last week UVA had a lead on them in the fourth quarter.

[Chousnake]

Tbh I don't think they Ivy's were snubbed this year just as I didn't think the ACC teams were snubbed in 2022. The RPI system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've come up with at the moment and all the teams know the system going in. The Ivy's had some great OOC wins, but a few too many that they let slip the other way. Yale blowing the big lead to Penn State, Cornell not getting over the finish line against ND, Harvard collapsing in the fourth quarter against UVA, Brown falling just short again Maryland, Cornell losing at Denver in a game where they were the better team -- any of these results flip and things look very different come selection Sunday. With only so many OOC games to compare teams, the margins are really thin.

Do I think 4 B1G teams getting in and only 1 Ivy getting in is a fair reflection of the comparative quality of the conferences? Absolutely not. But that's what happens when you have bid stealers and small sample sizes. At the end of the day I have no qualms with the system because ultimately it came down to the results on the field rather than hypotheticals. It was the same two years ago, and to this day I roll my eyes when people act like a ND team that lost to every good team they played and feasted on down ACC peers was actually the biggest threat to the best college lacrosse team this century.

As to '22, you are defending a selection system whereby the 4th ranked (by the coaches) team in country didn't get into a tourney with 17 team tourney. Whether its ND or anyone else, that isn't right. As to biggest threat, unclear, but the argument you cite wasn't the issue. Their game happened to be the only close one MD played. Yes, MD '22 was fantastic, though doubt they'd be favored over ND '24.

Yes, I am defending that system because it rewards the teams that actually win the games that are played on the field. ND didn't deserve to be anywhere close to #4 in any rankings; they were the 4th best team in the country in hypothetical games that happened in people's heads, but on the field every time they played a top team they lost. 2022 ND being considered an elite team is the most utterly fanciful fable I've seen in lacrosse in years. They had two nailbiter wins over an underwhelming Duke team (by their standards), and beat up on bad Cuse and UNC teams. Every time they played an actually good team they lost -- and none of those losses were 50/50 games. Georgetown smacked them around on their home field. UVA and OSU had good but not vintage seasons and they both beat ND comfortably. The Maryland loss was a good performance -- but it's literally the only performance ND had all season out of 10 games that would suggest they were a contender, which is why ND fans always talk about that game and never talk about anything else ND did that season. When your entire resume is based on one game, and that game is a loss, it just means the team didn't beat any good teams. It's like saying Cornell was a national title favorite this year because they lost a close game to Maryland.

And that brings me to this year's ND team; it's the height of "prisoner of the moment" thinking to compare them to 2022 Maryland. Maryland was beating teams by 10+ goals on a weekly basis -- a 5 goal win for them was considered a nail biter. They trailed for maybe 20 minutes the entire year, and only twice did a team even end the game within shouting distance (credit to ND for being one of those two). They didn't go three midfields deep, but their starting offense was stronger than ND's, their poles were stronger, they had the best FOGO in lacrosse, and most importantly, they had four AA caliber SSDMs. And Entenmann is considered the better goalie, but McNaney was better statistically that year than Liam is this year by a decent margin. It was a team the likes of which we won't see for many many years. Compare that to ND this season, who is in a class of their own in a year where there aren't any other teams that look elite. Even then, they lost to a good but not elite Georgetown team at home, they were played to the last shot by a Cornell team that didn't make the tournament, and even last week UVA had a lead on them in the fourth quarter.

Thank you. Well put and dead on. I do think you meant to say that Cornell lost a close game to ND and not Maryland this year.

[Chousnake]

If it's important for whatever reason to have every conference represented, how about having 2 play-in games for the teams with the worst RPIs? Or even 3? Think of something else to call those games to avoid "expanding the tournment." Keep top 13 RPI teams.

I might feel differently next year when four Ivies get in , but I think I’m with you. I don’t want to water down the regular season but with 76 teams now playing and AQs in place to incentivize expansion, leaving room to relegate more AQs to play-ins seems appropriate with DI participation. Hockey has a 16 team tourney with 64 teams playing...

The real difference between the NCAA hockey and lacrosse is more about the number of conferences than the number of schools (acknowledging that these are correlated at one level)
Hockey - 6 conference AQs, 10 at large
Lacrosse - 9 conference AQs, 7 at large... and the ACC isnt one of those AQs but obviously always has multiple teams with high RPI

I would be a fan of expanding the field, but havent settled on a format that I think is equitable. Do we really want the lowest RPI AQs squaring off midweek in play-ins so whoever wins those contests gets stomped even harder by a top 5 team on short rest/prep? The direction NCAA hoops has gone with regional 10seeds needing to faceoff is an interesting wrinkle, just not sure how you approach it with a much smaller field (especially if you dont want to rehash conference matchups... the bubble this year included 3 Ivy teams for instance)

Thanks for laying this out. The big difference between hockey and lax is the number and quality of AQs. The hockey conferences are large and the AQs are almost always in the top 16 in pairwise rankings. Bid stealers are rare and small in number. When you look at the 17 team lax field, the only seeded team to get an AQ is the #8 seed - Georgetown. 1 through 7 are at large and so is the theoretical but likely 9 seed PSU. So the 10, 11, 12 ranked and rated teams are out this season. There are four conferences that dominate the sport and those conferences get three AQs among their 24 teams, but make up about 90% of the top teams in the sport. So a large number of teams in those conferences are fighting for a ridiculously small number of spots. When top ten teams are left out because of all the AQs, something is wrong. Either take away some AQs or just go to two play in games to that 10 at large teams can make the tourney like hockey. Unlike basketball and hockey, there are teams left out every year that can actually make it to the final four or even win the tournament and that needs to be fixed. It's not fair to the players. If the NCAA can use fairness to permit players to play an extra two seasons because of Covid, they can add one more play in game to allow deserving teams and players to play for a title.

[CU77]

I have a very simple solution:

Declare that the conference tournaments are actually first rounds of the NCAA tournament (and count the ACC as a conference).

Voila! The field is now expanded to ~50 teams. And the conference tournaments (= NCAA first rounds) are now much more meaningful.

[random observer]

Tbh I don't think they Ivy's were snubbed this year just as I didn't think the ACC teams were snubbed in 2022. The RPI system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've come up with at the moment and all the teams know the system going in. The Ivy's had some great OOC wins, but a few too many that they let slip the other way. Yale blowing the big lead to Penn State, Cornell not getting over the finish line against ND, Harvard collapsing in the fourth quarter against UVA, Brown falling just short again Maryland, Cornell losing at Denver in a game where they were the better team -- any of these results flip and things look very different come selection Sunday. With only so many OOC games to compare teams, the margins are really thin.

Do I think 4 B1G teams getting in and only 1 Ivy getting in is a fair reflection of the comparative quality of the conferences? Absolutely not. But that's what happens when you have bid stealers and small sample sizes. At the end of the day I have no qualms with the system because ultimately it came down to the results on the field rather than hypotheticals. It was the same two years ago, and to this day I roll my eyes when people act like a ND team that lost to every good team they played and feasted on down ACC peers was actually the biggest threat to the best college lacrosse team this century.

As to '22, you are defending a selection system whereby the 4th ranked (by the coaches) team in country didn't get into a tourney with 17 team tourney. Whether its ND or anyone else, that isn't right. As to biggest threat, unclear, but the argument you cite wasn't the issue. Their game happened to be the only close one MD played. Yes, MD '22 was fantastic, though doubt they'd be favored over ND '24.

Yes, I am defending that system because it rewards the teams that actually win the games that are played on the field. ND didn't deserve to be anywhere close to #4 in any rankings; they were the 4th best team in the country in hypothetical games that happened in people's heads, but on the field every time they played a top team they lost. 2022 ND being considered an elite team is the most utterly fanciful fable I've seen in lacrosse in years. They had two nailbiter wins over an underwhelming Duke team (by their standards), and beat up on bad Cuse and UNC teams. Every time they played an actually good team they lost -- and none of those losses were 50/50 games. Georgetown smacked them around on their home field. UVA and OSU had good but not vintage seasons and they both beat ND comfortably. The Maryland loss was a good performance -- but it's literally the only performance ND had all season out of 10 games that would suggest they were a contender, which is why ND fans always talk about that game and never talk about anything else ND did that season. When your entire resume is based on one game, and that game is a loss, it just means the team didn't beat any good teams. It's like saying Cornell was a national title favorite this year because they lost a close game to Maryland.

And that brings me to this year's ND team; it's the height of "prisoner of the moment" thinking to compare them to 2022 Maryland. Maryland was beating ranked teams by 10+ goals on a weekly basis -- a 5 goal win for them was considered a nail biter. They trailed for maybe 20 minutes the entire year, and only twice did a team even end the game within shouting distance (credit to ND for being one of those two). They didn't go three midfields deep, but their starting offense was stronger than ND's, their poles were stronger, they had the best FOGO in lacrosse, and most importantly, they had four AA caliber SSDMs. And Entenmann is considered the better goalie, but McNaney was better statistically that year than Liam is this year by a decent margin. It was a team the likes of which we won't see for many many years. Compare that to ND this season, who is in a class of their own in a year where there aren't any other teams that look elite. Even then, they lost to a good but not elite Georgetown team at home, they were played to the last shot by a Cornell team that didn't make the tournament, and even last week UVA had a lead on them in the fourth quarter.

Thank you. Well put and dead on. I do think you meant to say that Cornell lost a close game to ND and not Maryland this year.

Yes, updated.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don't see the NCAA adding teams, they are pretty consistent with their percentages of teams that get in. I think a second NIT type tournament could be well received but really have no idea what the college lacrosse community feels about one.

The men's basketball NIT existed before the NCAA sanctioned tournament. College basketball makes considerable amounts of money, and until college lacrosse brings in the lucre I think a secondary post-season tourney is a non-starter.

Run it like a event for profit by a large club system or related. Revneues need to justfiy the P&C premium first though

[Chousnake]

I don't see the NCAA adding teams, they are pretty consistent with their percentages of teams that get in. I think a second NIT type tournament could be well received but really have no idea what the college lacrosse community feels about one.

As a lacrosse fan and a Cornell fan, I would have zero interest in a secondary tournament for the top snubbed teams and I have no interest in seeing Cornell play in any such tournament.

[Chousnake]

I have a very simple solution:

Declare that the conference tournaments are actually first rounds of the NCAA tournament (and count the ACC as a conference).

Voila! The field is now expanded to ~50 teams. And the conference tournaments (= NCAA first rounds) are now much more meaningful.

I have a better idea. How about we eliminate the post season tournaments altogether and give bids to the 9 regular season champions. Then we don't even need a committee or subjective rankings or 47 different formulas or any discussion of good losses and wins and losses.

[PizzaSnake]

I have a very simple solution:

Declare that the conference tournaments are actually first rounds of the NCAA tournament (and count the ACC as a conference).

Voila! The field is now expanded to ~50 teams. And the conference tournaments (= NCAA first rounds) are now much more meaningful.

I have a better idea. How about we eliminate the post season tournaments altogether and give bids to the 9 regular season champions. Then we don't even need a committee or subjective rankings or 47 different formulas or any discussion of good losses and wins and losses.

How about eliminate the NCAA and start from there? Does it still serve any useful purpose? Always good to validate requirements and assumptions periodically with ANY system.

[Stiffler]

Do pre-season polls count as the baseline when it comes to SOS? Anyone know? Or is it like football, where the poll that counts doesn't begin until like mid-season?