Bracketology 2023

[Dr. Tact]

Looks like maybe the DePauw coach is on the selection committee. I guess that’s how a 4th place (out of 7 teams) team gets selected to the tourney with 5 losses (by 22 to Chicago, 7 to OWU, 7 to Denison, 16 to Kenyon and 12 to Kenyon) gets selected. Or perhaps it was that torrid end of the season where they lost 4 of their last 6 game? Or maybe it was the marquee win against… Aurora by 1 in OT? Or Sewannee by 1 also in OT?

Love the use of sarcastica font

[Dr. Tact]

It would be great if all 3 divisions for for both men & women could play the same weekend in the same location.

^^this^^

[wlaxphan20]

It would be great if all 3 divisions for for both men & women could play the same weekend in the same location.

^^this^^

I get that it is somewhat of a big ask, logistically, but it’d be awesome.

[RocLaxFan]

where are the Regionals for Willam Smith bracket being played at this year? Or is that determined after this weekend?

Must be they don't say the one of four regional sites Saturday and Sunday, May 20-21 until after this weekend

[chfan]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

What is the cut-off number of AL bids for when you can't complain?

[rollwave]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

Why though? Unlike some questionable at-large bids, every NESCAC team that received an at-large bid undoubtedly deserved it. Shouldn't each team (and consequently every conference) have the as much of a right to complain about their placement in bracket as any other team (or conference)?

There doesn't seem to be much competitive justification for Tufts and Wesleyan to be playing so early in the tournament, regardless of their conference.

Ultimately though, IMO the structure of the bracket will not do much to impact the final outcome. Besides maybe W&L, there doesn't seem to be a team capable of beating Middlebury this year.

[lax410]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

I’d argue AL bids should be the next best teams after the conference winners. Depauw and Mt. Union are unquestionably not in that category. If they are truly “at large” one would think that they could be from any region or from just one or two regions. Why the need to spread them around if the other regions aren’t competitive?

[laxfan22]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

Why though? Unlike some questionable at-large bids, every NESCAC team that received an at-large bid undoubtedly deserved it. Shouldn't each team (and consequently every conference) have the as much of a right to complain about their placement in bracket as any other team (or conference)?

There doesn't seem to be much competitive justification for Tufts and Wesleyan to be playing so early in the tournament, regardless of their conference.

Ultimately though, IMO the structure of the bracket will not do much to impact the final outcome. Besides maybe W&L, there doesn't seem to be a team capable of beating Middlebury this year.

Sure. I’d take middlebury vs the entire field. It will take a big upset for anyone to beat them. I think the tufts/Wesleyan matchup is silly. One should have been switched with st John fisher. Ultimately all the complaints pale in comparison to the completely underserved inclusion of 2 teams - 1 whose frikkkn coach was on the committee!!!

[Bart]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

Why though? Unlike some questionable at-large bids, every NESCAC team that received an at-large bid undoubtedly deserved it. Shouldn't each team (and consequently every conference) have the as much of a right to complain about their placement in bracket as any other team (or conference)?

There doesn't seem to be much competitive justification for Tufts and Wesleyan to be playing so early in the tournament, regardless of their conference.

Ultimately though, IMO the structure of the bracket will not do much to impact the final outcome. Besides maybe W&L, there doesn't seem to be a team capable of beating Middlebury this year.

Sure. I’d take middlebury vs the entire field. It will take a big upset for anyone to beat them. I think the tufts/Wesleyan matchup is silly. One should have been switched with st John fisher. Ultimately all the complaints pale in comparison to the completely underserved inclusion of 2 teams - 1 whose frikkkn coach was on the committee!!!

Here are the selection criteria from the NCAA for at large bids. You can find the entire PreChampionship manual here: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champi ... Manual.pdf

The selection criteria for Pool C is below:
PRIMARY CRITERIA
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed (emphasis mine)
will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents;
● Division III head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common Division III opponents;
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking. Conference postseason contests
are included;
● Division III strength of schedule.
- Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP)

If we compare the Regional Rankings of the teams in question you can see the following (from the 5/8 publication)
Team: (Regional Rank)
Amherst (6)
Williams (7)
DePauw (2)
Mount Union (3)
So both DePauw and Mount Union have a better regional ranking.

Comparing the primary criteria from the PDF's from the bottom of the ranking page:https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse- ... l-rankings

Team----- In division w-L----Results vs Ranked opponents-----In division SOS------overall w/l
Amherst----9-6(.600)---------3-6(.333)-------------------------------.629-----------------9-6(.600)
Williams----10-6(.625)-------2-6(.250)-------------------------------.609..................10-6(.625)
DePauw-----11-5(.688)------2-5(.286).................................634..................11-5 (.688)
Mount U-----11-4 (.733)....3-4 (.429)..................................597----------------13-4 (.765)

If I am reading the rules correctly (I may not be) comparing DePauw to Amherst in a regional comparison DePauw is better in 3 out of the 4 categories and better in 4 out of 4 categories with Williams.
Mount Union is better than Amherst in 3 out of 4 categories and 3 out of 4 categories when comparing it to Williams.

I have no dog in this fight. I was just really curious how these two teams could be included in the tournament as an at-large. IF the selection criteria is comparing teams with emphasis of in region competition I can see how they can be included.

What is not considered (from what I read in the manual) is the "eye test" in which I clearly agree that Amherst and Williams are better lacrosse teams but from my reading the data used comes up with the opposite conclusion. If this is the case then the beef lies with the way the system is set up and not an individual committee member.

I will gladly be wrong if I do not understand the rules properly.

[lovelax]

Bart excellent analysis of the selection process. The region criteria (which changed from last year) punishes teams in competitive conferences and rewards those less competitive conferences with its inter-region criteria. There were 59 total teams ranked in regions in 2022 and only 48 this year. Using "ranked teams" is also a "soft" metric in that teams in the top 10 which play each other are weighted the same as to 20-25 teams as they are all "ranked". Also "strength of schedule" is determined by the opponent's winning percentage, NOT the strength of the team they play.

So, load up the schedule on the weaker teams ranked at the end of the ranked teams to help your chances of getting a bid. That said, there are still absurdly unbalanced brackets even with this criterion.

[Farfromgeneva]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

What is the cut-off number of AL bids for when you can't complain?

1 if you’re in William Smiths bracket because it doesn’t matter as they’re winning it all this year!

[laxfan22]

Well that’s a frikkin joke. And it’s “emphasize” not “required”. There is absolutely no way anyone can justify any metric that puts mount union or DePauw in as an at large team over numerous teams that would destroy and humiliate both teams on a given day.

[lax410]

Lovelax wrote:

In the WS bracket, how do two top 7 teams play each other in the round of 16? (Tufts and Wesleyan) Anti-Nescac bias? The bracket ensures that no more than two Nescac teams can make the final four.

It seems to me that any conference that receives 4 at-large bits in a 46 team tournament has no right to complain about how those at-large teams are placed in the bracket.

Why though? Unlike some questionable at-large bids, every NESCAC team that received an at-large bid undoubtedly deserved it. Shouldn't each team (and consequently every conference) have the as much of a right to complain about their placement in bracket as any other team (or conference)?

There doesn't seem to be much competitive justification for Tufts and Wesleyan to be playing so early in the tournament, regardless of their conference.

Ultimately though, IMO the structure of the bracket will not do much to impact the final outcome. Besides maybe W&L, there doesn't seem to be a team capable of beating Middlebury this year.

Sure. I’d take middlebury vs the entire field. It will take a big upset for anyone to beat them. I think the tufts/Wesleyan matchup is silly. One should have been switched with st John fisher. Ultimately all the complaints pale in comparison to the completely underserved inclusion of 2 teams - 1 whose frikkkn coach was on the committee!!!

Here are the selection criteria from the NCAA for at large bids. You can find the entire PreChampionship manual here: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champi ... Manual.pdf

The selection criteria for Pool C is below:
PRIMARY CRITERIA
The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed (emphasis mine)
will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
● Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents;
● Division III head-to-head competition;
● Results versus common Division III opponents;
● Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking. Conference postseason contests
are included;
● Division III strength of schedule.
- Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OWP).
- Opponents’ Opponents’ Average Winning Percentage (OOWP)

If we compare the Regional Rankings of the teams in question you can see the following (from the 5/8 publication)
Team: (Regional Rank)
Amherst (6)
Williams (7)
DePauw (2)
Mount Union (3)
So both DePauw and Mount Union have a better regional ranking.

Comparing the primary criteria from the PDF's from the bottom of the ranking page:https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse- ... l-rankings

Team----- In division w-L----Results vs Ranked opponents-----In division SOS------overall w/l
Amherst----9-6(.600)---------3-6(.333)-------------------------------.629-----------------9-6(.600)
Williams----10-6(.625)-------2-6(.250)-------------------------------.609..................10-6(.625)
DePauw-----11-5(.688)------2-5(.286).................................634..................11-5 (.688)
Mount U-----11-4 (.733)....3-4 (.429)..................................597----------------13-4 (.765)

If I am reading the rules correctly (I may not be) comparing DePauw to Amherst in a regional comparison DePauw is better in 3 out of the 4 categories and better in 4 out of 4 categories with Williams.
Mount Union is better than Amherst in 3 out of 4 categories and 3 out of 4 categories when comparing it to Williams.

I have no dog in this fight. I was just really curious how these two teams could be included in the tournament as an at-large. IF the selection criteria is comparing teams with emphasis of in region competition I can see how they can be included.

What is not considered (from what I read in the manual) is the "eye test" in which I clearly agree that Amherst and Williams are better lacrosse teams but from my reading the data used comes up with the opposite conclusion. If this is the case then the beef lies with the way the system is set up and not an individual committee member.

I will gladly be wrong if I do not understand the rules properly.

Thanks for this background. I had looked for the criteria previously and couldn’t find it so that’s very helpful.

Given the explanation of the criteria I understand the selections. Nonetheless IMO it’d be better to have AL bids more closely resemble the best 13 teams that didn’t win their conferences. It would make for a better quality tournament and would reward the best play.

I wonder if other sports have done this and what criteria/stats they used to better identify the next best teams.

[JustWatching]

I'm not sure how much of an impact it has, but the Men's D3 rankings are from five regions rather than seven. I would assume that affects the number of teams that are even eligible to be selected as an AL.

[Bart]

I'm not sure how much of an impact it has, but the Men's D3 rankings are from five regions rather than seven. I would assume that affects the number of teams that are even eligible to be selected as an AL.

I do not think so. The number of teams selected as an AL depend on the number of automatic bids and the number of Pool B teams selected.

If women's lacrosse were to go from 7 to 5 regions it would depend entirely on the makeup of the regions.

[anneclax]

Looks like maybe the DePauw coach is on the selection committee. I guess that’s how a 4th place (out of 7 teams) team gets selected to the tourney with 5 losses (by 22 to Chicago, 7 to OWU, 7 to Denison, 16 to Kenyon and 12 to Kenyon) gets selected. Or perhaps it was that torrid end of the season where they lost 4 of their last 6 game? Or maybe it was the marquee win against… Aurora by 1 in OT? Or Sewannee by 1 also in OT?

If this was a sport that had attention to it, there would be an investigation and some people would be asked to never return. It’s that atrocious. And this is good for the sport? I mean FfS, if 3 of 7 NCAC schools are to be in the tourney, you didn’t choose the 3d place team? CRIMINAL

I am the DePauw coach. If you want to smear my name and make assumptions about me somehow wielding my immense powers over the National Committee, you had better get your facts straight. I was a non-voting member of the regional committee and any time my team's name was in consideration for an AL bid, I was removed from the conversation. So stop talking smack about me when you know nothing about the process. You may think this is all a joke or some funny way to pass the time making judgments about people's character, but it is my character and the way I make a living so back off.

[laxfan22]

Ok. Since you were on the committee, can you justify how depauws resume justified at at large bud over Amherst? Williams? Haverford? Or will you concede that based on resume, those 3 (and others) were massively more deserving of at large bids? I actually don’t think it’s a joke. That’s why I raised it - there were multiple teams, players and coaches that deserved to be in the tournament and the joke is that they didn’t get a chance.

[Farfromgeneva]

Looks like maybe the DePauw coach is on the selection committee. I guess that’s how a 4th place (out of 7 teams) team gets selected to the tourney with 5 losses (by 22 to Chicago, 7 to OWU, 7 to Denison, 16 to Kenyon and 12 to Kenyon) gets selected. Or perhaps it was that torrid end of the season where they lost 4 of their last 6 game? Or maybe it was the marquee win against… Aurora by 1 in OT? Or Sewannee by 1 also in OT?

If this was a sport that had attention to it, there would be an investigation and some people would be asked to never return. It’s that atrocious. And this is good for the sport? I mean FfS, if 3 of 7 NCAC schools are to be in the tourney, you didn’t choose the 3d place team? CRIMINAL

I am the DePauw coach. If you want to smear my name and make assumptions about me somehow wielding my immense powers over the National Committee, you had better get your facts straight. I was a non-voting member of the regional committee and any time my team's name was in consideration for an AL bid, I was removed from the conversation. So stop talking smack about me when you know nothing about the process. You may think this is all a joke or some funny way to pass the time making judgments about people's character, but it is my character and the way I make a living so back off.

Excellent! Taking it to the folks who behave like this:

https://youtu.be/14njUwJUg1I

[laxfan22]

What did I say that you disagree with?