2021 Tournament

D3 Mens Lacrosse
Unknown Participant
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:31 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Unknown Participant »

ShoreThingMD wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:42 pm I always get a kick out of the seedings and matchups. Each year, someone feels slighted and in most cases, they can provide some solid evidence for feeling that way. This year is no different, but I think, the committee did ok (all things considered). At the end of the day, when it comes to the NCAA tournament, you can't hide from anyone. One year in particular I remember the south having 3 of the top 4 teams in the polls. Anyone on our team would tell you that our semi-final game was tougher than our national championship game. I think an argument could even be made that our competitive semi-final game prepared us for the championship game. The team we faced in the national championship game had a favorable matchup where they outscored their opponent by more than 10 goals. Needless to say, that got our attention. Who knows if that blowout played a role or how it impacted either team. All I know is that we felt battle-tested.

I'm pumped for this thing to kick off and interested in seeing some of these teams I don't follow as closely. In addition, I think there are some really good (potential) 2nd round matchups across the board and some of the big hitters will be tested early;

All of these are assuming that the higher seeds advance from their 1st round matches;
- RIT (1 or 2) vs. Cortland (top 10)
-Tufts (either 1 or 2 depending on the poll) vs SJF (top 10)
-York (top 5) vs. F&M (top 10)
-Salisbury (top 3) vs. Cabrini ( 5 or 6 depending on which poll)
-Stevenson (top 15) vs. CNU (top 15).
It goes without saying, there are going to be some really good teams that won't make it to the quarterfinals.

I'm also curious to see how some of these teams battle back-to-back game situations. In a year when many teams had games canceled and may have even faced a week off before their next match, teams looking to win a national championship will now have 2 separate situations where they are required to play back-to-back games (1st & 2nd rounds) & (quarter and semifinals). We'll find out which teams can bounce back and stay fresh in a 24-hour window. In the meantime, let's hope everyone stays healthy and tests negative. best of luck to all of those competing and congrats on making in through a hell of a year.
Ok with this post except that Cortland is nowhere near a top ten, maybe a top twenty if being kind. Tufts,in my view, has the toughest draw, but no matter, It'll be Tufts v Flying Rats or the Dirty Birds in the final.
ShoreThingMD
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:14 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by ShoreThingMD »

Unknown Participant wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:53 pm
ShoreThingMD wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:42 pm I always get a kick out of the seedings and matchups. Each year, someone feels slighted and in most cases, they can provide some solid evidence for feeling that way. This year is no different, but I think, the committee did ok (all things considered). At the end of the day, when it comes to the NCAA tournament, you can't hide from anyone. One year in particular I remember the south having 3 of the top 4 teams in the polls. Anyone on our team would tell you that our semi-final game was tougher than our national championship game. I think an argument could even be made that our competitive semi-final game prepared us for the championship game. The team we faced in the national championship game had a favorable matchup where they outscored their opponent by more than 10 goals. Needless to say, that got our attention. Who knows if that blowout played a role or how it impacted either team. All I know is that we felt battle-tested.

I'm pumped for this thing to kick off and interested in seeing some of these teams I don't follow as closely. In addition, I think there are some really good (potential) 2nd round matchups across the board and some of the big hitters will be tested early;

All of these are assuming that the higher seeds advance from their 1st round matches;
- RIT (1 or 2) vs. Cortland (top 10)
-Tufts (either 1 or 2 depending on the poll) vs SJF (top 10)
-York (top 5) vs. F&M (top 10)
-Salisbury (top 3) vs. Cabrini ( 5 or 6 depending on which poll)
-Stevenson (top 15) vs. CNU (top 15).
It goes without saying, there are going to be some really good teams that won't make it to the quarterfinals.

I'm also curious to see how some of these teams battle back-to-back game situations. In a year when many teams had games canceled and may have even faced a week off before their next match, teams looking to win a national championship will now have 2 separate situations where they are required to play back-to-back games (1st & 2nd rounds) & (quarter and semifinals). We'll find out which teams can bounce back and stay fresh in a 24-hour window. In the meantime, let's hope everyone stays healthy and tests negative. best of luck to all of those competing and congrats on making in through a hell of a year.
Ok with this post except that Cortland is nowhere near a top ten, maybe a top twenty if being kind. Tufts,in my view, has the toughest draw, but no matter, It'll be Tufts v Flying Rats or the Dirty Birds in the final.
Didn't watch enough of Cortland to vouch or discredit their ranking, but I was only using a poll I saw updated today as a reference https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/media/ran ... sion-3-men Looked like competitive games vs SJF and RIT earlier in the year, maybe lax mag gave them some style points. Worth noting, they were not top 20 in the USILA. we'll see which squad shows up this weekend
Last edited by ShoreThingMD on Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ah23
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by ah23 »

ergit wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:36 pm You do have a bitter RIT obsession LOL...
Nah RIT is a great program. I just live/played in the northeast and follow the region more closely than others (and thus have the strongest opinions about seeding in the region). RIT gets the #1 seed in the north and then loses at home to the same set of teams basically every year. It is what it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ergit wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:41 pm So much whining...
SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:12 pm :roll:
Here we go again :lol:
Eh. I'm looking at this objectively. The pods are not balanced. Pointing that out isn't whining, it's making a factual observation about how the tournament could have been better constructed in terms of both competitive balance and pure entertainment value. Watching contenders (RIT, Tufts, Salisbury, Lynchburg, York, etc.) get tested against tough competition is what makes the tournament great. A bunch of blowouts does nothing of value for fans or the teams, and it doesn't create an environment in which the best are beating the best.

In case it's unclear...my point is not that it's "unfair" for top teams to have difficult roads to the finals. My point is that every top team should have difficult games prior to the Final Four. True title contenders should win those games anyway...but the idea is that they don't get a free pass. They have to prove it. York has to beat F&M. Tufts has to beat St. John Fisher. Salisbury has to beat Cabrini. Etc., etc. Every team should have to pass tests like that! It's better for fans (we want to watch the best games possible) and it's better for the tournament (more competitive matchups = more interest).
SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:18 pm If you are a legitimate contender then :

A) Win your conference/AQ
B) Go the route of '18 Wesleyan or '19 Amherst as you have illustrated
C) The dynamic of Pool B and Pool C bids along with the tourney expanding occurred (recently) over what time frame again?

Also I will take a "limited field" this year over no field at all
That's what I'm saying :D. 2021 is just incredibly weird, and a number of teams who are probably deserving of a slot are sitting at home. In a normal year (7 at-large bids?) this isn't really an issue, because more non-AQ teams would have gotten in. It is of course great to have a tournament at all this year - hooray for spring sports and hooray for vaccines.
islander wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:30 pm play more than 6 games and you'll get a better seed.
You're going to have to say that slower and maybe add some visual aids for the NESCAC Presidents, they got confused when you said "more than six games".
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

ah23 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:14 pm
In case it's unclear...my point is not that it's "unfair" for top teams to have difficult roads to the finals. My point is that every top team should have difficult games prior to the Final Four. True title contenders should win those games anyway...but the idea is that they don't get a free pass. They have to prove it. York has to beat F&M. Tufts has to beat St. John Fisher. Salisbury has to beat Cabrini. Etc., etc. Every team should have to pass tests like that! It's better for fans (we want to watch the best games possible) and it's better for the tournament (more competitive matchups = more interest).
Oh you're being heard loud and clear :lol:

And whom has this free pass again 8-)

I am still waiting for you (or anyone else for that matter) to post your own version of a bracket based on the teams involved and the criteria set forth by the NCAA that would make everyone happy or have a better understanding your point ;)
Laxisback
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2021 2:12 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Laxisback »

Looking at the brackets, does anyone know why they show 3 games on Friday?
LaxFan#2019
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:36 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by LaxFan#2019 »

Laxisback wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:47 pm Looking at the brackets, does anyone know why they show 3 games on Friday?
schedules had to be adjusted to accommodate 1 or 2 schools that have a NO play policy on Sunday. That’s my understanding. I could be passing along wrong information.
boredatwork
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by boredatwork »

LaxFan#2019 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:24 pm [quote=Laxisback post_id=258974 time=<a href="tel:1620697631">1620697631</a> user_id=3055]
Looking at the brackets, does anyone know why they show 3 games on Friday?
schedules had to be adjusted to accommodate 1 or 2 schools that have a NO play policy on Sunday. That’s my understanding. I could be passing along wrong information.
[/quote]

Yes, Hope college and University of Northwestern are both christian colleges so may have restrictions to athletics on Sundays. It’s pretty common in the soccer tournament as Messiah and Calvin have similar rules.

Per Endicotts online schedule it says they play on Saturday so that’s just a mistake

[url https://ecgulls.com/sports/mlax/2020-21 ... ufwzi81iu0][/url]
ah23
Posts: 616
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by ah23 »

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:39 pm Oh you're being heard loud and clear :lol:

And whom has this free pass again 8-)
The team that has a bye, then an unranked 2nd round matchup, then a QF matchup against at best the #15 or #19 team in the country.
I am still waiting for you (or anyone else for that matter) to post your own version of a bracket based on the teams involved and the criteria set forth by the NCAA that would make everyone happy or have a better understanding your point ;)
The actual solution is "let more competitive teams in". Given regional constraints and hosting requirements, how's this?

1. Swap Cortland and St. John Fisher (or York if you want to get really spicy)
2. Don't have a bye, because why have 31 instead of 32?
3. That's it

IMO every region should have at least a team or two ranked inside the top fifteen in addition to its top seed. Swapping SJF and Cortland accomplishes that and changes literally nothing logistically. RIT still would have the easiest road of the four 1 seeds, but it wouldn't be that different from what Lynchburg's potential road looks like.
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

ah23 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:51 am
The actual solution is "let more competitive teams in". Given regional constraints and hosting requirements, how's this?

1. Swap Cortland and St. John Fisher (or York if you want to get really spicy)
2. Don't have a bye, because why have 31 instead of 32?
3. That's it

IMO every region should have at least a team or two ranked inside the top fifteen in addition to its top seed. Swapping SJF and Cortland accomplishes that and changes literally nothing logistically. RIT still would have the easiest road of the four 1 seeds, but it wouldn't be that different from what Lynchburg's potential road looks like.
Here we go…are you ready (as you may not like what you have to hear, or in this case read :D )

A. The team that has a bye (you know the one from Rochester that you love to point out) was seemingly chosen as the #1 overall team in the tourney. So yes, it seems they would have an easier time to get to the championship game, as is the case with most (college) sports.

B. The “rankings” (polls I am assuming) you speak of, mean little in the way of anything relevant that applies to the tournament or the season for that matter. (Regional) rankings are the only ones that matter.

C. It’s not the job of the NCAA to “let more teams in”. Said team(s) need to be better and win their AQ or go the way of those certain New England teams in 2018 and 2019. Tournament expansion has happened in the past. If you want “more teams in” then more colleges/universities are going to have to add across the country, as opposed to dropping their programs (see Becker, Elmira, UMASS Dartmouth, Wesley etc.).

D. Swapping out Cortland for Saint John Fisher isn’t going to happen as it would take STJF an extra 128 miles to get to Stockton as opposed to the Red Dragons ($$$$ and travel).

E. 31 and the bye is predicated on the reduction of the field (due to Covid this year). If the field is not reduced, then there is no Division III tournament.

F. See point B in regards to every region having a top 15 team.

G. Please see attached link for road to the championships this year.
https://www.ncaa.com/championships/lacr ... sion%20III

H. You’re welcome ;)
User avatar
DeepPocket
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by DeepPocket »

I can’t resist.

A. Cites RIT #1 overall as reason for having bye (agreed)

B. Cites rankings, other than regional, having nothing to do with tournament... but remember A. ?

C. “Letting more teams in” or better yet, more different teams in, is exactly what the NCAA is trying to do. See stronger, tournament worthy teams, out and weaker teams from weaker conferences are in.

D. The $ has been used again and again as an excuse. 128 miles is nothing. You’ve held serve and asked people to back up their complaints with a new bracket. Now back up the $ talk and tell us how the Centre pod (with a team somewhere near 1200 miles from CO) is balanced money/travel wise with the Cabrini pod whose farthest team is around 320 miles. (Spoiler alert. It’s not)

E. The argument is the top teams should be deciding who the overall top team is. If a reduction was needed, have the top 20 or even 10 teams do a tournament. Think about all the money they’d save.

F. See point E. about how if we just INCLUDED all the top teams, we could save $$$$$ AND have the best teams deciding who the best team is.

G. Please see the attached link for who the best teams in the country are. Put them in any order you like, just put them in the tournament.
https://usila.org/

H. #GrowTheGame. You’re welcome. :mrgreen:
MAC - The SEC of DIII lacrosse.
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:03 am I can’t resist.

A. Cites RIT #1 overall as reason for having bye (agreed)

B. Cites rankings, other than regional, having nothing to do with tournament... but remember A. ?

C. “Letting more teams in” or better yet, more different teams in, is exactly what the NCAA is trying to do. See stronger, tournament worthy teams, out and weaker teams from weaker conferences are in.

D. The $ has been used again and again as an excuse. 128 miles is nothing. You’ve held serve and asked people to back up their complaints with a new bracket. Now back up the $ talk and tell us how the Centre pod (with a team somewhere near 1200 miles from CO) is balanced money/travel wise with the Cabrini pod whose farthest team is around 320 miles. (Spoiler alert. It’s not)

E. The argument is the top teams should be deciding who the overall top team is. If a reduction was needed, have the top 20 or even 10 teams do a tournament. Think about all the money they’d save.

F. See point E. about how if we just INCLUDED all the top teams, we could save $$$$$ AND have the best teams deciding who the best team is.

G. Please see the attached link for who the best teams in the country are, in no particular order. Wish they made a tournament for them to decide the best of the best.
https://usila.org/

H. #GrowTheGame. You’re welcome. :mrgreen:
LOL you wanna dance? Lets Dance ;)

A. Agreeing too much. Let’s stop this nonsense for the sake of spirited banter. :D

B. Committee has to decide who they feel is the #1 team going in. These silly human polls" do not always reflect this. :o

C. No comment. 8-)

D. You can say all you want money doesn’t mean anything. But alas, you are wrong as stated, the NCAA is going to go try and go the cheapest route EVERY SINGLE TIME (IMO) they can when afforded the opportunity and is pretty black and white in that matter. If they want to see which travel is “shorter” they will. You can go on and on about a team from Minnesota going to IWU, but let me ask you this…where else of the predetermined “pods” would you like them to travel that is shorter/cheaper? LMK know when you figure that one out. :geek:

E. Polls are ridiculous, especially USILA (I guess you don’t know about or hear about assistant coaches doing these polls, SID’s or coaches with agendas). Those are used to make fan bases happy most of the year (tongue in cheek). :lol:

F. Again where are you getting the basis of these top teams this year? They have all played a full schedule right? Oh yea then there is the problem of, wait, reference E on that one. You have no basis or guideline and once again refer too and please see the link in G in my original post. :ugeek:

G. Wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which stands firm and holds up. It’s what we all signed up for in D III and “them is the breaks”. And referring to a coaches poll is, well, wait we’ve been down that road already. :roll:

H. Thank you come again. :!:
User avatar
DeepPocket
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by DeepPocket »

Wow. That might have been the longest way possible of saying you won’t tell me how all the quadrants travel costs are equal.

(And please take no personal offense to any of this. ALL of my banter is friendly, otherwise I say nothing)
MAC - The SEC of DIII lacrosse.
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:03 am
D. The $ has been used again and again as an excuse. 128 miles is nothing. You’ve held serve and asked people to back up their complaints with a new bracket. Now back up the $ talk and tell us how the Centre pod (with a team somewhere near 1200 miles from CO) is balanced money/travel wise with the Cabrini pod whose farthest team is around 320 miles. (Spoiler alert. It’s not)
You changed your "point" and argument while I was typing my retort, not a bad idea as we knew the whole team from Minnesota thing wasn't going to fly :lol:

Colorado College is the outlier each and every year they are in the NCAA's and have to fly somewhere.

Go back and take a look at that their history when you get a chance ;)
User avatar
DeepPocket
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by DeepPocket »

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:49 am
DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:03 am
D. The $ has been used again and again as an excuse. 128 miles is nothing. You’ve held serve and asked people to back up their complaints with a new bracket. Now back up the $ talk and tell us how the Centre pod (with a team somewhere near 1200 miles from CO) is balanced money/travel wise with the Cabrini pod whose farthest team is around 320 miles. (Spoiler alert. It’s not)
You changed your "point" and argument while I was typing my retort, not a bad idea as we knew the whole team from Minnesota thing wasn't going to fly :lol:

Colorado College is the outlier each and every year they are in the NCAA's and have to fly somewhere.

Go back and take a look at that their history when you get a chance ;)
Same argument. Different example. But I guess the plane wouldn’t take them to Illinois to balance a bracket. ;)
MAC - The SEC of DIII lacrosse.
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:48 am Wow. That might have been the longest way possible of saying you won’t tell me how all the quadrants travel costs are equal.

(And please take no personal offense to any of this. ALL of my banter is friendly, otherwise I say nothing)

All travel quadrants aren't equal, its not possible whatsoever, it's what's the cheapest (and easiest) generally 8-)

Banter is great. I love the back and forth and the facts, opinions and arguments presented.

Nothing ever personal from me, especially on here. Good times and beats me actually doing real work (don't tell the boss) :D
User avatar
DeepPocket
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by DeepPocket »

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:53 am... beats me actually doing real work (don't tell the boss) :D
Indeed.

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:53 am All travel quadrants aren't equal, its not possible whatsoever, it's what's the cheapest (and easiest) generally 8-)
This you?
SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:37 am ....As long as the bracket balances $$$$ wise (yes they literally do crunch the cost of flights vs bus rides for a number of teams) then everything is a-ok for our lovely (non-revenue) sport at all Division Levels :roll:
Just making sure you didn’t get hacked. :o
MAC - The SEC of DIII lacrosse.
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:50 am
SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:49 am
DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:03 am
D. The $ has been used again and again as an excuse. 128 miles is nothing. You’ve held serve and asked people to back up their complaints with a new bracket. Now back up the $ talk and tell us how the Centre pod (with a team somewhere near 1200 miles from CO) is balanced money/travel wise with the Cabrini pod whose farthest team is around 320 miles. (Spoiler alert. It’s not)
You changed your "point" and argument while I was typing my retort, not a bad idea as we knew the whole team from Minnesota thing wasn't going to fly :lol:

Colorado College is the outlier each and every year they are in the NCAA's and have to fly somewhere.

Go back and take a look at that their history when you get a chance ;)
Same argument. Different example. But I guess the plane wouldn’t take them to Illinois to balance a bracket. ;)
Could you imagine how man heads would have exploded in shock, if Colorado College flew to IWU and Hope/Benedictine ended up playing Transylvania instead of them.

There would be outrage of Denison getting a cake walk to the elite 8 :D
SouthernLaxGenius
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:44 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by SouthernLaxGenius »

DeepPocket wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:57 am
SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:53 am... beats me actually doing real work (don't tell the boss) :D
Indeed.

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 10:53 am All travel quadrants aren't equal, its not possible whatsoever, it's what's the cheapest (and easiest) generally 8-)
This you?
SouthernLaxGenius wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:37 am ....As long as the bracket balances $$$$ wise (yes they literally do crunch the cost of flights vs bus rides for a number of teams) then everything is a-ok for our lovely (non-revenue) sport at all Division Levels :roll:
Just making sure you didn’t get hacked. :o
What am I Kevin Durant :lol:

No that's me unlike some on here (no not you Deep Pocket) I own what I type.

If you are referring to Colorado College and them flying to the Centre part of the bracket (the one outlier), it makes sense as opposed to anyone in the IWU portion because the NCAA already knows they have to fly/travel, so keep the teams in the IWU part of the pod/bracket and have them fly to Centre vs. MD, NJ, NY. PA, MD, or VA
User avatar
DeepPocket
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:56 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by DeepPocket »

:lol: All good
MAC - The SEC of DIII lacrosse.
Nothinbutthelax
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:16 pm

Re: 2021 Tournament

Post by Nothinbutthelax »

Gentlemen- Moving on South..
Assuming 1st rounders hold serve how does LYN match up vs. Stevens? Barring a slow 1st Q. they gave York all they could handle..LYN has them at home and get to watch game after they play Phieffer.

Winner travels to Salisbury to meet CNU or Stevenson.
Stevenson collapse in York game 2 was strange after handling them Game 1.. Stevie handled Stevens early..
CNU is very capable and just gave Salisbury all they could handle. If their goalie is hot and they’re healthy are very tough.
Whoever meets Salisbury will be battle tested.

LYN has real depth but has played flat 3 times (CNU game 1, W&L game 1 and HSC thru 3 Q’s)

Salisbury walks in IMHO so will they be dull or sharp? Hoping the latter and pulling for a LYN rematch with Tufts🥃🧊
Post Reply

Return to “D3 MENS LACROSSE”