2021 Tournament

[SouthernLaxGenius]

is there a description or definition of the limits somewhere?
[/quote]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... n-21/57078

[DeepPocket]

RIT (Liberty League) 5/22 & 5/23 did not allow spectators all year. The women's D3 sweet 16 at Cobly (Nescac) are not allowing spectators. Yes, This includes parents. Who is making these decisions at the NCAA? What idiots.

[ergit]

RIT (Liberty League) 5/22 & 5/23 did not allow spectators all year. The women's D3 sweet 16 at Cobly (Nescac) are not allowing spectators. Yes, This includes parents. Who is making these decisions at the NCAA? What idiots.

Liberty League policy this year was no spectators. It would appear over the last couple of weeks at multiple sites that they were allowing student and staff to attend and fans were watching ‘through the fence’. My understanding is that they will be making limited tickets available, two per competing player when RIT hosts.
This could change with current vaccination rates and the fact that campus will have largely cleared out by then.

[ULLaxLuver]

Crazy year no matter how you try to rationalize it, at least they are playing. Can’t change midstream so I’m sticking with Salisbury to win it, with my dark horse Lynchburg if they get past the Gulls. Vegas has Lynchburg at 32 to 1

Do you have a link to a book with those odds?

[fitzlax]

At IWU, the NCC/IWU game had 380 spectators. Great atmosphere!

NCAA Spectator policy for IWU pod:

https://www.iwusports.com/news/2021/5/9 ... ament.aspx

Spectator Policy
Spectators for the NCAA Tournament games will be limited to those on the student-athlete pass list only to accommodate for fans of both teams. Home fans will have seating available in the southwest half of the main bleachers, along with the horseshoe. Visiting fans will be seated on the southeast half of the main stands along with the bleachers on the north side of the field. Additionally, all spectators will be required to wear masks when inside Tucci Stadium.

[Patlaxer]

The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.

[Harco2019]

What happened with the NEAC this year? I thought they were an AQ in the past. I know they lost some members, but so have other conferences (C2C). Just curious.

[DeepPocket]

From F&M

“ Spectators

Each participating institution will be limited to two (2) spectators per student-athlete and coach. No general admission tickets will be sold.

Masks and physical distancing are required at all times on campus and in Shadek Stadium. Additional health and safety protocols for spectators will be sent directly to participating institutions.

Tailgating is not permitted at any time, and spectators must depart the facility and campus following the conclusion of the contest. ”

https://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-la ... 0510nbimxt

[ah23]

Ahhh those NESCAC supporters, gotta love em

Hey, I'm salty but at least I'm salty with evidence! With one exception, every single RIT team since 2014 has had their season ended on their own field by a NESCAC team. Tufts (2x SF), Amherst (2R), Wesleyan (SF), and Williams (QF) have all beaten the Tigers in the postseason. Every single one of those games was played in Rochester. Each year I argue that RIT is overseeded...and that is almost always validated by results on the field. We'll see how 2021 goes.

The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.

Agreed about the benefits of playing good competition. However, I'd argue that a) no team should be able to get to the Final Four without playing another top opponent, and b) a free ride is more of an advantage than passing tough tests.

• RIT will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #15 Denison or #19 Colorado College in the quarters

• Tufts will likely face #11 St. John Fisher in the second round and either #6 York or #8 F&M in the quarters

• Lynchburg will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #7 Stevenson or #9 CNU in the quarters

• Salisbury will likely face #5 Cabrini in the second round (though their region is a crime against humanity other than the Cavs)

On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.

Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.

I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.

[ergit]

Ahhh those NESCAC supporters, gotta love em

Hey, I'm salty but at least I'm salty with evidence! With one exception, every single RIT team since 2014 has had their season ended on their own field by a NESCAC team. Tufts (2x SF), Amherst (2R), Wesleyan (SF), and Williams (QF) have all beaten the Tigers in the postseason. Every single one of those games was played in Rochester. Each year I argue that RIT is overseeded...and that is almost always validated by results on the field. We'll see how 2021 goes.

The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.

Agreed about the benefits of playing good competition. However, I'd argue that a) no team should be able to get to the Final Four without playing another top opponent, and b) a free ride is more of an advantage than passing tough tests.

• RIT will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #15 Denison or #19 Colorado College in the quarters

• Tufts will likely face #11 St. John Fisher in the second round and either #6 York or #8 F&M in the quarters

• Lynchburg will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #7 Stevenson or #9 CNU in the quarters

• Salisbury will likely face #5 Cabrini in the second round (though their region is a crime against humanity other than the Cavs)

On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.

Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.

I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.

You do have a bitter RIT obsession LOL...

[smoova]

Ahhh those NESCAC supporters, gotta love em

Hey, I'm salty but at least I'm salty with evidence! With one exception, every single RIT team since 2014 has had their season ended on their own field by a NESCAC team. Tufts (2x SF), Amherst (2R), Wesleyan (SF), and Williams (QF) have all beaten the Tigers in the postseason. Every single one of those games was played in Rochester. Each year I argue that RIT is overseeded...and that is almost always validated by results on the field. We'll see how 2021 goes.

The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.

Agreed about the benefits of playing good competition. However, I'd argue that a) no team should be able to get to the Final Four without playing another top opponent, and b) a free ride is more of an advantage than passing tough tests.

• RIT will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #15 Denison or #19 Colorado College in the quarters

• Tufts will likely face #11 St. John Fisher in the second round and either #6 York or #8 F&M in the quarters

• Lynchburg will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #7 Stevenson or #9 CNU in the quarters

• Salisbury will likely face #5 Cabrini in the second round (though their region is a crime against humanity other than the Cavs)

On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.

Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.

I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.

You do have a bitter RIT obsession LOL...

When the facts are against you, attack the messenger LOL...

[ergit]

So much whining...

[DeepPocket]

Stockton spectator policy per their CSAC tournament rules.

”For Men's Lacrosse at Stockton:
No spectators are allowed at Stockton home events except parents / guardians of Stockton student-athletes”

https://keanathletics.com/news/2021/5/5 ... ekend.aspx

[smoova]

So much whining...

Indeed.

[SouthernLaxGenius]

On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.

Here we go again

[SouthernLaxGenius]

I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.

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

[islander]

play more than 6 games and you'll get a better seed.

[DeepPocket]

While we’re talking about “things that could have been done differently....”

That second round. Sunday the 16th. Nearly all of the games will overlap. With 5 of 8 starting at the same time (2p), one at 1p and one at 3p.

What gives. We couldn’t get a 12p and another 4p there?

I guess if you follow one of the 2p teams, you can catch 1/2 of the 1p game, your 2p, and all of the RIT 4p.

Fans really aren’t catching a break.

[Unknown Participant]

Probably to allow the teams that traveled to get home before midnight.

[ShoreThingMD]

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.