2021 NCAA Tournament

[AreaLax]

Sounds like the NCAA is lifting their player limit. Nothing confirmed but seems to be the rumor floating around on twitter

[laxfan1313]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

[wgdsr]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

[laxfan1313]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.

[wgdsr]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.

what would be your setup for selection?

[Houndfan73]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

[wgdsr]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

is that how you would write the metric in there?

[Farfromgeneva]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

Well you know that performance in a single game elimination isn’t a signal of anything. I’ll point to 2010 where ND got to the finals but probably didn’t deserve the AL over GTown as an example. NDs run t prove they belonged in over GTown.

[laxfan1313]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.

what would be your setup for selection?

I think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.

[Houndfan73]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

is that how you would write the metric in there?

Word for word

[wgdsr]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.

what would be your setup for selection?

I think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.

i think most people would be all for more slots. i don't see it as high possibility of happening, but maybe. you'd still have hankering on last teams in. half the field has to be aq's. after play ins. so expanding to 18 is more of a possibility (2 aqs and 2 at larges play in), or with your 20... the bottom 6? at larges and would have play ins and the bottom 2 aq's.

but of course the main obstacle to that would be the nc$$ allowing it.

personally don't subscribe to the logic that a team or a conference especially is undeserving (in most normal years anyway) based on who wins once the tournament starts. what you need or should have is clear criteria for selection. then, everyone that gets in is deserving.

[wgdsr]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

is that how you would write the metric in there?

Word for word

everybody has takes.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.

i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.

[Wheels]

The ACC needs an affiliate member to join for lacrosse so that the conference can get it's AQ back. I have no clue who that affiliate member should be (Richmond makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons but who knows if they'd be interested and how that would affect the new ASun/SoCon partnership). If the ACC could get a 6th member, it's conference tournament would alleviate the need for some of the teams to play another game post-conference tournament. If Syracuse bombed out of the ACC Tournament this year, they probably don't get the AL. Not to say the ACC would not have still gotten 5 teams in, but at least you'd get a better sense of whether or not Cuse belonged in the NCAAs. Playing a last minute game against Bobby Mo didn't tell anyone anything about Cuse.

Or Florida State needs to fish or cut bait on this whole going D1 thing that keeps popping up.

[Farfromgeneva]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

is that how you would write the metric in there?

Word for word

everybody has takes.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.

i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.

Yes but the coaches don’t really want that. At least the coaches of schools w legacy reputations. They want committees to have some latitude to pick based on subjectivity because it’s likely to benefit the entrenched. They’ll scream about it the year one gets screwed but they really prefer it like this to absolute rigidity in criterion.

[wgdsr]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

is that how you would write the metric in there?

Word for word

everybody has takes.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.

i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.

Yes but the coaches don’t really want that. At least the coaches of schools w legacy reputations. They want committees to have some latitude to pick based on subjectivity because it’s likely to benefit the entrenched. They’ll scream about it the year one gets screwed but they really prefer it like this to absolute rigidity in criterion.

ffg, we've talked about this. the last 3 tournaments prior to this year went on straight rpi lines. if you're a coach paying attention, it is as absolute of rigidity as possible. this year was an outlier, i'm guessing not to be repeated. hopefully.

that said, using straight rpi is a joke.

[wgdsr]

The ACC needs an affiliate member to join for lacrosse so that the conference can get it's AQ back. I have no clue who that affiliate member should be (Richmond makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons but who knows if they'd be interested and how that would affect the new ASun/SoCon partnership). If the ACC could get a 6th member, it's conference tournament would alleviate the need for some of the teams to play another game post-conference tournament. If Syracuse bombed out of the ACC Tournament this year, they probably don't get the AL. Not to say the ACC would not have still gotten 5 teams in, but at least you'd get a better sense of whether or not Cuse belonged in the NCAAs. Playing a last minute game against Bobby Mo didn't tell anyone anything about Cuse.

Or Florida State needs to fish or cut bait on this whole going D1 thing that keeps popping up.

adding an affiliate member is not going to benefit acc teams, so there's no reason to do that as a conference. if an acc member wants to add lacrosse, that'd be the way that happens. unless idiots are in charge. i don't believe an actual influencer has gone on record for fla state in a long time.

my bets would be ga tech (male population if an a.d. was an expander) and nc state (with boo corrigan now in charge and decent male pop). both probably longshots, but departments will be swimming in money again in a year or 2.

[laxfan1313]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.

what would be your setup for selection?

I think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.

i think most people would be all for more slots. i don't see it as high possibility of happening, but maybe. you'd still have hankering on last teams in. half the field has to be aq's. after play ins. so expanding to 18 is more of a possibility (2 aqs and 2 at larges play in), or with your 20... the bottom 6? at larges and would have play ins and the bottom 2 aq's.

but of course the main obstacle to that would be the nc$$ allowing it.

personally don't subscribe to the logic that a team or a conference especially is undeserving (in most normal years anyway) based on who wins once the tournament starts. what you need or should have is clear criteria for selection. then, everyone that gets in is deserving.

I certainly agree that only deserving teams should get in (if that can be objectively defined). The NCAA's objections to expanding the field are purely arbitrary and could easily be changed by edict. I hope they'll do it soon. The champion should be decided on the field.

[Farfromgeneva]

Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.

is that how you would write the metric in there?

Word for word

everybody has takes.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.

i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.

Yes but the coaches don’t really want that. At least the coaches of schools w legacy reputations. They want committees to have some latitude to pick based on subjectivity because it’s likely to benefit the entrenched. They’ll scream about it the year one gets screwed but they really prefer it like this to absolute rigidity in criterion.

ffg, we've talked about this. the last 3 tournaments prior to this year went on straight rpi lines. if you're a coach paying attention, it is as absolute of rigidity as possible. this year was an outlier, i'm guessing not to be repeated. hopefully.

that said, using straight rpi is a joke.

I’m talking bugger picture that groups prefer SROs while publicly railing against their policy and execution, they don’t want fully transparent they want it this way. Hence not likely to change. Not a judgement in that comment just the reality of any sector/institution/organization - set up a patsy group to make decisions and abrogate all responsibility individually and point fingers at self run or overseen rule makers.

[Farfromgeneva]

The ACC needs an affiliate member to join for lacrosse so that the conference can get it's AQ back. I have no clue who that affiliate member should be (Richmond makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons but who knows if they'd be interested and how that would affect the new ASun/SoCon partnership). If the ACC could get a 6th member, it's conference tournament would alleviate the need for some of the teams to play another game post-conference tournament. If Syracuse bombed out of the ACC Tournament this year, they probably don't get the AL. Not to say the ACC would not have still gotten 5 teams in, but at least you'd get a better sense of whether or not Cuse belonged in the NCAAs. Playing a last minute game against Bobby Mo didn't tell anyone anything about Cuse.

Or Florida State needs to fish or cut bait on this whole going D1 thing that keeps popping up.

adding an affiliate member is not going to benefit acc teams, so there's no reason to do that as a conference. if an acc member wants to add lacrosse, that'd be the way that happens. unless idiots are in charge. i don't believe an actual influencer has gone on record for fla state in a long time.

my bets would be ga tech (male population if an a.d. was an expander) and nc state (with boo corrigan now in charge and decent male pop). both probably longshots, but departments will be swimming in money again in a year or 2.

Maybe not Tech. They’re still paying for Paul Hewitt and paid to get rid of Paul Johnson. Athletics money isn’t in good shape there (my FIL endowed a women’s basketball scholarship there and is ranked I guess these schools rank their top 100 donors and he’s like 71 so I get inside baseball on that school). Demographics are and they’ve had a pretty good club program but it’s not on the level Michigans club was when they decided to go D1.

ACC is fine. They’ll change when they think they need the AQ otherwise it’s a bunch of outsiders complaining because they ate eating up bids.

[Farfromgeneva]

If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.

i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.

There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.

what would be your setup for selection?

I think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.

i think most people would be all for more slots. i don't see it as high possibility of happening, but maybe. you'd still have hankering on last teams in. half the field has to be aq's. after play ins. so expanding to 18 is more of a possibility (2 aqs and 2 at larges play in), or with your 20... the bottom 6? at larges and would have play ins and the bottom 2 aq's.

but of course the main obstacle to that would be the nc$$ allowing it.

personally don't subscribe to the logic that a team or a conference especially is undeserving (in most normal years anyway) based on who wins once the tournament starts. what you need or should have is clear criteria for selection. then, everyone that gets in is deserving.

I certainly agree that only deserving teams should get in (if that can be objectively defined). The NCAA's objections to expanding the field are purely arbitrary and could easily be changed by edict. I hope they'll do it soon. The champion should be decided on the field.

AQ exists for equal representation which supports having a D1 sport. Get rid of the AQ and ten to twenty programs are gone in five years. Here’s the deal, getting playoff reps helps programs build up. Richmond has gotten better and been able to get better recruits because of those first round playoff losses. Same happened with Notre fame 20yrs ago when the GWLL Or there was an “automatic” western rep. They probably wouldn’t be here today if they are without a decade of that opportunity. Doesn’t mean every program will step up but absent having a shot it’s exponentially more difficult.

At some point folks have to decide if they want a robust and viable D1 sport or you want to be like wrestling in 20yrs