ACC 2019

[Cooter]

I expect that ACC will get it together, but these early non-conference games will cost them at least one bid (maybe two)... I'm sure of it.

Given that the last couple at-large teams will probably have 5-6 losses, this statement seems questionable.

[Hawkeye]

I expect that ACC will get it together, but these early non-conference games will cost them at least one bid (maybe two)... I'm sure of it.

Given that the last couple at-large teams will probably have 5-6 losses, this statement seems questionable.

Absolutely. Let the ACC teams keep wrecking their RPI, in turn hurting their SOS, and then of course the conference teams are guaranteed to accrue 10 losses (distributed somehow) through conference play.

There's no way that a loss to Colgate or High Point is viewed anywhere near the same as a loss to Loyola. Colgate>Syracuse and High Point>Duke hurts the entirety of the ACC, not just the chances for those two teams. These losses are not meaningless. They will end up weighing the conference down, especially the lower-end bubble teams that you speak of.

The committee is not supposed to look at teams improving throughout the season/getting hot (or whatever people want to call it). A February upset loss counts just the same as any other loss, even if that team hadn't woke up from hibernation yet.

If things play out like I expect they might, does the 4th place ACC team get the nod over the 3rd place team from the Ivy League, or the 2nd place team from the Big East/Patriot League? And that's not even thinking about "bid stealing" by teams that were likely not in the at-large running - e.g., Denver not winning the BE title the last 3 years.

[Cooter]

I expect that ACC will get it together, but these early non-conference games will cost them at least one bid (maybe two)... I'm sure of it.

Given that the last couple at-large teams will probably have 5-6 losses, this statement seems questionable.

Absolutely. Let the ACC teams keep wrecking their RPI, in turn hurting their SOS, and then of course the conference teams are guaranteed to accrue 10 losses (distributed somehow) through conference play.

There's no way that a loss to Colgate or High Point is viewed anywhere near the same as a loss to Loyola. Colgate>Syracuse and High Point>Duke hurts the entirety of the ACC, not just the chances for those two teams. These losses are not meaningless. They will end up weighing the conference down, especially the lower-end bubble teams that you speak of.

The committee is not supposed to look at teams improving throughout the season/getting hot (or whatever people want to call it). A February upset loss counts just the same as any other loss, even if that team hadn't woke up from hibernation yet.

If things play out like I expect they might, does the 4th place ACC team get the nod over the 3rd place team from the Ivy League, or the 2nd place team from the Big East/Patriot League? And that's not even thinking about "bid stealing" by teams that were likely not in the at-large running - e.g., Denver not winning the BE title the last 3 years.

As you yourself indicate, the ACC needs to keep wrecking their RPI, that is, losing games to make it sure. Thus it is hardly sure at the moment.

Looking at the preseason rankings which had Syracuse and Notre Dame at around 10 and UNC at 14/15, we might assume that the integer-valued projection for "ACC teams making the NCAA tmt" was 4 going into the season. A decimal expected value for number of "ACC teams making the NCAA tmt" going into the season might have been a bit lower even, say, perhaps 3.8. These 3 losses form a small set of games and ACC also won 4 games in the period, so I would guess that at most the "expected number of teams making the NCAA tmt." might have dropped from 3.8 to 3.7.
It is fair to note that Virginia was actually a slight underdog in their game, and there were 6 other games some against decent opponents. Thus the expected number of losses for these games was probably at least 1, and perhaps 1.5 give the variability of early season games. So we are not really going from 0 to 3, but from 1-1.5 to 3.

[hens62]

Whats up with the lack of stand out specialists in the conference? Schwenk and Smyth are solid... thats it. No goalie to speak of (yet). Definitely potential there, but overall all 5 weak down the middle this year

[molo]

Duke rebounded after the loss to High Point. Will UVA bounce back against a Lehigh team that managed three goals against Hofstra. A fan is proving prescient about SU (and Hopkins, it seems). Will ND's defense first philosophy pan out under the new rules? UNC, with two freshmen starting at attack, has potential. As much as I dislike the idea that it is ok to lose games early, Duke has established a pattern of not allowing early season losses to hurt them down the stretch. Will this be a year with no ACC team in the final four and more than one missing the NCAAT?

[Boxster54]

I've been a big ACC fan and follower and worried this could be a tough weekend for 4 of the 5 ACC teams. ND should easily beat DM. I think Cuse will really struggle with Albany, especially with the news that Dordevic is gone for the season. Duke will have to bring their A game which they have not found yet to beat Denver and I think Lehigh will give UVA a hard physical game for 60 minutes. Carolina will be tested much stronger than their previous two games when Harvard opens their season. Looking forward to watching some great games Saturday, not to mention Loyola at Hopkins.

[Cooter]

With Notre Dame beating Detroit 19-6 last evening, the ACC went 5-0 on Saturday, and would appear back on track for getting 4 teams into the NCAA tmt.

[Hawkeye]

I think the ACC and B1G will combine for either 5 or 6 at large bids (so 6 or 7 total), so one of the two will defintely end up short of where they “expect to be” in my mind.

We shall see.

[runrussellrun]

I expect that ACC will get it together, but these early non-conference games will cost them at least one bid (maybe two)... I'm sure of it.

Given that the last couple at-large teams will probably have 5-6 losses, this statement seems questionable.

Absolutely. Let the ACC teams keep wrecking their RPI, in turn hurting their SOS, and then of course the conference teams are guaranteed to accrue 10 losses (distributed somehow) through conference play.

There's no way that a loss to Colgate or High Point is viewed anywhere near the same as a loss to Loyola. Colgate>Syracuse and High Point>Duke hurts the entirety of the ACC, not just the chances for those two teams. These losses are not meaningless. They will end up weighing the conference down, especially the lower-end bubble teams that you speak of.

The committee is not supposed to look at teams improving throughout the season/getting hot (or whatever people want to call it). A February upset loss counts just the same as any other loss, even if that team hadn't woke up from hibernation yet.

If things play out like I expect they might, does the 4th place ACC team get the nod over the 3rd place team from the Ivy League, or the 2nd place team from the Big East/Patriot League? And that's not even thinking about "bid stealing" by teams that were likely not in the at-large running - e.g., Denver not winning the BE title the last 3 years.

The acc winner possibly playing in the "play in" game, say it ain't so. (we know, we know.....no AQ. But, however, the at large bye that ACC teams will enjoy, while "lesser" conferences play mid week games, needs to go away.......make the lowest ranked (whatever you want to use ) at large teams play the play in games.

[Hawkeye]

The acc winner possibly playing in the "play in" game, say it ain't so. (we know, we know.....no AQ. But, however, the at large bye that ACC teams will enjoy, while "lesser" conferences play mid week games, needs to go away.......make the lowest ranked (whatever you want to use ) at large teams play the play in games.

I think using the "play-in" game as a way to skirt NCAA rules regarding the minimum number of at-large teams is a crock. Look at the mess that the 2018 women's tournament made. They added a play-in game instead of expanding from 26 to 28 (or just go to 32 already). This essentially gave the top 6 seeds a double bye. Makes no sense. For those who don't already know, NCAA rules require at-large bids to be greater than or equal to the number of AQs. Play in games "don't count" toward the AQ total.

I'm of the opinion that the men's tournament should go to 24 as soon as it's possible to do so without watering down the field. We're getting close to the point in terms of depth of the number of quality teams that this is now possible (if we're not already there) This structure makes sense and still rewards the national seeds.

With 24, there'd currently be:
9 AQs
15 at-large bid (an increase of 7)

So you'd essentially be putting all of the current bubble teams in any given year in the tournament. Obviously that would just create new bubble teams, but I feel like no one who would really deserve to be in the tournament in the sense of that they could be legit championship contending team would be left out. Certainly there were some teams last season that I felt deserved a chance to play in the tournament: Rutgers, Ohio State, Bucknell... you get the point.

[CU77]

24 teams would be 33% of DI. Why not just let them all in??

[Hawkeye]

24 teams would be 33% of DI. Why not just let them all in??

The alternative is play in game(s) to skirt NCAA rules. It's a clunky solution.

When there were ~55 teams, the tournament was still 16. 24/72 isn't that different. If lacrosse keeps growing at the D1 level, it can't be 16 teams forever. The next logical step is 24.

[Cooter]

Virginia pulling it out in ot over Princeton saved the ACC with UNC losing to Hopkins and Notre Dame to Richmond.

[laxpert]

In an era of February games and unpredictable weather shouldn’t Duke and UNC modify one of their turf facilities so they can host a game in a proper fashion? It’s intriguing to watch UNC/JHU play in a quagmire but player safety has to be a concern. There has to be considerable costs in getting that field back to playability and by the looks of those uni’s the equipment managers could audition for a laundry detergent commercial.
Duke wisely moved its game to a practice facility but at the expense of a limited broadcast and fan comfort, if it’s possible to comfortable in 40 degrees and rain.

BTW It looks like the UVA women moved their game to the field hockey carpet.

[Mr3Putt]

Since the Acc thread popped up. Yes, Tanner Cook needs to sit 1 game for the hit yesterday on the Hopkins player. It’s simply flagrant & someone needs to show they care about kids safety.

[jhu06]

the hopkins player grabbed his head the moment he landed. I don't know what the concussion protocol is at the college level but he went right back out there and not sure the university acted in the best health interest of its player either.

[Hawkeye]

Duke basically has to win out (against Notre Dame and Virginia) to avoid being relegated to the play-in game.

I can only find one scenario where they can lose another conference game and still finish 3rd -- and it's involved.

Duke beats Notre Dame, but then loses to Virginia.

Duke finishes 1-3.

Duke then would need UNC to go on a run and beat both Notre Dame and Syracuse.

The final ACC standings would look like this:
1. UNC/Virginia winner 4-0
2. UNC/Virginia loser 3-1
3-5. Duke/UND/SU tied at 1-3

I don't know what the tiebreaker is, but, if Duke won it, they would avoid the play-in game despite being 1-3.

Basically Duke needs to win out to avoid it, though. The above scenario feels very unlikely to play out correctly for them.

[HowieT3]

If Duke, ND, and Syracuse tie at 1-3, with their only wins being against each other, tiebreakers 3-5 are in effect:

3. Goals allowed among the tied teams in conference play against the other tied teams

4. Goal differential in conference games

5. Blind draw

[Boxster54]

So this is what I think will happen for the remaining ACC games and how the teams will finish conference play:

UVA - 4-0 beats UNC and Duke
ND - 2-2 loss to Duke beats UNC
UNC - 2-2 loss to UVA, beats Cuse, Loss to ND
Syracuse - 1-3 loss to UNC
Duke - 1-3 beats ND loses to UVA

Duke MUST rebound from back-to-back ACC losses and beats ND at home by 3-4 goals. Dino will figure out a way to win that game and restore their confidence. That said, the Cavs will beat Duke in a shootout the following week.
Carolina will play hard and with new found confidence against the Cavs but will not have the firepower or the defense to stay with them. The Heels will rebound on Alumni weekend and beat visiting Cuse in a close one goal game, but then lose to ND at Arlotta where they never win.

Of course I could be completely wrong, and probably will be, but its fun discussing this stuff!

[Cooter]

A lot of those games look almost like coin flip games.
We'll give you credit for being a Lax Swarmi if you get at least 4 out of 5 games right.