NCAA Tournament Selection

[InsiderRoll]

There does seem to be a tone of elitism with some of the posts here. I can remember very well in 2013 when an 8 and 8 CNU team was given a pool b bid for its first postseason appearance ever. Everyone was saying how they did not deserve a bid and they would get killed, etc. They got paired with Stevenson, who won the title that year, and they lost 18 to 6. All the naysayers pounded their chest saying how right they were, etc.

Yes the final score from that game nine years ago was 18-6. Stevenson out-shot CNU 74-18. CNU goalie McGregor had 25 saves while the Stevenson keepers combined for 3 saves. If anyone thinks that type of NCAA playoff game is good for lacrosse then so be it.

Today CNU is undefeated 16-0 & the #1 team in the country. I don't think that playoff beatdown nine years ago has anything to do with the Captains current level of play/success.

I have no interest in seeing games like that. However, being able to get into the NCAA tournament is a major boost for recruiting. Kids want to win. The 2013 playoff probably doesn’t have a huge effect. But it has some. It helps create a foundation. It plays an active role in developing alumni experience and investment down the road. It’s a monumental building block for a blossoming program. So yes, it has something to do with the culture and standard that has been built at CNU.

[Honorable Mention]

Getting into the NCAA D1 basketball tournament is a major boost for recruiting, I don’t think that translates to the D3 lacrosse landscape if you get beat in a lopsided first round game.

I agree kids want to win, that CNU team finished 8-9. Hopefully all the participation trophies handed out this year lead to great successes ten years down the road for all involved!

[ah23]

This is the most Pool Cs there’s ever been and people are still complaining.

That's because "the most ever" is still not very many! Expanding the at-large field is good, but there will still be quality teams capable of making runs who are sitting at home.

As a semi-related note: this is one of my many frustrations with the "wanting a competitive tournament is elitist!!!" nonsense. Expanding the at-large pool doesn't benefit 'elite' teams - it makes things harder for them by making them work in the early rounds instead of handing them free 20-goal wins with their freshmen playing. The teams that benefits are competitive teams who share conferences with D-III's elites and have little to no shot at winning the AQ.

Do we really think adding more so that Stevenson, F&M, or Middlebury can lose by the second round is really that important? If they wanted in they should have won more games.

I understand where you're coming from, but flip that around. Why do you think a hopeless team losing 30-2 in the first round is a better option than giving good teams a chance to get hot and make a tournament run?

I don't think F&M/Stevenson/Middlebury are title contenders by any stretch...but I do know for a fact that they are competitive with title contenders.

I have no interest in seeing games like that. However, being able to get into the NCAA tournament is a major boost for recruiting. Kids want to win.

Of course kids want to win...but 'winning' to a recruit means playing competitive lacrosse all season and having the best possible chance to win at a high level in games that matter, not spending five hours on a bus just to get steamrolled by 25 goals against someone's backups. As others have already said, I'm not sure any recruit would look at these first round blowouts and think "now there's a place I can win!" That is the recruiting challenge for those coaches, and I genuinely don't think pointing to a token NCAA bid is much of a real solution.

[droliver]

? So if teams not getting in are better than some AQ teams, then we agree the best teams are not already in the tournament.

Centre is playing Wesleyan and you have to bet your house. Who are you betting on? Who is the better team? That’s who’s better, not special consideration.

The clear best teams are in the tournament, always. You're arguing over essentially the 2nd/3rd tier of power conferences. Those teams are good perennially, but they really aren't the "best" even in their own leagues, and none are really credible threats to win a championship.

FWIW Centre did actually beat traditional top 10 power Dennison last year in the tournament

[SpiritInTheStick]

Yes the final score from that game nine years ago was 18-6. Stevenson out-shot CNU 74-18. CNU goalie McGregor had 25 saves while the Stevenson keepers combined for 3 saves. If anyone thinks that type of NCAA playoff game is good for lacrosse then so be it.

Today CNU is undefeated 16-0 & the #1 team in the country. I don't think that playoff beatdown nine years ago has anything to do with the Captains current level of play/success.

This is where I disagree. I think CNU's success today is directly related to that playoff "beatdown". Look back at the W-L record by year for CNU starting in 2007 when the program began. They never went better than 8-7 from 2007 to 2013, the year when they finished 8-9 but were in the tournament. Then in 2014, they go 10-6, but only 3-4 in the conference finishing in 6th place.
Now look at 2015, the first year when the recruiting bump from being in the NCAA Tournament would take place. They finish 11-5 and 6-2 in the conference finishing 3rd. Ever since then, they've been pretty successful. High-level recruits don't want to go to schools that don't have a shot to make the tournament. If you kill off Pool B and AQs so that a couple more NESCACs, Liberty League, Centennial schools get in, you'll end up with the same exact champion, but destroy a lot of building programs and it'll be a lot harder for smaller, newer programs to compete at a high level quickly.

[DeepPocket]

The clear best teams are in the tournament, always. You're arguing over essentially the 2nd/3rd tier of power conferences. Those teams are good perennially, but they really aren't the "best" even in their own leagues, and none are really credible threats to win a championship.

FWIW Centre did actually beat traditional top 10 power Dennison last year in the tournament

Those 2nd and 3rd tiers in their conference teams that are in strong conferences, while not even being the best in their conference, can be and often are better (AT PLAYING LACROSSE) than the AQ from lessor conferences.

I’m not arguing tiers in power conferences, I’m resisting an attempt to redefine the word “best” in relation to playing lacrosse, from its standard definition - of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality., to - teams that win their conferences regardless of how weak they may be.

I’ll say it again, it is what it is, and they all knew the rules coming in. But let’s not try to play make believe here.

[Cheeseandcrackers]

Looks like the Pool C hopefuls dodged a bullet last night. Dickinson by ONE over Ursinus in CC semis. Gettysburg has a chance to throw a wrench into things on Saturday by virtue of a ONE goal win over Muhlenburg in the other semi.

[ICGrad]

If you kill off Pool B and AQs so that a couple more NESCACs, Liberty League, Centennial schools get in, you'll end up with the same exact champion, but destroy a lot of building programs and it'll be a lot harder for smaller, newer programs to compete at a high level quickly.

Or you'll give a more deserving team from one of those conferences the boost they need to allow them to compete at a higher level. Who knows?

[OHLaxDad]

If you kill off Pool B and AQs so that a couple more NESCACs, Liberty League, Centennial schools get in, you'll end up with the same exact champion, but destroy a lot of building programs and it'll be a lot harder for smaller, newer programs to compete at a high level quickly.

Or you'll give a more deserving team from one of those conferences the boost they need to allow them to compete at a higher level. Who knows?

I see both arguments. The solution is to expand the tournament field if you want to encourage growth and also recognize the strength of the traditional East Coast programs. D1 basketball did this. I know there is more money there, but seems this would take care of it.

[JustOneTime]

Who foots the bill for the NCAA Tournament? Are the schools on the hook for the travel, hotels, referee's, meals? If this is the case and the schools are willing then it would be fine to add some more teams. No reason why there could not be a few more "play in" games. The smaller conferences still get their AQ bids and then a few more quality teams can get in as well. It would make the tournament that much better. Schools like Muhlenberg, Ursinus, Hamilton and Middlebury would all make those first round games very interesting.

[Laxisback]

I think the NCAA picks up the tab for the tournament, that’s why they charge at the games to help recover some of the money. I do think they only cover the expenses for the official travel roster, the school has to pick up the rest.

[Chips O'Toole]

It seems like you missed the end of my comment, so I'll repeat myself: my issue is not that AQs exist, but that AQs a) take up too much of the tournament field and b) are given out far too generously to small, uncompetitive conferences. For reference, here is how lacrosse compares to the non-football major spectator sports:

• D-III soccer tournament: 36 AQs, 26 at-large = 58% AQ
• D-III basketball tournament: 44 AQs, 20 at-large = 68.8% AQ
• D-III baseball tournament: 42 AQs, 18 at-large = 70% AQ
• D-III lacrosse tournament: 28 AQs, 10 at-large = 73.7% AQ

The D-III lacrosse tournament has by far the fewest at-large teams and also the smallest proportion of at-large teams. As I said before: if the field were bigger, this wouldn't really be an issue. But ten at-large bids are not really enough to capture the number of deserving teams that play in competitive conferences.

Ok, so your point is that the tourney needs to add a couple of at large spots (and/or maybe tighten up the standards for conferences to attain AQ status) to bring its percentage of slots given to AQ's down in line with comparable sports. That's a reasonable point. The observation you made earlier was that lacrosse was already bloated and therefore it "would not be good" for more colleges to add the sport. That's the argument I referred to as elitist and not good for the sport. I stand by that assessment. (And you're right, I didn't need to add the NESCAC jab for applause, I'll accept the flag on that.)

I don't think anyone believes the current tournament format in the major sports is really designed to ensure that the best teams are included (although the teams with a realistic chance of winning certainly are). No one is arguing that Hanover is better than Middlebury. It's just the way it works. If you don't understand that the NCAC having an AQ played a major role in Denison and Ohio Wesleyan becoming nationally competitive in spite of their location outside the traditional hotbeds, I don't know what to tell you. Having an NCAA tourney that is just a replay of the NESCAC tourney wouldn't be a good thing.

[ah23]

This is where I disagree. I think CNU's success today is directly related to that playoff "beatdown".

Now look at 2015, the first year when the recruiting bump from being in the NCAA Tournament would take place. They finish 11-5 and 6-2 in the conference finishing 3rd.

This is not right.

The vast majority of starters and contributors on that 2015 CNU team were upperclassmen who were already on the team when they made the tournament in 2013. Seven of their top ten scorers in 2015 were upperclassmen, including six of the top seven. All three close D were seniors, and both LSMs were juniors. The 2013 team was the one led by underclassmen (6 of top 10 scorers, including top 2). What was the "recruiting bump" that brought all those underclassmen to CNU who led them to their first tourney appearance as juniors and seniors? It wasn't any tournament appearance.

Building a program is about selling the school, a coach with a serious vision and clear knowledge of the game and developing his players, and the opportunity to compete at a high level against quality opponents year in and year out. It is not telling kids they might be lucky enough to play one hopeless blowout at the end of the season.

Ever since then, they've been pretty successful. If you kill off Pool B and AQs so that a couple more NESCACs, Liberty League, Centennial schools get in, you'll end up with the same exact champion, but destroy a lot of building programs and it'll be a lot harder for smaller, newer programs to compete at a high level quickly.

First, no one is suggesting killing off Pool B. As I (and others) have said, there has to be a some carveout for a number of small conference champions. Just not all.

Second, having bare minimum competitive standards wouldn't destroy anything, and the idea that the opportunity to end your season by losing by 30 goals in the first round is some kind of siren song for recruits is just...honestly pretty unserious. So is the "compete for a championship!" thing. I refuse to believe that anyone in here is naïve enough to believe that the winner of some six-team conference created five minutes ago is competing for a championship.

High-level recruits don't want to go to schools that don't have a shot to make the tournament.

This is completely false.

Feel free to explain why middle of the pack (or lower) teams in the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial/etc. that literally never make the NCAA tournament consistently out-recruit perennial tournament teams from smaller conferences and almost always breeze through OOC games against them.

The reality is that recruits don't care about checking the "made the tournament" box above all else. They care about going to a good school and playing at the highest level of competition they can for four years. The only place 30-5 tournament blowouts matter to anyone is in this forum.

[ah23]

Ok, so your point is that the tourney needs to add a couple of at large spots (and/or maybe tighten up the standards for conferences to attain AQ status) to bring its percentage of slots given to AQ's down in line with comparable sports. That's a reasonable point.

Yep, spot on. It's completely possible to "grow the game" and make sure all the deserving/quality teams get in. I just think the NCAA does a poor job of finding that balance in the D-III lacrosse tournament.

The observation you made earlier was that lacrosse was already bloated and therefore it "would not be good" for more colleges to add the sport. That's the argument I referred to as elitist and not good for the sport. I stand by that assessment. (And you're right, I didn't need to add the NESCAC jab for applause, I'll accept the flag on that.)

Fair enough, thanks for explaining. I definitely didn't do a good job of explaining myself on that point, so fair play to call it out.

Just to be more clear: I'm don't think more programs forming is a bad thing by itself. Growth and geographical spread is good, especially given how concentrated D-III lacrosse is on the east coast. However, I don't think rapid growth would be good for D-III in the current environment because of the relatively small tournament size and the NCAA's lax AQ criteria for conferences. My concern is that a bunch of new teams = the creation of more bad 6-7 team conferences that get handed free AQs = more deserving at-large teams are shut out. That's all I meant - my issue is with the NCAA and how they govern the division, not the new programs themselves.

If you don't understand that the NCAC having an AQ played a major role in Denison and Ohio Wesleyan becoming nationally competitive in spite of their location outside the traditional hotbeds, I don't know what to tell you. Having an NCAA tourney that is just a replay of the NESCAC tourney wouldn't be a good thing.

Honestly I'm less familiar with the history there, I don't know much about their origins and I've always thought of them (especially Denison) as legit programs. Big shot in the dark, but if you happen to know of anywhere they've been written about I'd be interested.

Edit: poked around because I was curious, I don't really know what you're referring to. Denison being a tournament-quality/ranked program predates the existence of the NCAC.

[Homer]

If you don't understand that the NCAC having an AQ played a major role in Denison and Ohio Wesleyan becoming nationally competitive in spite of their location outside the traditional hotbeds, I don't know what to tell you.

Wait, what now??

[Nosey Ned]

If you don't understand that the NCAC having an AQ played a major role in Denison and Ohio Wesleyan becoming nationally competitive in spite of their location outside the traditional hotbeds, I don't know what to tell you.

Wait, what now??

Chips,
Just like the D1 v D3 debate, we also have the AQ debate annually as well. Both are an exercise in futility IMO as no one ever gets swayed to the other side on either topic. I for one think the tournament system as is, works fine. I defy anyone to point to a team (in the recent memory at least) that had a LEGITIMATE chance of winning the national Championship but was left out of the tournament! And more importantly, the NCAA will not change it. Their goal is not to have the best 32 or whatever teams in the tournament and I'm ok with that. If you want to make the tournament, then WIN YOUR CONFERENCE. Or at the very least, win a game or two against one of the top teams. Union is a great example, they lost in the Semis of the Liberty League Tournament but their wins against Tufts and SJF will get them a place at the table. Whereas St Lawrence (IMO) need to win the AQ to get in. And I'm ok with that. I don't think they are truly a National Championship contender. They lost to SJF, RIT and Union in the regular season. And, assuming RIT beats them in the LL Finals, how is it fair that we ask RIT to potentially have to beat them a 3rd time if St L were in the tournament? Yes St L is defo better team than some that will make the tournament but them not being in won't prevent the best team from winning it all.

So I think we agree on many of your points but I disagree with your assertion that Denison has become nationally relevant because of the NCAC AQ. Denison has been competing in lacrosse since 1956. The NCAC Tournament has only been around since 2013. Denison have made the national tournament 25 seperate years, 16 times prior to the implementation of the NCAC AQ. They have gone as far as the Final Four on 3 occasions - twice before the AQ for the conference. My point?Denison is not a program that needed the AQ to get noticed on the national stage. In fact, the record shows that many times before 2013 (3x in the 8 years prior to the establishment of the conference tournament) both OWU and Denison made the national tournament. However since the conference tournament was initiated, both have made the NCAAs only 1 time (2018 when OWU got an at large). One can argue that the AQ has actually hurt the 2 NCACs schools. In recent years that has hurt OWU really as Denison has won the AQ 7 of 9 times its been awarded. So I guess I'm arguing that picking Denison as the poster child for expanded AQs is probably not the best candidate.

[richard]

Football is king even at the D3 level. The NC$$ will not change anything for lax if that means they have to change football.
Lax is a blip.

[Honorable Mention]

Whereas St Lawrence (IMO) need to win the AQ to get in. And I'm ok with that. I don't think they are truly a National Championship contender. They lost to SJF, RIT and Union in the regular season. And, assuming RIT beats them in the LL Finals, how is it fair that we ask RIT to potentially have to beat them a 3rd time if St L were in the tournament? Yes St L is defo better team than some that will make the tournament but them not being in won't prevent the best team from winning it all.

Regardless of tomorrow's LL championship game result St Lawrence will be in the tourney. The Saints three losses are to teams currently ranked #2, #4 & #6 in the country and they just avenged the loss to #4 Union in the LL semis. St Lawrence also has wins over regionally ranked RPI, Cortland, Ithaca, Clarkson, Middlebury & WNE; that's a solid resume. https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse- ... l-rankings

There have been several recent instances where RIT (2019 vs Union) or Tufts (2018 vs Wesleyan) have been asked to beat a team three times in a season, it's the unfortunate result of the NCAA manipulating the tourney bracket to save a few bucks on gas money. For the NCAA D1 b-ball tourney the selection committee will avoid these conference matchups as long as possible (this year's Duke/UNC semifinal was first time those powerhouses ever played in the NCAA tournament). For D3 lacrosse once the field is determined the committee will go to great lengths to save money, it might not be fair but that's the way it is.

[ICGrad]

I defy anyone to point to a team (in the recent memory at least) that had a LEGITIMATE chance of winning the national Championship but was left out of the tournament!

Ithaca College, 2009.

Lost one regular season game (to RIT), only team to beat Cortland that year, ranked #4 at end of regular season.

Lost to Nazareth in E8 semis, did not get a Pool C bid.

Oh yeah: Cortland won the title that year. So would they have won? Who knows, probably not. But they didn't get a chance to prove otherwise.

At least they threw Long a bone that year and elected him to the HoF a few months later, so that's something. But that's just the team I follow most closely; I imagine that there are other teams who are left out of the tournament who at least have some chance of making a run, if not every year, then every few years.

[Nosey Ned]

I defy anyone to point to a team (in the recent memory at least) that had a LEGITIMATE chance of winning the national Championship but was left out of the tournament!

Ithaca College, 2009.

Lost one regular season game (to RIT), only team to beat Cortland that year, ranked #4 at end of regular season.

Lost to Nazareth in E8 semis, did not get a Pool C bid.

Oh yeah: Cortland won the title that year. So would they have won? Who knows, probably not. But they didn't get a chance to prove otherwise.

At least they threw Long a bone that year and elected him to the HoF a few months later, so that's something. But that's just the team I follow most closely; I imagine that there are other teams who are left out of the tournament who at least have some chance of making a run, if not every year, then every few years.

I should have been clearer ... a team that wouldn't make it to the tournament under the current setup. In 2009, if I'm not mistaken there were only 16 spots in the tournament. I think a team with the resume today that you say IC had would be getting a Pool C. The tournament has progressed. Let's not let 13 year old wounds make us jaded for ever.