2022 NCAA Mens LAX tournament

[10stone5]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

Exactly why I thought she was terrific. She listened to Carc's and Quint's petulant rants and told 'em why Duke and Notre Dame didn't earn a bid on the field. Wins and losses determine your resume, not how good Carc thinks you looked nor how many blue-chippers are on your roster. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

She’s a better man than me

[Slim]

The NCAA can go straight to hell. It's an absolute cluster-you know what. What a crock-o-poo! A complete joke organization! #FireDonna #firethemall #bestinterestofstudentathletesmyass #ivypityparty

[Antonio114]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

This is where some of these takes lose me. This is not an "about time" situation. This is what they do every year. The years where it was a bunch of ACC teams getting in and only 1 or 2 ivies were with basically the exact same deciding process. It's not like those years the committee were a bunch of ACC shills and this year they kicked the habit.

[DocBarrister]

Ivy League had a relatively strong season. The ACC did not. B1G had three of the best teams in the nation.

I understand the desire by some to whine, but whether you agree with the final bracket or not, it is reasonably justifiable based on the results this season.

Pretty much as simple as that.

DocBarrister

[ctbagataway]

And to think, the ACC was the only league with teams in contention for the at large bids that actually had a member on the selection committee.

[Mid-Lax]

@DocBarrister, very true.

[rolldodge]

Brackets and locations:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/lacrosse-men/ ... racket-pdf

[10stone5]

Brackets and locations:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/lacrosse-men/ ... racket-pdf

NCAA tournament lacrosse — early round that is —
back in SE PA, I’ll be there.

[Can Opener]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

Exactly why I thought she was terrific. She listened to Carc's and Quint's petulant rants and told 'em why Duke and Notre Dame didn't earn a bid on the field. Wins and losses determine your resume, not how good Carc thinks you looked nor how many blue-chippers are on your roster. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

She’s a better man than me

Easy... Easy...

She is by all counts a respected athletic administrator and was an outstanding athlete herself.
https://loyolagreyhounds.com/staff-dire ... odruff/198

"Woodruff’s participation in college athletics dates to her days at Penn where she was a standout field hockey and lacrosse player for the Quakers. She was a five-time All-Ivy League selection, earning the honors three times in lacrosse and twice in field hockey. She was a National Field Hockey Coaches Association All-America honorable mention recipient following her senior season, and she also earned regional All-America honors from the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association.

"She led Penn to the 1988 NCAA Semifinals and was named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team, to date the only Quaker player to be so honored. Woodruff was recognized for her excellence on the field as a member of Penn’s Athletic Hall of Fame Class X in May 2017."

[Gobigred]

Brackets and locations:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/lacrosse-men/ ... racket-pdf

Already outdated. Cornell-OSU now 2:30 Sunday.

[Kismet]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

Exactly why I thought she was terrific. She listened to Carc's and Quint's petulant rants and told 'em why Duke and Notre Dame didn't earn a bid on the field. Wins and losses determine your resume, not how good Carc thinks you looked nor how many blue-chippers are on your roster. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

She’s a better man than me

Easy... Easy...

She is by all counts a respected athletic administrator and was an outstanding athlete herself.
https://loyolagreyhounds.com/staff-dire ... odruff/198

"Woodruff’s participation in college athletics dates to her days at Penn where she was a standout field hockey and lacrosse player for the Quakers. She was a five-time All-Ivy League selection, earning the honors three times in lacrosse and twice in field hockey. She was a National Field Hockey Coaches Association All-America honorable mention recipient following her senior season, and she also earned regional All-America honors from the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association.

"She led Penn to the 1988 NCAA Semifinals and was named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team, to date the only Quaker player to be so honored. Woodruff was recognized for her excellence on the field as a member of Penn’s Athletic Hall of Fame Class X in May 2017."

No disrespect to her career. Perhaps, in thinking about it, she was determined not to give Frick and Frack any respect nor rationale other than to state how they made their decision. For that she deserves some accolades for providing more detail than any of her predecessors in this regard. To me, she came off as "I'm not going to take any sh*t from you all" which also kind of put them in their place as far as she was concerned. Quite the change from past years where admins tried to rationalize their pics to the irrationals in the studio. Perhaps a nice turnabout now that I have had time to think about it.

[PizzaSnake]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

Exactly why I thought she was terrific. She listened to Carc's and Quint's petulant rants and told 'em why Duke and Notre Dame didn't earn a bid on the field. Wins and losses determine your resume, not how good Carc thinks you looked nor how many blue-chippers are on your roster. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

She’s a better man than me

Easy... Easy...

She is by all counts a respected athletic administrator and was an outstanding athlete herself.
https://loyolagreyhounds.com/staff-dire ... odruff/198

"Woodruff’s participation in college athletics dates to her days at Penn where she was a standout field hockey and lacrosse player for the Quakers. She was a five-time All-Ivy League selection, earning the honors three times in lacrosse and twice in field hockey. She was a National Field Hockey Coaches Association All-America honorable mention recipient following her senior season, and she also earned regional All-America honors from the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association.

"She led Penn to the 1988 NCAA Semifinals and was named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team, to date the only Quaker player to be so honored. Woodruff was recognized for her excellence on the field as a member of Penn’s Athletic Hall of Fame Class X in May 2017."

Appears to be a pretty good golfer to this day:

https://msga.org/donna-woodruff-wins-wo ... n-playoff/

[1766]

AQC are one step away from declaring the tournament should entrants should be determined by who has the most recruiting stars from Inside Lacrosse. These men are melting down.

[ICGrad]

Sympathy picks for the Ivy league, they didn't have a season last year.

That’s actually an interesting point. Thanks

lol

[Can Opener]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

Exactly why I thought she was terrific. She listened to Carc's and Quint's petulant rants and told 'em why Duke and Notre Dame didn't earn a bid on the field. Wins and losses determine your resume, not how good Carc thinks you looked nor how many blue-chippers are on your roster. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

She’s a better man than me

Easy... Easy...

She is by all counts a respected athletic administrator and was an outstanding athlete herself.
https://loyolagreyhounds.com/staff-dire ... odruff/198

"Woodruff’s participation in college athletics dates to her days at Penn where she was a standout field hockey and lacrosse player for the Quakers. She was a five-time All-Ivy League selection, earning the honors three times in lacrosse and twice in field hockey. She was a National Field Hockey Coaches Association All-America honorable mention recipient following her senior season, and she also earned regional All-America honors from the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association.

"She led Penn to the 1988 NCAA Semifinals and was named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team, to date the only Quaker player to be so honored. Woodruff was recognized for her excellence on the field as a member of Penn’s Athletic Hall of Fame Class X in May 2017."

Appears to be a pretty good golfer to this day:

https://msga.org/donna-woodruff-wins-wo ... n-playoff/

Wow. Better than my regular member-guest partner who hasn’t hit a green in regulation in three years.

[10stone5]

On a side note, was certainly not impressed with the committee chair lady - she seemed to have a don't give a sh*t what you all we think - we seeded top 8 and placed all the others per our process so go eff you all. :

Exactly why I thought she was terrific. She listened to Carc's and Quint's petulant rants and told 'em why Duke and Notre Dame didn't earn a bid on the field. Wins and losses determine your resume, not how good Carc thinks you looked nor how many blue-chippers are on your roster. About time the committee looked behind the numbers to consider whom you beat and to whom you lost.

She’s a better man than me

Easy... Easy...

She is by all counts a respected athletic administrator and was an outstanding athlete herself.
https://loyolagreyhounds.com/staff-dire ... odruff/198

"Woodruff’s participation in college athletics dates to her days at Penn where she was a standout field hockey and lacrosse player for the Quakers. She was a five-time All-Ivy League selection, earning the honors three times in lacrosse and twice in field hockey. She was a National Field Hockey Coaches Association All-America honorable mention recipient following her senior season, and she also earned regional All-America honors from the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association.

"She led Penn to the 1988 NCAA Semifinals and was named to the NCAA All-Tournament Team, to date the only Quaker player to be so honored. Woodruff was recognized for her excellence on the field as a member of Penn’s Athletic Hall of Fame Class X in May 2017."

Those were great days at Penn, Woodruff’s semifinal team, Tony Seaman’s Penn team, football — a lot of lot of outreach from the alumni network to the surrounding schools, to the general SE PA community.

[Lax3]

Let’s be real here. The reason why so many lacrosse fans – or at least ACC lacrosse fans – are upset about the NCAA tournament choices is that we all know unequivocally that the ACC has the most talent so there is outrage that only one ACC team is in the tournament. Every year the ACC wins the famous Inside Lacrosse “best recruiting classes.” Every year the number of five-star and four-star players go to ACC schools. Nothing new here, right? Been that way forever in every sport. The best go to the historically good/great programs.

But guess what? Those teams have to win. They have to play tougher schedules. They have to play more games. They have to travel. Duke – stop losing to lesser teams in February, especially when you have a one-month advantage over the Ivies to say nothing of your weather advantage over the rest of the northeast. Notre Dame – stop using location as a crutch for not playing more games. Your school has an endowment of $18.1 billion – spend some more money to travel. Distance doesn’t seem to bother Denver, Utah, or Air Force – they each played 14/15 games to Notre Dame’s 12 games. UNC – play better with all of the five-star talent that you have on that squad. You have Chris Gray and go 8-6.

We all know that this year is likely an anomaly but this whole “eye test” argument is completely absurd. It translates to “we have more talent so we should be in the playoffs.” No. It means you have more talent and you did far less with that talent than other teams did.

A famous movie quote applies here … "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting." Play more games. Play tougher games. Win more games. Pretty simple.

And please stop whining. It is beneath you.

[Matnum PI]

Ivy League had a relatively strong season. The ACC did not. B1G had three of the best teams in the nation... I understand the desire by some to whine, but whether you agree with the final bracket or not, it is reasonably justifiable based on the results this season.

Agreed. You're only as good as your best wins and your worst losses. So if you beat SU, that's great but... If SU loses and loses and loses and their ranking plummets, that W is no longer so great. And that's basically what happened to the ACC. Conversely, the Ivy teams moved up the polls and the Ivy teams benefited from this. With this said, based on Ws and Ls, I believe that Notre Dame should've gotten in over OSU.

[lorin]

Let’s be real here. The reason why so many lacrosse fans – or at least ACC lacrosse fans – are upset about the NCAA tournament choices is that we all know unequivocally that the ACC has the most talent so there is outrage that only one ACC team is in the tournament. Every year the ACC wins the famous Inside Lacrosse “best recruiting classes.” Every year the number of five-star and four-star players go to ACC schools. Nothing new here, right? Been that way forever in every sport. The best go to the historically good/great programs.

But guess what? Those teams have to win. They have to play tougher schedules. They have to play more games. They have to travel. Duke – stop losing to lesser teams in February, especially when you have a one-month advantage over the Ivies to say nothing of your weather advantage over the rest of the northeast. Notre Dame – stop using location as a crutch for not playing more games. Your school has an endowment of $18.1 billion – spend some more money to travel. Distance doesn’t seem to bother Denver, Utah, or Air Force – they each played 14/15 games to Notre Dame’s 12 games. UNC – play better with all of the five-star talent that you have on that squad. You have Chris Gray and go 8-6.

We all know that this year is likely an anomaly but this whole “eye test” argument is completely absurd. It translates to “we have more talent so we should be in the playoffs.” No. It means you have more talent and you did far less with that talent than other teams did.

A famous movie quote applies here … "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting." Play more games. Play tougher games. Win more games. Pretty simple.

And please stop whining. It is beneath you.

Wow well said.

[QuakerSouth]

Best recruiting classes.

What does that mean? The best players? Best "ranked" players (by whom?)? Best "collection" of top (again, by whom?) players?

Players also improve/devolve over time, especially in college.

You can't have every AA on the field at the same time, there is only one ball. In basketball, soccer, lacrosse; the ball has to be shared. Role players are "hugely" undervalued. "Great" players are never told that. They've always been told they're the best, and to be the star. Inherently, that's not a terrible thing. But on a team, everyone can't be the star.

These teams with great recruiting classes have to learn how to play together. Some have done it very successfully and have won. It's not easy. Managing all those personalities can be the chore of a therapist.

It's invaluable to have the selfless players that make everyone else look good, who provide the grease to just make the team go. It is hard to change an AA into a selfless player. Not impossible, but hard indeed. So maybe those less glamorized recruits, in ways, are actually a better fit for a team. Yes, championship caliber teams need top players, but team chemistry can trump a bunch of AAs on the field.

It's not always about having the "best" recruiting classes.