2022 D1 Selection Committee

[jrn19]

And apologize if this has been answered but given Duke lost to three non top 20 teams how exactly was their RPI 7?

The RPI rank of the team doesn't matter for the computation, just your record, opponents record, opponents' opponents record.

Duke's RPI did rise significantly though in the last few weeks, as of like a month ago I think they were 16th in RPI. I believe theirs rose because so many of their early season non-con opponents like Robert Morris, Vermont, Manhattan, Delaware all went on good runs in their leagues and their record rose compared to where it was earlier in the year. Duke kinda hit the lottery with how all of their one bid lg opponents all won their league.

[MoralTerpitude]

Notre Dame's wins over Duke were devalued when the committee drilled down to see what underpinned Duke's seemingly too-high RPI. They found Duke had three losses against RPI 21+ teams. Look closely. That's part of an important selection criterion. The committee didn't make that criterion up. As a result, buh bye Duke. Therefore, buh bye ND's two best wins.

But I think the concern (at least, the reasonable, non-whiny version) is that that's exactly what the committee did with Notre Dame. Which would not be following the criteria.

The criteria say "when considering Team X for selection, value their win over Team Y according to Team Y's RPI ranking." That's not at all the same thing as "value their win over Team Y according to your independent assessment of Team Y applying all the selection criteria, as you would when considering Team Y for selection."

More broadly, I think something that's maybe getting lost with people splitting into opposing camps on this is that it's entirely possible to think the decision to leave Duke out was perfectly reasonable and consistent with the criteria, while finding the decision on Notre Dame iffy at best. That's basically my view: the committee got it right with Duke, then seemingly got sucked into some sort of weird circular reasoning where they treated their decision on Duke as dictating what to do with ND, and came out with a decision that doesn't make a ton of logical sense.

This is exactly the conclusion I came to.

[Typical Lax Dad]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

[CU77]

And in Great Western Lacrosse League until something like 2010. Went undefeated in 2009 and that was only good enough for the #7 seed. Then they lost in the first round to unseeded Maryland.

[ICGrad]

More broadly, I think something that's maybe getting lost with people splitting into opposing camps on this is that it's entirely possible to think the decision to leave Duke out was perfectly reasonable and consistent with the criteria, while finding the decision on Notre Dame iffy at best. That's basically my view: the committee got it right with Duke, then seemingly got sucked into some sort of weird circular reasoning where they treated their decision on Duke as dictating what to do with ND, and came out with a decision that doesn't make a ton of logical sense.

I basically agree with this; I thought Harvard was a goner after the Yale loss, and was surprised that ND got left out.

I'm not sure I would say that the committee got it wrong; I don't think the ND "snub" is anywhere near the most egregious in the history of the tourney, and their being left out in no way invalidates the whole tourney (as some are claiming). But if ND had been selected over Harvard I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

[Farfromgeneva]

And in Great Western Lacrosse League until something like 2010. Went undefeated in 2009 and that was only good enough for the #7 seed. Then they lost in the first round to unseeded Maryland.

Wasn’t 2010 the year they made it over GTown and went to the finals losing on a long stick goal to Duke?

[wgdsr]

Notre Dame's wins over Duke were devalued when the committee drilled down to see what underpinned Duke's seemingly too-high RPI. They found Duke had three losses against RPI 21+ teams. Look closely. That's part of an important selection criterion. The committee didn't make that criterion up. As a result, buh bye Duke. Therefore, buh bye ND's two best wins.

But I think the concern (at least, the reasonable, non-whiny version) is that that's exactly what the committee did with Notre Dame. Which would not be following the criteria.

The criteria say "when considering Team X for selection, value their win over Team Y according to Team Y's RPI ranking." That's not at all the same thing as "value their win over Team Y according to your independent assessment of Team Y applying all the selection criteria, as you would when considering Team Y for selection."

More broadly, I think something that's maybe getting lost with people splitting into opposing camps on this is that it's entirely possible to think the decision to leave Duke out was perfectly reasonable and consistent with the criteria, while finding the decision on Notre Dame iffy at best. That's basically my view: the committee got it right with Duke, then seemingly got sucked into some sort of weird circular reasoning where they treated their decision on Duke as dictating what to do with ND, and came out with a decision that doesn't make a ton of logical sense.

This is exactly the conclusion I came to.

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

harvard is in, then nd should be in in any logical world. discarding duke wins is asinine.

they seriously would be bettter off saying "that's who we chose". it'll change now again year to year and no one will know what's up ahead of time, so why bother?

[Gobigred]

And apologize if this has been answered but given Duke lost to three non top 20 teams how exactly was their RPI 7?

RPI doesn't care whom you beat or to whom you lost, only how many you won and how many you lost. Beating #1 RPI and losing to #30 gives the same RPI score as losing to #1 and beating #30. That's why a thorough committee has to take RPI's rough cut at a ranking and look deeper into the details of wins and losses to see what teams really did.

[ICGrad]

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

harvard is in, then nd should be in in any logical world. discarding duke wins is asinine.

they seriously would be bettter off saying "that's who we chose". it'll change now again year to year and no one will know what's up ahead of time, so why bother?

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Notre Dame's wins over Duke were devalued when the committee drilled down to see what underpinned Duke's seemingly too-high RPI. They found Duke had three losses against RPI 21+ teams. Look closely. That's part of an important selection criterion. The committee didn't make that criterion up. As a result, buh bye Duke. Therefore, buh bye ND's two best wins.

But I think the concern (at least, the reasonable, non-whiny version) is that that's exactly what the committee did with Notre Dame. Which would not be following the criteria.

The criteria say "when considering Team X for selection, value their win over Team Y according to Team Y's RPI ranking." That's not at all the same thing as "value their win over Team Y according to your independent assessment of Team Y applying all the selection criteria, as you would when considering Team Y for selection."

More broadly, I think something that's maybe getting lost with people splitting into opposing camps on this is that it's entirely possible to think the decision to leave Duke out was perfectly reasonable and consistent with the criteria, while finding the decision on Notre Dame iffy at best. That's basically my view: the committee got it right with Duke, then seemingly got sucked into some sort of weird circular reasoning where they treated their decision on Duke as dictating what to do with ND, and came out with a decision that doesn't make a ton of logical sense.

This is exactly the conclusion I came to.

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

harvard is in, then nd should be in in any logical world. discarding duke wins is asinine.

they seriously would be bettter off saying "that's who we chose". it'll change now again year to year and no one will know what's up ahead of time, so why bother?

It’s a shame ND is at home while teams they defeated this season are getting ready for the tournament…. The Fighting Irish dominated all of those tournament teams down the final six games of the season. They was robbed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

harvard is in, then nd should be in in any logical world. discarding duke wins is asinine.

they seriously would be bettter off saying "that's who we chose". it'll change now again year to year and no one will know what's up ahead of time, so why bother?

So are you saying Duke should be in? Honestly curious.

Duke and ND should be in and Harvard and Princeton should be at home because they didn’t make their league tournament. Princeton lost its last two games. No way they should be in the tournament. ND won six straight.

[middleAgedBear]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

[MoralTerpitude]

Notre Dame's wins over Duke were devalued when the committee drilled down to see what underpinned Duke's seemingly too-high RPI. They found Duke had three losses against RPI 21+ teams. Look closely. That's part of an important selection criterion. The committee didn't make that criterion up. As a result, buh bye Duke. Therefore, buh bye ND's two best wins.

But I think the concern (at least, the reasonable, non-whiny version) is that that's exactly what the committee did with Notre Dame. Which would not be following the criteria.

The criteria say "when considering Team X for selection, value their win over Team Y according to Team Y's RPI ranking." That's not at all the same thing as "value their win over Team Y according to your independent assessment of Team Y applying all the selection criteria, as you would when considering Team Y for selection."

More broadly, I think something that's maybe getting lost with people splitting into opposing camps on this is that it's entirely possible to think the decision to leave Duke out was perfectly reasonable and consistent with the criteria, while finding the decision on Notre Dame iffy at best. That's basically my view: the committee got it right with Duke, then seemingly got sucked into some sort of weird circular reasoning where they treated their decision on Duke as dictating what to do with ND, and came out with a decision that doesn't make a ton of logical sense.

This is exactly the conclusion I came to.

it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.

harvard is in, then nd should be in in any logical world. discarding duke wins is asinine.

they seriously would be bettter off saying "that's who we chose". it'll change now again year to year and no one will know what's up ahead of time, so why bother?

Believe wgdsr is saying the committee shouldn’t have devalued ND’s two wins over Duke, and should have given them full value as two wins against RPI #7.

Here’s the thing, though. I think Duke’s RPI versus their quality of wins and losses is an extreme outlier, which I think led the committee to essentially ignore their RPI when considering Notre Dame’s wins over them. It is certainly not inline with the committee’s stated criteria… however I have a really hard time considering it unjust that the committee devalued them so much.

Has there been a team in the last ten years that had a pre-NCAA tournament top-10 rpi, with three bad losses, and no wins against teams above #9?

[Typical Lax Dad]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

Probably got the this call “hey Anish….it’s your boss. We are broadcasting the games. You might be discouraging viewership…we paid a hell of a lot of money for this product. Cut it out now or you will be doing Corn Hole with Carc next year!”

[Farfromgeneva]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

Probably got the this call “hey Anish….it’s your boss. We are broadcasting the games. You might be discouraging viewership…we paid a hell of a lot of money for this product. Cut it out now or you will be doing Corn Hole with Carc next year!”

Only a blue blood would have an issue with cornhole. (in lieu of sarcasm font)

Hell I’ve got customized Hobart cornhole boards

[Typical Lax Dad]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

Probably got the this call “hey Anish….it’s your boss. We are broadcasting the games. You might be discouraging viewership…we paid a hell of a lot of money for this product. Cut it out now or you will be doing Corn Hole with Carc next year!”

Only a blue blood would have an issue with cornhole. (in lieu of sarcasm font)

Hell I’ve got customized Hobart cornhole boards

I don’t mind Cornhole…..My grandfather would take me to play horseshoes!

[Typical Lax Dad]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

This past weekend, I ran into a guy in Florida that played there and graduated in ‘92.

[CU77]

And in Great Western Lacrosse League until something like 2010. Went undefeated in 2009 and that was only good enough for the #7 seed. Then they lost in the first round to unseeded Maryland.

Wasn’t 2010 the year they made it over GTown and went to the finals losing on a long stick goal to Duke?

Yes. Unseeded. Beat #6 Princeton, #3 Maryland, #7 Cornell, and lost 6-5 to #5 Duke (semifinal winner over #1 UVa) in the final. Good candidate for the most boring final game ever, up until that highlight goal. I had told a retired Irish Catholic priest, huge ND football fan, to watch it. He never forgave me.

But that's the year that ND turned the corner and became a legit power team.

[jrn19]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

Probably got the this call “hey Anish….it’s your boss. We are broadcasting the games. You might be discouraging viewership…we paid a hell of a lot of money for this product. Cut it out now or you will be doing Corn Hole with Carc next year!”

Lmao, calling the tournament borderline illegitimate because an 8-4 team not in...probably not great as a selling point for the tournament!

[Farfromgeneva]

One of the QACs got the memo:

https://twitter.com/anishespn/status/15 ... 03936?s=21

Crapped on teams that made it because “Blue Bloods” didn’t make it. When did ND become a Blue Blood? ND was a club team in the late 1980s!

I saw this as well. Gave me a chuckle. Also, from my memories ND was a club team in the 90s. Maybe they were just bad.

Probably got the this call “hey Anish….it’s your boss. We are broadcasting the games. You might be discouraging viewership…we paid a hell of a lot of money for this product. Cut it out now or you will be doing Corn Hole with Carc next year!”

Only a blue blood would have an issue with cornhole. (in lieu of sarcasm font)

Hell I’ve got customized Hobart cornhole boards

I don’t mind Cornhole…..My grandfather would take me to play horseshoes!

We had one with Kentucky clay in the boxes at a river cabin we used to have in north Georgia a few miles from foot of the Appalachian trail. It was a blast. Until we would get drunk (Pre or early kids) and those throws got a little worse each time. Took a chunk out of my shin once.