2022 D1 Selection Committee

[wgdsr]

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.

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

[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?

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?

generally like your takes. this one is cray. rpi win/loss evaluation isn't for opinions. yours, theirs, anyone's. that's why they have it. the committee jumped on a #15 win as cool. #15. (i'm presuming they liked the #11 over nd also). after they said big wins matter and discarded two w's over #7. to take this at face value and say everything's fine means they could literally say anything and people will buy it.

not signing on to that.

[CU77]

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.

Which is why straight-up RPI would be better. No discretion for the committee on selections and seeds (top 8). Hockey has done this for decades and it works just fine. No one complains, because you can't complain about math.

[Gobigred]

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.

Which is why straight-up RPI would be better. No discretion for the committee on selections and seeds (top 8). Hockey has done this for decades and it works just fine. No one complains, because you can't complain about math.

That math is inadequate in a 12-game season. Want no part of it. Sorry.

[Gobigred]

I know for a fact they didn't make it either of the back-to-back years Cornell played for the title. The second year (88?) Cornell beat them 6-4 in a high-scoring thriller. Cornell scored all of 1 goal in the second half but made it hold up. I remember Richie Moran marveling about the fact that they had won despite only managing that one second-half goal ("If you had told me we would only score one goal after halftime but still win, I would have called you crazy" or something to that effect). Pretty big upset because Cornell was unseeded and UNC was a top 4 team.

Took something like 25 Paul Schimoler saves to win that game.

[bearlaxfan]

One year. ONE YEAR, things go not exactly as SOME PEOPLE expected, and the calls are to blow up the system.
C'mon.

"Despite the best that has been done by everyone the... situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage..."

[Farfromgeneva]

I’ve regaled him of stories of throwing Trout at Syracuse players and coaches and he’s really like to try that with a personally caught fish. (The indoctrination started very very early)

That is dad of the year territory.

+1. Throwing trout is just.....hilarious.

Who the F came up with that one?

Some Hobart alum greater than I.

[tech37]

Does anyone beside some LaxBroJournos care about this great 'injustice'? Is there even a ND thread on this site? (BTW, sarcasm re:a ND thread.)

Search "Notre Dame Lacrosse" on Twitter. Many unhappy people. Personally, I think that the Committee did its best. The sad reality is that every game counts.

I was suspended from twitter for suggesting a national politician suck on a tailpipe for his tweeting blatant disinformation about covid vaccines. He went unsanctioned. I never went back. Best decision ever. BTW I never actually said the car should be running

Well... The general line of commentary is that ND is highly ranked in the media polls, had a six game winning streak, and the whole system needs to be revised.

Simple solution...expand the Tourney.

We all want to see parity and the Tournament field should be adjusted/expanded to account for the increase in parity. It's time again...

Two additional play in games, or 24?

Posted earlier this week... I'd suggest 4 add'l at-large slots, making for 2 add'l play-in games.

[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.

Which is why straight-up RPI would be better. No discretion for the committee on selections and seeds (top 8). Hockey has done this for decades and it works just fine. No one complains, because you can't complain about math.

This is such an odd position.

RPI is bad. It's a flawed metric and especially flawed when applied over such a small sample size. But in the interest of fairness RPI should be the one and only criteria used when selecting the tournament.

I don't get it.

[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.

you sound like a big duke fan. who beat 6 teams going to the tournament. a new metric?

They wuz robbed too! Princeton and Harvard didn’t make their conference tournament…. They should be ineligible!

[ICGrad]

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

if i was appointed to the committee and given:
-- zero power? yes, duke would be in on my vote. last 3 normal years my cohorts went straight rpi, and coaches should have known what gets in.

-- the opportunity to change some things? like tell coaches and media, fans preseason how we were running things this year as an example... then it'd come down to what we decided to do for selection. a group effort.

ftr, i wasn't commenting in previous post on duke getting in. bit on nd's duke wins.

I understand your initial point. I was purposefully pivoting to ask about Duke.

I find that position interesting. I would argue the committee got it 100% correct re: Duke; their RPI was grossly inflated (as I have suggested elsewhere). Also, the last 3 years committee went straight RPI, but that doesn't necessarily mean that straight RPI was the only criteria they were using (and I especially remember them introducing additional criteria when attempting to justify the snub of Cornell in favor of a weak JHU team that barely had a .500 record).

In other words, those last 3 years, the selections may have followed straight RPI, but that doesn't mean straight RPI was the only criteria they used.

(And before you say it's ludicrous to assert that the committee just "happened" to follow RPI for 8 selections, 3 years in row: ultimately, the committee is selecting between a small handful of teams to the last 1 or two slots. That the selections for those 1 or 2 slots happened to follwo RPI is not that surprising. It's one of the criteria, but not the only criteria)

[rolldodge]

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?

generally like your takes. this one is cray. rpi win/loss evaluation isn't for opinions. yours, theirs, anyone's. that's why they have it. the committee jumped on a #15 win as cool. #15. (i'm presuming they liked the #11 over nd also). after they said big wins matter and discarded two w's over #7. to take this at face value and say everything's fine means they could literally say anything and people will buy it.

not signing on to that.

Wins over #7 are not “big wins”. “Big wins” are RPI 1-5.

[rolldodge]

I think it’s more about clearly spelling out the criteria and following it strictly this year. Maybe you make some tweaks to it, but the current “guidelines” are there to make up for the flaws in straight RPI.

If they had actually followed the guidelines, Duke is still out, but ND would be in. They were better than Harvard in 4 of 5 listed criteria. They had to give a lot of weight to “significant wins” (one top 5 win) to put Harvard in. Reevaluating the Duke wins based on not including the in the field not only deviates from the criteria but is circular logic

So, keep the criteria but publish them as more than just guidelines and use them every year. You could even make a mathematical formula out of it (Laf already did the work!)

[MDlaxfan76]

we need a system, and one that's better than rpi or "whatever the committee thinks".

Straight RPI would have had Duke in and seeded, ND in, UVa in (but getting pasted by Duke having cost them a seed), Harvard and OSU out.

I've said for decades that DI lacrosse should go the way of DI hockey, and select and seed by RPI. These discussions do NOT happen on hockey boards, because everyone (coaches, players, fans) knows what the formula is, and that the committee will not mess with it. So there are no bias claims to be made.

Are you saying AQC's "eyes" shouldn't be part of the process? Duke has more MIAA guys than Harvard. They totally deserved to be in. They know where all the good crab spots are too!

The problem with just the RPI is there are so few games in lacrosse as compared to hockey. ND only played 12 games. That sounds like an awful season. You are basically there to practice.

Do they?

Actually, Duke has just one MIAA player, good player, junior, but doesn't start.

Harvard has two first year's from Gilman, both start.

Maybe you meant that Duke has too many from New York?

Rutgers has a freshman from Gilman who isn't starting, but he plays a lot- Remi Reynolds. Definitely one to keep an eye on. He's the heir apparent after Ethan Rall moves on. Some people were saying he was the top D guy in the MIAA his senior year.

Great.

Lots of Gilman kids in the tournament who will have an impact, two others that quickly come to mind are Jack Stuzin, LSM at Yale and SDM Piper Bond at Penn.

Tons of MIAA alums throughout, I was just chuckling at the assumption that Duke was heavy with them. They've certainly attracted some notable players from the MIAA, but I suspect there could have been some confusion with UNC.

[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?

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?

generally like your takes. this one is cray. rpi win/loss evaluation isn't for opinions. yours, theirs, anyone's. that's why they have it. the committee jumped on a #15 win as cool. #15. (i'm presuming they liked the #11 over nd also). after they said big wins matter and discarded two w's over #7. to take this at face value and say everything's fine means they could literally say anything and people will buy it.

not signing on to that.

Wins over #7 are not “big wins”. “Big wins” are RPI 1-5.

you should tell that to jack hayes. chairman of the last normal year. he said they were top 10 wins. i believe jack. then again, that was a different year, so how is anyone supposed to know?

[runrussellrun]

Does anyone beside some LaxBroJournos care about this great 'injustice'? Is there even a ND thread on this site? (BTW, sarcasm re:a ND thread.)

Search "Notre Dame Lacrosse" on Twitter. Many unhappy people. Personally, I think that the Committee did its best. The sad reality is that every game counts.

I was suspended from twitter for suggesting a national politician suck on a tailpipe for his tweeting blatant disinformation about covid vaccines. He went unsanctioned. I never went back. Best decision ever. BTW I never actually said the car should be running

Well... The general line of commentary is that ND is highly ranked in the media polls, had a six game winning streak, and the whole system needs to be revised.

Simple solution...expand the Tourney.

We all want to see parity and the Tournament field should be adjusted/expanded to account for the increase in parity. It's time again...

Two additional play in games, or 24?

Posted earlier this week... I'd suggest 4 add'l at-large slots, making for 2 add'l play-in games.

NO......to midweek "play in" games. (HUGE....advantage ...unless "rest" doesn't matter )

Also....get rid of the useless Leauge playoffs. AQ goes to the regular season winner. Clearly, with Princeton not making the Ivy league playoffs...at all......but are getting a HOME game as a seed..........makes the case as to how "redundant" league playoffs are, yes

BROWN......Ivy league champion......this year. Same winning record as Yale and Cornell, BUT.....Brown beat both. Why waste the weekend on a silly "tournament" ?.......just start the N$aa's.
Sure.....not always easy to pick a league "winner" via regular season. Simple, you want "play in" games ? Do them for leagues that don't wanna be grown up. geezbus, CAA "winner" Deleware , didn't even play any of the CAA teams they lost to in the CAA playoffs.......just silly. Blue Hens lost to UMASS and Hofstra......yet won the CAA "championship" by NOT replaying them ? silly. Umass and the Blue Hens would have had to play each other again......midweek.....b/c of record, head to head. BUT....guess what, they could have played their league "championship" in early May........we still get our AQ's, etc.

24 teams.

Top 8 get byes first weekend, based on winning percentage first......than fatty's rpi.....where you only count WINS into the formula.

Instead......Vermont's gotta play in 30 degree weather, beat the snot out of Manhatten........and than travel to the Free state within 24 hours ?

Vermont players share hotel rooms? exactly. .......Robby Mo is only a few minutes from G-town......same for Deleware. Like Loyola/Umbc/Hopkins/Towson close.

oh well.........they ARE the "lesser" leagues.


Just call it a season.....and start the playoffs.

[joewillie78]

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.

you sound like a big duke fan. who beat 6 teams going to the tournament. a new metric?

They wuz robbed too! Princeton and Harvard didn’t make their conference tournament…. They should be ineligible!

By this logic, NO Acc team should make the tournament as right now as it stands, No Acc team made their Conference tournament. Right?
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[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.

you sound like a big duke fan. who beat 6 teams going to the tournament. a new metric?

They wuz robbed too! Princeton and Harvard didn’t make their conference tournament…. They should be ineligible!

By this logic, NO Acc team should make the tournament as right now as it stands, No Acc team made their Conference tournament. Right?
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

You are quick JW.

[runrussellrun]

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?

generally like your takes. this one is cray. rpi win/loss evaluation isn't for opinions. yours, theirs, anyone's. that's why they have it. the committee jumped on a #15 win as cool. #15. (i'm presuming they liked the #11 over nd also). after they said big wins matter and discarded two w's over #7. to take this at face value and say everything's fine means they could literally say anything and people will buy it.

not signing on to that.

Who.....exactly........is going to stop Disney/ESPN from producing next weekends tournament of champions of yesterfather.

DUKE.....vs the FIGHTING IRIsh......FOLLOWED by, Ire and Nice (Syracuse) vs. Johns Hopkins.

Hosted in the publically funded, welfare stadium that dot's the banks of the Chessy Bay (ravins stadium )

walk the walk......do it......and see WHO cares. PLL can create a combine test, giving grown men more opportunities to watch other grown men, muscular, gorgeous body, type men. ALL...must wear NO shirts doing the fastest shot trick shot combo.

exactly

Other divisions have zero n$aa issues either ......and yet we stay with the lousy.

If we were honest, the divorce rate would be at 90%

[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?

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?

generally like your takes. this one is cray. rpi win/loss evaluation isn't for opinions. yours, theirs, anyone's. that's why they have it. the committee jumped on a #15 win as cool. #15. (i'm presuming they liked the #11 over nd also). after they said big wins matter and discarded two w's over #7. to take this at face value and say everything's fine means they could literally say anything and people will buy it.

not signing on to that.

Wins over #7 are not “big wins”. “Big wins” are RPI 1-5.

you should tell that to jack hayes. chairman of the last normal year. he said they were top 10 wins. i believe jack. then again, that was a different year, so how is anyone supposed to know?

I like how BCS playoff rankings are not posted until a few weeks into the season. Not a bad idea for other sports… I wonder how RPI would change?