2022 NCAA Mens LAX tournament

[RopeUnit]

If ND and Duke are more angry with the committee, than they are at themselves for not winning more games, their anger is misplaced.

[Maverick]

Any know why team fun livestats with splitbox, etc stopped working at the UMD game?

All the live stats go the ncaa site which is not very good.

Not sure but hell of a start for your blue hens!

[Maverick]

If ND and Duke are more angry with the committee, than they are at themselves for not winning more games, their anger is misplaced.

That's a great story. When people made the complaints about the ACC for years it wasn't an issue but now the ACC gets shafted and they can't complain. Doesn't seem quite fair to me

[The Orfling]

Let’s get back to the games

Rutgers easily handles Harvard, which is going to make all of those Notre dame and Duke people nice and angry..Cornell goes on a 14-2 run behind Kirst’s seven goals and five from Piatelli…

Ivy league went 4-2 but goals evened out to a net advantage of 0 goals. I think people have a right to be upset

Maverick, you're frustrated because you feel people aren't fully engaging you, I think? Here's my response:
1. First, many of us expected ND to make it, or perhaps Duke if things were straight RPI, and understood the frustration of ND/Duke fans. But we're still excited for our teams.

2. Secondly, while ELO ratings show that margin of victory can be significant, there are also recent examples of champions (UVA, UNC) who had close wins earlier in the tournament. A one-goal margin doesn't translate to unworthiness.

3. Your argument seems premised on the idea that neither Richmond nor St. Joseph's was a dangerous opponent. I disagree, both because of the results during the season and because of the "eye test." Richmond beat UVA, convincingly (and UVA beat Notre Dame and Duke). Richmond also beat Jacksonville, which had beaten Duke. St. Joseph's came within a whisker of defeating Penn, the Ivy League tournament champs who had beaten Duke during the season. St. Joseph's has the first-team All-American fogo (U.S. Lax magazine and probably other publications to come) and if you watched the Yale-St. Joe's game you saw real talent on St. Joe's (including Tucker Brown and Carter Page).

4. I think you're saying Ohio State should have also been left out in favor of Duke and ND? Well, Notre Dame had its shot to show that it was superior to Ohio State, but lost head to head by 3 goals to Ohio State. Results don't get thrown out of the window because they were in mid-March. Other results of note? Duke also lost to a .500 Loyola team and to a 4-10 Syracuse team. Notre Dame lost to Georgetown (which lost to Princeton which lost to Yale and to Cornell).

5. There's also a fatigue factor. What happened, happened. The Committee really focused on good wins and bad losses. For once in a blue moon, the selection criteria went against the ACC. Now we've got a real live tournament to watch. People are losing patience with continued complaining about whether teams that didn't make the tournament should have had seedings or would have won theoretical matchups. Maybe not least because. . . it may not matter. Maryland is so loaded.

[Maverick]

Let’s get back to the games

Rutgers easily handles Harvard, which is going to make all of those Notre dame and Duke people nice and angry..Cornell goes on a 14-2 run behind Kirst’s seven goals and five from Piatelli…

Ivy league went 4-2 but goals evened out to a net advantage of 0 goals. I think people have a right to be upset

Maverick, you're frustrated because you feel people aren't fully engaging you, I think? Here's my response:
1. First, many of us expected ND to make it, or perhaps Duke if things were straight RPI, and understood the frustration of ND/Duke fans. But we're still excited for our teams.

2. Secondly, while ELO ratings show that margin of victory can be significant, there are also recent examples of champions (UVA, UNC) who had close wins earlier in the tournament. A one-goal margin doesn't translate to unworthiness.

3. Your argument seems premised on the idea that neither Richmond nor St. Joseph's was a dangerous opponent. I disagree, both because of the results during the season and because of the "eye test." Richmond beat UVA, convincingly (and UVA beat Notre Dame and Duke). Richmond also beat Jacksonville, which had beaten Duke. St. Joseph's came within a whisker of defeating Penn, the Ivy League tournament champs who had beaten Duke during the season. St. Joseph's has the first-team All-American fogo (U.S. Lax magazine and probably other publications to come) and if you watched the Yale-St. Joe's game you saw real talent on St. Joe's (including Tucker Brown and Carter Page).

4. I think you're saying Ohio State should have also been left out in favor of Duke and ND? Well, Notre Dame had its shot to show that it was superior to Ohio State, but lost head to head by 3 goals to Ohio State. Results don't get thrown out of the window because they were in mid-March. Other results of note? Duke also lost to a .500 Loyola team and to a 4-10 Syracuse team. Notre Dame lost to Georgetown (which lost to Princeton which lost to Yale and to Cornell).

5. There's also a fatigue factor. What happened, happened. The Committee really focused on good wins and bad losses. For once in a blue moon, the selection criteria went against the ACC. Now we've got a real live tournament to watch. People are losing patience with continued complaining about whether teams that didn't make the tournament should have had seedings or would have won theoretical matchups. Maybe not least because. . . it may not matter. Maryland is so loaded.

Not making any claims about who should have been in our who shouldn't have. I have never been on a site where people just draw their own conclusions and make up things people say. It's so frustrating. People might as well say well you are wrong the world isn't flat (I didn't say that either) if anyone slowed down and took a few deep breaths they would realize all I'm saying is certain ivy league teams gave Duke and nd more reason to be upset. Doesn't mean I think they should have been in. It just means I wasn't impressed by most of the ivy league this weekend. Princeton and Cornell being the exceptions to that. So whatever people think I said or imagine I said, I didn't. This is the only thing I'm trying to get across and for some reason people are super offended by it.

[Maverick]

Let’s get back to the games

Rutgers easily handles Harvard, which is going to make all of those Notre dame and Duke people nice and angry..Cornell goes on a 14-2 run behind Kirst’s seven goals and five from Piatelli…

Ivy league went 4-2 but goals evened out to a net advantage of 0 goals. I think people have a right to be upset

Maverick, you're frustrated because you feel people aren't fully engaging you, I think? Here's my response:
1. First, many of us expected ND to make it, or perhaps Duke if things were straight RPI, and understood the frustration of ND/Duke fans. But we're still excited for our teams.

2. Secondly, while ELO ratings show that margin of victory can be significant, there are also recent examples of champions (UVA, UNC) who had close wins earlier in the tournament. A one-goal margin doesn't translate to unworthiness.

3. Your argument seems premised on the idea that neither Richmond nor St. Joseph's was a dangerous opponent. I disagree, both because of the results during the season and because of the "eye test." Richmond beat UVA, convincingly (and UVA beat Notre Dame and Duke). Richmond also beat Jacksonville, which had beaten Duke. St. Joseph's came within a whisker of defeating Penn, the Ivy League tournament champs who had beaten Duke during the season. St. Joseph's has the first-team All-American fogo (U.S. Lax magazine and probably other publications to come) and if you watched the Yale-St. Joe's game you saw real talent on St. Joe's (including Tucker Brown and Carter Page).

4. I think you're saying Ohio State should have also been left out in favor of Duke and ND? Well, Notre Dame had its shot to show that it was superior to Ohio State, but lost head to head by 3 goals to Ohio State. Results don't get thrown out of the window because they were in mid-March. Other results of note? Duke also lost to a .500 Loyola team and to a 4-10 Syracuse team. Notre Dame lost to Georgetown (which lost to Princeton which lost to Yale and to Cornell).

5. There's also a fatigue factor. What happened, happened. The Committee really focused on good wins and bad losses. For once in a blue moon, the selection criteria went against the ACC. Now we've got a real live tournament to watch. People are losing patience with continued complaining about whether teams that didn't make the tournament should have had seedings or would have won theoretical matchups. Maybe not least because. . . it may not matter. Maryland is so loaded.

People are definitely engaging, just those same people are too lazy to read

[bearlaxfan]

You're so misquoted and misattributed here, yet you keep coming back.

[calourie]

Let’s get back to the games

Rutgers easily handles Harvard, which is going to make all of those Notre dame and Duke people nice and angry..Cornell goes on a 14-2 run behind Kirst’s seven goals and five from Piatelli…

Ivy league went 4-2 but goals evened out to a net advantage of 0 goals. I think people have a right to be upset

Maverick, you're frustrated because you feel people aren't fully engaging you, I think? Here's my response:
1. First, many of us expected ND to make it, or perhaps Duke if things were straight RPI, and understood the frustration of ND/Duke fans. But we're still excited for our teams.

2. Secondly, while ELO ratings show that margin of victory can be significant, there are also recent examples of champions (UVA, UNC) who had close wins earlier in the tournament. A one-goal margin doesn't translate to unworthiness.

3. Your argument seems premised on the idea that neither Richmond nor St. Joseph's was a dangerous opponent. I disagree, both because of the results during the season and because of the "eye test." Richmond beat UVA, convincingly (and UVA beat Notre Dame and Duke). Richmond also beat Jacksonville, which had beaten Duke. St. Joseph's came within a whisker of defeating Penn, the Ivy League tournament champs who had beaten Duke during the season. St. Joseph's has the first-team All-American fogo (U.S. Lax magazine and probably other publications to come) and if you watched the Yale-St. Joe's game you saw real talent on St. Joe's (including Tucker Brown and Carter Page).

4. I think you're saying Ohio State should have also been left out in favor of Duke and ND? Well, Notre Dame had its shot to show that it was superior to Ohio State, but lost head to head by 3 goals to Ohio State. Results don't get thrown out of the window because they were in mid-March. Other results of note? Duke also lost to a .500 Loyola team and to a 4-10 Syracuse team. Notre Dame lost to Georgetown (which lost to Princeton which lost to Yale and to Cornell).

5. There's also a fatigue factor. What happened, happened. The Committee really focused on good wins and bad losses. For once in a blue moon, the selection criteria went against the ACC. Now we've got a real live tournament to watch. People are losing patience with continued complaining about whether teams that didn't make the tournament should have had seedings or would have won theoretical matchups. Maybe not least because. . . it may not matter. Maryland is so loaded.

Not making any claims about who should have been in our who shouldn't have. I have never been on a site where people just draw their own conclusions and make up things people say. It's so frustrating. People might as well say well you are wrong the world isn't flat (I didn't say that either) if anyone slowed down and took a few deep breaths they would realize all I'm saying is certain ivy league teams gave Duke and nd more reason to be upset. Doesn't mean I think they should have been in. It just means I wasn't impressed by most of the ivy league this weekend. Princeton and Cornell being the exceptions to that. So whatever people think I said or imagine I said, I didn't. This is the only thing I'm trying to get across and for some reason people are super offended by it.

I imagine it would be news to you Maverick to know that 6 of the last ten NCAA D1 Lacrosse champions won their first round games by 3 or fewer goals. This reality would likely make a thoughtful observer realize that margin of victory has little to do with the qualifications of those teams competing in and winning the NCAA tournament games in which they participate. Feel free to keep tossing up your straw man arguement and feeling justified in doing so, despite the fact that your point of view appears to fly in the face of historical reality.

[random observer]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

[Maverick]

You're so misquoted and misattributed here, yet you keep coming back.

So if I told your boss you had illicit content on your work computer with no rhyme or reason you'd just walk out? Find that hard to believe. If people want to put words in my mouth and their foot in theirs I'm going to make clear that these aren't things I said. If that's crazy, can I have your boss's cell?

[Maverick]

Let’s get back to the games

Rutgers easily handles Harvard, which is going to make all of those Notre dame and Duke people nice and angry..Cornell goes on a 14-2 run behind Kirst’s seven goals and five from Piatelli…

Ivy league went 4-2 but goals evened out to a net advantage of 0 goals. I think people have a right to be upset

Maverick, you're frustrated because you feel people aren't fully engaging you, I think? Here's my response:
1. First, many of us expected ND to make it, or perhaps Duke if things were straight RPI, and understood the frustration of ND/Duke fans. But we're still excited for our teams.

2. Secondly, while ELO ratings show that margin of victory can be significant, there are also recent examples of champions (UVA, UNC) who had close wins earlier in the tournament. A one-goal margin doesn't translate to unworthiness.

3. Your argument seems premised on the idea that neither Richmond nor St. Joseph's was a dangerous opponent. I disagree, both because of the results during the season and because of the "eye test." Richmond beat UVA, convincingly (and UVA beat Notre Dame and Duke). Richmond also beat Jacksonville, which had beaten Duke. St. Joseph's came within a whisker of defeating Penn, the Ivy League tournament champs who had beaten Duke during the season. St. Joseph's has the first-team All-American fogo (U.S. Lax magazine and probably other publications to come) and if you watched the Yale-St. Joe's game you saw real talent on St. Joe's (including Tucker Brown and Carter Page).

4. I think you're saying Ohio State should have also been left out in favor of Duke and ND? Well, Notre Dame had its shot to show that it was superior to Ohio State, but lost head to head by 3 goals to Ohio State. Results don't get thrown out of the window because they were in mid-March. Other results of note? Duke also lost to a .500 Loyola team and to a 4-10 Syracuse team. Notre Dame lost to Georgetown (which lost to Princeton which lost to Yale and to Cornell).

5. There's also a fatigue factor. What happened, happened. The Committee really focused on good wins and bad losses. For once in a blue moon, the selection criteria went against the ACC. Now we've got a real live tournament to watch. People are losing patience with continued complaining about whether teams that didn't make the tournament should have had seedings or would have won theoretical matchups. Maybe not least because. . . it may not matter. Maryland is so loaded.

Not making any claims about who should have been in our who shouldn't have. I have never been on a site where people just draw their own conclusions and make up things people say. It's so frustrating. People might as well say well you are wrong the world isn't flat (I didn't say that either) if anyone slowed down and took a few deep breaths they would realize all I'm saying is certain ivy league teams gave Duke and nd more reason to be upset. Doesn't mean I think they should have been in. It just means I wasn't impressed by most of the ivy league this weekend. Princeton and Cornell being the exceptions to that. So whatever people think I said or imagine I said, I didn't. This is the only thing I'm trying to get across and for some reason people are super offended by it.

I imagine it would be news to you Maverick to know that 6 of the last ten NCAA D1 Lacrosse champions won their first round games by 3 or fewer goals. This reality would likely make a thoughtful observer realize that margin of victory has little to do with the qualifications of those teams competing in and winning the NCAA tournament games in which they participate. Feel free to keep tossing up your straw man arguement and feeling justified in doing so, despite the fact that your point of view appears to fly in the face of historical reality.

So? That wasn't a reason for those fans to be concerned? Or lower seeded teams to be upset with their seeding? Margin of victory is just an interesting stat especially when you have 6 teams from the same conference. If I played for a decent team on the bubble I'd be pissed by Harvard's performance today.

[Maverick]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the reason is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.

[PizzaSnake]

Hey everyone, rent free space in Maverick’s head!!!

[Chousnake]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

Well Hopkins undeservedly got in a few times the past few years and blown out in the first round. The incessant whining by the ACC fan boys is beyond annoying and unflattering. And they are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of past tourneys. Margin of victory is irrelevant. All I know is the Ivy League has 4 of the final 8 teams, cementing it’s status as the best conference this season

[random observer]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.

And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.

[Maverick]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

Well Hopkins undeservedly got in a few times the past few years and blown out in the first round. The incessant whining by the ACC fan boys is beyond annoying and unflattering. And they are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of past tourneys. Margin of victory is irrelevant. All I know is the Ivy League has 4 of the final 8 teams, cementing it’s status as the best conference this season

Everyone knew that Hopkins didn't deserve to be there. They are a prime example of what I'm talking about.

[Maverick]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.

And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.

You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken

[Maverick]

Hey everyone, rent free space in Maverick’s head!!!

If you are looking for free space, I have suggestions of places around here with way more available real estate

[CU77]

The one change I would make is to follow hockey and use a mathematical formula for selection and seeding. Straight RPI would work just as well as anything else (and would have Duke and ND in this year instead of OSU and Harvard).

No, no, no. There is no mathematical formula worth a p00p that gives good results with such a short season. You, of all people, should know that.

I completely disagree. What doesn't give good results is a bunch of assistant ADs and coaches juggling numbers that they don't understand. Same for the "eye test", which usually involves looking at the school name on the uniform and not much more.

A short season is a short season. It means there is less data for ANY ranking system. I'll take pure math any day over highly fallible, unknowingly biased human beings.

This has the advantage of removing any question of bias.

[Typical Lax Dad]

People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.

The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.

I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.

And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.

You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken

The Lines had KU tied with Kentucky at +850 last week before the first round of the NCAA Tournament. That was behind Gonzaga (+300) and Arizona (+500). But Kentucky lost its opening game, and the Jayhawks have leaped Arizona for the second-best odds among the remaining 16 teams.