I don't think it is fair to call the selections 'random'. In a previous year, the committee explained they looked at the top RPI non-AQ teams as a starting point and decided if there were issues. This year, they clearly felt that the bad losses by Duke were a significant enough issue to bump them.wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 10:56 amand as long as the coaches are good with it, we'll continue to get what we've gotten for a long time... random selections on the bubble with no discernible pattern, applied unevenly year to year and even team to team in the same year. with a new group of asst ad's from varying non-lacrosse backgrounds and a couple coaches who carry bias unwittingly or not.Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 8:02 amExactly what was done this year. Use RPI...or Krach or whatever...as a starting point, and then dig into who teams beat and to whom they lost. That stops the nonsense where a team plays and loses to top ten teams, beats up on mediocre (21+ teams), but gets a high RPI score based on those top ten losses. If you've played five top ten teams and lost to four, you are not a third seed in the tournament. I don't care what RPI says.
buyer beware, your school is next.
I am more sympathetic to ND, who suffered from the second-order effect of the committee discounting the ND wins over Duke, and then deciding that since Harvard had significant wins, and ND (now that Duke no longer counted in the minds of the committee) did not, they took Harvard over ND. I disagree with that choice, but it is not nearly as awful as many previous decisions by the committee.