2022 NCAA Mens LAX tournament

[nms]

I think the one part we all agree with is that the RPI system they've been using has been flawed for decades now.

I do not agree. I think RPI is perfectly fine.

And if you think it's not fine, you need to tell us what would be better.

Exactly 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.

and 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.

buyer beware, your school is next.

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.

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.

[wgdsr]

I think the one part we all agree with is that the RPI system they've been using has been flawed for decades now.

I do not agree. I think RPI is perfectly fine.

And if you think it's not fine, you need to tell us what would be better.

Exactly 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.

and 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.

buyer beware, your school is next.

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.

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.

question:
if the committee this year says big wins and bad losses were their priority (that's fine) in evaluating teams, how is tosu (nevermind rutgers and virginia) in over notre dame?

and the answer is in your post. they discounted wins a team had. if that's not the definition of random, i don't know what is.

[FannOLax]

It will be interesting too see quarterfinal attendances on Long Island and in Columbus, Ohio. The marquee match-up is clearly Maryland v UVA in a big stadium in Columbus, but the Buckeyes were eliminated and all schools are pretty far from Central Ohio. Yale, Rutgers, Princeton and Penn are all easy driving distance from Hofstra, although traffic might stink. Traditional lacrosse hotbed versus new-growth Midwest, hmmmm, we'll see.

[Matnum PI]

if the committee this year says big wins and bad losses were their priority (that's fine) in evaluating teams, how is tosu (nevermind rutgers and virginia) in over notre dame?

people, you and i included, want to judge teams based on their season, their best wins, their worst losses. And then we see a head-to-head W or L and we lose our discipline. Notre Dame had a better season, Notre Dame should be in over OSU and... But OSU beat Notre Dame head-to-head! That's my theory. People are disciplined and rational and analytical until they're not.

[Chousnake]

If the decision to award a bid is between two teams and one beat the other, there is not another metric in the world that is better than that. Ultimately, what happens on the field is what this is about. Otherwise, why play the tournament at all. Let's just use a computer model and award the national championship to the team that has the highest metric based on the model. I don't understand the aversion to head to head being the determining factor when comparing two teams for one spot and everything else is close.

[1766]

Rutgers was told to suck it up when we didn't make it. There was no outrage. I'd say the same to ND now.

what was the case for rutgers?

Eye test! Beat a Hopkins team twice who made the tournament.

[Chousnake]

It will be interesting too see quarterfinal attendances on Long Island and in Columbus, Ohio. The marquee match-up is clearly Maryland v UVA in a big stadium in Columbus, but the Buckeyes were eliminated and all schools are pretty far from Central Ohio. Yale, Rutgers, Princeton and Penn are all easy driving distance from Hofstra, although traffic might stink. Traditional lacrosse hotbed versus new-growth Midwest, hmmmm, we'll see.

Playing the quarters in Ohio is ridiculous. If OSU won, they get an unfair advantage as an unseeded team. Now that they lost, sending Maryland, Virginia, Cornell and Delaware to Ohio makes no sense. Play one QF in Baltimore and another on LI and call it a day ( or weekend).

I expect the turnout on Sunday to be light.

[tech37]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

[wgdsr]

If the decision to award a bid is between two teams and one beat the other, there is not another metric in the world that is better than that. Ultimately, what happens on the field is what this is about. Otherwise, why play the tournament at all. Let's just use a computer model and award the national championship to the team that has the highest metric based on the model. I don't understand the aversion to head to head being the determining factor when comparing two teams for one spot and everything else is close.

i don't think anyone has disagreed with that. if everything else is close.

[wgdsr]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

no worries. they will tweak it again after this year. especially if it helps decide an nc$$ game first.

[Laxfan#1969]

If the decision to award a bid is between two teams and one beat the other, there is not another metric in the world that is better than that. Ultimately, what happens on the field is what this is about. Otherwise, why play the tournament at all. Let's just use a computer model and award the national championship to the team that has the highest metric based on the model. I don't understand the aversion to head to head being the determining factor when comparing two teams for one spot and everything else is close.

This 100%. When things are relatively close (record and metrics)...you go with head to head result all day and that should not be really debated.

OSU having a bad day yesterday really doesn’t change the resume that got them in...teams have bad days (see Georgetown)...but more credit Cornell and Delaware...great performances.

[a fan]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

Not a thing, Tech. Not a thing. You're right....this is gonna cost someone a game at some point. And you just know the refs hate this stupid rule.

[tech37]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

Not a thing, Tech. Not a thing. You're right....this is gonna cost someone a game at some point. And you just know the refs hate this stupid rule.

Yep. Hope this doesn't happen in OT anytime soon.

[CU77]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

Not a thing, Tech. Not a thing. You're right....this is gonna cost someone a game at some point. And you just know the refs hate this stupid rule.

My guess is that, from the defense's point of view, stopping that (potential) goal with a push, and taking the 30s penalty, is a better bet than not. Which would mean that the rule actually makes things LESS SAFE for the goalie, by inviting the defense to push the attackman into the crease to save a goal.

[Ezra White]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

I think everyone agrees this is a stupid rule.

I differ with your remedy. What if the push prevents a score? Then it's treated like any other penalty. But I'd trade a 30-sec man-down for a goal anytime.

So, when a goal is scored, it should count. But score or not, the offending team should be man-down no matter what. If a goal is scored, the ensuing face-off will be 3 vs 2; if no goal is scored, the man-down is called when the offending team gains possession.

To discourage this tactic even more, the length of the man-down can be increased on subsequent violations.

[rolldodge]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

Not a thing, Tech. Not a thing. You're right....this is gonna cost someone a game at some point. And you just know the refs hate this stupid rule.

My guess is that, from the defense's point of view, stopping that (potential) goal with a push, and taking the 30s penalty, is a better bet than not. Which would mean that the rule actually makes things LESS SAFE for the goalie, by inviting the defense to push the attackman into the crease to save a goal.

Exactly. It should be an easy call. If the player end up in the goal mouth due to contact, there should be two scenarios:

1. If the contact was illegal (and thus a flag) goal counts
2. if the contact was legal (no flag) goal does not count.

[tech37]

IMO, a dumb rule raised its ugly head again in the CU vs OSU game yesterday.

CU goal waved off when player was pushed into crease as he scored. At some point, some deserves-to-win team is going to lose a game based on this rule.

Goal should count and push waved off unless there's unnecessary roughness involved.

I realize the rule is there to protect goalies, but still...

What am I missing?

I think everyone agrees this is a stupid rule.

I differ with your remedy. What if the push prevents a score? Then it's treated like any other penalty. But I'd trade a 30-sec man-down for a goal anytime.

So, when a goal is scored, it should count. But score or not, the offending team should be man-down no matter what. If a goal is scored, the ensuing face-off will be 3 vs 2; if no goal is scored, the man-down is called when the offending team gains possession.

To discourage this tactic even more, the length of the man-down can be increased on subsequent violations.

Agreed. A push is a push and should be penalized. Thought that was obvious... sorry.

[Matnum PI]

Lax Vegas Lines @LaxVegasLines · 32s
#LaxVegasLines: 5/21 - 5/22 Lines

#6 Rutgers [-155] -1.5
#3 PENNSYLVANIA [+140]
O/U: 28.5

#5 Princeton [-155] -1.5
#4 YALE [+140]
O/U: 27.5

#7 CORNELL [-440] -4.5
Delaware [+385]
O/U: 21.5

#1 MARYLAND [-495] -5.5
Virgina [+430]
O/U: 32.5

[Hoxwurth]

Lax Vegas Lines @LaxVegasLines · 32s
#LaxVegasLines: 5/21 - 5/22 Lines

#6 Rutgers [-155] -1.5
#3 PENNSYLVANIA [+140]
O/U: 28.5

#5 Princeton [-155] -1.5
#4 YALE [+140]
O/U: 27.5

#7 CORNELL [-440] -4.5
Delaware [+385]
O/U: 21.5

#1 MARYLAND [-495] -5.5
Virgina [+430]
O/U: 32.5

Penn, Princeton, Delaware, and UVa to cover.

[wgdsr]

if the committee this year says big wins and bad losses were their priority (that's fine) in evaluating teams, how is tosu (nevermind rutgers and virginia) in over notre dame?

people, you and i included, want to judge teams based on their season, their best wins, their worst losses. And then we see a head-to-head W or L and we lose our discipline. Notre Dame had a better season, Notre Dame should be in over OSU and... But OSU beat Notre Dame head-to-head! That's my theory. People are disciplined and rational and analytical until they're not.

disagree. given the explanation given for their methodology and then choices, ohio state was going in over notre dame whether they had a game with them this year or not. imo.
random.