ESPN Crew is Unlistenable

[Chousnake]

Bring back Booker!

Said no one....ever.

Actually, I believe someone just did.

The bashing of all the hard working, talented broadcasters on here is awful.
All these broadcasters do incredible work. The ESPN Producers are amazing as well.

They have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom ................

"I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said Thank You and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and man a post". Either way I don't give a damn about your opinion of the broadcasters who do all they can to bring our great sport to so many thankful fans !! (pick up a mic and call a game ... then boldly post 'anonymously')

Booker Corrigan

Here here, Booker! Some here may have forgotten the days when lax on TV was a rarity. I vividly remember setting my vcr to catch the replay of the Cuse/UVa OT thriller in 1994. I also remember listening to the 1996 final on my car radio. Some here are also just upset that they called out the committee for their, um, questionable decisions this time around. I think the ESPN guys do a great job, as do you. Growing the game involves reaching young people and entertaining them, and these guys are doing that.

I completely disagree with your comment. It doesn't "grow the game" when these supposed ambassadors of the sport label its marquee event as "tainted" because the committee left out a team that they thought should be in. Every season an apparent deserving team is left out of the field. This year, though, they went on rants on the selection show (and online - and in game commentary - and on and on) because ND and maybe Duke were on the outside looking in (instead of the Cornells and Rutgers and similar non-ACC schools of past seasons) and discredited the entire tournament as a result. That is the opposite of growing the sport.

[JustOneTime]

I agree that the announcers need to provide the audience with more insight of the game. The non lacrosse comments don't help me become more knowledgeable about the nuances and strategy of the game. I never played the game growing up but have kids that do play. There is not that much lacrosse on TV so to me its important to try and explain and teach the key parts of the game. I think lacrosse could become bigger then hockey at some point. Its the best sport to watch now that the shot clock is in place (they should shorten the clock to 60 seconds and 45 seconds on a reset IMO, more end to end action is awesome)

[Hoxwurth]

They turn people off with their broadcast schtick. The behavior after the tournament selections was unprofessional. This wasn’t discussions to drum up interest on an ESPN platform but instead it came across as personal animus. I turn the volume off. (I like Paul personally. A good guy).

It didn't seem like personal animus so much as their sincere belief. In the past, RPI has been an excellent predictor. Not only did the committee ignore RPI (twice), but the committee also invented a requirement that teams need to beat other tournament teams. People should be outraged that the committee devalued ND's wins over Duke without any predetermined justification.

[Typical Lax Dad]

They turn people off with their broadcast schtick. The behavior after the tournament selections was unprofessional. This wasn’t discussions to drum up interest on an ESPN platform but instead it came across as personal animus. I turn the volume off. (I like Paul personally. A good guy).

It didn't seem like personal animus so much as their sincere belief. In the past, RPI has been an excellent predictor. Not only did the committee ignore RPI (twice), but the committee also invented a requirement that teams need to beat other tournament teams. People should be outraged that the committee devalued ND's wins over Duke without any predetermined justification.

Animus can be sincere. ND’s strategic scheduling worked against them this season. Do better.

[ctbagataway]

Exactly. And to recount, Anish's post-selection tweets were hardly a measured response by a responsible member of the media. More like knee-jerk reaction from an ND fanboy.
"Leaving @NDLacrosse out of the tournament is an absolute joke. Complete joke. One of the worst decisions the selection committee has made. Clearly-watching games is not necessary to be on the committee."
"To have a room full of people make a collective decision and say 'Nah, they don't belong' is gross negligence. You've undermined the integrity of the entire format."
"No Dartmouth?"

[ICGrad]

They turn people off with their broadcast schtick. The behavior after the tournament selections was unprofessional. This wasn’t discussions to drum up interest on an ESPN platform but instead it came across as personal animus. I turn the volume off. (I like Paul personally. A good guy).

It didn't seem like personal animus so much as their sincere belief. In the past, RPI has been an excellent predictor. Not only did the committee ignore RPI (twice), but the committee also invented a requirement that teams need to beat other tournament teams. People should be outraged that the committee devalued ND's wins over Duke without any predetermined justification.

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

It's an easy crutch to fall back on and something you can point to to absolve yourself of any responsibility: "Well, they had a higher RPI! It's not our fault Rutgers is sitting at home despite having beaten Hopkins, twice. Hopkins had a higher RPI!"

As Duke's RPI proved this year - and as Hopkins has proven on numerous occasions during seasons when they had mediocre records and high RPIs - RPI doesn't always reflect performance on the field.

Thankfully, this year the committee had the guts to look behind the numbers.

[PizzaSnake]

My dog this selection kerfuffle is a veritable perpetual motion machine.

[PizzaSnake]

Duplicate.

[random observer]

Agree to disagree I guess. I prefer commentators/analysts who share their opinions rather than simply toeing the company line. I thought Carc was very respectful in his critique following the selections even though you could tell he was upset. Are they a little schticky sometimes? Sure, but that’s hardly worthy of all the hate IMO.

I don't have a problem with Carc disagreeing with the committee. I have a problem with him advocating for subjective criteria for selection that are prone to biases (specifically his biases) as a means of overriding on field results. That is completely anathema to the spirit of competition.

I also dislike the arrogance in which he presented the argument ("you can't tell me ND isn't one of the 5 best teams in the country" -- you absolutely can say that, just as he's entitled to say that he thinks they are; the only difference is that the results only support the latter).

Again, I really like Carc as a person, but vehemently oppose the argument he has been lobbying behind for the past couple of weeks.

[wgdsr]

They turn people off with their broadcast schtick. The behavior after the tournament selections was unprofessional. This wasn’t discussions to drum up interest on an ESPN platform but instead it came across as personal animus. I turn the volume off. (I like Paul personally. A good guy).

It didn't seem like personal animus so much as their sincere belief. In the past, RPI has been an excellent predictor. Not only did the committee ignore RPI (twice), but the committee also invented a requirement that teams need to beat other tournament teams. People should be outraged that the committee devalued ND's wins over Duke without any predetermined justification.

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

It's an easy crutch to fall back on and something you can point to to absolve yourself of any responsibility: "Well, they had a higher RPI! It's not our fault Rutgers is sitting at home despite having beaten Hopkins, twice. Hopkins had a higher RPI!"

As Duke's RPI proved this year - and as Hopkins has proven on numerous occasions during seasons when they had mediocre records and high RPIs - RPI doesn't always reflect performance on the field.

Thankfully, this year the committee had the guts to look behind the numbers.

i like you ic. but guts? they didn't look behind the numbers. they made up their own conflicting and unevenly applied interpretations.

just to remind, we will all be back here next decrying the next committee's new bright ideas for team(s) x!!!

[ICGrad]

They turn people off with their broadcast schtick. The behavior after the tournament selections was unprofessional. This wasn’t discussions to drum up interest on an ESPN platform but instead it came across as personal animus. I turn the volume off. (I like Paul personally. A good guy).

It didn't seem like personal animus so much as their sincere belief. In the past, RPI has been an excellent predictor. Not only did the committee ignore RPI (twice), but the committee also invented a requirement that teams need to beat other tournament teams. People should be outraged that the committee devalued ND's wins over Duke without any predetermined justification.

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

It's an easy crutch to fall back on and something you can point to to absolve yourself of any responsibility: "Well, they had a higher RPI! It's not our fault Rutgers is sitting at home despite having beaten Hopkins, twice. Hopkins had a higher RPI!"

As Duke's RPI proved this year - and as Hopkins has proven on numerous occasions during seasons when they had mediocre records and high RPIs - RPI doesn't always reflect performance on the field.

Thankfully, this year the committee had the guts to look behind the numbers.

i like you ic. but guts? they didn't look behind the numbers. they made up their own conflicting and unevenly applied interpretations.

just to remind, we will all be back here next decrying the next committee's new bright ideas for team(s) x!!!

Yeah, and in 2019, when they went straight RPI, we were decrying them too, right? I mean, they can do straight RPI, fine, but look at 2019: No way Hopkins - with their RPI bouyed by "good" losses - did more to earn it on the field than Cornell did.

So it's 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. Me, I'd rather the committee dig a bit than just do a straight RPI grab.

(Also, yes, they did look behind the numbers; Duke was #7 RPI but had a number of really bad losses and a negative QWF. That bore looking into and they didn't like what they saw. You don't have to agree with the conclusions that they drew, but they clearly spent some degree of time trying to figure out what do with with a team like Duke, with 1 single top 10 win and 2 sub-top 20 losses).

[wgdsr]

They turn people off with their broadcast schtick. The behavior after the tournament selections was unprofessional. This wasn’t discussions to drum up interest on an ESPN platform but instead it came across as personal animus. I turn the volume off. (I like Paul personally. A good guy).

It didn't seem like personal animus so much as their sincere belief. In the past, RPI has been an excellent predictor. Not only did the committee ignore RPI (twice), but the committee also invented a requirement that teams need to beat other tournament teams. People should be outraged that the committee devalued ND's wins over Duke without any predetermined justification.

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

It's an easy crutch to fall back on and something you can point to to absolve yourself of any responsibility: "Well, they had a higher RPI! It's not our fault Rutgers is sitting at home despite having beaten Hopkins, twice. Hopkins had a higher RPI!"

As Duke's RPI proved this year - and as Hopkins has proven on numerous occasions during seasons when they had mediocre records and high RPIs - RPI doesn't always reflect performance on the field.

Thankfully, this year the committee had the guts to look behind the numbers.

i like you ic. but guts? they didn't look behind the numbers. they made up their own conflicting and unevenly applied interpretations.

just to remind, we will all be back here next decrying the next committee's new bright ideas for team(s) x!!!

Yeah, and in 2019, when they went straight RPI, we were decrying them too, right? I mean, they can do straight RPI, fine, but look at 2019: No way Hopkins - with their RPI bouyed by "good" losses - did more to earn it on the field than Cornell did.

So it's 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. Me, I'd rather the committee dig a bit than just do a straight RPI grab.

(Also, yes, they did look behind the numbers; Duke was #7 RPI but had a number of really bad losses and a negative QWF. That bore looking into and they didn't like what they saw. You don't have to agree with the conclusions that they drew, but they clearly spent some degree of time trying to figure out what do with with a team like Duke, with 1 single top 10 win and 2 sub-top 20 losses).

well you can go back but i'm pretty sure i did!!! why? because i'm not a slave to conferences like many are. there are 40+ guys on any team left out that go home. there are worse things in life, but doesn't mean we can't come on and want something different.

i've said all along... they want to ding duke, ok. not really consistent with their top 10 poll in april, but fine. their follow up of then dinging nd was egregious. if it happened to your team, you'd be outraged (a guess).

[CU77]

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

Please tell me the specific objective formula that you think is better.

[Gobigred]

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

Please tell me the specific objective formula that you think is better.

None of them is adequate in itself, as we've tried to explain to you ad nauseam. RPI is especially poor as it doesn't look at whom you beat and to whom you lost...the height of absurdity for a ranking system. That's why, as ICGrad says above, you have to dig deeper into a team's record, as this year's committee did.

[wgdsr]

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

Please tell me the specific objective formula that you think is better.

people generally like whatever system in a given year that their team(s) get in.

[wgdsr]

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

Please tell me the specific objective formula that you think is better.

None of them is adequate in itself, as we've tried to explain to you ad nauseam. RPI is especially poor as it doesn't look at whom you beat and to whom you lost...the height of absurdity for a ranking system. That's why, as ICGrad says above, you have to dig deeper into a team's record, as this year's committee did.

they said jax was a bad loss. they had them at #10 two weeks prior when they were rpi 22. they lost once, many teams between 10 and 22 did worse, they finished 24 and are now a bad loss.
loyola's a bad loss at 21? but loss to denver's cool @ 20. top 10 jax @ 22 i thought rpi didn't matter? they're a top 10 team!!!

then #7 wins don't count because of something we made up. they didn't "dig into numbers". they ran with their own stuff.

[CU77]

If "digging deeper" is not to produce random results, inconsistent from year to year, then it must be codifiable by a formula.

[ICGrad]

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

Please tell me the specific objective formula that you think is better.

I'm not sure that I feel that there has to be a 100% objective criteria that's used (and I know you and I differ on this). I mean, obviously, if there were, you wouldn't need a committee at all; AQ + RPI rank, there's your seedings and games. I know you see that as an ideal state. I don't.

BUT...

If that were to be what we were going for, then I think it would need to be a more sophisticated formula than RPI, as least as RPI plays out across the relatively limited sample size of a ~13-15 game lacrosse season.

I know that some sports go straight RPI (hockey, as you're fond of saying). But not all do. Basketball (at least d1) uses it as a data point, but ultimately the committee looks at the overall bodies of work of the teams involved. It's not perfect, of course, but neither is straight RPI.

[Typical Lax Dad]

RPI is a terrible metric. Has been since the beginning of time.

Please tell me the specific objective formula that you think is better.

people generally like whatever system in a given year that their team(s) get in.

that’s what I support!

[ICGrad]

then #7 wins don't count because of something we made up. they didn't "dig into numbers". they ran with their own stuff.

So you're saying that the committee should have gone straight RPI, and Duke should have gotten in, and ND should have gotten in.

That's fine. I mean, that's they way it's been the vast majority of the time, and we all sit here and point to all of the inconsistencies and limitations of RPI, again especially over such a small sample size, and how teams can have really pretty mediocre seasons, but as long as their loses were to teams with good records and/or high RPIs, such a team will still have a high RPI and skate into the tourney (looking at you, Hopkins, but also sort of to at Duke this year, no?)

Ultimately, I fully expected Duke and ND to both get invites and was surprised they didn't. But I don't think it's the crime of the century. I think there have been far bigger snubs over the years, and this one is getting as much attention as it is because it's Duke and ND.