NESCAC

[ah23]

You really wrote all those words instead of saving both of us time by responding with a short comment that:

a) you're familiar with a small list of teams who have "national recognition"
b) it's okay to be ignorant about everyone else; it's not even worth clicking on their Inside Lacrosse page until they earn it

[Bigdawg69]

Can’t believe the NESCAC forum turned into whether Babson is a good team or not lol. We need the tourney games to start

[RE6ULATOR]

You really wrote all those words instead of saving both of us time by responding with a short comment that:

a) you're familiar with a small list of teams who have "national recognition"
b) it's okay to be ignorant about everyone else; it's not even worth clicking on their Inside Lacrosse page until they earn it

Lol cool dude. Tell me you have no response to what I said without telling me you have no response to what I said. And go on about all the Eastern, Stockton, Kenyon, Roanoke, Muhlenberg etc games you watched this year.

They had decent up years too. Or did you not watch because you too are “ignorant”. Babson beat your MIT, and I think they aren’t Nationally legit by any stretch. Get over it.

[ah23]

Lol cool dude. So tell me about all the Eastern, Stockton, Kenyon, Roanoke, Muhlenberg etc games you watched this year.

They had decent up years too. Or did you not watch because you too are “ignorant”. Get over it.

Didn’t say you had to watch every game (or even any of them). Said it was ridiculous to not even be aware of good teams because they don’t have the right brand.

FWIW I’ve watched Kenyon and Muhlenberg play (once each, probably just a half). Haven’t watched Eastern/Stockton/Roanoke because I only have so much time and I don’t think they’re worth it given the crowded Saturday schedules/nonexistent odds they do anything of interest in the tournament (though I have watched Stockton a few times over the past few years because Swedlund and Poli are fun to watch).

What I have done is actually try to look through their IL pages/box scores and understand how they stack up so if I wanted to rank them (which I never did, and I rarely had time to fill out the forum poll this season anyway which was frustrating) I would know more than “hey, I recognize Stockton - they were awesome in that tourney game against York a few years ago!” I don’t think spending a few minutes on IL each week is a particularly heavy lift.

Anyway. Babson is legit, Bowdoin wasn’t snubbed, and the NCAA tournament should be fun…and I expect York to comfortably handle Cabrini. What could go wrong?

Nice post comment edit by the way, better late than never for a totally sweet comeback.

[The12lov3]

Guys - Before the NESCAC became the powerhouse in division 3 lacrosse, it was like a lot of the other leagues in division 3 lacrosse. In the late 90's, early 2000s, the only respectable team on the national level was Middlebury. With the growth of the game and more HS kids playing lacrosse, that has changed significantly. The dynamics will continue to change and more conferences will have better teams and the competition will become more fierce. It is great to see Babson on the national stage as well as some of these other schools. MIT who historically was a bad team got a lot of respect this year. Point that I am trying to make here is that a lot of the leagues are where the NESCAC was 25 years ago and it is great for the game to have parity. Salisbury has won 2 championship in the last 10 years. Prior 10 years before that, they won 7 NC. Is that not good for the game, seeing other team win it. Anyway, I am a BIG NESCAC fan and would love to see every team make it to the show but at the same time I think seeing other conferences succeed it essential for the growth of the sport as well is great for the fans of the game. NCAA Lacrosse tournament was not as fun to watch when Salisbury and Hobart were constantly winning.

[Hacker]

The12lov3 nailed it. I'm a NESCAC fan, yes, the mid/lower NESCAC teams would roll most AQ's from newer conferences but the truth is it's good to grow the game and watch teams improve throughout the country. It's tiring watching the same teams win year after year and although I will always root for NESCAC teams, (one in particular) I am happy Babson, MIT, Kenyon, etc improve and develop. It's nice to see RIT, Wesleyan, Cabrini, and Stevenson win titles. The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

[Laxattackjack]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

So, that's the NCAA's rule for men's teams, but not women's? Just trying to understand all the "facts" ...

[The12lov3]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

So, that's the NCAA's rule for men's teams, but not women's? Just trying to understand all the "facts" ...

The only facts are that other teams and conferences deserve to play in the NCAA tournament, not just the NESCAC - that is the fact relevant to this conversation. If we were strictly talking about taking the top 38 teams in the country, most years would have 7 to 8 NESCAC teams go to the show. Not good for the game.

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

So, that's the NCAA's rule for men's teams, but not women's? Just trying to understand all the "facts" ...

The only facts are that other teams and conferences deserve to play in the NCAA tournament, not just the NESCAC - that is the fact relevant to this conversation. If we were strictly talking about taking the top 38 teams in the country, most years would have 7 to 8 NESCAC teams go to the show. Not good for the game.

"Deserve." How deliciously woke. Participation trophies for everyone!

I wonder how the women's game will manage to survive 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 tourney ...

[The12lov3]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

So, that's the NCAA's rule for men's teams, but not women's? Just trying to understand all the "facts" ...

The only facts are that other teams and conferences deserve to play in the NCAA tournament, not just the NESCAC - that is the fact relevant to this conversation. If we were strictly talking about taking the top 38 teams in the country, most years would have 7 to 8 NESCAC teams go to the show. Not good for the game.

"Deserve." How deliciously woke. Participation trophies for everyone!

I wonder how the women's game will manage to survive 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 tourney ...

The 38 teams in the tournament deserved their bids. Just because you play in the NESCAC and are 5th best team does not mean you should go to the NCAA. Seems like YOU think that BOWDOIN deserves to go because they are in the NESCAC. I am saying parity is a good thing and if teams are selected by the NCAA to go to the tournament then they have earned the right and DESERVE to go. Women had 5 teams because the NCAA selection committee felt they met the comparative criteria to earn 5 bids to the show. Could have easily been 2 bids - all depends on other teams records, Point is that selection committees have criteria and if you meet those criteria then you deserving.

[Laxattackjack]

Allowing Bowdoin into the tourney would have been the definition of a participation trophy. You are suggesting they deserve it, not on results, but on participation in a conference.

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

So, that's the NCAA's rule for men's teams, but not women's? Just trying to understand all the "facts" ...

The only facts are that other teams and conferences deserve to play in the NCAA tournament, not just the NESCAC - that is the fact relevant to this conversation. If we were strictly talking about taking the top 38 teams in the country, most years would have 7 to 8 NESCAC teams go to the show. Not good for the game.

"Deserve." How deliciously woke. Participation trophies for everyone!

I wonder how the women's game will manage to survive 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 tourney ...

The 38 teams in the tournament deserved their bids. Just because you play in the NESCAC and are 5th best team does not mean you should go to the NCAA. Seems like YOU think that BOWDOIN deserves to go because they are in the NESCAC. I am saying parity is a good thing and if teams are selected by the NCAA to go to the tournament then they have earned the right and DESERVE to go. Women had 5 teams because the NCAA selection committee felt they met the comparative criteria to earn 5 bids to the show. Could have easily been 2 bids - all depends on other teams records, Point is that selection committees have criteria and if you meet those criteria then you deserving.

"The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game."

"If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try."

Charity is not "parity."

[UpperCorner22]

The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game.

Narrator: This is not a fact - the NCAA took 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 Women's D3 Championship Bracket.

I think his was of saying it was more polite. But to be blunt. If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try. you had you chance and you failed (4 times). Time to give other teams a chance.

So, that's the NCAA's rule for men's teams, but not women's? Just trying to understand all the "facts" ...

The only facts are that other teams and conferences deserve to play in the NCAA tournament, not just the NESCAC - that is the fact relevant to this conversation. If we were strictly talking about taking the top 38 teams in the country, most years would have 7 to 8 NESCAC teams go to the show. Not good for the game.

"Deserve." How deliciously woke. Participation trophies for everyone!

I wonder how the women's game will manage to survive 5 NESCAC teams in the 2023 tourney ...

The 38 teams in the tournament deserved their bids. Just because you play in the NESCAC and are 5th best team does not mean you should go to the NCAA. Seems like YOU think that BOWDOIN deserves to go because they are in the NESCAC. I am saying parity is a good thing and if teams are selected by the NCAA to go to the tournament then they have earned the right and DESERVE to go. Women had 5 teams because the NCAA selection committee felt they met the comparative criteria to earn 5 bids to the show. Could have easily been 2 bids - all depends on other teams records, Point is that selection committees have criteria and if you meet those criteria then you deserving.

"The fact is, the NCAA can't in good faith take 5 teams from one conference, it's not good for the game."

"If there are 4 other teams in your conference that are better, you don’t deserve a 5th try."

Charity is not "parity."

"Deserve" to be there... doesn't sit well with me. The teams that are going to lose 30 - 1 this week "deserve" to be there? No they don't. They don't deserve anything. That's the rules of the NCAA... so be it. But they don't "deserve" to be there.

[RE6ULATOR]

"Deserve" to be there... doesn't sit well with me. The teams that are going to lose 30 - 1 this week "deserve" to be there? No they don't. They don't deserve anything. That's the rules of the NCAA... so be it. But they don't "deserve" to be there.

Silly word play going on here. We all know the rules, and AQs earn the right to be in the tournament by the rules. Pool C is the only area where people can agree or disagree as to who they believe deserves a bid.

But those AQ teams who will lose 30-1 EARNED the right to be there. It is what it is. Those are the rules.

[Hacker]

So by your reasoning the perfect matchup would be a Hobart 80's team against an early 2000's Salisbury every year. Let the others eat cake. I bet you're an Alabama football fan. (responding to TUCO)

[UpperCorner22]

"Deserve" to be there... doesn't sit well with me. The teams that are going to lose 30 - 1 this week "deserve" to be there? No they don't. They don't deserve anything. That's the rules of the NCAA... so be it. But they don't "deserve" to be there.

Silly word play going on here. We all know the rules, and AQs earn the right to be in the tournament by the rules. Pool C is the only area where people can agree or disagree as to who they believe deserves a bid.

But those AQ teams who will lose 30-1 EARNED the right to be there. It is what it is. Those are the rules.

Earned... yes. Now I feel better... LOL.

[ergit]

"Deserve" to be there... doesn't sit well with me. The teams that are going to lose 30 - 1 this week "deserve" to be there? No they don't. They don't deserve anything. That's the rules of the NCAA... so be it. But they don't "deserve" to be there.

Silly word play going on here. We all know the rules, and AQs earn the right to be in the tournament by the rules. Pool C is the only area where people can agree or disagree as to who they believe deserves a bid.

But those AQ teams who will lose 30-1 EARNED the right to be there. It is what it is. Those are the rules.

Earned... yes. Now I feel better... LOL.

We could cut the Tournament down to eight teams and tell Bowdoin and everyone else to take a hike.

But wait…

[TucoBPJMRamirez]

So by your reasoning the perfect matchup would be a Hobart 80's team against an early 2000's Salisbury every year. Let the others eat cake. I bet you're an Alabama football fan. (responding to TUCO)

You must have been quite a track star in high school, because that is an impressive leap. Kind of like this one:

"So by your reasoning the perfect matchup would be Centenary (LA) against Whittier. 'Cause "Grow the Game!" I bet you're an IRS wealth redistribution agent."