NESCAC

[gruntled]

Please, god, both of you go touch some grass

[The12lov3]

Let's move on to a different topic - Anyone know about any of the NESCAC recruiting classes?

[ah23]

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.

I don't even have an issue with them missing, but this is a pretty big misrepresentation of the argument people have made. The argument is explicitly that they deserve it based on their results.

They had a good record against a good schedule. They just lost to everyone ahead of them in-conference and lacked the marquee win to push their resume over the top that the three Pool C NESCAC teams did. Simple as that.

[humpdaddy]

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.

Yup exactly. If you let Bowdoin into they tournament they would easily make it to at least the 3rd round. Certainly sounds like a participation trophy to me. Be more ignorant, they were a top 15 team all year for a reason.

[RE6ULATOR]

…. Be more ignorant, they were a top 15 team all year for a reason.

I believe based on ability they were properly placed anywhere as a 12-20 team this year. That said, the reason they spent the year top 15 is because they started top 10 and went on to play a very winnable OOC (regardless of the fact that it turns out many these unranked teams actually can play decent lacrosse). If they entered the season unranked, there is ZERO chance that record on that schedule moves them into the top 15. It is what it is.

[OinkWoof]

…. Be more ignorant, they were a top 15 team all year for a reason.

I believe based on ability they were properly placed anywhere as a 12-20 team this year. That said, the reason they spent the year top 15 is because they started top 10 and went on to play a very winnable OOC (regardless of the fact that it turns out many these unranked teams actually can play decent lacrosse). If they entered the season unranked, there is ZERO chance that record on that schedule moves them into the top 15. It is what it is.

That is what makes all this back and forth kind of funny... at the end of the day they ended up where they should have in this system: a top 20 team who could compete with the best in d3, beat the good (but not great) teams they played, but were a goal short at the end of the day. As a result the teams that beat them justifiably got in.

If you want you can argue AQ format etc. But hard to argue that 1) they weren't a good team that had a failry good season or 2) they should have gotten in over the other regional pool c teams.

[Hacker]

I think we all agree Bowdoin is a very good team. The argument is simply this....does the NCAA take the best 34 (or whatever) teams and seed them or do they have a AQ and Pool C system? It's not an argument over 1 team and how good they are. I think the AQ system helps grow the game. I think there are enough Pool C bids that every team with a realistic chance of winning that somehow got bounced in their conference tourny still gets a shot to win the whole thing.

[RamsFan]

I saw Bowdoin play several times this year. Both in-person and on the stream, including most of the games against the top 4 NESCAC teams. They are a very good team, better than many in the tourney. I enjoy watching them play, and think they have the talent to be a dangerous team.

HOWEVER, they had 5 separate occasions to beat one of the top 4 teams in their league. They failed each of those 5 times. Yes, they battled the #1 team in the country neck-in-neck for most of that game. Yes, they fought the Lord Jeffs to the end in the first round of the NESCACs. Did they scare me every bit as much as the top NESCAC teams (obviously other than the jumbos)? Absolutely.

But when your only "signature" wins of the whole season were (1) a 1-goal win over Babson on a 39F tuesday night in Brunswick (and if there were an extra minute or two in that game i think they probably would have lost given the way Babson caught them at the end of the game), a team that is good, but who probably would not have gotten in to the NCAAs if they hadn't won their conference (much like MIT didnt get in after losing to Babson in the finals) and (2) a win over sub-.500 Hamilton, I dont think you deserve much love come tourney time. If they had won even ONE of their NESCAC top-4 games, then maybe give them a look, but at some point no matter how good you look, or how much potential you have, you still gotta put up a W.

[ah23]

I don't buy that the AQ system does much to grow the game. It probably helps low-level programs get more exposure, but that has very little impact on how successful/competitive those programs can be or whether good recruits want to play there.

That being said: I absolutely think AQs should exist. Every team should have access to the tournament (although the NCAA's standards for giving conferences AQ spots should be tighter than they are now, and there should be a few more at-large spots available).

[smoova]

That being said: I absolutely think AQs should exist. Every team should have access to the tournament (although the NCAA's standards for giving conferences AQ spots should be tighter than they are now, and there should be a few more at-large spots available).

This is the same place that I come out. AQ's aren't going anywhere, but I think 10 AL's for a 38 team field (26%) is too few (consider that AL's make up 47% of the DI bracket). Increasing the number of teams required for a conference to get an AQ from 6 to 8 could be a simple solution: reduces the number of AQ's and ostensibly makes the conferences getting AQ's more competitive.

Side note: I heard the other day that the HCAC is dropping lacrosse, so there may be one less AQ in 2024.

[RE6ULATOR]

…Increasing the number of teams required for a conference to get an AQ from 6 to 8 could be a simple solution: reduces the number of AQ's and ostensibly makes the conferences getting AQ's more competitive. ..

It wasn’t that long ago that the # required was higher. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or what you will, but that number was reduced in a very close time frame to when a certain team, from a certain eastern shore, had a certain conference change to one with less teams…

Things the make you go Hmmm…

[SKUD]

That being said: I absolutely think AQs should exist. Every team should have access to the tournament (although the NCAA's standards for giving conferences AQ spots should be tighter than they are now, and there should be a few more at-large spots available).

So do you think the standard should also change for D1? The current standard is 6 teams in a conference generates an AQ, correct?

[smoova]

So do you think the standard should also change for D1?

No. There are far fewer teams in D1 and relative competitiveness among the vast majority of the teams is much higher.

[SKUD]

Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?

[pcowlax]

Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?

Probably because, as smoova mentioned above, AQs make up 53% of the D1 field vs 74% of D3. It isn't an issue giving every D1 conference an AQ because there are only a few conferences. There are 28 D3 conferences with AQs. I agree they aren't going to get rid of the AQ system (nor would I want them to) but increasing the number of teams required in a conference for a bid (would likely at least somewhat reduce the number of conferences getting AQs) in increasing the AL # by 2-4 would not massively change the tourney structure but would make sense as there really are very few AL bids for the number of teams in the division. I would have to think it is at the lower end for all sports for the % teams in a division making a tourney as AL.

[smoova]

Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?

An 8 team AQ minimum in DIII would (initially) balance the numbers of AL/AQ (~18/20) and, if non-AQ conferences added members to earn an AQ, the competition within those conferences would likely increase. I am primarily concerned with the quality of competition in the tournament, not equity or growth (which happens for financial reasons, without the NCAA's interference).

[SKUD]

Got it-Thanks

[JustOneTime]

Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?

An 8 team AQ minimum in DIII would (initially) balance the numbers of AL/AQ (~18/20) and, if non-AQ conferences added members to earn an AQ, the competition within those conferences would likely increase. I am primarily concerned with the quality of competition in the tournament, not equity or growth (which happens for financial reasons, without the NCAA's interference).

IMO the current set up is good and the quality of competition is not really diminished. The lower end AQ conferences mostly play in the First Round.
From the Second round on the competition is mostly good. Yes Tufts will crush Emmanuel but that is ok. Just like in basketball the reward of winning your conference is the big dance. Schools that just miss out, like Bowdoin, RPI and St. Lawrence this year or Stevenson from last year, will happen in any format that is used. There will always be a team that believes they should be included.

[smoova]

Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?

An 8 team AQ minimum in DIII would (initially) balance the numbers of AL/AQ (~18/20) and, if non-AQ conferences added members to earn an AQ, the competition within those conferences would likely increase. I am primarily concerned with the quality of competition in the tournament, not equity or growth (which happens for financial reasons, without the NCAA's interference).

IMO the current set up is good and the quality of competition is not really diminished. The lower end AQ conferences mostly play in the First Round.
From the Second round on the competition is mostly good. Yes Tufts will crush Emmanuel but that is ok. Just like in basketball the reward of winning your conference is the big dance. Schools that just miss out, like Bowdoin, RPI and St. Lawrence this year or Stevenson from last year, will happen in any format that is used. There will always be a team that believes they should be included.

OK, sooooo, you like the current system because the "quality of competition is not really diminished" ... except in the first round ... and, sometimes, the second round ... and basketball has an AQ system ... and teams left out will always be pissed.

I don't disagree with any of that.

[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.

Yup exactly. If you let Bowdoin into they tournament they would easily make it to at least the 3rd round. Certainly sounds like a participation trophy to me. Be more ignorant, they were a top 15 team all year for a reason.

It is always a good barometer to place a team somewhere between the teams they beat, and the they can’t beat. Bowdoin never earned the top 15 ranking because they never beat anyone above 15. The best win was Babson (non ranked that also didn’t beat anyone ranked). The next best team they beat had 7 losses. Bowdoin is lucky to still be in the top 20.