D1 Men NCAA Tournament

[HopFan16]

Maryland twice....who is the third top 20 win? Has to be Rutgers. Rutgers moved up at least two spaces after this weekend's games, and saved Hopkins' season. Oh, the irony.

No, it was North Carolina, not Rutgers.

If OakSt/PineSt still had the cojones to show his face around here, I'd thank him. That mud bowl may have put Hopkins in the tournament.

[ICGrad]

Notice his mention of the #1 SOS. Those "good" losses counted. It's a shame, but it is what it is until it gets fixed.

It ain't getting fixed; it's been like this for years.

If memory serves, Hopkins has made the tourney as an 8-win at-large 3 of the past four years.

2017: 8-6 (lost to Duke, 6-19)
2016: 8-6 (lost to Brown, 8-17)

and of course, this year.

If an 11-5 Hopkins team lost out to a 8-6 Rutgers team who they had beaten twice, including in the conference tourney, you can bet your ass it would change in a hurry. Until that happens, we'll keep getting more of the same.

ETA: And with UNC being the 3rd top 20 team, that mean's that UNC's upset of 'Cuse in the ACC tourney was the real killer. It robbed Cornell of a higher-quality loss (we know what the committee thinks of those), and handed the committe the lame-ass excuse they needed to yet again invite a mediocre Hopkins team to the tourney. Maybe they won't lose by 13 goals this time; sooner or later lightning has to strike, right?

[a fan]

Maryland twice....who is the third top 20 win? Has to be Rutgers. Rutgers moved up at least two spaces after this weekend's games, and saved Hopkins' season. Oh, the irony.

No, it was North Carolina, not Rutgers.

If OakSt/PineSt still had the cojones to show his face around here, I'd thank him. That mud bowl may have put Hopkins in the tournament.

Ah, got it. Thank you.

[HooDat]

the solution (outside the ACC) is simple - win your conference

4 ACC teams invited(again) is a joke. Maybe more than one ACC team can win a first round game this year

It's really just a collection of lacrosse independents that happen to have basketball teams that play in the same conference.

One announcer said "Notre Dame could win a championship.....or lose a first round game " No shirt sherlock. Something about 80% of life is just showing up A lot of factors go into winning it all, but it's always been about the invitation.

I can prove it, with math......that the system is rigged for the laxmafia. (ACC) I just have to find the write math person to pay first.

I am not defending ND in the tournament! My point was that the ACC does not have an AQ spot.

In the conferences with an AQ - win your conference - control your destiny ...

[QuakerSouth]

It ain't getting fixed; it's been like this for years.

^^^This.

[runrussellrun]

the solution (outside the ACC) is simple - win your conference

4 ACC teams invited(again) is a joke. Maybe more than one ACC team can win a first round game this year

It's really just a collection of lacrosse independents that happen to have basketball teams that play in the same conference.

One announcer said "Notre Dame could win a championship.....or lose a first round game " No shirt sherlock. Something about 80% of life is just showing up A lot of factors go into winning it all, but it's always been about the invitation.

I can prove it, with math......that the system is rigged for the laxmafia. (ACC) I just have to find the write math person to pay first.

I am not defending ND in the tournament! My point was that the ACC does not have an AQ spot.

In the conferences with an AQ - win your conference - control your destiny ...

And my point is ....the ACC doesn't need one (the AQ)

And when Hopkins rolls ND Sunday nite.....it means what ? That Duke , if they beat Richmond (and the zebras know how to make it happen...FO 'violations", non calls, calls, etc ) will throttle Hopkins.....again.

[a fan]

So then extend the QW math to include wins over 20-30 and 40-50. Problem solved.

I will give you the families New Shoreham house if you can find a college hockey team, or hoops, or boreball, or soccer, or beach pornvolley, or.....that BEAT two top 5 teams, had the second best winning percentage in the sport......and did NOT get a chance to play for a championship. Good luck. It's a nice house.

[a fan]

From the chairman of the selection committee:

“Cornell had the least amount of top-20 wins [in that group], and they had two,” Hayes said. “Maryland had five, Hopkins had three and had the No. 1 strength of schedule. Syracuse had four and had a head-to-head win over Cornell.

Maryland twice....who is the third top 20 win? Has to be Rutgers. Rutgers moved up at least two spaces after this weekend's games, and saved Hopkins' season. Oh, the irony.


Notice his mention of the #1 SOS. Those "good" losses counted. It's a shame, but it is what it is until it gets fixed.





https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/college/m ... -that-hard

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

[stupefied]

the solution (outside the ACC) is simple - win your conference

4 ACC teams invited(again) is a joke. Maybe more than one ACC team can win a first round game this year

It's really just a collection of lacrosse independents that happen to have basketball teams that play in the same conference.

One announcer said "Notre Dame could win a championship.....or lose a first round game " No shirt sherlock. Something about 80% of life is just showing up A lot of factors go into winning it all, but it's always been about the invitation.

I can prove it, with math......that the system is rigged for the laxmafia. (ACC) I just have to find the write math person to pay first.

I am not defending ND in the tournament! My point was that the ACC does not have an AQ spot.

In the conferences with an AQ - win your conference - control your destiny ...

And my point is ....the ACC doesn't need one (the AQ)

And when Hopkins rolls ND Sunday nite.....it means what ? That Duke , if they beat Richmond (and the zebras know how to make it happen...FO 'violations", non calls, calls, etc ) will throttle Hopkins.....again.

Dont care for current rpi model because it is flawed without enhancements to weightings for season stages and competitiveness in losses which were laid out several pages ago in this thread. The case for HP along my criteria would be very credible if their big wins were later in season and if HP had lost a competitive game to Richmond in conference instead of getting blown out. Cant divert blame onto others for that , losing so badly had to hurt just as much as their low rpi. The flawed rpi was overly supported of JHU but their impressive play down the stretch spoke volumes and registered. If JHU had once again been crushed by a powerful PSU then Id be criticizing their selection. They weren't, they are a very good team right now , they rightfully belong in tourney.

[Homer]

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

Wait... you spent the past day and a half arguing against the use of SOS and for a QW-only method -- and now you're banging the drum for the team that had fewer QW's than any at-large that made the field, but that people thought was going to get in because their SOS was so awesome??

That was the whole deal with Cornell: fewer high-end wins than any other credible candidate, which is why most people guessed they'd be left out. Laxbytes gave them an 85% chance of getting selected basically because the committee was supposed to look past that and be impressed by their top-3 SOS. Didn't happen, obviously.

Given the philosophy you've been defending on here, a pro-Cornell stance in this case strikes me as wildly incoherent.

If you want to point to a team that arguably got robbed given the criteria you think should be important (and I mostly agree, BTW), Denver (or High Point), not Cornell, is a much better pick. Pios were only team with 4+ QWs not invited, and pretty much nobody even talked about them because of an iffy SOS.

[ICGrad]

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

Wait... you spent the past day and a half arguing against the use of SOS and for a QW-only method -- and now you're banging the drum for the team that had fewer QW's than any at-large that made the field, but that people thought was going to get in because their SOS was so awesome??

Depends on how you define QWs, doesn't it?

If Hopkins had had two top 10 wins and Cornell 3 wins against top 20 teams, you can bet that the chairman would have pointed out the importance of quality top 10 wins, and that would have been the deciding criteria.

I would rather see High Point or Denver in than Hopkins. Both are more deserving.

[a fan]

If JHU had once again been crushed by a powerful PSU then Id be criticizing their selection. They weren't, they are a very good team right now , they rightfully belong in tourney.

If anyone wants to know what a "good loss" is------- that's what stupefied is selling here. He thinks JHU should get points for losing.

Among the problems with this line of thinking, obviously, is that he forgot to give Cornell the same credit for losing to Yale. Or losing by a goal to Penn earlier in the year.

[stupefied]

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

Wait... you spent the past day and a half arguing against the use of SOS and for a QW-only method -- and now you're banging the drum for the team that had fewer QW's than any at-large that made the field, but that people thought was going to get in because their SOS was so awesome??

That was the whole deal with Cornell: fewer high-end wins than any other credible candidate, which is why most people guessed they'd be left out. Laxbytes gave them an 85% chance of getting selected basically because the committee was supposed to look past that and be impressed by their top-3 SOS. Didn't happen, obviously.

Given the philosophy you've been defending on here, a pro-Cornell stance in this case strikes me as wildly incoherent.

If you want to point to a team that arguably got robbed given the criteria you think should be important (and I mostly agree, BTW), Denver (or High Point), not Cornell, is a much better pick. Pios were only team with 4+ QWs not invited, and pretty much nobody even talked about them because of an iffy SOS.

Laxbytes supposedly had the wrong inputs. RPI calculations varied as inputs seem to be varied. Whatever supported a case seemed to be brought to forefront by that case. USLA, IL and CC seemed to have it right for awhile with similar rpi, rankings and tourney picks. Appreciate the efforts and work of any lax site, worth attempts with metrics that will improve but find computer driven ie lax bytes at this point can not capture team or player values as there are too many variables that cant yet be quantified. Committee got the field right

[ICGrad]

... JHU but their impressive play down the stretch spoke volumes and registered.

Are you referring to their blistering 40% win percentage in their last 5 games, where they lost by 11 to Penn State and lost to non-tourney team OSU?

[a fan]

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

Wait... you spent the past day and a half arguing against the use of SOS and for a QW-only method -- and now you're banging the drum for the team that had fewer QW's than any at-large that made the field, but that people thought was going to get in because their SOS was so awesome??

I'm not banging a drum at all. I'm not complaining about this. I'm simply saying the NCAA has set the goalposts: they're saying that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

Did we know that before the Chair told us as much? No. We didn't. They could just as easily say that they value big wins against the very top teams more than wins over wins over the bottom 10. Now we know they think 3 is better than 2, and that's the end of that.

Given the philosophy you've been defending on here, a pro-Cornell stance in this case strikes me as wildly incoherent.

Here's what the Chair said, and I quoted it just above:

“Cornell had the least amount of top-20 wins [in that group], and they had two,” Hayes said. “Maryland had five, Hopkins had three and had the No. 1 strength of schedule. Syracuse had four and had a head-to-head win over Cornell.

So there you go. SOS was a factor.

But if you're asking me to defend my personal view, I absolutely think that wins over two tournament seeded teams in Notre Dame and Towson trumps two wins over unseeded Maryland, and a win against a North Carolina team that was nowhere near getting a bid. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't, too.

And a steak dinner says, If I were on the committee, I could have convinced my fellow committee members to put Cornell in over Hopkins. In my opinion, 2 wins over seeded teams beats 2 wins over an unseeded team, and one that was nowhere near getting a bid.

[thatsmell]

Squint's take on the NCAA Matchups:

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ound/54469

[wgdsr]

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

Wait... you spent the past day and a half arguing against the use of SOS and for a QW-only method -- and now you're banging the drum for the team that had fewer QW's than any at-large that made the field, but that people thought was going to get in because their SOS was so awesome??

I'm not banging a drum at all. I'm not complaining about this. I'm simply saying the NCAA has set the goalposts: they're saying that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

Did we know that before the Chair told us as much? No. We didn't. They could just as easily say that they value big wins against the very top teams more than wins over wins over the bottom 10. Now we know they think 3 is better than 2, and that's the end of that.

Given the philosophy you've been defending on here, a pro-Cornell stance in this case strikes me as wildly incoherent.

Here's what the Chair said, and I quoted it just above:

“Cornell had the least amount of top-20 wins [in that group], and they had two,” Hayes said. “Maryland had five, Hopkins had three and had the No. 1 strength of schedule. Syracuse had four and had a head-to-head win over Cornell.

So there you go. SOS was a factor.

But if you're asking me to defend my personal view, I absolutely think that wins over two tournament seeded teams in Notre Dame and Towson trumps two wins over unseeded Maryland, and a win against a North Carolina team that was nowhere near getting a bid. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't, too.

And a steak dinner says, If I were on the committee, I could have convinced my fellow committee members to put Cornell in over Hopkins. In my opinion, 2 wins over seeded teams beats 2 wins over an unseeded team, and one that was nowhere near getting a bid.

a fan... every committee seems like they are just winging it.
there really are no criteria. they have put it in the hands of several people (i'm guessing this year with some who have nothing to do with lacrosse, like previous years, haven't checked)... and they come up with their own cockamamy reasoning.
it changes every year.
there is no real predicting it, unless you can predict what new individuals actually think about "the guidelines", and what's important to them.
how about this guideline, which many on here seem to think is one of "the criteria", that pundits and predictors utilize, and that the committee chairman quotes, again this year: a team's rpi is not one of the criteria! where games are played is, but that one's not! so you're also getting "eye tests", committee members talking to each other on the phone how each team looks in the penultimate weeks, and who knows? maybe stupified's doppelganger is on the committee, too... and likes if teams keep it close. or play good later in the season. or real late in the season. if i'm not mistaken, the criteria says that all games are to be treated the same, but does that happen? what do you think?

rpi is a problem.
sos is a problem if in concert with rpi.
having arbitrary cutoffs for quality wins is a problem.
but the main problem is that there is no definition to how they are supposed to be comparing teams, and then the handoff to a group of thrown together judges of gawd knows what.
it's crazy town.

[runrussellrun]

Squint's take on the NCAA Matchups:

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ound/54469

Penn has 30 year olds playing?

[stupefied]

If JHU had once again been crushed by a powerful PSU then Id be criticizing their selection. They weren't, they are a very good team right now , they rightfully belong in tourney.

If anyone wants to know what a "good loss" is------- that's what stupefied is selling here. He thinks JHU should get points for losing.

Among the problems with this line of thinking, obviously, is that he forgot to give Cornell the same credit for losing to Yale. Or losing by a goal to Penn earlier in the year.

Quite the opposite if you have read the gist of my posts . Clearly expressed that teams should not gain benefit from losses to ranked teams that are not competitive n that rpi calculations are faulty as calculated given lack of proper weightings especially as it related to losses to ranked teams. Go back to page 4 of this thread and scroll down to my opinion on matter including some comments on Cornell

[runrussellrun]

Well, the one thing we can do, is be happy that the Chair went on the record.

We'll know going forward that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

They best right that down, going forward.

Wait... you spent the past day and a half arguing against the use of SOS and for a QW-only method -- and now you're banging the drum for the team that had fewer QW's than any at-large that made the field, but that people thought was going to get in because their SOS was so awesome??

I'm not banging a drum at all. I'm not complaining about this. I'm simply saying the NCAA has set the goalposts: they're saying that three wins against RPI 11-20 teams trumps one top 5 win, and one top 10 win.

Did we know that before the Chair told us as much? No. We didn't. They could just as easily say that they value big wins against the very top teams more than wins over wins over the bottom 10. Now we know they think 3 is better than 2, and that's the end of that.

Given the philosophy you've been defending on here, a pro-Cornell stance in this case strikes me as wildly incoherent.

Here's what the Chair said, and I quoted it just above:

“Cornell had the least amount of top-20 wins [in that group], and they had two,” Hayes said. “Maryland had five, Hopkins had three and had the No. 1 strength of schedule. Syracuse had four and had a head-to-head win over Cornell.

So there you go. SOS was a factor.

But if you're asking me to defend my personal view, I absolutely think that wins over two tournament seeded teams in Notre Dame and Towson trumps two wins over unseeded Maryland, and a win against a North Carolina team that was nowhere near getting a bid. Frankly, I'm surprised you don't, too.

And a steak dinner says, If I were on the committee, I could have convinced my fellow committee members to put Cornell in over Hopkins. In my opinion, 2 wins over seeded teams beats 2 wins over an unseeded team, and one that was nowhere near getting a bid.

a fan... every committee seems like they are just winging it.
there really are no criteria. they have put it in the hands of several people (i'm guessing this year with some who have nothing to do with lacrosse, like previous years, haven't checked)... and they come up with their own cockamamy reasoning.
it changes every year.
there is no real predicting it, unless you can predict what new individuals actually think about "the guidelines", and what's important to them.
how about this guideline, which many on here seem to think is one of "the criteria", that pundits and predictors utilize, and that the committee chairman quotes, again this year: a team's rpi is not one of the criteria! where games are played is, but that one's not! so you're also getting "eye tests", committee members talking to each other on the phone how each team looks in the penultimate weeks, and who knows? maybe stupified's doppelganger is on the committee, too... and likes if teams keep it close. or play good later in the season. or real late in the season. if i'm not mistaken, the criteria says that all games are to be treated the same, but does that happen? what do you think?

rpi is a problem.
sos is a problem if in concert with rpi.
having arbitrary cutoffs for quality wins is a problem.
but the main problem is that there is no definition to how they are supposed to be comparing teams, and then the handoff to a group of thrown together judges of gawd knows what.
it's crazy town.

The team that LOSES on Memorial Day is the real winner. Except, they had to win to get there. Wait.....what?