ivy league 2024

[DA/PU]

Apologies if this has already been floated, but my solution for tournament bids would be to add another play in game that would then play the 2 seed. Make the “mid majors” play that game. That adds an extra team. Could eventually expand play ins to then play top 4 seeds.

Princeton is dancing this year but I’d like to see other deserving ivies make it / not be on the outside looking in under similar circumstances in future seasons.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Apologies if this has already been floated, but my solution for tournament bids would be to add another play in game that would then play the 2 seed. Make the “mid majors” play that game. That adds an extra team. Could eventually expand play ins to then play top 4 seeds.

Princeton is dancing this year but I’d like to see other deserving ivies make it / not be on the outside looking in under similar circumstances in future seasons.

Wasn’t there two play in games a few years ago? BTW, how is life?

[DA/PU]

Apologies if this has already been floated, but my solution for tournament bids would be to add another play in game that would then play the 2 seed. Make the “mid majors” play that game. That adds an extra team. Could eventually expand play ins to then play top 4 seeds.

Princeton is dancing this year but I’d like to see other deserving ivies make it / not be on the outside looking in under similar circumstances in future seasons.

Wasn’t there two play in games a few years ago? BTW, how is life?

Life is good. Even better when the tigers are rolling! MD has kind of been our kryptonite. Maybe we can exorcise the demons.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Apologies if this has already been floated, but my solution for tournament bids would be to add another play in game that would then play the 2 seed. Make the “mid majors” play that game. That adds an extra team. Could eventually expand play ins to then play top 4 seeds.

Princeton is dancing this year but I’d like to see other deserving ivies make it / not be on the outside looking in under similar circumstances in future seasons.

Wasn’t there two play in games a few years ago? BTW, how is life?

Life is good. Even better when the tigers are rolling! MD has kind of been our kryptonite. Maybe we can exorcise the demons.

I have used them as a measuring stick. In 2015 and 2016, the games bore no resemblance to a competitive college lacrosse game. Each meeting since then has been increasingly competitive. I like the Saturday night matchup. The Tiger defense looks like what those Maryland defenses looked like. Next year is the year.

[Farfromgeneva]

I realize this is situations edifice but if you take a step back you have am
Ivy heard complaining about the fairness to a patten that didn’t favor then and many solutions are to change the system to just include them or to “f**k” everyone else in the same system we’re in with that nonsense AQ, they should want to play us OOC because were IVYs even if we’ve changed the system so you don’t have any access of meaning towards postseason. Just be feudal cannon fodder for us.

Of course the framing of earned or deserved but then think of the legacy guys you all know and I know who rolled through their schools and into high levels of life despite being C students and then come back and scream for your rights.

[Lax3]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

[The Orfling]

I realize this is situations edifice but if you take a step back you have am
Ivy heard complaining about the fairness to a patten that didn’t favor then and many solutions are to change the system to just include them or to “f**k” everyone else in the same system we’re in with that nonsense AQ, they should want to play us OOC because were IVYs even if we’ve changed the system so you don’t have any access of meaning towards postseason. Just be feudal cannon fodder for us.

Of course the framing of earned or deserved but then think of the legacy guys you all know and I know who rolled through their schools and into high levels of life despite being C students and then come back and scream for your rights.

Geneva, I like the phrase "situations edifice." Maybe I'm too close to it but I think most Ivy fans understand the situation (not enough out-of-conference wins; bid-steals for at large spots; two low-RPI conference members this year rather than one). Anytime you have something that feels off -- Notre Dame not getting a bid in 2022 or the Ivy League, a strong conference, being a one-bid league in 2024 -- it's not surprising that people will ponder whether there's a better way to do it within the constraints (20% ratio of tournament teams to total teams, etc.). And generally the answer is that "the system mostly works and there are constraints that would make fixes like additional play-in games difficult." What I am not seeing -- perhaps you are? -- is the kind of (frequently misogynistic) nastiness that was aimed at one person (the female Athletic Director who chaired the selection committee) in 2024. I'm honestly not seeing a lot of whining, just normal hot-stove chewing over of the process.

I guess I'd add that there IS probably some irritation from Ivy fans of the "one-way ratchet" mindset where 2022 Notre Dame being caught up in the gears of the RPI-heavy selection system was a cosmic injustice but Cornell/Penn being caught in those same gears doesn't merit a comment (or if it does, it's of the "poking in the eye with stick" variety). So maybe there's some hotter language around that. But that's sports for you, too; not an arena of even-handed, cool analysis.

[Can Opener]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

+1 and +1

[wgdsr]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

@ around the time the tourney expanded to 16 teams and aqs, there were in the neighborhood of 60+ teams, and now 76. that's decent growth.

anyway, reforms/new setups for the nc$$ have already been approved. in jan 2023 actually. this year, this summer, you will be hearing about sports with >200 teams expanding their tournaments. my guess is hoops if approved, which is the big one, will go to about 80.

lacrosse will be expanding at larges by 2-4 in the next 2 years, my guess. will that quiet the bubble outcry every year? maybe, maybe not.

[10stone5]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

+1 and +1

Here is what I came up with, percent in NCAAs,

W DI - 22.308%, M DI - 22.667%

[wgdsr]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

don't be on the bubble.

[wgdsr]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

+1 and +1

Here is what I came up with, percent in NCAAs,

W DI - 22.308%, M DI - 22.667%

the play-in is not a counter as far as the nc$$ does business. m d1 - 21%

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

don't be on the bubble.

That’s absolutely right.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

+1 and +1

Here is what I came up with, percent in NCAAs,

W DI - 22.308%, M DI - 22.667%

I have no idea what the answer to this is, but do the women have the same number of conferences? Same percentage of AQ's of total?

Do they have similar bubble issues?

[MDlaxfan76]

Ivy League fan here through and through. Reality is that the NCAA Tournament doesn't need more games. While the sport has grown exponentially over the past 20-30 years, the number of D1 teams has grown more modestly. Until the number of colleges and universities playing the sport increases significantly, 17 teams are plenty. Might not have been a good year for the Ivies but a one-year downturn is no reason to believe that the system is wrong. I am confident that next year the Ivies will get back to 2-3 teams playing in the tourney based on good-enough performance. That is plenty.

Just one of those years.

don't be on the bubble.

That’s absolutely right.

Wherever the bubble is...

[Farfromgeneva]

I realize this is situations edifice but if you take a step back you have am
Ivy heard complaining about the fairness to a patten that didn’t favor then and many solutions are to change the system to just include them or to “f**k” everyone else in the same system we’re in with that nonsense AQ, they should want to play us OOC because were IVYs even if we’ve changed the system so you don’t have any access of meaning towards postseason. Just be feudal cannon fodder for us.

Of course the framing of earned or deserved but then think of the legacy guys you all know and I know who rolled through their schools and into high levels of life despite being C students and then come back and scream for your rights.

Geneva, I like the phrase "situations edifice." Maybe I'm too close to it but I think most Ivy fans understand the situation (not enough out-of-conference wins; bid-steals for at large spots; two low-RPI conference members this year rather than one). Anytime you have something that feels off -- Notre Dame not getting a bid in 2022 or the Ivy League, a strong conference, being a one-bid league in 2024 -- it's not surprising that people will ponder whether there's a better way to do it within the constraints (20% ratio of tournament teams to total teams, etc.). And generally the answer is that "the system mostly works and there are constraints that would make fixes like additional play-in games difficult." What I am not seeing -- perhaps you are? -- is the kind of (frequently misogynistic) nastiness that was aimed at one person (the female Athletic Director who chaired the selection committee) in 2024. I'm honestly not seeing a lot of whining, just normal hot-stove chewing over of the process.

I guess I'd add that there IS probably some irritation from Ivy fans of the "one-way ratchet" mindset where 2022 Notre Dame being caught up in the gears of the RPI-heavy selection system was a cosmic injustice but Cornell/Penn being caught in those same gears doesn't merit a comment (or if it does, it's of the "poking in the eye with stick" variety). So maybe there's some hotter language around that. But that's sports for you, too; not an arena of even-handed, cool analysis.

Fat thumbs situational but if it works…

I hear you but the answer isn’t usually to drag everything down to the lower level but rather try to raise things up. You guys should be better than worrying about some dipshits in IL or Anish whining because the big name school they’ve heard of isn’t getting a shot.

I just expect more but maybe that’s my issue.

[PizzaSnake]

FFS, stop the b*tching and whining. If more Ivy teams had won more games, they would have made the tourney. You sound like a bunch of ACC fans.

[Typical Lax Dad]

FFS, stop the b*tching and whining. If more Ivy teams had won more games, they would have made the tourney. You sound like a bunch of ACC fans.

Yes. Win more games. I don’t think any other Ivy League team “deserved” to be in the tournament. I was mildly surprised that Princeton wasn’t seeded and Georgetown was. Just how it fell this season. Yale,Cornell and I believe Army were top 10 teams for most of the season and they are all sitting at home.

[ctbagataway]

Exactly. I had the same reaction to the ND "snub" in 2022. It doesn't matter how many 5 stars recruits you have on the roster, or that you won your last three games. The entire season matters. Every game. Win more games and you will make the tournament. I wouldn't change that. It can't be about using the eye test to pick the teams that you subjectively feel are playing the best at the end of the year. There has to be a value to winning big games throughout the season.