D1 Men NCAA Tournament

[runrussellrun]

Agreed. And the UNC inclusion is a good example of an anomaly that bears further looking into. Not because anyone has an issue with UNC. But because it doesn't make sense. Or... Maybe it makes 100% sense. But, either way, a good example of a need-to-look-more-closely-at-this.

While driving yesterday, I was thinking (and forgot to look more closely at), that SU got in and High Point didn't doesn't make sense. But this is an aside.

Ya think !!

Brewinns play for the CUP, starting tonight. They made the playoffs because of who they LOST too.

High Point won. A lot. Two of the teams High Point beat are STILL playing. At some point, college lacrosse will have to care about winning percentage. Really not too hard to invite a team like HIGH Point over teams with lousing winning percentages.

Is the current system geared towards ticket sales? (poor attendance at 1/4's )

[Typical Lax Dad]

Agreed. And the UNC inclusion is a good example of an anomaly that bears further looking into. Not because anyone has an issue with UNC. But because it doesn't make sense. Or... Maybe it makes 100% sense. But, either way, a good example of a need-to-look-more-closely-at-this.

While driving yesterday, I was thinking (and forgot to look more closely at), that SU got in and High Point didn't doesn't make sense. But this is an aside.

Ya think !!

Brewinns play for the CUP, starting tonight. They made the playoffs because of who they LOST too.

High Point won. A lot. Two of the teams High Point beat are STILL playing. At some point, college lacrosse will have to care about winning percentage. Really not too hard to invite a team like HIGH Point over teams with lousing winning percentages.

Is the current system geared towards ticket sales? (poor attendance at 1/4's )

My wife is a novice. She saw ND and JHU’s records and said “something is wrong with the way lacrosse selects teams for the tournament”...she is relying on common sense and nothing else.

[runrussellrun]

Boston Brewins tied for second place in points in the NHL. (107) But, they didn't beat anybody.

Keep on inviting poor performing teams that can't even draw 4,000 people to it's "homecoming" game

[b1w7o9y7h]

Agreed. And the UNC inclusion is a good example of an anomaly that bears further looking into. Not because anyone has an issue with UNC. But because it doesn't make sense. Or... Maybe it makes 100% sense. But, either way, a good example of a need-to-look-more-closely-at-this.

While driving yesterday, I was thinking (and forgot to look more closely at), that SU got in and High Point didn't doesn't make sense. But this is an aside.

Ya think !!

Brewinns play for the CUP, starting tonight. They made the playoffs because of who they LOST too.

High Point won. A lot. Two of the teams High Point beat are STILL playing. At some point, college lacrosse will have to care about winning percentage. Really not too hard to invite a team like HIGH Point over teams with lousing winning percentages.

Is the current system geared towards ticket sales? (poor attendance at 1/4's )

My wife is a novice. She saw ND and JHU’s records and said “something is wrong with the way lacrosse selects teams for the tournament”...she is relying on common sense and nothing else.

If my wife had been relying on me bringing common sense to the table, she wouldn't be married to me!

[youthathletics]

Agreed. And the UNC inclusion is a good example of an anomaly that bears further looking into. Not because anyone has an issue with UNC. But because it doesn't make sense. Or... Maybe it makes 100% sense. But, either way, a good example of a need-to-look-more-closely-at-this.

While driving yesterday, I was thinking (and forgot to look more closely at), that SU got in and High Point didn't doesn't make sense. But this is an aside.

Ya think !!

Brewinns play for the CUP, starting tonight. They made the playoffs because of who they LOST too.

High Point won. A lot. Two of the teams High Point beat are STILL playing. At some point, college lacrosse will have to care about winning percentage. Really not too hard to invite a team like HIGH Point over teams with lousing winning percentages.

Is the current system geared towards ticket sales? (poor attendance at 1/4's )

My wife is a novice. She saw ND and JHU’s records and said “something is wrong with the way lacrosse selects teams for the tournament”...she is relying on common sense and nothing else.

She is a wise woman.

And we wonder why our sport does not get the love we feel it deserves. Lax Nepotism is like a cancer to the sport as a whole. Even down to the commentating, where the face of our sport speaks to each other, rather than than viewer. If you listened to them without video, you'd think it was a Saturday morning cartoon...zero PxP and an occasional rule tidbit.

[OCanada]

Lax is getting a ton of love. It popularity has grow exponentially.

[HooDat]

it is easy to grow "exponentially" from an incredibly low base.

One THOUSAND percent growth off a base of 10 is still only adding 100 people......

Face it our sport is a nice little niche community. It has grown some because of increased workforce mobility. With all that growth, there are now what, twice times as many cities/communities where you can find high quality high school lacrosse being played - so we are up to SIX.

There are probably another 10 cities/communities that have established lacrosse programs/opportunities. Those places can produce some good talent, and have some good coaching, but their programs still struggle to field a full team of players that can catch and throw with ease, and any team that has such a team is going to dominate.

[HooDat]

and for the record - I say this while sitting in one of those 10 cities I mentioned.....

[xxxxxxx]

Invites to the NCAA tournament are basically based on the RPI listed below, the top 11 and auto qualifiers got in this year. High Point was 20 so they never had a chance. I don't know all the details but believe this is based on your record but more importantly your strength of schedule. The Big 10, ACC, and Ivy all play each other and losses to top teams don't really hurt them if you have a few wins over to 20 teams. This is the primary metric used to pick teams and unless it is changed you better win your conference if you are below 11 or 12 in RPI. A D1 coach told me he can't remember a team lower than 13 in the RPI ever making the tournament.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse- ... crosse-rpi

[wgdsr]

though this year, based on at larges and committee quotes, rpi was certainly a very large factor, and in fact THE guiding factor... even though it is NOT suppossd to be a criteria for selection...
a lot of the discussion around here is the nebulous and opaque way they go about selecting teams, depending on the year.
nobody knows what actually is supposed to qualify you, it's up to the whims of that year's committee.
http://analyticslacrosse.com/d1men/2016/rpi
in 2016, unc was 17 rpi and went on to win a championship.
further back, laf had i believe notre dame as the lowest ever at rpi 19.

if they would say either "here's what we're doing", or "we're doing whatever we please", i think folks might pull their hair out a little less.
when they cloak it in their scientific secret formula method, which yields different results per experiment... they lose a good deal of credibility.

[ABV 8.3%]

though this year, based on at larges and committee quotes, rpi was certainly a very large factor, and in fact THE guiding factor... even though it is NOT suppossd to be a criteria for selection...
a lot of the discussion around here is the nebulous and opaque way they go about selecting teams, depending on the year.
nobody knows what actually is supposed to qualify you, it's up to the whims of that year's committee.
http://analyticslacrosse.com/d1men/2016/rpi
in 2016, unc was 17 rpi and went on to win a championship.
further back, laf had i believe notre dame as the lowest ever at rpi 19.

if they would say either "here's what we're doing", or "we're doing whatever we please", i think folks might pull their hair out a little less.
when they cloak it in their scientific secret formula method, which yields different results per experiment... they lose a good deal of credibility.

Isn't the point that the secret formula results in the SAME results, year after year? (same teams)

[Matnum PI]

Invites to the NCAA tournament are basically based on the RPI listed below, the top 11 and auto qualifiers got in this year. High Point was 20 so they never had a chance.

RPI is the current metric, teams need to schedule and play with this metric as their guiding light, and... The NCAA needs to change the metric. RPI, which is basically just SOS multiplied by Winning Percentage, is too simplistic. It's a broad-brushstroked metric that puts way too much emphasis on SOS. Which, for the perennial powers, is great. There's a reason why reporters are asking Tillman if he's going to add Towson back onto their schedule after their game and not Nadelen. Tillman has the power and, this sort of power, should play little to no role in a team being given an opportunity to earn an At-Large bid. The critical path should focus on "how good were the teams you beat" and "how bad were the teams you lost to"... and not with broad brushstrokes. Game by game, team by team.

RPI with the HS Boys is a good example because it's more exaggerated and... It simply doesn't work, it's awful. Culver plays 20 plus games, 5 vs. great teams, 5 vs. good teams, and 10+ vs. Indiana teams. With RPI, because of these 10 Indiana teams, Culver struggles. Eventhough, logically, those 10 games are irrelevant. Culver wins by 20+ goals and... Why should Culver be punished for being located in Indiana and wanting to play games against their neighbors? Logically, these games, as long as they're Ws for Culver, should just be ignored. (Which is exactly what FanLax's Ranking system does.) But with RPI, Culver is punished for playing them. And... It doesn't make sense. For HS, college, or otherwise.

[wgdsr]

RPI is the current metric, teams need to schedule and play with this metric as their guiding light, and... The NCAA needs to change the metric. RPI, which is basically just SOS multiplied by Winning Percentage, is too simplistic. It's a broad-brushstroked metric that puts way too much emphasis on SOS. Which, for the perennial powers, is great. There's a reason why reporters are asking Tillman if he's going to add Towson back onto their schedule after their game and not Nadelen. Tillman has the power and, this sort of power, should play little to no role in a team being given an opportunity to earn an At-Large bid. The critical path should focus on "how good were the teams you beat" and "how bad were the teams you lost to"... and not with broad brushstrokes. Game by game, team by team.

tillman asked nadelan to play mid-week. nadelan declined. the ball is now in nadelan's court.

your last 2 lines, i've advocated for myself, with an emphasis on the wins.

[wgdsr]

though this year, based on at larges and committee quotes, rpi was certainly a very large factor, and in fact THE guiding factor... even though it is NOT suppossd to be a criteria for selection...
a lot of the discussion around here is the nebulous and opaque way they go about selecting teams, depending on the year.
nobody knows what actually is supposed to qualify you, it's up to the whims of that year's committee.
http://analyticslacrosse.com/d1men/2016/rpi
in 2016, unc was 17 rpi and went on to win a championship.
further back, laf had i believe notre dame as the lowest ever at rpi 19.

if they would say either "here's what we're doing", or "we're doing whatever we please", i think folks might pull their hair out a little less.
when they cloak it in their scientific secret formula method, which yields different results per experiment... they lose a good deal of credibility.

Isn't the point that the secret formula results in the SAME results, year after year? (same teams)

for the last 3 years, you'd be correct. in 2018, you'd have a tough time making a case for anyone else in the field, but in 17 army was hosed and this past year 2-3 teams have a case to wonder what's up? and then in 16, seems someone just wanted unc in (i believe that was the first year acc dropped the autobid they briefly had).

honestly, my own personal opinion after hearing what the committee members say around selection time is we give these guys too much credit for having it figured out, even if it's an agenda. either they're not that smart, or they're just winging it.

[a fan]

The critical path should focus on "how good were the teams you beat" and "how bad were the teams you lost to"

That's what they're doing now. The problem is losses. The instant you evaluate losses, that's how you "lose you way" to a tournament spot.

Which top teams did you beat?

Make that the only question. If you do that, the ONLY way to win a bid is to beat top teams.

Imagine that? Actually beating top teams to earn a bid, instead of "scheduling teams to a bid".

[reLAX]

The critical path should focus on "how good were the teams you beat" and "how bad were the teams you lost to"

That's what they're doing now. The problem is losses. The instant you evaluate losses, that's how you "lose you way" to a tournament spot.

Which top teams did you beat?

Make that the only question. If you do that, the ONLY way to win a bid is to beat top teams.

Imagine that? Actually beating top teams to earn a bid, instead of "scheduling teams to a bid".

What a concept!

[CU77]

either they're not that smart, or they're just winging it.

I'm convinced both are true.

[a fan]

+1

[Matnum PI]

a fan, agreed, they do talk about "best wins" but not in a systematic way. Selecting the teams should be like building a house, lining a field, or whatever. You don't wing it. Or you can wing it but all but guaranteed, your field will be crooked. What you "think" is irrelevant. You have to use a tape measure, you have to have proven, logical methods that use these measurements. Currently, the committee is just... Deciding. It's a party and they get to decide who gets an invite. Essentially, they mull it over, pick a team, and then explain why later. That's ridiculous. What I don't understand is that HSs wouldn't stand for this. Most every league wouldn't stand for this. Yet college does?

PS a fan, agreed, wins are more important than losses. Especially losses to teams ranked higher than you are. When UVA loses to High Point, UVA will move down some and High Point will move up some. The question is, How much for each? Like you, I put a stronger emphasis on HP moving up than UVA moving down. With this said, when a team loses to a team lower-ranked than them, they should move down (at least some).

[Matnum PI]

IDEA: For the 2020 season, all D1 Men's teams (and then, if this works, others could do the same) should play like they play today but... Don't keep count of the goals. Then, at the end of the game, the NCAA Committee can decide which team they thought was the winner. Not that different than what they're currently doing with relation to entry into the tourney so... Why not be consistent?