LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 9:25 am**

HappyGilmore wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:23 am
UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:01 am
Have a crazy question and sorry if it’s been asked and answered. Why not have a field of 32 teams?
You mean instead of 31?

yes
Yes instead of 31. One does one extra team matter???

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am**

Have a crazy question and sorry if it’s been asked and answered. Why not have a field of 32 teams?

Is RIT supposed to get a bye for some reason?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 9:29 am**

HappyGilmore wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:23 am
UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:01 am
Have a crazy question and sorry if it’s been asked and answered. Why not have a field of 32 teams?
You mean instead of 31?

yes

32 would have put the NCAA over the allocated reduction (% wise an covid related) of teams in the field for this year

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 9:37 am**

I will continue to emphasize that the NCAA does not care about a balanced bracket seed wise (please do not get me started on a certain team being in the North one year and the South another year in back to back seasons).

As long as the bracket balances $$$$ wise (yes they literally do crunch the cost of flights vs bus rides for a number of teams) then everything is a-ok for our lovely (non-revenue) sport at all Division Levels

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 10:51 am**

UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 8:03 am Should I just wait until May 22 to watch any of these games or will there actually be some comedic value in some of these early blow-outs?

28 AQ's is a joke...

This comes up every year.

This will serve as the annual reminder. Without the lower level AQs it would stymie the growth of the sport in the largest division that supports College Lacrosse. The fact of the matter is more players are playing in Division 3 than the other two divisions.

D1=74
D2=75
D3= 248

The sport is growing and is growing in non traditional areas. Say what you will about the NCAA and how it manages the tournament every year. But the fact of the matter is schools like John Carroll, Hope, Adrian, and Ohio Northern are able to recruit competitive teams every year because they can say they are going to compete for an AQ.

A school like Cabrini grew into what they are today because for years it dominated a bad small conference and got an AQ again and again and again. Yes the first round is generally more blowouts than OT games. But this is what growth looks like sometimes.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 10:58 am**

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:37 am I will continue to emphasize that the NCAA does not care about a balanced bracket seed wise (please do not get me started on a certain team being in the North one year and the South another year in back to back seasons).

As long as the bracket balances $$$$ wise (yes they literally do crunch the cost of flights vs bus rides for a number of teams) then everything is a-ok for our lovely (non-revenue) sport at all Division Levels

I think everyone here is 100% of the understanding that the NCAA cares more about cost than about bracket balance.

What I and, I believe, others are voicing is that due to the travel costs associated with the “pod” structure, the NCAA could have EASILY made a more balanced bracket at or near similar costs.

That’s all. The NCAA and anyone else can talk of costs all they want. The pods seem at times counter-intuitive, and based on volunteer institutions, costs appear to be secondary to that for this year (see Tufts). And since they placed costs behind their commitment to the pod structure, they could have at least done a better job balancing things out.

It’s is what it is. Big question is will there be spectators allowed?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 11:53 am**

DeepPocket wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:58 am
What I, and I believe others, are voicing is that due to the travel costs associated with the “pod” structure, the NCAA could have EASILY made a balanced bracket at or near similar costs.

That’s all. The NCAA and anyone else can talk of costs all they want. The pods are largely counter-intuitive, and based on volunteer institutions, costs seem to be secondary to that for this year (see tufts). And with this, they could have at least done a better job balancing

Someone was going to Pittsford, whether it was Tufts or York (only an hour difference in travel) and the committee, IMO, made the right call by sending Tufts there (lets not forget where some of these teams actually may have been ranked). If Tufts was ranked higher then they should get the nod and the "easier path"

As stated, where are we sending Tufts and swapping them out, other than with York

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:09 pm**

I think you’re mis-interpreting my issue- I’m arguing that tufts shouldn’t have to have been in a quadrant with STJF, F&M and York. Tufts earned better than that. Not that York should’ve had an easier path. I’m saying a true balance would have EITHER York OR f&M over in the Salisbury quadrant (over STJF based only on geography). Which IMHO isn’t an easier path for them. Choose Tufts or Salisbury. It’s a toss up.

The cost argument simply goes out the window when quadrant mates don’t need to play in the same pods, and you still have teams traveling 6+ hours.

If it’s based on the volunteer schools and the NCAA could not crunch down it any better, then that’s what it is. But let’s not act like it’s all based on cost

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:20 pm**

If that's your argument then I get it. Sorry for the misinterpretation

That being said, it looks like the committee had RIT #1 overall and sent them to the New Jersey pod, hence why Tufts is relegated to where they are.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:28 pm**

DeepPocket wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:09 pm I’m saying a true balance would have EITHER York OR f&M over in the Salisbury quadrant (over STJF based only on geography).

The cost argument simply goes out the window when quadrant mates don’t need to play in the same pods, and you still have teams traveling 6+ hours.

With them hosting, no shot of FM going over to Salisbury and there pod/quadrant

In regards to York, well Lancaster is "technically" closer than Radnor to their campus (and Cabrini is hosting anyway so there's that)

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:40 pm**

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:28 pm With them hosting, no shot of FM going over to Salisbury and there pod/quadrant

In regards to York, well Lancaster is "technically" closer than Radnor to their campus (and Cabrini is hosting anyway so there's that)

All true. Any word on spectators?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:49 pm**

Crazy year no matter how you try to rationalize it, at least they are playing. Can’t change midstream so I’m sticking with Salisbury to win it, with my dark horse Lynchburg if they get past the Gulls. Vegas has Lynchburg at 32 to 1

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:51 pm**

DeepPocket wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:40 pm
All true. Any word on spectators?

Oh boy.

I was under the impression that since these places are hosting that (limited) fans would be able to attend from schools. Well, from what I have recently been told, it comes down to the specific pod/host and their Covid policies and just because they were awarded the place to host, does not mean they will allow visiting teams to be in the stands.

Goodness I hope I, (and the person who told me this) is wrong

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 12:58 pm**

.... outside. In the open air and sunlight.

I never thought a year later it would be me, praying for the powers that be to ALLOW me to “follow the science.”

Talk about flipping the script.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 1:15 pm**

RIT (Liberty League) 5/22 & 5/23 did not allow spectators all year. The women's D3 sweet 16 at Cobly (Nescac) are not allowing spectators. Yes, This includes parents. Who is making these decisions at the NCAA? What idiots.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 1:24 pm**

SouthernLaxGenius wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:29 am
UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:01 am
HappyGilmore wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:23 am
UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 9:01 am Have a crazy question and sorry if it’s been asked and answered. Why not have a field of 32 teams?
You mean instead of 31?

yes
32 would have put the NCAA over the allocated reduction (% wise an covid related) of teams in the field for this year

is there a description or definition of the limits somewhere?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 1:38 pm**

32 would have put the NCAA over the allocated reduction (% wise an covid related) of teams in the field for this year
is there a description or definition of the limits somewhere?

Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 1:39 pm**

RIT (Liberty League) 5/22 & 5/23 did not allow spectators all year. The women's D3 sweet 16 at Cobly (Nescac) are not allowing spectators. Yes, This includes parents. Who is making these decisions at the NCAA? What idiots.

+1

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 1:43 pm**

Why did D3 tournament got lowered to 31 teams from 36? Fewer teams playing due to COVID? In D1, Ivys didn't compete this year, but D1 tournament stays at 16 teams...Why no reduction?

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2021 1:44 pm**

RocLaxFan wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:15 pm RIT (Liberty League) 5/22 & 5/23 did not allow spectators all year. The women's D3 sweet 16 at Cobly (Nescac) are not allowing spectators. Yes, This includes parents. Who is making these decisions at the NCAA? What idiots.

Up to the individual institution that is hosting

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament

Re: 2021 Tournament