Re: 2021 Tournament
Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 1:45 pm
is there a description or definition of the limits somewhere?
[/quote]
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... n-21/57078
is there a description or definition of the limits somewhere?
Liberty League policy this year was no spectators. It would appear over the last couple of weeks at multiple sites that they were allowing student and staff to attend and fans were watching ‘through the fence’. My understanding is that they will be making limited tickets available, two per competing player when RIT hosts.
Do you have a link to a book with those odds?Dehuntshigwa’es wrote: ↑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
Hey, I'm salty but at least I'm salty with evidence! With one exception, every single RIT team since 2014 has had their season ended on their own field by a NESCAC team. Tufts (2x SF), Amherst (2R), Wesleyan (SF), and Williams (QF) have all beaten the Tigers in the postseason. Every single one of those games was played in Rochester. Each year I argue that RIT is overseeded...and that is almost always validated by results on the field. We'll see how 2021 goes.
Agreed about the benefits of playing good competition. However, I'd argue that a) no team should be able to get to the Final Four without playing another top opponent, and b) a free ride is more of an advantage than passing tough tests.Patlaxer wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:06 pm The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.
I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:38 pm Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.
You do have a bitter RIT obsession LOL...ah23 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:05 pmHey, I'm salty but at least I'm salty with evidence! With one exception, every single RIT team since 2014 has had their season ended on their own field by a NESCAC team. Tufts (2x SF), Amherst (2R), Wesleyan (SF), and Williams (QF) have all beaten the Tigers in the postseason. Every single one of those games was played in Rochester. Each year I argue that RIT is overseeded...and that is almost always validated by results on the field. We'll see how 2021 goes.
Agreed about the benefits of playing good competition. However, I'd argue that a) no team should be able to get to the Final Four without playing another top opponent, and b) a free ride is more of an advantage than passing tough tests.Patlaxer wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:06 pm The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.
- RIT will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #15 Denison or #19 Colorado College in the quarters
- Tufts will likely face #11 St. John Fisher in the second round and either #6 York or #8 F&M in the quarters
- Lynchburg will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #7 Stevenson or #9 CNU in the quarters
On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.
- Salisbury will likely face #5 Cabrini in the second round (though their region is a crime against humanity other than the Cavs)
I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:38 pm Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.
When the facts are against you, attack the messenger LOL...ergit wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:36 pmYou do have a bitter RIT obsession LOL...ah23 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:05 pmHey, I'm salty but at least I'm salty with evidence! With one exception, every single RIT team since 2014 has had their season ended on their own field by a NESCAC team. Tufts (2x SF), Amherst (2R), Wesleyan (SF), and Williams (QF) have all beaten the Tigers in the postseason. Every single one of those games was played in Rochester. Each year I argue that RIT is overseeded...and that is almost always validated by results on the field. We'll see how 2021 goes.
Agreed about the benefits of playing good competition. However, I'd argue that a) no team should be able to get to the Final Four without playing another top opponent, and b) a free ride is more of an advantage than passing tough tests.Patlaxer wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:06 pm The assumption that an easier road to the Championship game is beneficial has not worked out in the past.
For example in 2018 Wesleyan had an impossible draw and won.
One could easily make the argument that tougher competition during the tournament better prepares a team for the NC game.
- RIT will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #15 Denison or #19 Colorado College in the quarters
- Tufts will likely face #11 St. John Fisher in the second round and either #6 York or #8 F&M in the quarters
- Lynchburg will face an unranked team in the second round and likely either #7 Stevenson or #9 CNU in the quarters
On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.
- Salisbury will likely face #5 Cabrini in the second round (though their region is a crime against humanity other than the Cavs)
I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.UpperCorner wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:38 pm Went back and looked - in 2018 & 2019 there were 36 teams... essentially just a few more NESCAC teams.
ah23 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:05 pm
On one hand, whoever emerges from the SJF/F&M-hosted pod is going to be more battle-tested than anyone else in the tourney. There is value in that! On the other hand, it is not right that the NCAA put four top-11 teams in one pod while leaving the three other pods so unbalanced and full of noncompetitive teams. Someone in the Tufts/York/F&M (and heck, maybe SJF) group is getting screwed out of an opportunity because the NCAA decided to give certain programs free passes to the Final Four and not others.
If you are a legitimate contender then :ah23 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 6:05 pm
I think this illustrates why limiting at-large bids this year (or any year) is such a bad idea. The last two NESCAC teams to appear in the national championship ('18 Wesleyan and '19 Amherst) did not win the conference championship. "Growing the game" should not take place at the expense of giving all legitimate contenders a shot at a title and making the tournament as competitive as possible. There has to be room for teams like Pfeiffer/IWU and the runners-up (or more) from competitive conferences like the NESCAC/Liberty League/Centennial.