Re: NESCAC
Posted: Wed May 10, 2023 4:55 pm
Please, god, both of you go touch some grass
I don't even have an issue with them missing, but this is a pretty big misrepresentation of the argument people have made. The argument is explicitly that they deserve it based on their results.Laxattackjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 2:22 pm Allowing Bowdoin into the tourney would have been the definition of a participation trophy. You are suggesting they deserve it, not on results, but on participation in a conference.
Yup exactly. If you let Bowdoin into they tournament they would easily make it to at least the 3rd round. Certainly sounds like a participation trophy to me. Be more ignorant, they were a top 15 team all year for a reason.Laxattackjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 2:22 pm Allowing Bowdoin into the tourney would have been the definition of a participation trophy. You are suggesting they deserve it, not on results, but on participation in a conference.
I believe based on ability they were properly placed anywhere as a 12-20 team this year. That said, the reason they spent the year top 15 is because they started top 10 and went on to play a very winnable OOC (regardless of the fact that it turns out many these unranked teams actually can play decent lacrosse). If they entered the season unranked, there is ZERO chance that record on that schedule moves them into the top 15. It is what it is.
That is what makes all this back and forth kind of funny... at the end of the day they ended up where they should have in this system: a top 20 team who could compete with the best in d3, beat the good (but not great) teams they played, but were a goal short at the end of the day. As a result the teams that beat them justifiably got in.RE6ULATOR wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 9:51 amI believe based on ability they were properly placed anywhere as a 12-20 team this year. That said, the reason they spent the year top 15 is because they started top 10 and went on to play a very winnable OOC (regardless of the fact that it turns out many these unranked teams actually can play decent lacrosse). If they entered the season unranked, there is ZERO chance that record on that schedule moves them into the top 15. It is what it is.
This is the same place that I come out. AQ's aren't going anywhere, but I think 10 AL's for a 38 team field (26%) is too few (consider that AL's make up 47% of the DI bracket). Increasing the number of teams required for a conference to get an AQ from 6 to 8 could be a simple solution: reduces the number of AQ's and ostensibly makes the conferences getting AQ's more competitive.
It wasn’t that long ago that the # required was higher. Call me a conspiracy theorist, or what you will, but that number was reduced in a very close time frame to when a certain team, from a certain eastern shore, had a certain conference change to one with less teams…
Probably because, as smoova mentioned above, AQs make up 53% of the D1 field vs 74% of D3. It isn't an issue giving every D1 conference an AQ because there are only a few conferences. There are 28 D3 conferences with AQs. I agree they aren't going to get rid of the AQ system (nor would I want them to) but increasing the number of teams required in a conference for a bid (would likely at least somewhat reduce the number of conferences getting AQs) in increasing the AL # by 2-4 would not massively change the tourney structure but would make sense as there really are very few AL bids for the number of teams in the division. I would have to think it is at the lower end for all sports for the % teams in a division making a tourney as AL.SKUD wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:09 pm Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?
An 8 team AQ minimum in DIII would (initially) balance the numbers of AL/AQ (~18/20) and, if non-AQ conferences added members to earn an AQ, the competition within those conferences would likely increase. I am primarily concerned with the quality of competition in the tournament, not equity or growth (which happens for financial reasons, without the NCAA's interference).SKUD wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:09 pm Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?
IMO the current set up is good and the quality of competition is not really diminished. The lower end AQ conferences mostly play in the First Round.smoova wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:56 pmAn 8 team AQ minimum in DIII would (initially) balance the numbers of AL/AQ (~18/20) and, if non-AQ conferences added members to earn an AQ, the competition within those conferences would likely increase. I am primarily concerned with the quality of competition in the tournament, not equity or growth (which happens for financial reasons, without the NCAA's interference).SKUD wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:09 pm Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?
OK, sooooo, you like the current system because the "quality of competition is not really diminished" ... except in the first round ... and, sometimes, the second round ... and basketball has an AQ system ... and teams left out will always be pissed.JustOneTime wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:50 pmIMO the current set up is good and the quality of competition is not really diminished. The lower end AQ conferences mostly play in the First Round.smoova wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:56 pmAn 8 team AQ minimum in DIII would (initially) balance the numbers of AL/AQ (~18/20) and, if non-AQ conferences added members to earn an AQ, the competition within those conferences would likely increase. I am primarily concerned with the quality of competition in the tournament, not equity or growth (which happens for financial reasons, without the NCAA's interference).SKUD wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:09 pm Interesting, So what would you propose? Not sure anything put forward would be equitable. Don’t understand why # of teams matters. The # of bids is somewhat proportionate between divisions. Why should the conference Marist is in have an AQ and not the conference New England College is in?
From the Second round on the competition is mostly good. Yes Tufts will crush Emmanuel but that is ok. Just like in basketball the reward of winning your conference is the big dance. Schools that just miss out, like Bowdoin, RPI and St. Lawrence this year or Stevenson from last year, will happen in any format that is used. There will always be a team that believes they should be included.
It is always a good barometer to place a team somewhere between the teams they beat, and the they can’t beat. Bowdoin never earned the top 15 ranking because they never beat anyone above 15. The best win was Babson (non ranked that also didn’t beat anyone ranked). The next best team they beat had 7 losses. Bowdoin is lucky to still be in the top 20.humpdaddy wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 9:39 amYup exactly. If you let Bowdoin into they tournament they would easily make it to at least the 3rd round. Certainly sounds like a participation trophy to me. Be more ignorant, they were a top 15 team all year for a reason.Laxattackjack wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2023 2:22 pm Allowing Bowdoin into the tourney would have been the definition of a participation trophy. You are suggesting they deserve it, not on results, but on participation in a conference.