Page 207 of 338

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:49 am
by wgdsr
jhu08 wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:31 pm
jhu06 wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:22 pm -I'm not a math nerd, but I'm sure lacrossereference.com or someone has a tournament probability analysis of our chances if we win-I'm guessing upper 50s or lose-mid to low 30s based upon expected success of terps/lions and rutgers/michigan.
Again, I think most are wrongly considering this to be a normal season in this regard.

To me, the Big Ten isn't getting more than two - no matter how good our teams are - if selection is normal this season. Even with a win, I wouldn't put us anywhere near 50-60% of making the NCAA tournament.

Focus on winning games/the Big Ten title. If we do well in those goals, the rest will take care of itself.

--

My two cents.

ACC is getting four minimum. Maybe (Probably?) all five.

After what I feel like are 4 ACC locks, that leaves, essentially, four bids to be split, likely among:
ACC #5
Big Ten runner-up/2nd best team
Big East runner-up/2nd best team
Patriot League runner-up/2nd best team
Colonial runner-up/2nd best team

Any team outside of these 5 conferences would need something exceptional for an at-large bid in my opinion.
while the above could be true, there are some possibilities for curveballs.
we've spoken about the potential issues of b1g's schedule.
going in, that means as a conference, they'd have .500 opp rec and .500 opp opp record. which is... average.

this would be a problem from their default (actual record and opp record > .500) and an expectation that they would be 1, 2 or 3 any given year.

however - some conferences have tightened up # of ooc games. with the acc not really doing that and having stronger than even usual teams (and no ivies or b1g to play), the possibility exists that the acc runs roughshod over other conferences. that might put them say, 30+ games over .500. with only 7 other conferences that have any ooc play. and fewer games at that.

so... it's at least possible that the b1g might not fall as the 5th rated conference, but even something as high as say 3rd. 30+ games is a lot. many other conferences can be spread over that .500 mark, straddling it.
it could be: acc +30, be +5, then b1g, then 6 other conferences under .500.

early, but i'd guess the big east gets at least one. beyond that, who knows? the southern i might add to your list. then there's when clear leaders of a conference don't get the auto bid. that could be the case in the b1g as well -- say there's 2 clear leaders and then an upset in the tourney auto bid.

throw in game cancellations and the b1g's sterling protocols (tough to know if that will hurt or help), as well as the committee's willingness to do whatever they please over the years, and there's a whole lot of who knows?

i can easily see them screwing the mid-majors and invoking covid cover.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:33 am
by WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus
If the Ivy doesn’t play, that means no Ivy AQ and thus one more at large spot, right?

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:39 am
by AreaLax
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:33 am If the Ivy doesn’t play, that means no Ivy AQ and thus one more at large spot, right?
Wouldn’t they just do away with the AQ play in game?

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:41 am
by WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus
AreaLax wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:39 am
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:33 am If the Ivy doesn’t play, that means no Ivy AQ and thus one more at large spot, right?
Wouldn’t they just do away with the AQ play in game?
I’m not sure. Quite possible.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am
by wgdsr
you can't have more at larges than auto bids. that's why they have "play ins" that "aren't part of the tournament". they didn't want to expand the tournament beyond the number of teams they had already once more conferences were formed. or at least that's the rules as written.

it's covid. who knows?

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am
by HopFan16
IL preview: https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... gins/57295

- Epstein and DeSimone starting on attack, other spot will either be Grimes or Chauvette
- Williams is a middie. Staff likes the way he dodges downhill
- Zinn, Degnon, Baskin, Angelus, Keogh in the mix at middie as well
- McDermott is "really close; he’s shown some flashes, and some freshman stuff. Down the road, he’s going to be a big piece"
- SSDM is a "huge pile" (of sh*t?). Mabbett was asked if he wanted to try it out and he said sure. DiPietro, Lilly, Martin, Ince playing well in practice
- Fernandez confirmed out for the year. Sucks
- Delaney and Deans in mix at LSM (assuming behind Jaronski but not sure, no mention of him)
- Lyne and Szuluk probably starting down low
- Reinson, Smith, McManus in mix for 3rd close D spot. Reinson playing both D and LSM

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:02 am
by jhu06
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:33 am If the Ivy doesn’t play, that means no Ivy AQ and thus one more at large spot, right?
they should keep the bids, convert to at large and reward the programs that played and yes I'm saying this knowing it could give us an extra shot. no bias there. AT ALL.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:19 am
by 10stone5
AreaLax wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:39 am
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:33 am If the Ivy doesn’t play, that means no Ivy AQ and thus one more at large spot, right?
Wouldn’t they just do away with the AQ play in game?
It’ll be 8 and 8, so no play in this year.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:21 am
by flalax22
HopFan16 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am IL preview: https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... gins/57295

- Epstein and DeSimone starting on attack, other spot will either be Grimes or Chauvette
- Williams is a middie. Staff likes the way he dodges downhill
- Zinn, Degnon, Baskin, Angelus, Keogh in the mix at middie as well
- McDermott is "really close; he’s shown some flashes, and some freshman stuff. Down the road, he’s going to be a big piece"
- SSDM is a "huge pile" (of sh*t?). Mabbett was asked if he wanted to try it out and he said sure. DiPietro, Lilly, Martin, Ince playing well in practice
- Fernandez confirmed out for the year. Sucks
- Delaney and Deans in mix at LSM (assuming behind Jaronski but not sure, no mention of him)
- Lyne and Szuluk probably starting down low
- Reinson, Smith, McManus in mix for 3rd close D spot. Reinson playing both D and LSM
Chauvette being in the mix is shocking to me as I watched Culver often and was rarely impressed with his play. Sometimes systems make or break players so I’m looking forward to being wrong about him. I hadn’t given much thought about Zinn and Williams on line one. That will be a constant matchup problem for the other team. Now hopefully Zinn has improved his accuracy. Bring on Saturday!

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:34 am
by HopFan16
flalax22 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:21 am I hadn’t given much thought about Zinn and Williams on line one. That will be a constant matchup problem for the other team. Now hopefully Zinn has improved his accuracy. Bring on Saturday!
It is very interesting indeed. I don't think anyone would have called our midfield a strength, and yet there remains a distinct possibility opposing teams will have to double pole our first line. That would create some opportunity for DeSimone or Grimes to attack shorties. Many of DeSo's best moments have come from dodging against a shortie around the GLE area.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:43 am
by jhu08
wgdsr wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am you can't have more at larges than auto bids. that's why they have "play ins" that "aren't part of the tournament". they didn't want to expand the tournament beyond the number of teams they had already once more conferences were formed. or at least that's the rules as written.

it's covid. who knows?
It's the other way around. At-larges have to be greater than or equal to the number of AQs. See examples:
2019 FCS football playoffs: 10 AQs, 14 at-larges
2019 NCAA basketball tournament: 32 AQs (30 after play-in games), 36 at-larges (34 after play-in games)
2019 NCAA baseball tournament: 31 AQs, 33 at-larges

I could go on with more examples, but these are going to be the three sports that most people are familiar with to illustrate NCAA policy that At-large bids >= AQs. You are still right that the rule/policy in place is the reason for our clunky play-in game(s) in lacrosse, though.

Your other point about the ACC above, I whole heartedly agree that they are in for a monstrous record OOC. I haven't counted their OOC games and who knows how many will actually be played, but I doubt they lose more than 2 or 3 of those - collectively. A record of 22-2 or 30-3 or whatever will be insane and is why I feel very confident that at least four (and probably all five) ACC teams are going to get in. Their conference RPI is going to be off the charts. I hadn't considered your very good point about the deflationary factor hitting other conferences, though. I'd have to do some more looking at which conferences the ACC hasn't scheduled many games against to get a better feel for who will benefit most from that.

If you forced me to guess on at-larges right this minute, though: ACC 5, Big East 1, Big Ten 1, PL 1

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:53 am
by jhu06
jhu08 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:43 am
wgdsr wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am you can't have more at larges than auto bids. that's why they have "play ins" that "aren't part of the tournament". they didn't want to expand the tournament beyond the number of teams they had already once more conferences were formed. or at least that's the rules as written.

it's covid. who knows?
It's the other way around. At-larges have to be greater than or equal to the number of AQs. See examples:
2019 FCS football playoffs: 10 AQs, 14 at-larges
2019 NCAA basketball tournament: 32 AQs (30 after play-in games), 36 at-larges (34 after play-in games)
2019 NCAA baseball tournament: 31 AQs, 33 at-larges

I could go on with more examples, but these are going to be the three sports that most people are familiar with to illustrate NCAA policy that At-large bids >= AQs. You are still right that the rule/policy in place is the reason for our clunky play-in game(s) in lacrosse, though.

Your other point about the ACC above, I whole heartedly agree that they are in for a monstrous record OOC. I haven't counted their OOC games and who knows how many will actually be played, but I doubt they lose more than 2 or 3 of those - collectively. A record of 22-2 or 30-3 or whatever will be insane and is why I feel very confident that at least four (and probably all five) ACC teams are going to get in. Their conference RPI is going to be off the charts. I hadn't considered your very good point about the deflationary factor hitting other conferences, though. I'd have to do some more looking at which conferences the ACC hasn't scheduled many games against to get a better feel for who will benefit most from that.

If you forced me to guess on at-larges right this minute, though: ACC 5, Big East 1, Big Ten 1, PL 1
-you finish last in your conference you don't deserve to be in. that would be sub 500 in conference play. my guess is that someone like cuse or nd makes it easy for the committee and just does not have a good year.
-number in big east and pl will likely have at best one top 10 1 and no top 5 wins, I have a hard time seeing that happening.
-3 in the big ten will probably have at least 1 top 5 wins, 2 top 10 wins,>500 in conference.. stronger profile than pl/big east

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:57 am
by jhu08
edited below

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:01 am
by jhu08
wgdsr wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am you can't have more at larges than auto bids. that's why they have "play ins" that "aren't part of the tournament". they didn't want to expand the tournament beyond the number of teams they had already once more conferences were formed. or at least that's the rules as written.
2020-21 NCAA Division 1 Manual
§31.3.4.7.1 Team Sports Other Than Men's Basketball.
In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.6-(a), excluding football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria. In sports other than men's volleyball, men's water polo and women's water polo, the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams.

-

The wording is clunky here in a way that the only the NCAA can accomplish, but I 100% promise that this statement when taken in totality means that At-Larges must be at least 50% of the NCAA tournament field (therefore At-Larges >= AQs). For those who are not familiar with dealing with the NCAA's ponderous legalese, this probably isn't super clear from the statement above, but the actual composition of some of the D1 tournament fields that I posted a couple posts up illustrates my interpretation of their bylaw.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:10 am
by jhu08
jhu06 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:53 am -number in big east and pl will likely have at best one top 10 1 and no top 5 wins, I have a hard time seeing that happening.
-3 in the big ten will probably have at least 1 top 5 wins, 2 top 10 wins,>500 in conference.. stronger profile than pl/big east
This is the part where your thinking is wrong. You're still thinking of RPI working in like a normal year. Big Ten conference RPI is going to be in the toilet compared to what it was in 2017, 18, 19, etc

There's also absolutely no guarantee that Big Ten #3 is above .500 in conference. I don't have time right now to do the math to prove this to you, so I'll illustrate it below quickly with examples. The #3 team in the conference in 2021 can validly have a record anywhere from 8-2 to 3-7*.
*assuming all 30 conference matches are played.

These are the two extreme scenarios to quickly show you how this is possible - both are mathematically valid (if extremely unlikely)

Scenario 1: Big Ten #3 finishes 8-2
1. B1G #1 8-2
2. B1G #2 8-2
3. B1G #3 8-2
4th-6th: The exact records don't actually matter here. There are 6 wins to distribute among 3 teams, though.
4. B1G #4 (Record can validly range from 4-6 to 2-8 in this scenario)
5. B1G #5 (Record can validly range from 3-7 to 1-9 in this scenario)
6. B1G #6 (Record can validly range from 2-8 to 0-10 in this scenario)
Overall conference record: 30 wins, 30 losses


Scenario 2: Big Ten #3 finishes 3-7
1. B1G #1 9-1 (or 10-0)
2. B1G #2 9-1 (or 8-2)
3. B1G #3 3-7
4. B1G #4 3-7
5. B1G #5 3-7
6. B1G #6 3-7
Overall conference record: 30 wins, 30 losses

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:11 am
by laxpert
10stone5 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:19 am
AreaLax wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:39 am
WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:33 am If the Ivy doesn’t play, that means no Ivy AQ and thus one more at large spot, right?
Wouldn’t they just do away with the AQ play in game?
It’ll be 8 and 8, so no play in this year.
Don't discount a tournament consisting of only Conference Champions.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:18 am
by wgdsr
jhu06 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:53 am
jhu08 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:43 am
wgdsr wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am you can't have more at larges than auto bids. that's why they have "play ins" that "aren't part of the tournament". they didn't want to expand the tournament beyond the number of teams they had already once more conferences were formed. or at least that's the rules as written.

it's covid. who knows?
It's the other way around. At-larges have to be greater than or equal to the number of AQs. See examples:
2019 FCS football playoffs: 10 AQs, 14 at-larges
2019 NCAA basketball tournament: 32 AQs (30 after play-in games), 36 at-larges (34 after play-in games)
2019 NCAA baseball tournament: 31 AQs, 33 at-larges

I could go on with more examples, but these are going to be the three sports that most people are familiar with to illustrate NCAA policy that At-large bids >= AQs. You are still right that the rule/policy in place is the reason for our clunky play-in game(s) in lacrosse, though.

Your other point about the ACC above, I whole heartedly agree that they are in for a monstrous record OOC. I haven't counted their OOC games and who knows how many will actually be played, but I doubt they lose more than 2 or 3 of those - collectively. A record of 22-2 or 30-3 or whatever will be insane and is why I feel very confident that at least four (and probably all five) ACC teams are going to get in. Their conference RPI is going to be off the charts. I hadn't considered your very good point about the deflationary factor hitting other conferences, though. I'd have to do some more looking at which conferences the ACC hasn't scheduled many games against to get a better feel for who will benefit most from that.

If you forced me to guess on at-larges right this minute, though: ACC 5, Big East 1, Big Ten 1, PL 1
-you finish last in your conference you don't deserve to be in. that would be sub 500 in conference play. my guess is that someone like cuse or nd makes it easy for the committee and just does not have a good year.
-number in big east and pl will likely have at best one top 10 1 and no top 5 wins, I have a hard time seeing that happening.
-3 in the big ten will probably have at least 1 top 5 wins, 2 top 10 wins,>500 in conference.. stronger profile than pl/big east
all games matter. not just conference games. glad they at least have that part "right".

the committee has been going by straight rpi the last several years. where you get all these top 5 or top 10 wins when the b1g plays no ooc is perplexing. unless something happens close to what i said previously, the b1g is the caa or patriot. and the committee hasn't cared about "top x" wins for years, anyway.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:26 am
by AreaLax
PM on the Glenn Clark sports radio show
https://glennclarkradio.com/

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:33 am
by wgdsr
jhu08 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:01 am
wgdsr wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am you can't have more at larges than auto bids. that's why they have "play ins" that "aren't part of the tournament". they didn't want to expand the tournament beyond the number of teams they had already once more conferences were formed. or at least that's the rules as written.
2020-21 NCAA Division 1 Manual
§31.3.4.7.1 Team Sports Other Than Men's Basketball.
In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.6-(a), excluding football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria. In sports other than men's volleyball, men's water polo and women's water polo, the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams.

-

The wording is clunky here in a way that the only the NCAA can accomplish, but I 100% promise that this statement when taken in totality means that At-Larges must be at least 50% of the NCAA tournament field (therefore At-Larges >= AQs). For those who are not familiar with dealing with the NCAA's ponderous legalese, this probably isn't super clear from the statement above, but the actual composition of some of the D1 tournament fields that I posted a couple posts up illustrates my interpretation of their bylaw.
ha. i would say it's more than possible that i had it backwards.

however... the wording in red above might be messing with your numbers? what if with all the 12-16 schools per conference for certain sports is skewing what you're looking at? (vs the 6-9 in lacrosse) because yes, it does say "if" in red and then "at least" in purple. and then the nc$$ puts in high teens to mid-20's % (a guess) of all teams into a tournament. based on demand and expenses, likely.

i need an nc$$ compliance manager at the front desk.

Re: Johns Hopkins 2021

Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:53 am
by jhu08
wgdsr wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:33 am
jhu08 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:01 am 2020-21 NCAA Division 1 Manual
§31.3.4.7.1 Team Sports Other Than Men's Basketball.
In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.6-(a), excluding football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria. In sports other than men's volleyball, men's water polo and women's water polo, the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams.

-

The wording is clunky here in a way that the only the NCAA can accomplish, but I 100% promise that this statement when taken in totality means that At-Larges must be at least 50% of the NCAA tournament field (therefore At-Larges >= AQs). For those who are not familiar with dealing with the NCAA's ponderous legalese, this probably isn't super clear from the statement above, but the actual composition of some of the D1 tournament fields that I posted a couple posts up illustrates my interpretation of their bylaw.
ha. i would say it's more than possible that i had it backwards.

however... the wording in red above might be messing with your numbers? what if with all the 12-16 schools per conference for certain sports is skewing what you're looking at? (vs the 6-9 in lacrosse) because yes, it does say "if" in red and then "at least" in purple. and then the nc$$ puts in high teens to mid-20's % (a guess) of all teams into a tournament. based on demand and expenses, likely.

i need an nc$$ compliance manager at the front desk.
Like I said above, the NCAA's wording here is really really confusing. The statements that you highlight of "if" and "at least" working in conjunction with each other are the crux of that problem. It's why I bolded the last part of the bylaw "the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams", because I think it's the key to interpreting the bylaw as a whole.

I'll take a shot at explaining the other part of the bylaw that is so confusing though. Again, don't take my quick explanation to the bank as the absolute law of what the NCAA thinks, but it'll be pretty close I think.

-

I'll use lacrosse as an example first to explain one potential scenario. 2019 tournament format: 8 at-larges, 8 (really 9) AQs, with a play-in game:

NCAA bylaw, the part that you highlighted: "The sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria"

In the case of D1M lacrosse, the NCAA-recognized tournament field size is 16. In the case here, a "sufficient number of applications for AQs" to award to at least 50% of the field do indeed exist. There are 9 AQ applications for 8 potential AQ spots, since the NCAA bylaw also states "the remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams." The NCAA then must "provide play-in criteria" (our beloved play-in game) since there are too many applications for the available AQ spots. Final tournament field size: 16 = 8 AQs, 8 at-larges

-

Now the alternate scenario. I'll use D1 baseball this time to illustrate. 2019 tournament format: 31 AQs, 33 at-larges

Again, the part of the NCAA bylaw in question: "The sport committee must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria"

In the case of D1 baseball, the NCAA-recognized tournament field size is 64. In the case here, "a sufficient number of applications for AQs" to award to at least 50% of the field do not exist. There are 31 applications for 32 potential AQ spots. In this case, there is no need for play-in criteria. All qualified AQs are awarded and the field can be rounded out by at-large teams to meet the requirements of the bylaw. Final tournament field size: 64 = 31 AQs, 33 at-larges (if another qualifying conference for baseball was created, the split would be 32/32)

-

The application of the above bylaw also is intrinsically connected to the NCAA-recognized tournament size for that sport, which is defined by individual committees for each sport. Baseball is a sport with much larger conference sizes than lacrosse, which makes it a pretty good example for the alternate scenario you mentioned. What would happen if the size of lacrosse conferences started growing larger (as in more schools added the sport) is that the NCAA sport level committee would likely expand the size of the tournament to accommodate.

Reading back my explanations of the NCAA's applications of their bylaws, I realize that I sound sort of patronizing with how I laid it out. Please don't take it that way! I'm trying to do it piece-by-piece with quotes interspersed from the NCAA's bylaw to show their interpretation/how they are getting the tournament fields that they are. It's a convoluted mess, and that's why I broke it down like I did.

I hope that what I have above makes some sense at least.