Re: 2021 NCAA Tournament
Posted: Tue May 18, 2021 10:57 pm
Sounds like the NCAA is lifting their player limit. Nothing confirmed but seems to be the rumor floating around on twitter
i think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
There are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 7:18 ami think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
what would be your setup for selection?laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:58 amThere are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 7:18 ami think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
is that how you would write the metric in there?Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:29 am Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.
Well you know that performance in a single game elimination isn’t a signal of anything. I’ll point to 2010 where ND got to the finals but probably didn’t deserve the AL over GTown as an example. NDs run t prove they belonged in over GTown.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
I think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:17 amwhat would be your setup for selection?laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:58 amThere are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 7:18 ami think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
Word for wordwgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 amis that how you would write the metric in there?Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:29 am Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.
i think most people would be all for more slots. i don't see it as high possibility of happening, but maybe. you'd still have hankering on last teams in. half the field has to be aq's. after play ins. so expanding to 18 is more of a possibility (2 aqs and 2 at larges play in), or with your 20... the bottom 6? at larges and would have play ins and the bottom 2 aq's.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:52 amI think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:17 amwhat would be your setup for selection?laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:58 amThere are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 7:18 ami think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
everybody has takes.Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:02 amWord for wordwgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 amis that how you would write the metric in there?Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:29 am Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.
Yes but the coaches don’t really want that. At least the coaches of schools w legacy reputations. They want committees to have some latitude to pick based on subjectivity because it’s likely to benefit the entrenched. They’ll scream about it the year one gets screwed but they really prefer it like this to absolute rigidity in criterion.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 ameverybody has takes.Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:02 amWord for wordwgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 amis that how you would write the metric in there?Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:29 am Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.
i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.
ffg, we've talked about this. the last 3 tournaments prior to this year went on straight rpi lines. if you're a coach paying attention, it is as absolute of rigidity as possible. this year was an outlier, i'm guessing not to be repeated. hopefully.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:40 amYes but the coaches don’t really want that. At least the coaches of schools w legacy reputations. They want committees to have some latitude to pick based on subjectivity because it’s likely to benefit the entrenched. They’ll scream about it the year one gets screwed but they really prefer it like this to absolute rigidity in criterion.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 ameverybody has takes.Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:02 amWord for wordwgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 amis that how you would write the metric in there?Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:29 am Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.
i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.
adding an affiliate member is not going to benefit acc teams, so there's no reason to do that as a conference. if an acc member wants to add lacrosse, that'd be the way that happens. unless idiots are in charge. i don't believe an actual influencer has gone on record for fla state in a long time.Wheels wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:31 am The ACC needs an affiliate member to join for lacrosse so that the conference can get it's AQ back. I have no clue who that affiliate member should be (Richmond makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons but who knows if they'd be interested and how that would affect the new ASun/SoCon partnership). If the ACC could get a 6th member, it's conference tournament would alleviate the need for some of the teams to play another game post-conference tournament. If Syracuse bombed out of the ACC Tournament this year, they probably don't get the AL. Not to say the ACC would not have still gotten 5 teams in, but at least you'd get a better sense of whether or not Cuse belonged in the NCAAs. Playing a last minute game against Bobby Mo didn't tell anyone anything about Cuse.
Or Florida State needs to fish or cut bait on this whole going D1 thing that keeps popping up.
I certainly agree that only deserving teams should get in (if that can be objectively defined). The NCAA's objections to expanding the field are purely arbitrary and could easily be changed by edict. I hope they'll do it soon. The champion should be decided on the field.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:05 ami think most people would be all for more slots. i don't see it as high possibility of happening, but maybe. you'd still have hankering on last teams in. half the field has to be aq's. after play ins. so expanding to 18 is more of a possibility (2 aqs and 2 at larges play in), or with your 20... the bottom 6? at larges and would have play ins and the bottom 2 aq's.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:52 amI think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:17 amwhat would be your setup for selection?laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:58 amThere are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 7:18 ami think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
but of course the main obstacle to that would be the nc$$ allowing it.
personally don't subscribe to the logic that a team or a conference especially is undeserving (in most normal years anyway) based on who wins once the tournament starts. what you need or should have is clear criteria for selection. then, everyone that gets in is deserving.
I’m talking bugger picture that groups prefer SROs while publicly railing against their policy and execution, they don’t want fully transparent they want it this way. Hence not likely to change. Not a judgement in that comment just the reality of any sector/institution/organization - set up a patsy group to make decisions and abrogate all responsibility individually and point fingers at self run or overseen rule makers.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:47 amffg, we've talked about this. the last 3 tournaments prior to this year went on straight rpi lines. if you're a coach paying attention, it is as absolute of rigidity as possible. this year was an outlier, i'm guessing not to be repeated. hopefully.Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:40 amYes but the coaches don’t really want that. At least the coaches of schools w legacy reputations. They want committees to have some latitude to pick based on subjectivity because it’s likely to benefit the entrenched. They’ll scream about it the year one gets screwed but they really prefer it like this to absolute rigidity in criterion.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:15 ameverybody has takes.Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:02 amWord for wordwgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:36 amis that how you would write the metric in there?Houndfan73 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:29 am Can start by not selecting teams that finish 5th in a conference of 5 who got blown out multiple times and lost badly to the team they squeaked in ahead of. Other than that the field seems decent.
as it is, of all the teams on the bubble cuse by far had the best resume based on how teams have been selected in the past, and by what's actually written.
i don't love those criteria nor how they've finagled around with them over the years. my preference would be for better and clearer selection metrics.
that said, using straight rpi is a joke.
Maybe not Tech. They’re still paying for Paul Hewitt and paid to get rid of Paul Johnson. Athletics money isn’t in good shape there (my FIL endowed a women’s basketball scholarship there and is ranked I guess these schools rank their top 100 donors and he’s like 71 so I get inside baseball on that school). Demographics are and they’ve had a pretty good club program but it’s not on the level Michigans club was when they decided to go D1.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:58 amadding an affiliate member is not going to benefit acc teams, so there's no reason to do that as a conference. if an acc member wants to add lacrosse, that'd be the way that happens. unless idiots are in charge. i don't believe an actual influencer has gone on record for fla state in a long time.Wheels wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:31 am The ACC needs an affiliate member to join for lacrosse so that the conference can get it's AQ back. I have no clue who that affiliate member should be (Richmond makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons but who knows if they'd be interested and how that would affect the new ASun/SoCon partnership). If the ACC could get a 6th member, it's conference tournament would alleviate the need for some of the teams to play another game post-conference tournament. If Syracuse bombed out of the ACC Tournament this year, they probably don't get the AL. Not to say the ACC would not have still gotten 5 teams in, but at least you'd get a better sense of whether or not Cuse belonged in the NCAAs. Playing a last minute game against Bobby Mo didn't tell anyone anything about Cuse.
Or Florida State needs to fish or cut bait on this whole going D1 thing that keeps popping up.
my bets would be ga tech (male population if an a.d. was an expander) and nc state (with boo corrigan now in charge and decent male pop). both probably longshots, but departments will be swimming in money again in a year or 2.
AQ exists for equal representation which supports having a D1 sport. Get rid of the AQ and ten to twenty programs are gone in five years. Here’s the deal, getting playoff reps helps programs build up. Richmond has gotten better and been able to get better recruits because of those first round playoff losses. Same happened with Notre fame 20yrs ago when the GWLL Or there was an “automatic” western rep. They probably wouldn’t be here today if they are without a decade of that opportunity. Doesn’t mean every program will step up but absent having a shot it’s exponentially more difficult.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 12:00 pmI certainly agree that only deserving teams should get in (if that can be objectively defined). The NCAA's objections to expanding the field are purely arbitrary and could easily be changed by edict. I hope they'll do it soon. The champion should be decided on the field.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 11:05 ami think most people would be all for more slots. i don't see it as high possibility of happening, but maybe. you'd still have hankering on last teams in. half the field has to be aq's. after play ins. so expanding to 18 is more of a possibility (2 aqs and 2 at larges play in), or with your 20... the bottom 6? at larges and would have play ins and the bottom 2 aq's.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:52 amI think there should be 8 seeds. Expand the field to 20 with 4 play in games for the bottom 8 unseeded teams. With 20 teams in the field there would be fewer arguments about teams being cheated out of a slot. Every year, there are a couple teams that have an argument they were screwed. This would resolve the issue. Play in games could be on Tuesday or Wednesday and the winners play 1-4 seeds on Sunday.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:17 amwhat would be your setup for selection?laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:58 amThere are 8 at large slots and the ACC received 5 of them. Seems unfair to me, although if all 5 are deserving, so be it. Syracuse is already gone. If some of the other 4 lose today, perhaps some of the 5 were undeserving. I'm thinking about Army, for example.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 7:18 ami think the rules are you have to have as many at larges as aq's. or at least that's how it's interpreted by the committee.laxfan1313 wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:55 am If at least half the ACC teams lose this weekend maybe the selection committee will become more judicious in handing out the at-large slots.
but of course the main obstacle to that would be the nc$$ allowing it.
personally don't subscribe to the logic that a team or a conference especially is undeserving (in most normal years anyway) based on who wins once the tournament starts. what you need or should have is clear criteria for selection. then, everyone that gets in is deserving.