D1 Men NCAA Tournament

[calourie]

Simple solution:

Drop all at-large teams. Declare the conference tournaments to be part of the NCAA tournament. Include the 5-team ACC as a conference. Then only the 10 conference-tournament champions advance beyond the conference stage. Two preliminary games to reduce the field to 8. Then continue as now.

Shaves a week off the post-season, and makes the conference tournaments actually mean something, so that teams like Loyola (and Yale last year) might pay a bit more attention.

The NCAA will never go for it, of course, but sure saves a lot of arguing about who should be in and who should be out.

CU77, I thnik you are a fan of D1 Hockey pairwise, which includes the conference tourneys in their final 16 numbers, why can't (and shouldn't) lacrosse include theirs, or do you object to the way Hockey does it as well?

[DocBarrister]

Fine. Then you'd be for giving weight to teams that play more games then, right?

Hopkins could play Jacksonville (no disrespect) 20 times. Think that would come close to playing the 15 games the Blue Jays have?

Does anyone think playing defense against MD, PSU, Syracuse, Virginia, Loyola, and Towson is no more tiring than playing defense against MAAC teams (again, no disrespect).

I am a big fan of AQs and won-loss records have their place in the selection criteria (especially the bar against at-large teams with losing records). So does SOS.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Rewarding teams that excel at the end of the season and demonstrate improvement is a good thing, even if it's not officially part of the selection criteria.

That makes zero sense. Why bother playing games in February if they "count less"?

Moreover. Hopkins LOST to Penn St., remember?

So by your own metric, they're out, no?

Hopkins absolutely had to win two games to have had a realistic shot at an at-large bid ... the two games against Maryland. They won those. At 7-7, they would have been a marginal bubble team.

Cornell was a marginal bubble team without winning the Ivy semifinal. They lost.

Hopkins won the games they needed to win. Cornell lost the game they needed to win.

There you go.

DocBarrister

[CU77]

CU77, I thnik you are a fan of D1 Hockey pairwise, which includes the conference tourneys in their final 16 numbers, why can't (and shouldn't) lacrosse include theirs, or do you object to the way Hockey does it as well?

The good thing about hockey pairwise is that it's a precise mathematical formula, and everyone knows what it is. If we're going to have at-larges, then that's the way to go.

But I'm espousing a new idea here: no at-larges at all. Lose in your conference tournament, and you're out of the NCAAs. I would be fine with this in hockey as well (though hockey is "more random" than lacrosse, so there's more of an argument for second chances).

[a fan]

Fine. Then you'd be for giving weight to teams that play more games then, right?

Hopkins could play Jacksonville (no disrespect) 20 times. Think that would come close to playing the 15 games the Blue Jays have?

Does anyone think playing defense against MD, PSU, Syracuse, Virginia, Loyola, and Towson is no more tiring than playing defense against MAAC teams (again, no disrespect).

You didn't answer my question to your ridiculous idea: if physical exhaustion should be evaluated, shouldn't teams that play more games have an edge over teams that don't?

No, right? Why? Because what you're positing is laughable and silly. No one cares how many games you played.

[wgdsr]

CU77, I thnik you are a fan of D1 Hockey pairwise, which includes the conference tourneys in their final 16 numbers, why can't (and shouldn't) lacrosse include theirs, or do you object to the way Hockey does it as well?

The good thing about hockey pairwise is that it's a precise mathematical formula, and everyone knows what it is. If we're going to have at-larges, then that's the way to go.

But I'm espousing a new idea here: no at-larges at all. Lose in your conference tournament, and you're out of the NCAAs. I would be fine with this in hockey as well (though hockey is "more random" than lacrosse, so there's more of an argument for second chances).

taking away swaths of some/a lot of the very best teams, at the conference level, while others play on because they're the best of an often mish mash 6 team conference-of-convenience? pass.
the nc$$ tournament is easily the best time of the lacrosse year. suffering through the inevitable of several deserving but bubble teams having arguments about how the system is played? that's the sacrifice.

[a fan]

Hopkins absolutely had to win two games to have had a realistic shot at an at-large bid ... the two games against Maryland. They won those. At 7-7, they would have been a marginal bubble team.

Cornell was a marginal bubble team without winning the Ivy semifinal. They lost.

Hopkins won the games they needed to win. Cornell lost the game they needed to win.

There you go.

DocBarrister

How in heaven's name did you get a JD? Circular logic, counsellor.

Enjoy your bid. As I said before: it's not your fault this system is stupid.

As Q pointed out: the selection system means the rich get richer in D1. So long as lesser conference's AD's keep their heads where the sun don't shine and don't catch on to the slanted field, oh well.

The thing I don't get are the coaches. D1 coaches are now in six figure jobs, with bonuses for making the NCAA's, etc.. And these coaches haven't bothered to take the time to figure out that they're behind the 8-ball with SOS and RPI before the first faceoff. I don't get it. They're literally losing out on money for their families because they don't understand the task that's been appointed to them.

Oh well. Should be a great playoff, Doc! Congrats to your team, and my hat is off to you for being a real Jays fan, no matter the score!

[Matnum PI]

Simple solution.

Or... Have a numbers-based ranking system that every team agrees to before the season starts.

[DocBarrister]

Hopkins absolutely had to win two games to have had a realistic shot at an at-large bid ... the two games against Maryland. They won those. At 7-7, they would have been a marginal bubble team.

Cornell was a marginal bubble team without winning the Ivy semifinal. They lost.

Hopkins won the games they needed to win. Cornell lost the game they needed to win.

There you go.

DocBarrister

How in heaven's name did you get a JD? Circular logic, counsellor.

Enjoy your bid. As I said before: it's not your fault this system is stupid.

As Q pointed out: the selection system means the rich get richer in D1. So long as lesser conference's AD's keep their heads where the sun don't shine and don't catch on to the slanted field, oh well.

The thing I don't get are the coaches. D1 coaches are now in six figure jobs, with bonuses for making the NCAA's, etc.. And these coaches haven't bothered to take the time to figure out that they're behind the 8-ball with SOS and RPI before the first faceoff. I don't get it. They're literally losing out on money for their families because they don't understand the task that's been appointed to them.

Oh well. Should be a great playoff, Doc! Congrats to your team, and my hat is off to you for being a real Jays fan, no matter the score!

If the committee was simply tasked with choosing the best 16 teams, many of the AQs wouldn’t be in the tournament.

The weaker teams and leagues already benefit greatly from the current system.

DocBarrister

[calourie]

[quote=CU77

But I'm espousing a new idea here: no at-larges at all. Lose in your conference tournament, and you're out of the NCAAs. I would be fine with this in hockey as well (though hockey is "more random" than lacrosse, so there's more of an argument for second chances).
[/quote]

Well there's an argument for recency if I've ever heard one. Might also promote a deeper parity, but I do think a sixteen team tournament will inevitably do a better job of separating the wheat from the chaff than an 8 team one, resulting in a more deserving champion (2016 Tar Heels notwithstanding)

[Counselor]

IMHO the at-large teams that were picked were the best among those not receiving the automatic qualifiers......yes, there was no way the NCAA was going to allow an all-Ivy final....too elitest....Cornell had an argument in being in over Hopkins and Md. but do think that Hopkins and Md. are the better teams....better in the sense of being more competitive - I know that is not supposed to be the criterion but.........tough competition in the Ivy Tourney with the # 2 and #4 ranked teams contending ......had Cornell won its semi-final it probably gets in along with Yale and Penn....the NCAA likes gate receipts too and keeping- in Hop and Md. helps in that regard.....the recent years' philosophy of rewarding the team that beats the upper-echelon ones was cast aside in the High Point circumstance - the low SOS; and some "bad" losses were too much to overcome in that regard (and as Carc and Quint opined "all" they had to do was win their league tournament).....Hop losing in OT to the odds-on favorite to win it all in its last game of the year after beating Md. twice offered a rationale to go with Hop over Cornell....don't have a similar rationale for Md. (loser to Hopkins in its last several games) getting the nod over Cornell - so I revert to the subjective that Md. presents as a more formidable contingent than Cornell...must have been one of those "regional advisory committees" so recommending......all right, I changed my mind - Cornell should have been in over the reeling Terps.....

[Peter Brown]

My Final Four:

Penn State versus Penn

UVA versus Notre Dame


Final:

Penn State versus UVA


Winner:

UVA

[Hawkeye]

My Final Four:

Penn State versus Penn

UVA versus Notre Dame


Final:

Penn State versus UVA


Winner:

UVA

Join the bracket contest!

viewtopic.php?f=118&t=1207

[DaneFan]

IMHO the at-large teams that were picked were the best among those not receiving the automatic qualifiers......yes, there was no way the NCAA was going to allow an all-Ivy final....too elitest....Cornell had an argument in being in over Hopkins and Md. but do think that Hopkins and Md. are the better teams....better in the sense of being more competitive - I know that is not supposed to be the criterion but.........tough competition in the Ivy Tourney with the # 2 and #4 ranked teams contending ......had Cornell won its semi-final it probably gets in along with Yale and Penn....the NCAA likes gate receipts too and keeping- in Hop and Md. helps in that regard.....the recent years' philosophy of rewarding the team that beats the upper-echelon ones was cast aside in the High Point circumstance - the low SOS; and some "bad" losses were too much to overcome in that regard (and as Carc and Quint opined "all" they had to do was win their league tournament).....Hop losing in OT to the odds-on favorite to win it all in its last game of the year after beating Md. twice offered a rationale to go with Hop over Cornell....don't have a similar rationale for Md. (loser to Hopkins in its last several games) getting the nod over Cornell - so I revert to the subjective that Md. presents as a more formidable contingent than Cornell...must have been one of those "regional advisory committees" so recommending......all right, I changed my mind - Cornell should have been in over the reeling Terps.....

I agree that Maryland and Hopkins probably deserved the nod over Cornell, but think that Notre Dame in particular is way over seeded. They won what three games on that crazy indoor field?? Those wins almost shouldn't count, but of course they do and the committee has no latitude. I do wish High Point could have gotten in, but the were a Monet in my opinion. They did get the two big wins, had some bad losses, and had to eek out some wins against some other so so competition, and then when they controlled their own destiny laid a big time egg in the SOCON finals.

[3rdPersonPlural]

IMHO, there are only 4 or 5 (maybe 6) teams that have a legit shot at being Nat champ, and they're all included in the bracket, so I have no complaints. In other words, if the tournament were cancelled and we just had to name a national champ (recall the old football system?), EVERYONE would agree that one of these teams should be declared the winner.

There are 2 or 3 teams that have a punchers chance of getting hot and pulling a few upsets to surprise us all. They're in the brackets, too.

[rolldodge]

And you have been wrong for 20 years.

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Sorry mate, QW does that all by itself. It completely ignores weak wins.

QW looks at Hopkins' wins over Michigan and Delaware and says "I don't care".

Precisely as you want. Ignore weak wins.

SOS makes no sense, and rewards losing. It serves no other purpose other than to count "good" losses. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.


None of this is Hopkins' fault. Or yours. They're not the idiots who designed this system. It's the fault of AD's at places like High Point who don't correct the system. Surely they have a math program at High Point? Guess not. Oh well.

So I have no complaints, and wish you luck.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins.

Sure. But you're forgetting, naturally, that Cornell and High Point can make a longer list like this, of better teams they have actually beaten.

Well that and, Hop is 0-2 against Penn State. You want this to be a badge that give them a bid. I respectfully disagree.

Or perhaps we should use your SOS in the tournament, if it makes so much sense? I'd sign on for that. Would you? Decide who goes to the Final Four not based on who wins the games...but on who played the tougher teams and "lost" better?

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

Harder when you play only a few a year. In order to be playing to the level where you are able to win in those games, you need to be playing against that type of competition to the point where your game is refined enough to win. Playing cupcakes breeds bad habits that will be exploited by better teams. In addition, it's a statistical issue. Larger sample size will lead to more outliers -- better chance of a good team having a down day, etc.

[stupefied]

My opinion. 1) They need to make significant improvements to rpi model. Until then it should be an adjunct not close to an absolute. The human element in evaluation is still critical to proper decisions until a model is so refined to capture all factors 2) A loss to a top twenty ranked team should help rpi based on its competitiveness not its scheduling . A loss by five is not a loss by one and should be somehow incorporated in calculations, teams are evaluated by their competitiveness in weekly polls and models should be able to do the same 3) Very early games in season should not be weighted the same as a later regular season game if goal is to best assess teams. Not a quant but perhaps a weighting by season quarters is a simple adjustment to start with.

JHU season to me is a best example of why the current model is faulty and at the same time why the committee got it right by selecting them. !) Their sos was strong but the variation is slight to other top sos for rpi to be a heavy factor since it did not factor how noncompetitive they were in five of their losses with a deficit of 35. A 11 goal loss to PSU late in regular season should garner minimal benefit if any at all 3) having said that two of JHU large losses were in their first two games when teams are still rounding into shape. Teams evolve, some later than others and that should matter when evaluating the best sixteen teams near season end.

The AQ bring hope and excitement to many that would otherwise be excluded but do not necessarily result in the best field of sixteen teams. Keep the conference playoffs and AQ but expand the number of at larges. Teams in strong conferences should not be penalized for being in such . I do believe that Maryland is a more balanced team than Cornell but BigRed is better than some AQ so the present at large cutoff lacks imo. Perhaps twelve at larges should be considered even as additional play ins.

Getting back to JHU, credit them for turning their season around late with two wins over Maryland and a OT loss to a strong PSU team. If they were the same 8-7 with game results reversed -wins early and uncompetitive losses late then Id then be arguing that they should not be in tourney despite their rpi given their uncompetiveness in several losses and trends but that was not the case. Their season trajectory was up even with their last game being a loss and they were worthy of selection. Im sure the "eye test" of their current play mattered as it should have.

[Fanlax999]

i for one thought JHU got in on their name and rep. they looked horrible against psu getting blown out the friggn stadium. 8-7? they played 3 great games at the end, but really, most of their season has been mediocre. they have great players, which is obvious but their team chemistry and/or coaching is not up to par.

[OCanada]

Some of the theories thrown so loosely around are not unlike society these days. Projecting. Frankly some of the assumptions underlying them are not only wrong but insulting to the people involved.

To be fair allegations of bias, conspiracy, deal making, setting one team up for an easy glide path or making it harder for another etc have been around as long as the tourney and in the decades before.

[ABV 8.3%]

And you have been wrong for 20 years.

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Sorry mate, QW does that all by itself. It completely ignores weak wins.

QW looks at Hopkins' wins over Michigan and Delaware and says "I don't care".

Precisely as you want. Ignore weak wins.

SOS makes no sense, and rewards losing. It serves no other purpose other than to count "good" losses. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.


None of this is Hopkins' fault. Or yours. They're not the idiots who designed this system. It's the fault of AD's at places like High Point who don't correct the system. Surely they have a math program at High Point? Guess not. Oh well.

So I have no complaints, and wish you luck.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins.

Sure. But you're forgetting, naturally, that Cornell and High Point can make a longer list like this, of better teams they have actually beaten.

Well that and, Hop is 0-2 against Penn State. You want this to be a badge that give them a bid. I respectfully disagree.

Or perhaps we should use your SOS in the tournament, if it makes so much sense? I'd sign on for that. Would you? Decide who goes to the Final Four not based on who wins the games...but on who played the tougher teams and "lost" better?

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

Harder when you play only a few a year. In order to be playing to the level where you are able to win in those games, you need to be playing against that type of competition to the point where your game is refined enough to win. Playing cupcakes breeds bad habits that will be exploited by better teams. In addition, it's a statistical issue. Larger sample size will lead to more outliers -- better chance of a good team having a down day, etc.

Can you explain the cupcake playoff system that states like Maryland has for public HS's. Everyone gets invited, I understand?? Must make for a couple of bad habit forming first couple of games.