LaxPower Back-Up Stick

RURICK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:13 am farfromgeneva, i guess you don't agree with my assessment. What a shock, lol.

It’s been discussed a ton for a long long time. There’s a rough proportion ratio under 25% that the ncaa targets. Not everyone just has opinions that are all equal. Pay attention.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:32 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:14 am

RURICK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:57 am The national lacrosse narrative is changing. In order to keep Duke and UNC inside the Top Ten as conference play starts, the pollsters needed to rank OSU obviously but also Jacksonville. As well, it will be interesting to see how this ultimately affects NCAA tourney selections down the road. My prediction is if the BIG, minus PSU, does not have any OOC missteps before conference play, the BIG will get 3 bids, including their auto bid come tourney time. And, if the ACC gets , God forbid, 5 at large bids, all the other conferences will be vying for 1 at large bid. For this reason, and the fact that other conferences' teams are getting better, there needs to be an expansion of the tourney if lacrosse really wants to grow the sport and national interest.

polls don't mean anything. they never have. they never will. save for prior to 2017? when committee members could possibly bring in bias with how they were using the selection criteria. which didn't include polls. since then? it's a computer that selects the teams. rpi. 0s and 1s.

2021 was the only break from that stretch as covid was a crazy year and rutgers was added.

acc is not likely to get 5 teams with the ivy back. tho unless the patriot or big east pick it up, you never know. too early to get a read on the ivy and their at larges may depend on hoo wins the tourney.

it's feb 23. too early to predict anything. even the socon might take a bid at this point.

the tournament doesn't expand until the nc$$ blows up or they change their guidelines for all sports. win your games.

win your games.

Only polls that matter.

Ahh, but if only it were that simple. Its win your games, against teams with high RPI, particularly teams with RPI 1-5. Then, if you lose games, lose games to teams with high RPI.

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:22 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:32 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 11:14 am

RURICK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:57 am The national lacrosse narrative is changing. In order to keep Duke and UNC inside the Top Ten as conference play starts, the pollsters needed to rank OSU obviously but also Jacksonville. As well, it will be interesting to see how this ultimately affects NCAA tourney selections down the road. My prediction is if the BIG, minus PSU, does not have any OOC missteps before conference play, the BIG will get 3 bids, including their auto bid come tourney time. And, if the ACC gets , God forbid, 5 at large bids, all the other conferences will be vying for 1 at large bid. For this reason, and the fact that other conferences' teams are getting better, there needs to be an expansion of the tourney if lacrosse really wants to grow the sport and national interest.

polls don't mean anything. they never have. they never will. save for prior to 2017? when committee members could possibly bring in bias with how they were using the selection criteria. which didn't include polls. since then? it's a computer that selects the teams. rpi. 0s and 1s.

2021 was the only break from that stretch as covid was a crazy year and rutgers was added.

acc is not likely to get 5 teams with the ivy back. tho unless the patriot or big east pick it up, you never know. too early to get a read on the ivy and their at larges may depend on hoo wins the tourney.

it's feb 23. too early to predict anything. even the socon might take a bid at this point.

the tournament doesn't expand until the nc$$ blows up or they change their guidelines for all sports. win your games.

win your games.

Only polls that matter.

Ahh, but if only it were that simple. Its win your games, against teams with high RPI, particularly teams with RPI 1-5. Then, if you lose games, lose games to teams with high RPI.

that was ~2016 and earlier. certainly we could see the committee take 2021 as yet another new opportunity to mix it up going forward.

but if you're looking at the blueprint from 2017, '18 and '19?
record/opp' record/opp' opp' record.

farfromgeneva, what exactly is your objection to expanding the field for the NCAA tourney? Hobart will possibly have a chance to make the tourney, especially after beating mighty Lehigh, lol.

We should have 100% tourney participation! Didn’t figure you for a everyone gets a trophy person.

But that’s besides the point. It’s been discussed a billion times and the fact is the NCAA has a target proportion of participants in a sport that the playoffs should represent and while I can’t recall the exact % it’s around 20%. Lacrosse has been higher than the % for a number of years, by 100-300bps. Look it up or ask a question. Or don’t bother and be yourself and go LOLOLOLOL over and over. Don’t bother with current facts or history.

You are incorrect. I am not a everyone gets a trophy person. In fact, the opposite. I am for getting the best teams in the tourney, regardless of total amount, to assure that the best teams at the time of selection get in the tourney. Early season losses be damned. That is the mantra for the ACC, isn't it? The perfect example is Rutgers basketball this year. they made the tourney last year for the first time in 30 years. At the start of this year, they had to replace 3 starters who elrcted to go elsewhere rather than play for the team that gave them notoriety. Two starters stayed and one of them got injured in the first game of the season. Rutgers was ranked like 90th in the NET to start the season and proceeded to lose four games to inferior, low rated teams while they were searching for a starting lineup. Now, when the conference started, Rutgers found their lineup and became the FIRST UNRANKED team in college basketball history to beat 4 RANKED teams, all in the top 16 inthe country, in succession. Never happened before. There isn't a team in the country that wants to play them in the tourney. Due to the COMPUTER systems established to pick the tourney participants, Rutgers, in spite of having 6 Quad 1 wins, needs to win 2 more games in theregular season to get in the tourney, in my estimation. It's ridiculous. That said, it is the same BS happening in lacrosse. In fact, we AGREE on more than you think. I want a fair system that prohibits the blue bloods from dominating coverage and participants. If lacrosse wants to expand its viewership and GROW the sport like everyone here seems to care about, the rules for participation need to change and i think you would agree. Rules/laws always change. Peace.

Understand why there’s growth and anyone cares-it’s the AQ. Or don’t bother.

farfromgeneva, i am an old guy. Please clarify so i understand what you are attemting to say.

Ok sorry, though I know the expansion of playoffs has been discussed previously while you’ve been around.

The AQ allows for other schools to care enough to have programs competing. That led to the conference hopping you see across all levels-look at the NJAC in D3 in your backyard who’s head W Conn, Wesley, Salisbury, SUNY Cortland/Brockport all come and go. It’s an equal access system. Otherwise lacrosse would be like 25-35 programs in D1 and no one would care at all, even less than they do in the grand scheme of this country already (fastest growth sport is a function of tiny size compared with football/basketball). No Utah, ND, Mich etc. layer in that the NCAA has a defined ratio of playoff participants to programs and we are here.

I’ll be curious to see as sports, conferences, et al
splinter from the NCAAs Iron Curtain - as the disparate
soviets declare their independence.

If this happens in lacrosse, if the NCAA turns into a glorified
though well paid secretary,

then their rules are out the window,
so then, why wouldn’t the DI schools decide to expand the
NCAA tournament number of entries, add some more At Large ?

An SRO allows the schools to have air cover so they can abrogate their own duties. They don’t want to acknowledge that they would prefer to have less and do less. Having a governing body allows them to get what they want and blame the NCAA. How many MAAC/SoCon/CAA/NEC/Big East/Ivy ADs and presidents want to even throw 50 kids on a plane regularly for this sport? The NCAA may be a lot of bad things but it’s a reflection of what it’s member presidents want.

I question whether the NCAA is a reflection anymore. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out there

OCanada wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 3:54 pm I question whether the NCAA is a reflection anymore. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out there

University presidents could change it. If they wanted to. They don't.

There sre a lot of issues percolating. I believe the NCAA will change a lot in the next five years. It is a very complex organization and its issues reflect it eg state laws, tax laws, alumni relations, existing contracts eg TV and revenue splits, It will be interesting

And maybe one day the AQ won’t exist but that will reduce not grow participation arrows all sports.

Forum Polls due on Monday at noon EST. If you're not already a poll-er, let me know if you want to be a poll-er.

Here's a link for the poll-ers: https://fanlax.com/2022/02/20/fanlax-fo ... -d1-men-2/.

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 9:03 am There sre a lot of issues percolating. I believe the NCAA will change a lot in the next five years. It is a very complex organization and its issues reflect it eg state laws, tax laws, alumni relations, existing contracts eg TV and revenue splits, It will be interesting

Hard to keep track of who they're screwing over and paying off?

"Can't watch your wife and your outside womens too"



or, for the originalists out there

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 9:03 am There sre a lot of issues percolating. I believe the NCAA will change a lot in the next five years. It is a very complex organization and its issues reflect it eg state laws, tax laws, alumni relations, existing contracts eg TV and revenue splits, It will be interesting

Too complex,

“The NCAA Cartel, Monopsonistic Restrictions, and Antitrust Policy". The Antitrust Bulletin

10stone5 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:35 pm

OCanada wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 9:03 am There sre a lot of issues percolating. I believe the NCAA will change a lot in the next five years. It is a very complex organization and its issues reflect it eg state laws, tax laws, alumni relations, existing contracts eg TV and revenue splits, It will be interesting

Too complex,

“The NCAA Cartel, Monopsonistic Restrictions, and Antitrust Policy". The Antitrust Bulletin

Sometimes music is more accessible than dry, legal discourse...

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 10:30 am Forum Polls due on Monday at noon EST. If you're not already a poll-er, let me know if you want to be a poll-er.

Here's a link for the poll-ers: https://fanlax.com/2022/02/20/fanlax-fo ... -d1-men-2/.

Polls are due today at noon EST.