Playoff Expansion to 24

[Hawkeye]

I must begin this post by saying that I am not in favor of actually expanding the playoffs to 24 (yet). I don't think the field is quite large enough or deep enough to warrant this expansion at this time. This is a hypothetical of what it would have actually looked like this season.

The idea first came up in the D1 Rankings thread on page 11, here: viewtopic.php?f=118&t=909&start=200

In this post, in particular: https://imgur.com/a/c0938Ob

And here's my shot at what a 24 team bracket would look like for 2019: https://imgur.com/a/b3I1Fbm


I tried to avoid round of 16 conference rematches while also limiting travel, but there wasn't really any way to do that for UNC. 99% sure that Denver to Notre Dame would be the only flight for the first weekend.

[NElaxtalent]

I'd favor going to 20 w/ 4 1st round byes. Adding 3 AL bids would alleviate "very good" teams/seasons getting routinely left out.

Obviously there will always be bubble teams, but Cornell & HPU "should" have been rewarded for their remarkable seasons (but IMHO their resumes are not better than any teams that did qualify)

[Hawkeye]

At 20, Cornell is a no brainer.

Then there are 2 spots left for Denver/Ohio State/UNC/High Point, etc.

I'm still not sure High Point would have gotten in at 20. The committee's selections/ordering of teams this year heavily correlated with RPI, which was not High Point's strong point.

[Big Dog]

sry, any team that is dead last in a conference is not worthy of post-season. (here's looking at you tOSU and Carolina.)

[Hawkeye]

sry, any team that is dead last in a conference is not worthy of post-season. (here's looking at you tOSU and Carolina.)

I generally* agree... but I'm afraid the committee might have had other designs.

* as with any statement, some exceptions may apply

[NElaxtalent]

sry, any team that is dead last in a conference is not worthy of post-season. (here's looking at you tOSU and Carolina.)

Completely agree. I think a .500+ conference record should be a requirement. If over the conference season & tourney you can't post a winning record, then you don't deserve an AL ticket to the National Championship dance.

That would spread AQs a bit more and continue to grow the game as intended.

Plus, it would make every ACC & B1G game a must-see event and increase the value of the regular season games.

[silk]

Totally agree on expansion! Grow the game. Seems like every year the first 2-3 out have very legitimate arguments. 20 with the top 4 seeds getting a play-in winner makes a lot of sense. Keep .500 or above for overall schedule. If it goes to 20, team #21, #22 may start whining but if you are outside the top 20 do you really have a beef?

[Homer]

sry, any team that is dead last in a conference is not worthy of post-season. (here's looking at you tOSU and Carolina.)

You mean like Duke in 2010??

[Hawkeye]

You mean like Duke in 2010??

This is a good example of an exception* to my general agreement above.

Not all conferences are created equally and painting with broad strokes / applying more arbitrary qualifiers for post-season inclusion is not a great idea to me - the .500 overall record or higher for an at-large bid seems fine as it is.

[Wheels]

Hawk...you might be the person to do this.

Question: Are there metrics available to assess the overall quality of conferences/Divisions from year to year?

If I'm thinking about expansion and see that more teams make the lacrosse tournament already compared to basketball, what becomes more important to my thinking is whether or not all teams have gotten good enough to merit additional teams into the tournament.

Like, five years ago, was Division 1 lacrosse relatively worse, better, or the same as it is now? I think intuitively we believe that the game has gotten better. But for expansion to a larger field, I think there'd need to be a "higher quality" argument to merit adding even 3 more teams let alone 7.

So are there metrics that allow us to compare overall quality year-to-year? Would it be ELO rankings?

[Hawkeye]

Hawk...you might be the person to do this.

So are there metrics that allow us to compare overall quality year-to-year? Would it be ELO rankings?

This honestly would probably be better aimed at admin, laxreference, or CU77. They are deeper into the nitty gritty of the formulas than I am. I know that the NCAA has conference rankings (pretty sure they are linked to RPI) for each season, but that's not really what you're looking for.

My gut feeling is that ELO would not be the greatest tool for this, in that it is a zero sum kind of system. Based on what I know of ELO, you're inherently comparing each team to the rest of the field at that time. While it is possible to compare teams across years using ELO, you're not really directly comparing how good those two teams were in relation to each other, but rather comparing how good they were to the rest of the field during their respective seasons/eras. This distinction would become more pronounced the farther removed (in terms of time) the two teams you were comparing to each other were.

^ at least that is my understanding of it. One of the folks that I mentioned above may totally tell me I'm wrong on that one.

Sorry I'm not more help here. It is a good question, and I hope someone can help us out with an answer, because I'd like to see that too.

[TheBigIguana]

I think the people in here know this but expansion of the tournament only happens through the expansion of the number of total teams. I don't know exactly what the percentage they want it but it's around 20-25% So 20 teams won't happen until their are close to 80 total teams and 24 will require closer to 100. The women's bracket is 30 teams of about 120 for example. There are two new teams next year so maybe adding an 18th team is possible.

[Hawkeye]

I think the people in here know this but expansion of the tournament only happens through the expansion of the number of total teams. I don't know exactly what the percentage they want it but it's around 20-25% So 20 teams won't happen until their are close to 80 total teams and 24 will require closer to 100. The women's bracket is 30 teams of about 120 for example. There are two new teams next year so maybe adding an 18th team is possible.

I couldn't find the numbers for 2003 when the tournament actually expanded to 16, but in 2004 there were 54 D1 teams. I don't imagine 2003 was more than a couple different one way or the other. 16/54 = 29.6%

That's a guideline at the time of last expansion.

[TheBigIguana]

I think the people in here know this but expansion of the tournament only happens through the expansion of the number of total teams. I don't know exactly what the percentage they want it but it's around 20-25% So 20 teams won't happen until their are close to 80 total teams and 24 will require closer to 100. The women's bracket is 30 teams of about 120 for example. There are two new teams next year so maybe adding an 18th team is possible.

I couldn't find the numbers for 2003 when the tournament actually expanded to 16, but in 2004 there were 54 D1 teams. I don't imagine 2003 was more than a couple different one way or the other. 16/54 = 29.6%

That's a guideline at the time of last expansion.

My best guess is if they hit 80 teams it goes to 20 possibly. If the ACC gets an auto bid again it'll go to 18 which is a good number for now imo. Cornell making it O agree with this year everyone else had major flaws in their resume.

[Homer]

I couldn't find the numbers for 2003 when the tournament actually expanded to 16, but in 2004 there were 54 D1 teams. I don't imagine 2003 was more than a couple different one way or the other. 16/54 = 29.6%

That's a guideline at the time of last expansion.

In Starsia's recent piece on the subject (https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ment/54403), he suggests the increase from 12 to 16 was considered something of a longshot at the time and a pleasant surprise that the NCAA actually went for it. There's an unstated implication that it may have specifically been a response to the mlax committee's decision to move to an AQ model.

So in one sense it's a precedent, but not one that necessarily suggests such an expansion would be the normal order of business, absent some other major restructuring in the way teams are selected etc.

[ICGrad]

I couldn't find the numbers for 2003 when the tournament actually expanded to 16, but in 2004 there were 54 D1 teams. I don't imagine 2003 was more than a couple different one way or the other. 16/54 = 29.6%

That's a guideline at the time of last expansion.

In Starsia's recent piece on the subject (https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ment/54403), he suggests the increase from 12 to 16 was considered something of a longshot at the time and a pleasant surprise that the NCAA actually went for it. There's an unstated implication that it may have specifically been a response to the mlax committee's decision to move to an AQ model.

Yes, it does seem related to a combination of total # of teams and total # of AQs. Didn't the tourney recently go from 18 (with two play-in games) to 17 (with one) in response to the ACC dropping to 5 teams and losing their AQ? Total # of teams stayed the same (or at least didn't decrease), so I'm pretty sure it was the loss of that one AQ.

Kind of ironic, when you consider that the ACC routinely gets 4 teams in with or without the AQ.

[HooDat]

You mean like Duke in 2010??

This is a good example of an exception* to my general agreement above.

Not all conferences are created equally and painting with broad strokes / applying more arbitrary qualifiers for post-season inclusion is not a great idea to me - the .500 overall record or higher for an at-large bid seems fine as it is.

and this is how we end up with the mess that is the NCAA Lax tournament....

I would argue for a smaller pool - one team from every conference, plus 2 at large bids. Give the ACC an AQ because they are the ACC gets you to 10 + 2 = 12 total teams. Four first round byes for the "top dogs" of the season and off you go.

You want to dance ?? Win your conference.

You play in the ACC?? - better be REAL good!

The at large bids should be a complete "black box" decision. The committee can pick who they want for any reason they want and not ever explain why or how.

[Wheels]

In Starsia's recent piece on the subject (https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ment/54403), he suggests the increase from 12 to 16 was considered something of a longshot at the time and a pleasant surprise that the NCAA actually went for it. There's an unstated implication that it may have specifically been a response to the mlax committee's decision to move to an AQ model.

So in one sense it's a precedent, but not one that necessarily suggests such an expansion would be the normal order of business, absent some other major restructuring in the way teams are selected etc.

What was also awesome about Starsia's piece (and an accompanying tweet) is that he flamed former Maryland AD, Debbie Yow. Dude kept the receipts from years ago in the form of a letter she wrote him and then posted a picture of the letter. So awesome. And just as she was taking her bows from leaving NC State. Immediately endeared himself to Terp fans across the globe.

But I digress...

[Hawkeye]

I would argue for a smaller pool - one team from every conference, plus 2 at large bids. Give the ACC an AQ because they are the ACC gets you to 10 + 2 = 12 total teams. Four first round byes for the "top dogs" of the season and off you go.

This structure would require a re-write of the NCAA bylaws regarding post-season tournaments (which effect/control almost all team sports) or the introduction of a lacrosse-specific bylaw (seems unlikely).

[Hawkeye]

Yes, it does seem related to a combination of total # of teams and total # of AQs. Didn't the tourney recently go from 18 (with two play-in games) to 17 (with one) in response to the ACC dropping to 5 teams and losing their AQ? Total # of teams stayed the same (or at least didn't decrease), so I'm pretty sure it was the loss of that one AQ.

Kind of ironic, when you consider that the ACC routinely gets 4 teams in with or without the AQ.

Yes, this is correct. The technical number of teams in the tournament has been 16 since 2003, irrespective of play-in games.

However, all AQ champions (however many there are) are guaranteed a chance to chase 8 AQ bids into the dance. When the ACC had their AQ, there were 10 AQs for 8 AQ bids... so 2 play-in games.

BUT, like you mentioned, the ACC champion is going to be in as an at-large 99.9% of the time, anyway. So effectively what the loss of the ACC AQ did was take away an at-large bid, not an AQ.