LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Who is on the selection committee this year? Could not google an accurate answer. Curious because recent years have had active coaches with seeding interests that always seem to go in their favor. Just seems a little bit like Russian elections.

Donna Woodruff, chair
Assistant Vice President and Director of Athletics
Loyola University Maryland

Jordan Skolnick
Deputy Director of Athletics
University of Delaware

Brandon Macneill
Deputy Director of Athletics and Chief Revenue Officer
University of Denver

Gregory Raymond
Head Men’s Lacrosse Coach
Hobart College

Joe Breschi
Head Men’s Lacrosse Coach

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/champi ... Manual.pdf

obviously, a lot depends on tournament upsets, but it will be interesting to see if Carolina gets a bid, with its current #17 RPI (per laxpower)

Yeah, yeah, a coach steps out of the room when his/her team is being discussed. (wink-wink)

Big Dog wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:57 pm obviously, a lot depends on tournament upsets, but it will be interesting to see if Carolina gets a bid, with its current #17 RPI (per laxpower)

Yeah, yeah, a coach steps out of the room when his/her team is being discussed. (wink-wink)

Hasn’t Breschi been on the committee previously?

Committe top 10 as of 4/28 (announced at halftime of Harvard Yale on ESPNU):

1. Maryland
2. Georgetown
3. Princeton
4. Yale
5. Rutgers
6. Brown
7. Virginia
8. Penn
9. Cornell
10. Ohio State

Can someone explain to me why coaches are allowed on the committee? Especially ones who coach teams that are regular participants in the tournament?

Harvard wins today and you gotta think they’re in the field. Lose and probably don’t have enough

NYterp09 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:09 pm Can someone explain to me why coaches are allowed on the committee? Especially ones who coach teams that are regular participants in the tournament?

That list is close enough to RPI that they should just use RPI. Hockey has done this (essentially: they have a mathematical formula that's slightly different) for decades, and everyone is fine with it.

If an eye test is not going to be applied, what use are coaches? What use are assistant ADs? Just pick a formula and apply it. Then there can't be any suspicions of bias.

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:14 pm

NYterp09 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:09 pm Can someone explain to me why coaches are allowed on the committee? Especially ones who coach teams that are regular participants in the tournament?

That list is close enough to RPI that they should just use RPI. Hockey has done this (essentially: they have a mathematical formula that's slightly different) for decades, and everyone is fine with it.

If an eye test is not going to be applied, what use are coaches? What use are assistant ADs? Just pick a formula and apply it. Then there can't be any suspicions of bias.

Princeton’s RPI is still 2. Do you give a four loss team that did not make their conference tournament a #2 seed?

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:11 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:14 pm

NYterp09 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:09 pm Can someone explain to me why coaches are allowed on the committee? Especially ones who coach teams that are regular participants in the tournament?

That list is close enough to RPI that they should just use RPI. Hockey has done this (essentially: they have a mathematical formula that's slightly different) for decades, and everyone is fine with it.

If an eye test is not going to be applied, what use are coaches? What use are assistant ADs? Just pick a formula and apply it. Then there can't be any suspicions of bias.

Princeton’s RPI is still 2. Do you give a four loss team that did not make their conference tournament a #2 seed?

They’re 3-1 against the rest of the RPI top 5.

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:09 pm Harvard wins today and you gotta think they’re in the field. Lose and probably don’t have enough

odds are out, under a couple of adverse scenarios, but things could definitely break their way.

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:11 pm Princeton’s RPI is still 2. Do you give a four loss team that did not make their conference tournament a #2 seed?

"Making conference tournament" is not a selection criterion. Strength-of-schedule is, and Princeton's is #1. Head-to-head is another, and Princeton beat Georgetown.

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:11 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:14 pm

NYterp09 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:09 pm Can someone explain to me why coaches are allowed on the committee? Especially ones who coach teams that are regular participants in the tournament?

That list is close enough to RPI that they should just use RPI. Hockey has done this (essentially: they have a mathematical formula that's slightly different) for decades, and everyone is fine with it.

If an eye test is not going to be applied, what use are coaches? What use are assistant ADs? Just pick a formula and apply it. Then there can't be any suspicions of bias.

Princeton’s RPI is still 2. Do you give a four loss team that did not make their conference tournament a #2 seed?

My gut says no, but I am not sure what the historical methodology has been for seeding.

I'll be surprised if a 9-4 Princeton team garners a two seed, but stranger things have happened.

CU77 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:32 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:11 pm Princeton’s RPI is still 2. Do you give a four loss team that did not make their conference tournament a #2 seed?

"Making conference tournament" is not a selection criterion. Strength-of-schedule is, and Princeton's is #1. Head-to-head is another, and Princeton beat Georgetown.

Selection criteria is whatever the committee wants it to be. While LAFs formula has been incredibly successful in predicting who gets an invite, it does not apply to seeding.

Carc and Anish are embarrassing themselves on this broadcast trying to twist every narrative to prop up the ACC.

Anish is unable to grasp the basic premise that Jacksonville can drop even without a loss because other teams (see: Brown) have beaten quality competition whilst they stood still. If ND had taken Jacksonville's spot in the committee top 10 rather than Brown I doubt he'd be complaining. It's not the RPI's fault that they played a cupcake schedule, nor is it necessarily a SoCon issue: Richmond and High Point have much greater SOS and it's reflected in their rankings.

As for Carc, this lobbying for an "eye test" is inane and bad for the sport. Duke and ND can pass the eye test, but who is Carc saying should be dropped based on the eye test? The Penn team that beat Duke and has no bad losses? The Brown team that beat Penn, Yale, and Cornell all in a row? Frankly what my eyes are telling me in this game is that ND doesn't look much better than Syracuse. Carc says they have all these pieces all over the field, and really all I see are two: Kavanagh and Entemann.

Man… Carc is delusional. He just speculated that ND would more likely be a 6 or 7 seed, rather than a 2 or 3.

Anish had to reel him in… “Notre Dame is not going to be seeded.”

MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 2:09 pm Man… Carc is delusional. He just speculated that ND would more likely be a 6 or 7 seed, rather than a 2 or 3.

Anish had to reel him in… “Notre Dame is not going to be seeded.”

It's no surprise given ESPN owns ACCN, and both Anish and Carc are SU guys. 5 or more Ivys in the tournament (vs 1 ACC) isn't good for their business, so...they're talking their book.

It wouldn't surprise me to see an 8-4 Notre Dame team seeded. Three of the Ivies are going to absorb losses in the ILT, as will 3 BIGS (likely to include Rutgers, and OSU). Regardless, whoever plays the Irish in round 1 of the tourney is likely to have their hands full regardless of whether the Golden Domers are seeded or not.

Do seedings for the Ivy teams really matter ?
If all 5 get a home game, a seeding, then they won’t
meet again until the quarterfinals.
But the Ivy teams will have to get past each other for how
ever many to make it to the semi’s.