2021 Bracketology

[rrlbees]

And people talk about the basketball selection committee.

 

[fieldystick]

How about why Loyola over Army?

If you saw my final bracket and the analysis that went with it, I had this comparison for the one as for the last spot (and I obviously also agree this was the actual debate). And I can answer why pretty confidently here: it's because the committee valued the Georgetown win much more highly than they did the Syracuse win - while I think they were about equal in value. These were my ramblings from Sunday morning on the last spot.

-

This is probably my last post in the thread/on the forum for the year because it ultimately doesn't matter anymore and not worth getting worked up. After a night of sleeping on it, I have one question that I would lob at the committee (and I have a feeling that they'd squirm over it).

Note before we begin: Margin of victory/defeat is not supposed to matter/be a criterion for the committee to consider. Full stop.

So my parting question is this: Had Syracuse lost by a close margin in the final ACC game against Notre Dame instead of getting embarrassed, how would Syracuse be seeded/evaluated? Syracuse would have ended the season on this run: beating #4 seed Virginia, a close loss to #5/#6 Notre Dame, and a win over RoMo. I'd bet money that Syracuse is either a seed or maybe the first team unseeded ("9th") had this happened.

So the committee dropped Syracuse from 7th - "9th" kind of range to ~12th because of how they lost in a single game (not that SU lost, mind you). That is completely nonsensical.

 

[Zack80]

Yeah the quote from the Chairman about how they didn't have any wins over a winning team but based on other coaches opinions who said well we think they're pretty good. I mean I do think Rutgers is a pretty good team that probably got screwed by not getting to play outside of their conference but that's the B10's fault and shouldn't just be forgotten.

Of course it is the ACC's choice not to add a 6th team - and thus the 1st place ACC team doesn't get an AQ and has to use up an at-large bid.

 

[DoctahLexus]

If you saw my final bracket and the analysis that went with it, I had this comparison for the one as for the last spot (and I obviously also agree this was the actual debate). And I can answer why pretty confidently here: it's because the committee valued the Georgetown win much more highly than they did the Syracuse win - while I think they were about equal in value. These were my ramblings from Sunday morning on the last spot. View attachment 200940


-

This is probably my last post in the thread/on the forum for the year because it ultimately doesn't matter anymore and not worth getting worked up. After a night of sleeping on it, I have one question that I would lob at the committee (and I have a feeling that they'd squirm over it).

Note before we begin: Margin of victory/defeat is not supposed to matter/be a criterion for the committee to consider. Full stop.

So my parting question is this: Had Syracuse lost by a close margin in the final ACC game against Notre Dame instead of getting embarrassed, how would Syracuse be seeded/evaluated? Syracuse would have ended the season on this run: beating #4 seed Virginia, a close loss to #5/#6 Notre Dame, and a win over RoMo. I'd bet money that Syracuse is either a seed or maybe the first team unseeded ("9th") had this happened.

So the committee dropped Syracuse from 7th - "9th" kind of range to ~12th because of how they lost in a single game (not that SU lost, mind you). That is completely nonsensical.

Thank you for stopping by. I learned a lot from your analysis. Amazing how far removed it is from the loud complainers on social media! One small question if you feel like answering: Do you think MD was penalized for beating a 4-8 Hop team by a small margin twice late in the season, similar to how we were penalized for losing games by a large margin?

 

[MD Cuse Fan]

Of course it is the ACC's choice not to add a 6th team - and thus the 1st place ACC team doesn't get an AQ and has to use up an at-large bid.

Honestly I don't know how hard or not the league has been working to add a 6th team. I think the truth is the ACC doesn't need to rely on an AQ because it's always one of the top conferences. Again they had 6 once upon a time until Maryland had to bail because their athletic department wasn't run as well as it should have been. Zach I'm sure you've embraced the move but it's funny to me how hard Maryland fans on other forums are defending Rutgers. I still think the Terps are a top team this season even if their conference is mostly a lot of meh.

 

[fieldystick]

Thank you for stopping by. I learned a lot from your analysis. Amazing how far removed it is from the loud complainers on social media! One small question if you feel like answering: Do you think MD was penalized for beating a 4-8 Hop team by a small margin twice late in the season, similar to how we were penalized for losing games by a large margin?

Thanks! I know that parts of my projections ended up being badly off of what the committee actually came up with this year, but I think ultimately all of it can be traced back to one thing: my evaluation of Syracuse being so markedly different than theirs poisoned certain things in my projection. I will try to do better next year, and I sincerely hope this eye test nonsense is not present to the degree that it was this year.

And yes, I think the two close Hopkins wins are part of the the justification used to reach the ends they wanted: to split the top four ACC teams into different quadrants of the bracket. After looking at and thinking about it more last night and into this morning, I think that's the most likely explanation of Maryland at #3 and particularly Notre Dame at #6 behind Georgetown.

The Big Ten this year was so different from how any other top-level conference has ever operated - even win-loss records had no real connection with the rest of D1 or the "realities" of past seasons - that you can pretty much argue whatever you wanted (within reason) about how they should have been evaluated/seeded, and I couldn't tell you that you were wrong... because we were all guessing. To put Rutgers in at effectively #9, though, tells me that they did evaluate the Big Ten overall positively... which begs the question of why Maryland is at #3... (and back to my predicted answer above). The only other explanation that I can see beyond the cynical one of that they were trying to split the top 4 ACC teams is this: the committee saw a massive gap in the tiers of the ACC teams that looked like this:

UNC/Duke
(big gap)
UVA/UND
(big gap)
Syracuse

And Maryland, despite how positively they viewed Rutgers and probably thus the Big Ten as a whole, happened to fall in the gap between UNC/Duke and Virginia. Since no team in the ACC finished better than 4-2 and none finished worse than 2-4, I'd argue that those gaps did not exist. I think the ACC actually looked more like this:

UNC/Duke
(small gap)
UVA/UND/ ... Syracuse - with Syracuse in this tier but sort of hanging off the back of it.

To me, the cynical answer is the one that makes the most sense. To have penalized Maryland for how they played against a 4-9 Hopkins team - whose 4-9 record I'd argue is nothing like a 4-9 record posted by any team in a regular season - while seemingly overall evaluating that conference as a whole positively, is asinine, in my opinion. Most of you probably know that I am a Hopkins fan, and they are the team that I know the most about. Ask any of the 8 coaches of the 8 seeded teams if they would replace their actual opponent with Hopkins if they could. I think you'd be hard pressed to get more than 1 or 2 bites on that offer. Yet Maryland probably gets penalized on the basis of close wins against this same team... please.

So my ultimate answer, boiled down to one sentence: I think their play versus Hopkins would be a reason they cited for putting Maryland third, but I think the actual answer for why Maryland is #3 is something else.

(A note about above: Do not think I am in any way saying Hopkins deserves a tournament berth. Hopkins does not even remotely deserve to be in that discussion; we had our chance and lost. I think justifying the penalizing of Maryland for "only just" barely beating what - in my opinion - was clearly the second best team in the Big Ten at the end of the season is nonsense.)

 

[longtimefan]

I'll answer my own question: "Why Rutgers?"

The committee was in no way going to have 3 teams from the Patriot and only 1 from the B1G. So they settled for 2 from each.

Would they have accepted 3 PL and 2 B1G? Maybe. And that means SU was in much more jeopardy than we on this board had imagined.

I hope the Orange somehow gets its act together and squeezes into the Final Four. That would shut up a lot of yapping traps.

 

[ctlax]

After this Scanlon mess maybe SU can make a run at it. Like UVA did when they dropped the Brattons.

 

[DoctahLexus]

Thanks! I know that parts of my projections ended up being badly off of what the committee actually came up with this year, but I think ultimately all of it can be traced back to one thing: my evaluation of Syracuse being so markedly different than theirs poisoned certain things in my projection. I will try to do better next year, and I sincerely hope this eye test nonsense is not present to the degree that it was this year.

And yes, I think the two close Hopkins wins are part of the the justification used to reach the ends they wanted: to split the top four ACC teams into different quadrants of the bracket. After looking at and thinking about it more last night and into this morning, I think that's the most likely explanation of Maryland at #3 and particularly Notre Dame at #6 behind Georgetown.

The Big Ten this year was so different from how any other top-level conference has ever operated - even win-loss records had no real connection with the rest of D1 or the "realities" of past seasons - that you can pretty much argue whatever you wanted (within reason) about how they should have been evaluated/seeded, and I couldn't tell you that you were wrong... because we were all guessing. To put Rutgers in at effectively #9, though, tells me that they did evaluate the Big Ten overall positively... which begs the question of why Maryland is at #3... (and back to my predicted answer above). The only other explanation that I can see beyond the cynical one of that they were trying to split the top 4 ACC teams is this: the committee saw a massive gap in the tiers of the ACC teams that looked like this:

UNC/Duke
(big gap)
UVA/UND
(big gap)
Syracuse

And Maryland, despite how positively they viewed Rutgers and probably thus the Big Ten as a whole, happened to fall in the gap between UNC/Duke and Virginia. Since no team in the ACC finished better than 4-2 and none finished worse than 2-4, I'd argue that those gaps did not exist. I think the ACC actually looked more like this:

UNC/Duke
(small gap)
UVA/UND/ ... Syracuse - with Syracuse in this tier but sort of hanging off the back of it.

To me, the cynical answer is the one that makes the most sense. To have penalized Maryland for how they played against a 4-9 Hopkins team - whose 4-9 record I'd argue is nothing like a 4-9 record posted by any team in a regular season - while seemingly overall evaluating that conference as a whole positively, is asinine, in my opinion. Most of you probably know that I am a Hopkins fan, and they are the team that I know the most about. Ask any of the 8 coaches of the 8 seeded teams if they would replace their actual opponent with Hopkins if they could. I think you'd be hard pressed to get more than 1 or 2 bites on that offer. Yet Maryland probably gets penalized on the basis of close wins against this same team... please.

So my ultimate answer, boiled down to one sentence: I think their play versus Hopkins would be a reason they cited for putting Maryland third, but I think the actual answer for why Maryland is #3 is something else.

(A note about above: Do not think I am in any way saying Hopkins deserves a tournament berth. Hopkins does not even remotely deserve to be in that discussion; we had our chance and lost. I think justifying the penalizing of Maryland for "only just" barely beating what - in my opinion - was clearly the second best team in the Big Ten at the end of the season is nonsense.)

Thank you for your thoughts sir!

 

[orange79]

This is probably my last post in the thread/on the forum for the year because it ultimately doesn't matter anymore and not worth getting worked up. After a night of sleeping on it, I have one question that I would lob at the committee (and I have a feeling that they'd squirm over it).

Stop back if you want to talk some lax. Don't be a stranger.

Thanks for your insights!

 

[Zack80]

Honestly I don't know how hard or not the league has been working to add a 6th team. I think the truth is the ACC doesn't need to rely on an AQ because it's always one of the top conferences. Again they had 6 once upon a time until Maryland had to bail because their athletic department wasn't run as well as it should have been. Zach I'm sure you've embraced the move but it's funny to me how hard Maryland fans on other forums are defending Rutgers. I still think the Terps are a top team this season even if their conference is mostly a lot of meh.

The way I look at it. The Big Ten and the rest of D1 did not play and thus their numbers are not related to each other - they are two separate entities. The Big Ten usually gets 2 or 3 teams into the tournament even with the Ivy League around. There is actually no reason to believe the Big Ten is any worse than in any other season - as they haven't played anyone else. Maryland and Rutgers dominated the league, separating themselves from the rest. It seems to me to be fairly clear that Maryland and Rutgers should be selected.

I don't really root for Rutgers, but it seems to me they are being unfairly maligned. Further fans are using the same sort of reasoning to rip the Terps.

I tend to use the Coaches Poll and believe it is the best of the rankings, and they currently have Rutgers at #9.

Anyways, I don't know that Syracuse fans should be throwing stones. Syracuse has 4 blow out losses, that is 1/3 of your games. Notable Syracuse fans are calling for the coach to be laid off...

 

[longtimefan]

The way I look at it. The Big Ten and the rest of D1 did not play and thus their numbers are not related to each other - they are two separate entities. The Big Ten usually gets 2 or 3 teams into the tournament even with the Ivy League around. There is actually no reason to believe the Big Ten is any worse than in any other season - as they haven't played anyone else. Maryland and Rutgers dominated the league, separating themselves from the rest. It seems to me to be fairly clear that Maryland and Rutgers should be selected.

I don't really root for Rutgers, but it seems to me they are being unfairly maligned. Further fans are using the same sort of reasoning to rip the Terps.

I tend to use the Coaches Poll and believe it is the best of the rankings, and they currently have Rutgers at #9.

Anyways, I don't know that Syracuse fans should be throwing stones. Syracuse has 4 blow out losses, that is 1/3 of your games. Notable Syracuse fans are calling for the coach to be laid off...

And, you seem to be less than a friendly visitor at present.

 

[orange79]

The way I look at it. The Big Ten and the rest of D1 did not play and thus their numbers are not related to each other - they are two separate entities. The Big Ten usually gets 2 or 3 teams into the tournament even with the Ivy League around. There is actually no reason to believe the Big Ten is any worse than in any other season - as they haven't played anyone else. Maryland and Rutgers dominated the league, separating themselves from the rest. It seems to me to be fairly clear that Maryland and Rutgers should be selected.

I don't really root for Rutgers, but it seems to me they are being unfairly maligned. Further fans are using the same sort of reasoning to rip the Terps.

I tend to use the Coaches Poll and believe it is the best of the rankings, and they currently have Rutgers at #9.

Anyways, I don't know that Syracuse fans should be throwing stones. Syracuse has 4 blow out losses, that is 1/3 of your games. Notable Syracuse fans are calling for the coach to be laid off...

Rumor has it Syracuse has beaten some teams with winning records.

Rutgers should try it.

 

[JeremyCuse]

The way I look at it. The Big Ten and the rest of D1 did not play and thus their numbers are not related to each other - they are two separate entities. The Big Ten usually gets 2 or 3 teams into the tournament even with the Ivy League around. There is actually no reason to believe the Big Ten is any worse than in any other season - as they haven't played anyone else. Maryland and Rutgers dominated the league, separating themselves from the rest. It seems to me to be fairly clear that Maryland and Rutgers should be selected.

I don't really root for Rutgers, but it seems to me they are being unfairly maligned. Further fans are using the same sort of reasoning to rip the Terps.

I tend to use the Coaches Poll and believe it is the best of the rankings, and they currently have Rutgers at #9.

Anyways, I don't know that Syracuse fans should be throwing stones. Syracuse has 4 blow out losses, that is 1/3 of your games. Notable Syracuse fans are calling for the coach to be laid off...

I am not sure that Rutgers is being fairly maligned to be honest. Most posters like myself thought RU should have been invited but at the potential expense of SU, no. 4 blowout losses are bad, it's clear this SU team has major flaws but they still have wins that Rutgers can't even come close to matching. Yes they went 8-2 or whatever it was in the B10, but they lost both games to Maryland and the best win was what a sweep of 4-9 Hop or 4-7 Ohio State who looked like they just discovered the game has an offensive component this January judging by some of the games I watched. I mean its hard to get all pumped up for Rutgers when the best win they have all year came against a team with 4 wins. Comparing their resume to Syracuse's is a joke, it's not even close. Forget the two UVA wins, Vermont and Albany are better then any win they have.

It was clear that Maryland was the cream of the B10 but the B10 overall seemed down and down considerably. I mean it wasn't like Maryland was just finding away to get by in hard fought games like Duke was in the ACC, in most games the game was over at half. Irregardless assuming Rutty can survive winning 15% of the faceoffs against Lehigh we will get a clear picture of how good the B10 was when they play UNC.

 

[JeremyCuse]

The way I look at it. The Big Ten and the rest of D1 did not play and thus their numbers are not related to each other - they are two separate entities. The Big Ten usually gets 2 or 3 teams into the tournament even with the Ivy League around. There is actually no reason to believe the Big Ten is any worse than in any other season - as they haven't played anyone else. Maryland and Rutgers dominated the league, separating themselves from the rest. It seems to me to be fairly clear that Maryland and Rutgers should be selected.

I don't really root for Rutgers, but it seems to me they are being unfairly maligned. Further fans are using the same sort of reasoning to rip the Terps.

I tend to use the Coaches Poll and believe it is the best of the rankings, and they currently have Rutgers at #9.

Anyways, I don't know that Syracuse fans should be throwing stones. Syracuse has 4 blow out losses, that is 1/3 of your games. Notable Syracuse fans are calling for the coach to be laid off...

Again the lack of knowledge from RU Fans is absolutely stunning.

https://rutgers.forums.r ivals.com/threads/rutgers-mlax-makes-the-2021-ncaa-tournament.217508/

 

[orange79]

Again the lack of knowledge from RU Fans is absolutely stunning.

https://rutgers.forums.r ivals.com/threads/rutgers-mlax-makes-the-2021-ncaa-tournament.217508/

lol

Who knew Rutgers lacrosse had their own RutgersAl(s)?

 

[JeremyCuse]

lol

Who knew Rutgers lacrosse had their own RutgersAl(s)? View attachment 200964

Most aside from a few who are knowledgeable appear new to the sport and it shows in their comments. The fact that can't figure out why SU got in and others thought RU was on the bubble is hilarious but hey when its been 18 years since your last tourney invite I guess your allowed some over the top stuff. They should soak it in because its back to reality next year when they lose the entire starting attack plus Kirst the goalie and several others.

 

[ivorytower]

Stop the insanity. Happy for the NJ team, Charambides, the Kirst and Kim brothers, the Bridgewater players etc. Rooting for them to beat Pa. comp. . Save barbs for next year when we hopefully schedule them again after they gather a few more of ours in the offseason.

 

[Hoo's That]

How about why Loyola over Army?

Loyola beat Army in the PL semis.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Stop the insanity. Happy for the NJ team, Charambides, the Kirst and Kim brothers, the Bridgewater players etc. Rooting for them to beat Pa. comp. . Save barbs for next year when we hopefully schedule them again after they gather a few more of ours in the offseason.

I love ya IT, but we never root for Rutgers. Go mountain hawks!

 

[Zack80]

I am not sure that Rutgers is being fairly maligned to be honest. Most posters like myself thought RU should have been invited but at the potential expense of SU, no. 4 blowout losses are bad, it's clear this SU team has major flaws but they still have wins that Rutgers can't even come close to matching. Yes they went 8-2 or whatever it was in the B10, but they lost both games to Maryland and the best win was what a sweep of 4-9 Hop or 4-7 Ohio State who looked like they just discovered the game has an offensive component this January judging by some of the games I watched. I mean its hard to get all pumped up for Rutgers when the best win they have all year came against a team with 4 wins. Comparing their resume to Syracuse's is a joke, it's not even close. Forget the two UVA wins, Vermont and Albany are better then any win they have.

It was clear that Maryland was the cream of the B10 but the B10 overall seemed down and down considerably. I mean it wasn't like Maryland was just finding away to get by in hard fought games like Duke was in the ACC, in most games the game was over at half. Irregardless assuming Rutty can survive winning 15% of the faceoffs against Lehigh we will get a clear picture of how good the B10 was when they play UNC.

The coaches poll has Rutgers at #9 and Syracuse at #11.
We'll have to see how Syracuse does against Georgetown too.

 

[JeremyCuse]

The coaches poll has Rutgers at #9 and Syracuse at #11.
We'll have to see how Syracuse does against Georgetown too.

The coaches poll is as much of a barometer as a poll on this board. The coaches poll had Towson as #1 years ago and they got the sixth seed.

If were talking about resumes to get in I am not sure what the outcome of the 1st round game means to be honest. If RU beats Lehigh and UNC then I guess your point is valid but SU's performance is essentially irrelevant.

 

[HtownOrange]

The way I look at it. The Big Ten and the rest of D1 did not play and thus their numbers are not related to each other - they are two separate entities. The Big Ten usually gets 2 or 3 teams into the tournament even with the Ivy League around. There is actually no reason to believe the Big Ten is any worse than in any other season - as they haven't played anyone else. Maryland and Rutgers dominated the league, separating themselves from the rest. It seems to me to be fairly clear that Maryland and Rutgers should be selected.

I don't really root for Rutgers, but it seems to me they are being unfairly maligned. Further fans are using the same sort of reasoning to rip the Terps.

I tend to use the Coaches Poll and believe it is the best of the rankings, and they currently have Rutgers at #9.

Anyways, I don't know that Syracuse fans should be throwing stones. Syracuse has 4 blow out losses, that is 1/3 of your games. Notable Syracuse fans are calling for the coach to be laid off...

Rutgers fans have a rather over inflated respect for their athletic prowess. History shows otherwise. This applies to all sports. There are some fans who try to be honest about comparisons but most are clueless or simply full of hatred.

Rutgers fans hate SU. We don't care, we find it amusing. Give it time, you will see, they hate everyone. In time you will discover that Rutgers sees themselves dominating the B1G. Historically they have done nothing but you, too, will be amused. Annoyed at times, but mostly amused at their systemic incompetence, lack of business sense (I e. More than half a billion in the red between AD expenditures and revenue over the past 20 years with no hope of paying it back), and athletic prowess for over-hyped athletes. Don't take our word for it, just sit back, grab some popcorn, follow their fan site, and enjoy the show.

Rutgers fans are faithful to their teams, ad all fans should be. Few are reasoned in sports and less have knowledge of the sports they watch and the histories related to the games. This can be very amusing and highly annoying. Which explains how they view themselves much better because they lost twice to the conference champion and feel disrespected because nobody cares.

Had they beaten a winning team, their argument would hold more merit and more people would care. Everyone understands the B1G made a stupid decision to limit play to conference teams only. Rutgers truly could the #2 team behind UMD, but they did not play OOC. Every other conference played OOC so there is at least some mechanism to gage their play. If Rutgers beats Lehigh, they will earn some respect. However, their real test will be UNC. Grab your popcorn.

 

[fieldystick]

Had they beaten a winning team, their argument would hold more merit and more people would care. Everyone understands the B1G made a stupid decision to limit play to conference teams only. Rutgers truly could the #2 team behind UMD, but they did not play OOC. Every other conference played OOC so there is at least some mechanism to gage their play. If Rutgers beats Lehigh, they will earn some respect. However, their real test will be UNC. Grab your popcorn.

I seriously didn't realize that there was so much bad blood between Syracuse and Rutgers before I popped in on this board. I knew both of you had been in the Big East for a very long time (in non-lacrosse sports obviously), but I guess I just never really put the two of you together as programs/fanbases that didn't get along.

A thought on Rutgers. You know what team I really saw their profile looking a lot like when I was evaluating teams at the very end? Drexel. - Rutgers fans would probably really hate to hear that comparison.

• 8-2 in a traditionally decently regarded conference, but with no hugely important wins that a team would build a tournament résumé around.
• Usually ranking around 10th (give or take) in the later season coaches' polls
• Either no non-conference games or no non-conference games of note (Lafayette and RoMo)

I'm sure some of you were pretty confused as to why I viewed Drexel so much more positively (effective 10th vs effective 13th) than everyone else who took a shot at a final bracket. This was why.

I felt Drexel and Rutgers had almost identical cases. The difference was Drexel had a conference championship trophy on their mantel, so that part of my "seeding" went 10. Drexel, 11. Rutgers. I felt like if you were going to positively view Rutgers accomplishments/case in a positive light, you had to extend the same to Drexel. Committee had them 9. Rutgers, 10. Loyola, 11. Drexel (if you take their pairings as extended seeding), by the way.

 

[orange79]

I seriously didn't realize that there was so much bad blood between Syracuse and Rutgers before I popped in on this board. I knew both of you had been in the Big East for a very long time (in non-lacrosse sports obviously), but I guess I just never really put the two of you together as programs/fanbases that didn't get along.

A thought on Rutgers. You know what team I really saw their profile looking a lot like when I was evaluating teams at the very end? Drexel. - Rutgers fans would probably really hate to hear that comparison.

• 8-2 in a traditionally decently regarded conference
• Usually ranking around 10th (give or take) in the later season coaches' polls
• Either no-non conference games or no non-conference games of note (Lafayette and RoMo)

I'm sure some of you were pretty confused as to why I viewed Drexel so much more positively (effective 10th vs effective 13th) than everyone else who took a shot at a final bracket. This was why.

I felt Drexel and Rutgers had almost identical cases. The difference was Drexel had a conference championship trophy on their mantel, so that part of my "seeding" went 10. Drexel, 11. Rutgers. I felt like if you were going to positively view Rutgers accomplishments/case in a positive light, you had to extend the same to Drexel. Committee had them 9. Rutgers, 10. Loyola, 11. Drexel (if you take their pairings as extended seeding), by the way.

It's not really bad blood. Rutgers is like the annoying little brother who, when you're trying to make time with the cheerleader, comes up to you and starts picking his nose.

They stepped in *hit when they got their invite to the B1G through no other accomplishment than where they were located.

Let me know when they do something. Anything.