MLax: NCAA Confirms ACC Loss of AQ; Tourney Field Reduced

[burnspbesq]

Background: under NCAA men's lax tournament rules, a comference needs six playing members in order for its champion to receive an automatic bod. The ACC has had only five since Maryland left for the Big Integer. There was a two-year grace period, that has now expired.

There was some talk of the conference being granted a waiver, but the NCAA has now confirmed that no waiver will be granted. The ACC Tournament is reduced to a resume-building exercise. And with one fewer AQ, the NCAA has decided to reduce the tournament field from 18 to 17. There will be only one play-in game on May 10, pitting the champions of the two conferences with the lowest conference RPIs.

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/men-s-di-ncaa-tournament-to-host-only-one-play-in-game-in-2017/48042

[SCMatt33]

Background: under NCAA men's lax tournament rules, a comference needs six playing members in order for its champion to receive an automatic bod. The ACC has had only five since Maryland left for the Big Integer. There was a two-year grace period, that has now expired.

There was some talk of the conference being granted a waiver, but the NCAA has now confirmed that no waiver will be granted. The ACC Tournament is reduced to a resume-building exercise. And with one fewer AQ, the NCAA has decided to reduce the tournament field from 18 to 17. There will be only one play-in game on May 10, pitting the champions of the two conferences with the lowest conference RPIs.

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/men-s-di-ncaa-tournament-to-host-only-one-play-in-game-in-2017/48042

That article makes it seem like the play in participants will be determined by overall body of work, in the same way the field is determined, not simply by conference RPI.

[sagegrouse]

Background: under NCAA men's lax tournament rules, a comference needs six playing members in order for its champion to receive an automatic bod. The ACC has had only five since Maryland left for the Big Integer. There was a two-year grace period, that has now expired.

There was some talk of the conference being granted a waiver, but the NCAA has now confirmed that no waiver will be granted. The ACC Tournament is reduced to a resume-building exercise. And with one fewer AQ, the NCAA has decided to reduce the tournament field from 18 to 17. There will be only one play-in game on May 10, pitting the champions of the two conferences with the lowest conference RPIs.

http://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/men-s-di-ncaa-tournament-to-host-only-one-play-in-game-in-2017/48042

Odd situation for the ACC, given the growth in lacrosse (http://www.boston.com/sponsored/2016/04/12/lax-attack-lacrosse-continues-explode-across-sports-landscape/QEN7fY443eumKIbUfp2FpO/story.html) around the country. For example, fewer than 2,000 secondary schools had teams in 2009 and over 2,500 had teams in 2014. Moreover, over 70 four-year colleges have added lacrosse programs in the past two years.

[TKG]

I remain surprised that BC does not move its men's lacrosse program from a club team to a varsity sport ala Michigan several years ago.

[alteran]

Odd situation for the ACC, given the growth in lacrosse (http://www.boston.com/sponsored/2016/04/12/lax-attack-lacrosse-continues-explode-across-sports-landscape/QEN7fY443eumKIbUfp2FpO/story.html) around the country. For example, fewer than 2,000 secondary schools had teams in 2009 and over 2,500 had teams in 2014. Moreover, over 70 four-year colleges have added lacrosse programs in the past two years.

Okay, the rules are the rules and I get it, but how weird is it that the conference that has won 7 of the last 10 titles— with 4 different teams, no less— does not warrant an automatic berth?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I remain surprised that BC does not move its men's lacrosse program from a club team to a varsity sport ala Michigan several years ago.

BC was varsity until 2002 - I recall Duke playing them in the 90s. I am assuming it was a Title 9 cut. I don't know if there is any chance of it being restored now that BC is in the ACC.

I did not realize that Hopkins is joining the Big 10 for lax as they would have been a logical addition to fill out the ACC. They got the Big 10 to six with the bulk of the teams being fairly close to Hopkins (MD, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan are the other five).

[BigWayne]

That article makes it seem like the play in participants will be determined by overall body of work, in the same way the field is determined, not simply by conference RPI.

Yes, but just like the hoops tourney, the AQ from the weaker conferences will always be rated below the last at large selections. Sometimes, the winners of the weak conferences are rated higher, but there will always be a couple that aren't.

[burnspbesq]

I remain surprised that BC does not move its men's lacrosse program from a club team to a varsity sport ala Michigan several years ago.

BC, VaTech, and GaTech are fixtures in the MCLA rankings. Any of them would be a viable candidate to go varsity--GaTech maybe less so because unlike BC and VaTech, it doesn't have a women's team and therefore might have a Title IX compliance issue to solve.

GaTech was really good in 2016; its only loss was in the MCLA semifinals.

[SCMatt33]

BC, VaTech, and GaTech are fixtures in the MCLA rankings. Any of them would be a viable candidate to go varsity--GaTech maybe less so because unlike BC and VaTech, it doesn't have a women's team and therefore might have a Title IX compliance issue to solve.

GaTech was really good in 2016; its only loss was in the MCLA semifinals.

Actually, the lack of a women's team would make it easier for GTech to come into compliance by adding one. The fact that BC and VaTech already have them means that they would have to offset the new varsity men's team somewhere else. Additionally, the fact that GTech has a 2/1 male to female student ratio (compared to 3/2 for Va Tech and 1/1 fro BC) means they could offset the new lacrosse team with a smaller women's team (not sure what options would be put there)

[budwom]

Maybe the current five teams should subsidize Clemmons into fielding a crappy team, thereby getting us to the required six?

[JasonEvans]

Maybe the current five teams should subsidize Clemmons into fielding a crappy team, thereby getting us to the required six?

Except I don't think it really matters to the ACC. The only way this impacts anyone is the unlikely scenario where an ACC team not good enough to otherwise make the field with an at-large bid wins the conference (which is highly unlikely given the quality of the ACC in Lax).

To bring this back to hoops, when was the last time a team that would not have otherwise made the Big Dance won the ACC Hoops tourney? Probably the 1983 Pack, right... though even if the ACC did not have an automatic bid I wonder if they would have made it after beating #2 ranked Virginia to win the ACC title.

[ricks68]

Except I don't think it really matters to the ACC. The only way this impacts anyone is the unlikely scenario where an ACC team not good enough to otherwise make the field with an at-large bid wins the conference (which is highly unlikely given the quality of the ACC in Lax).

To bring this back to hoops, when was the last time a team that would not have otherwise made the Big Dance won the ACC Hoops tourney? Probably the 1983 Pack, right... though even if the ACC did not have an automatic bid I wonder if they would have made it after beating #2 ranked Virginia to win the ACC title.

I know of NC State in 1965, when only the ACC Tournament winner could go----and we were considered the very best team in the ACC at the time. (Was that the year, or was it in '67? I may be just slightly off on the year.)

ricks

[Indoor66]

I know of NC State in 1965, when only the ACC Tournament winner could go----and we were considered the very best team in the ACC at the time. (Was that the year, or was it in '67? I may be just slightly off on the year.)

ricks

1965. Duke won in '63, '64, '66 and was the overwhelming favorite in '65. Eddie Biedenbach went nuts for State and and Stat won the Tournament and, thus the NCAA bid.

[Tom B.]

To bring this back to hoops, when was the last time a team that would not have otherwise made the Big Dance won the ACC Hoops tourney? Probably the 1983 Pack, right... though even if the ACC did not have an automatic bid I wonder if they would have made it after beating #2 ranked Virginia to win the ACC title.

In 1987, N.C. State finished sixth in the conference with a regular season record of 17-13 (6-8 in the ACC). They'd been ranked in the AP poll through December and the first half of January, but hit a bad stretch starting in mid-January in which they lost 11 of 14, including six straight losses in late January and early February. Then they beat Duke (in OT), Wake (in double OT), and Carolina (in regulation, by one) to win the ACC Tournament. Without winning the ACC Tournament, they likely wouldn't have made the NCAA Tournament.

In 1993, Georgia Tech finished sixth in the conference with a regular season record of 16-10 (8-8 in the ACC). Then they beat Duke, Clemson, and North Carolina to win the ACC Tournament. This one's a closer call -- they were definitely a bubble team, but a .500 record in the ACC was usually good enough to get you into the NCAA Tournament back then. Of course, they removed all doubt by winning the conference tournament.

In 2004, Maryland finished sixth in the conference with a regular season record of 16-11 (7-9 in the ACC). Then they beat Wake Forest, N.C. State, and Duke to win the ACC Tournament. Another close call/bubble team.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Except I don't think it really matters to the ACC. The only way this impacts anyone is the unlikely scenario where an ACC team not good enough to otherwise make the field with an at-large bid wins the conference (which is highly unlikely given the quality of the ACC in Lax).

To bring this back to hoops, when was the last time a team that would not have otherwise made the Big Dance won the ACC Hoops tourney? Probably the 1983 Pack, right... though even if the ACC did not have an automatic bid I wonder if they would have made it after beating #2 ranked Virginia to win the ACC title.

1997 NC State in its first year under Herb entered the ACC Tournament 13-13, won the Les Robinson Invitational vs GA Tech, beat top seeded Duke, beat ranked Maryland, then lost to UNC in the final to miss out on the bid. As painful as it was to see Duke get upset on Friday, it was great seeing the crowd rally behind State vs. the Tar Heels in the final (the tournament was in Greensboro), though to no avail.

[JasonEvans]

In 1987, N.C. State finished sixth in the conference with a regular season record of 17-13 (6-8 in the ACC). They'd been ranked in the AP poll through December and the first half of January, but hit a bad stretch starting in mid-January in which they lost 11 of 14, including six straight losses in late January and early February. Then they beat Duke (in OT), Wake (in double OT), and Carolina (in regulation, by one) to win the ACC Tournament. Without winning the ACC Tournament, they likely wouldn't have made the NCAA Tournament.

In 1993, Georgia Tech finished sixth in the conference with a regular season record of 16-10 (8-8 in the ACC). Then they beat Duke, Clemson, and North Carolina to win the ACC Tournament. This one's a closer call -- they were definitely a bubble team, but a .500 record in the ACC was usually good enough to get you into the NCAA Tournament back then. Of course, they removed all doubt by winning the conference tournament.

In 2004, Maryland finished sixth in the conference with a regular season record of 16-11 (7-9 in the ACC). Then they beat Wake Forest, N.C. State, and Duke to win the ACC Tournament. Another close call/bubble team.

I would argue in all three of these cases (and in 1983 as well) that even if the ACC did not have an automatic bid, the team that won the tourney would have made the dance as a result of their impressive results WINNING THE ACC TOURNEY. My question was not to ask who had won the tourney that would not have made it based on regular-season results (I agree, there are several close calls such as the ones you outlined) but to ask if there is anyone in many decades who would have not been given an at-large bid if they had won the ACC tournament but the tourney did not carry an automatic bid.

It is in that way that this applies to Lax. My point is that anyone good enough to win the ACC Lax tourney is going to have a record impressive enough to make the NCAA tourney, I think.

-Jason "good research, Tom B!" Evans

[Wander]

I would argue in all three of these cases (and in 1983 as well) that even if the ACC did not have an automatic bid, the team that won the tourney would have made the dance as a result of their impressive results WINNING THE ACC TOURNEY. My question was not to ask who had won the tourney that would not have made it based on regular-season results (I agree, there are several close calls such as the ones you outlined) but to ask if there is anyone in many decades who would have not been given an at-large bid if they had won the ACC tournament but the tourney did not carry an automatic bid.


The SEC is not as good as the ACC, obviously, but they are still a power conference, and sometime in the last decade Georgia won the SEC tournament despite having an overall (not just conference!) record under .500 before the SEC tournament started. They would not even have made the NIT, let alone the real tournament. It was a weird set of circumstances that I'm pretty sure involved Georgia winning 2 SEC tournament games in one day because of some flooding or storm or something.

So it happens every once in a while, but you're right that it's a very rare event.

[BigWayne]

Except I don't think it really matters to the ACC. The only way this impacts anyone is the unlikely scenario where an ACC team not good enough to otherwise make the field with an at-large bid wins the conference (which is highly unlikely given the quality of the ACC in Lax).


In fact, in the last decade, there have only been a few instances when one of the ACC teams did not make the Lax tournament as an at large entrant. UVA in 2013 and 2016, UNC in 2008, Syracuse (pre-ACC) in 2007. Duke, ND, and MD have made the tourney 10 years in a row.

[kmspeaks]

Maybe the current five teams should subsidize Clemmons into fielding a crappy team, thereby getting us to the required six?

I've always found the Clemson athletic department to be an interesting case, no softball, a women's diving team but no swim team. My tiny alma mater (~1200 students in rural WV) has more teams than Clemson does.

[burnspbesq]

FWIW, there are currently three independents in D1 men's lax: NJIT, Hampton, and Cleveland State. The list of schools that once had D men's lax and dropped it is interesting: State, BC, Sparty, UNH, Butler, and Morgan State. There are also a number of schools that have downgraded from D1 to D2 or D3 over the years.

[sagegrouse]

I know of NC State in 1965, when only the ACC Tournament winner could go----and we were considered the very best team in the ACC at the time. (Was that the year, or was it in '67? I may be just slightly off on the year.)

ricks

Duke in 1960, even if there had been at-large places in the NCAA's. Duke was 12-10 going into the ACC tournament and 7-7 in the ACC. Duke won the tournament and then went to the regional finals before losing to the NYU Violets.

In the regular season, Duke lost to UNC by 22, 27 and 25 (at home); lost to Wake by 17 and 19 (at home); lost twice to Maryland (not a power back then).

Kindly,
Sage
'I was on campus for Angier Duke weekend (a foot of snow!) when we played the regionals, and saw the semis on TV, winning against St. Joe's by two points. Started becoming a fan then'