Tournament seedings are set...let the debate begin

[Wade]

Also remember that in the beginning there were few At-Large bids. Until teams started seriously travelling out of conference it was next to impossible to rank teams nationally. Now that we have a better cross section of games to look at it is easier (well, maybe not this year) to rank teams on a national scale.

The AQ's serve a good purpose, and yes, some one will always complain that they got left out regardless of how big you make the field.

[DG]

You know what I mean, even a team ranked at the bottom end of 25. I still wish them all good luck, but of course I'd rather see a higher ranked team go and compete.

Debbie,

I doubt the AQ isn't gong anywhere. It has promoted the growth of the MDIA over the last 9 seasons. We have grown from ~65 in 7 conferences to ~200 teams in 9 conferences w/ 2 divisions now.

The national tournament is the MDIA's flagship event. We have tripled in size, due in part to the AQ.

AQ = Excellent

Teams that don't have the budget, etc. to travel all around the country can STILL go to nationals if they win their conference tournament. That makes those games much more meaningful. For the RMLC, the tournament means less because every team that goes has to get an at-large bid.

In my opinion Utah is a very deserving team. I would have loved to see them go to Plano. However, saying that they got hosed is just not right, IMO. Don't forget that they went to Blaine last year only after CSU took themselves out of the tournament.

DG

[socallax]

Did the fact that the RMLC did not have an AQ hinder Utahs chances of an at large bid? Just wondering.

[Sonny]

Did the fact that the RMLC did not have an AQ hinder Utahs chances of an at large bid? Just wondering.

Not at all. CSU ('06 RMLC Champs) would have been an AQ. There still wouldn't have been a slot for Utah based on the final poll numbers.

[CATLAX MAN]

Not having an AQ had no effect on Utah. Even if the RMLC had one, the result would've been the same.

[laxfan25]

If people took to the idea that some AQ's aren't as qualified as others that want an at-large bid, what would happen to teams like George Mason in b-ball? They certainly showed they deserved to be there - beating some pretty good teams along the way!

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

With 5 of the 16 teams in the field all coming from the WCLL. . .it would be extremely difficult to bracket the field and avoid rematches. . . Every year there are suggestions on how to improve the tourney and complaints about teams getting "screwed."

As Sonny said earlier in this thread, this championship has been paramount to the growth of the USL MDIA. . .and now with the addition of the B division tournament, the sky's the limit. I wouldn't change a thing.

"If it ain't broke. . . "

[Joe Oakland]

Oakland and Michigan rematch at nationals in the first round for the 2nd time in 3 years, if I recall correctly

You are correct Sonny

I must agree with SDSU LAX.I would love to see other teams in the same conference play teams that are not in there conference at the tourney. Oakland vs FSU, or BYU maybe even Noma would be great for our program.

But we cant complain

That is not true, it is the 2nd time in 4 years:

2003 Oakland vs U mich
2004 Oakland wins CCLA (Ineligable)
2005 Oakland Vs VaTech
2006 Oakland vs Umich

Finally, comming from a player in the currently debated situation, it doesn't matter what jersey the other team is wearing, we're there to win.

[Daniel Morris]

You know what I mean, even a team ranked at the bottom end of 25. . . I still wish them all good luck, but of course I'd rather see a higher ranked team go and compete.

This is a ridiculous statement and argument. Just because a team doesn't have the exposure of the higher ranked teams, doesn't mean they can't compete in the national tournament and in some cases, aren't just as good. The PCLL has had some tough draws in the first round games the past few seasons, but when matched up the following two days, have won 2 of 3 games in the tournament. Up until the last two years, the top 5 teams were head and shoulders above the rest. Should we have only had a tournament with them involved? I would be wary of any team in the top 25 these days. Sure, we still have some elite programs, but things are quickly changing and the field is being leveled.

[Tim Whitehead]

I think some people may have been more concerned with the fact that their son didn't get to go the tournament than with anything else.

[the lax]

UCSB faded out this season without last years talented senior class. Wins late in the season of 10-7 against Arizona State, 12-6 against USC, and 8-4 agaisnt UCLA all teams not going to the tournament are not impressive.
The only decent win they have this season is against Colorado, before they were playing their best lacrosse late in the season. If you consider the one goal BYU victory a big win, factor in how streaky BYU has been this season. If they had played that game the day before or after BYU probably would have won. The Cal Poly win doesn't count as a big game because its Cal Poly. They shouldnt be in the tournament either. Why the MDIA voters have this love affair with inviting undeserving California teams is beyond me.

To give UCSB a bid much less a tenth seed is ridiculous. How can a team that lost its quarterfinal conference tournament game be qualified to go over Utah, who beat Sonoma the eventual WCLL champ.

UCSB is only there because of they are UCSB not on the success of this season. And as I recall, its the 2006 national tournament, not last year, not a life time achievement award. UCSB does not deserve to be there.

I only hope that UCSD can beat them again there by showing UCSB's fulitity as a choice thus wasting a deserving team's opportunity to be there.

There are 16 teams selected not 65. The selection process cannot involve favorites, risks, last year's cindrella. If you ask UCSB's head coach who played at Princeton if he thinks his team belongs with this year's best programs in Dallas, he'd be lieing if he said yes.

[CATLAX MAN]

Once again, the lax, you have proven the scope of your MDIA knowledge.

[Jolly Roger]

Once again, the lax, you have proven the scope of your MDIA knowledge.

And, unfortunately CLM. you've fallen for the bait.

[the lax]

It's fairly knowledgeable with what biased opinions I can formulate from message board mavens like yourself.

[CATLAX MAN]

Once again, the lax, you have proven the scope of your MDIA knowledge.

And, unfortunately CLM. you've fallen for the bait.

You're right about that. DOH!