DAY 2 -- MDIA Championships - Quarterfinals - Div B Begins

[smootharch]

Look at all those garbage goals by Michigan at the end. That game was not nearly that close.

[CATLAX MAN]

Think Michigan would like a do over on the Michigan St. game in the CCLA playoffs? That loss cost them the #1 seed and a more favorable draw. I feel bad for JP and his squad. I really hope that he gets over the hump in a future tourney.

[TrainerDan]

Looks like whoever wants to beat CU is going to have to own the 2nd quarter. That's where CU got BYU a couple of weeks back and where they got Cal Poly today. CU is looking tough.

[smootharch]

I don't think a #1 seed would have done Michigan any good. They would have lost either in the 2nd or 3rd round regardless. They are overrated every year and lose early in the tournament.

[steveperry]

I know that I always get hounded for not liking the AQ system as it is, but let's look at the first round results from the tournament, and you all can tell me that the AQ improves competition:

AQ Oregon - LOSS by 1 goal
AQ Florida State - LOSS by 5 goals
AQ Oakland - Loss by 5 goals
AQ Northeasern - Loss by 7 goals
AQ Sonoma State - WIN by 7 goals
AQ Texas - Loss by 12 goals
AQ Minnesota-Duluth - Loss by 9 goals
AQ Lindenwood - Loss by 3 goals

This is not saying that these are bad teams, because they are not, but are you telling me that teams like Utah, and even Chapman would not have a better chance at winning a first round game, since they beat some of the winners from yesterday's first round? I know that eams like Duluth beat Poly by one goal months ago, but they hit a big slump after that. Texas didn't break the top 20. I simply think that the AQ should be conditional. Teams should have to be in the top 16 to be considered for the AQ, or something to that effect. Let's get the best teams possible to the big dance, and not teams that go every year to lose in the first round.

I'm sure there will be some yelling over this, but 7/8 losers is pretty poor.

[DG]

Yes, there was a very long thread about that last year. The argument had to do with a lot of the same things that are being pointed out here regarding the meaning of that consolation victory. If you want to revisit that, here it is. http://forums.uslia.com/viewtopic.php?t=1851

There are a number of people on both sides of the fence on this topic. All I can say is that I have personally witnessed games at 4 separate national tourneys and I personally never saw a consolation game that a team played its starters and top people in the same way that they would have in a regular season or winners bracket tourney game. Draw your own conclusions.

Did you see the BYU/UCSB consolation OT game? I can't remember when that was...but I heard it was a barnburner, and played as hard as any game in that tourney.

The new bracketing may take away some of that, for sure...

DG

[smootharch]

I actually played in that BYU/UCSB consolation game and it wasn't as exciting as it appears. We were without a bunch of our starters and it felt more like a scrimmage than anything.

[DG]

I know that I always get hounded for not liking the AQ system as it is, but let's look at the first round results from the tournament, and you all can tell me that the AQ improves competition:

AQ Oregon - LOSS by 1 goal
AQ Florida State - LOSS by 5 goals
AQ Oakland - Loss by 5 goals
AQ Northeasern - Loss by 7 goals
AQ Sonoma State - WIN by 7 goals
AQ Texas - Loss by 12 goals
AQ Minnesota-Duluth - Loss by 9 goals
AQ Lindenwood - Loss by 3 goals

This is not saying that these are bad teams, because they are not, but are you telling me that teams like Utah, and even Chapman would not have a better chance at winning a first round game, since they beat some of the winners from yesterday's first round? I know that eams like Duluth beat Poly by one goal months ago, but they hit a big slump after that. Texas didn't break the top 20. I simply think that the AQ should be conditional. Teams should have to be in the top 16 to be considered for the AQ, or something to that effect. Let's get the best teams possible to the big dance, and not teams that go every year to lose in the first round.

I'm sure there will be some yelling over this, but 7/8 losers is pretty poor.

The AQ system is not supposed to get the 16 best teams to the tournament...it is supposed to give teams a chance that they might not otherwise have. If you win, you are in. If not, you are at the mercy of the voters. Teams that are not from traditionally strong conferences would only be able to make it if they traveled outside of their conference. Many don't have the money to do the travel. But the AQ still gives them a chance to make the tournament.

If you want to get the best 16 teams in, then you have to use the poll. However, the polls don't always get it right...and team #17 would be SCREAMING like a stuck pig.

If you want to encourage the growth of MDIA lacrosse, and make everyone's season meaningful...keep the AQ.

DG

[DG]

I actually played in that BYU/UCSB consolation game and it wasn't as exciting as it appears. We were without a bunch of our starters and it felt more like a scrimmage than anything.

Very interesting...

[StrykerFSU]

I'm pretty sure that the AQ question has been beaten into the ground but here goes anyway:

FSU beat Chapman this year.
If you don't have AQs, then why have conferences?
Without AQs it's not a national tournament.
Win your conference and you don't have to worry about getting left out.
AQs are the way it is in every tournament I know of be it the NCAA Lax, basketball, or whatever.
What's your suggested alternative?
Is one year of data the sum of evidence you have to show that the AQ system doesn't work?

I understand the frustration about having your squad left out but come on now, let's show some respect to the teams that did make it by winning their conferences.

[StrykerFSU]

Is Mickey-Miles Felton back coaching UA or is he just there to watch? I always used to come back from his camp with some sort of crazy colored jersey!

[CATLAX MAN]

I don't think a #1 seed would have done Michigan any good. They would have lost either in the 2nd or 3rd round regardless. They are overrated every year and lose early in the tournament.

I seem to recall them almost beating UCSB in the semis last year.

[CATLAX MAN]

Did you see the BYU/UCSB consolation OT game? I can't remember when that was...but I heard it was a barnburner, and played as hard as any game in that tourney.

I did see that game in 2002. It wasn't really a consolation game but rather the 3rd place game in the last year that they played that game. It was a pretty competitive game and entertaining, but there were some players missing in that game. That game also featured one of the most brutal, legal hits that I ever saw in a game. It happened between two AAs, Aaron Quiggle and Ben Schooler. Schooler never saw him coming and got flattened. Game was won in the final minute by UCSB.

[steveperry]

I'm pretty sure that the AQ question has been beaten into the ground but here goes anyway:

FSU beat Chapman this year.
If you don't have AQs, then why have conferences?
Without AQs it's not a national tournament.
Win your conference and you don't have to worry about getting left out.
AQs are the way it is in every tournament I know of be it the NCAA Lax, basketball, or whatever.
What's your suggested alternative?
Is one year of data the sum of evidence you have to show that the AQ system doesn't work?

I understand the frustration about having your squad left out but come on now, let's show some respect to the teams that did make it by winning their conferences.

Great, and Chapman spanked Arizona, and Utah beat Sonoma and Poly, we could go on. I was just naming a couple of other teams that played very competitive schedules this year, and were able to win some big games.

I think that the AQ system has some merit to help the smaller conferences, but the same time, until competition improves in many of those conferences, it is like a free ride for some of the same teams each year. It is just hard to think that a team could lose every one of their games against ranked teams, and then have no competition in their league, so they go to the tournament ahead of teams that spanked them. If we made the requirement that teams need to be in the top 16 or 20, it would encourage programs to play tougher schedules. Budget is an issue, so have a tournament where you get ranked teams to come play you, and then they can play each other. Many of the teams in the top 16 travel all over the country. Budget is not an end all excuse for not playing better out of league competition. There are options.


The national tournament should represent the bringing together of the best teams.

[lil lady lax fan]

Any news on the Montana-Southwestern game? It's not on the updates page.