LaxAllStars.com » 412 Lax » College

It's Not Personal, It's Just the Internet

Posted by
Views,
31 Comments

People in the Rocky Mountain Lacrosse conference have lost their minds.

Item 1, a fun loss of mind.

Colorado’s blog author doesn’t understand why we call them what we call them.

Here’s a hint:

Why do we call them the Colorado Katy Perrys?

Because teams that lose to New Hampshire but beat Michigan are clearly schizophrenic. Hence, the expression the Colorado Katy Perrys.

Item 2, a less than fun and totally public loss of mind.

The tournament seedings came out for Denver.

We were pretty much 100% accurate. Obviously, not.

DIVISION I Tournament field:
1. University of Michigan (CCLA)
2. Colorado State University (RMLC)
3. Arizona State University (SLC)
4. Chapman University (SLC)*
5. Minnesota-Duluth (UMLL)
6. University of Oregon (PNCLL)
7. Florida State University (SELC)*
8. Brigham Young University (RMLC)*
9. Michigan State University (CCLA)*
10. Simon Fraser (PNCLL)*
11. University of Colorado (RMLC)*
12. University of Florida (SELC)
13. University of Illinois (GRLC)
14. Cal Poly (WCLL)
15. Boston College (PCLL)
16. Texas State University (LSA)
*= at large bid

Jordan Harris for BYU could hardly contain his excitement for their seeding.

Now normally we would say something like…

Hey coach, the Coug Squad went 11-5 this season. Two of those wins were against D2 teams and at the time the win against Simon Fraser was meaningless so you can…

But then we took a second look at the seedings and noticed that MCLA super power Illinois got the 13th seed, Duluth and their 0 wins against tournament teams earned the 5th seed, and the aforementioned 6-8 Colorado Katy Perrys were not only invited to Denver but were gifted the 11th seed.

And as we wrote that last sentence out, we began to agree with Coach Harris.

Perhaps the system is broken.

Is it broken because the BYU World Beaters earned the 8th seed and will play Michigan State for the right to lose to Michigan in the second round?

No.

BYU didn’t win one important game this year. Not one. Beat Sonoma State by one goal, we’re not impressed. Sorry, we’re not sorry. Count your blessings that you are the 8th seed.

Is it broken because Colorado is even in the tournament?

How many Stanley Cup playoff teams entered the post season with a losing record?

How many NFL playoff teams showed up in January with a losing record?

There are 102 D1 teams in the MCLA and the 11th seed in our post season tournament is 6-8.

Coach Harris is right. You cannot be serious.

So many more thoughts on the disaster that is Denver 2010 coming later today.

Still busy trying to celebrate graduation and our birthday.

About the Author

Tumbas is entering his fourth season as editor of 412 Lax. He was a part of the first ever Wooster team to reach the NCAA tournament in 2004 and later finished his playing career at the University of Pittsburgh. Currently, Tumbas is the head coach at Indiana University and also serves as director of the American Revolution Lacrosse Club.

More posts by

LaxAllStars.com » 412 Lax » College
Categories: College
Tags: , ,

  • Jordo5150

    Thanks for you in depth analysis, but my comments had nothing to do with BYU. I don’t think we earned anything but an 8 seed. I told everyone after Saturday night I thought we would be an 8 seed. I had the exact same rant last year when an extremely deserving Florida team was left out and a less than deserving Oregon team was let in.

    I have no beef with Colorado being in the tournament. In fact, I think Colorado would be a better 7 seed than FSU. I would have put Michigan State over Oregon (and us). Looking at it further, Oregon’s ranking doesn’t bother as much. They won their conference and they deserve to be rewarded for it. But FSU lost in the first round and has a less than impressive record with a loss to team not even in the tournament (something nobody else in the tournament except Florida (UCSB) and Texas State can claim). The fact is they didn’t play a 7th seed worth season, yet there they are and we are left out in the cold as to why.

    I will say the same thing I said last year, why do we not know the criteria? Last year it was stated that they are trying to avoid conference rematches in the first two rounds. That obviously isn’t the case. I do not like that the seedings are decided by a group of people behind closed doors. I never had any problems with a poll because of the size of pool of opinions. I felt like it always evened out individual team bias.

    That’s great that you can read into my twitter, but it may help to ask questions, because the very least of my beef is with our seeding. We didn’t take care of business, and we know what we have to do to win. Regardless of where we are seeded, I still feel the league is using a broken system to seed the tournament.

  • Jordo5150

    *Late night edit

    Colorado also lost to non-tournament teams. I don’t actually think they should be a 7th seed, but I think they have a more complete resume than FSU.

  • Jordo5150

    Since I have now decided to just stay up until practice tomorrow morning, I will add another post to my thoughts (here is as good a place as any seeing as 412 probably gets as much MCLA traffic as any site).

    About CU, I don’t think it’s wrong for them to get in at 6-8 if the only reason you want to hold them out is for a losing record. Both Utah State and Miami canceled games with them (not sure about Utah States reasoning, but Miami was stuck in an airport from what I remember). Had both those teams played them, they could very easily be sitting at 8-8. If they had counted any of their DII games as “games” instead of scrimmages they would also be above 500. Take away SFU’s DII win at the beginning of the season and they are sitting at 7-7. By putting a specific criteria that says “you must have a winning record to be considered for an at-large berth” will only discourage teams from scheduling the best competition possible. For a league that (for the most part) is run by teams on a shoestring budgets, you can’t just add games to a season (ref fees, field fees, travel ect), so instead teams will only schedule a handful of games against good competition in order to ensure a 500 or better record. So I applaud the selection committee for their decision to include CU in the tourney.

    You cannot compare this league to the NHL/NFL/ect because:

    1. They have set schedules. Teams don’t pick and choose who they want to play every year.
    2. Team 32 can beat team 1 on any day in most professional sports leagues. There are very very few games in professional sports that can be considered “gimmies”. In the MCLA there is a huge disparity from teams 1-15 to teams 30-45 for example. There is close to 0 chance that team 45 can beat team 1 on any given day.

    Because of these two issues, the comparison with professional sports doesn’t hold water.

    If you want to argue that CU shouldn’t be there because they lost to Utah/New Hampshire/LMU, that’s an entirely different story, but I think most would agree that wins over Michigan State/Michigan/BYU/SFU out weigh the bad losses for a tournament berth.

  • Jordo5150

    Thanks for you in depth analysis, but my comments had nothing to do with BYU. I don't think we earned anything but an 8 seed. I told everyone after Saturday night I thought we would be an 8 seed. I had the exact same rant last year when an extremely deserving Florida team was left out and a less than deserving Oregon team was let in. I have no beef with Colorado being in the tournament. In fact, I think Colorado would be a better 7 seed than FSU. I would have put Michigan State over Oregon (and us). Looking at it further, Oregon's ranking doesn't bother as much. They won their conference and they deserve to be rewarded for it. But FSU lost in the first round and has a less than impressive record with a loss to team not even in the tournament (something nobody else in the tournament except Florida (UCSB) and Texas State can claim). The fact is they didn't play a 7th seed worth season, yet there they are and we are left out in the cold as to why. I will say the same thing I said last year, why do we not know the criteria? Last year it was stated that they are trying to avoid conference rematches in the first two rounds. That obviously isn't the case. I do not like that the seedings are decided by a group of people behind closed doors. I never had any problems with a poll because of the size of pool of opinions. I felt like it always evened out individual team bias.That's great that you can read into my twitter, but it may help to ask questions, because the very least of my beef is with our seeding. We didn't take care of business, and we know what we have to do to win. Regardless of where we are seeded, I still feel the league is using a broken system to seed the tournament.

  • Jordo5150

    *Late night edit Colorado also lost to non-tournament teams. I don't actually think they should be a 7th seed, but I think they have a more complete resume than FSU.

  • Jordo5150

    Since I have now decided to just stay up until practice tomorrow morning, I will add another post to my thoughts (here is as good a place as any seeing as 412 probably gets as much MCLA traffic as any site).About CU, I don't think it's wrong for them to get in at 6-8 if the only reason you want to hold them out is for a losing record. Both Utah State and Miami canceled games with them (not sure about Utah States reasoning, but Miami was stuck in an airport from what I remember). Had both those teams played them, they could very easily be sitting at 8-8. If they had counted any of their DII games as “games” instead of scrimmages they would also be above 500. Take away SFU's DII win at the beginning of the season and they are sitting at 7-7. By putting a specific criteria that says “you must have a winning record to be considered for an at-large berth” will only discourage teams from scheduling the best competition possible. For a league that (for the most part) is run by teams on a shoestring budgets, you can't just add games to a season (ref fees, field fees, travel ect), so instead teams will only schedule a handful of games against good competition in order to ensure a 500 or better record. So I applaud the selection committee for their decision to include CU in the tourney.You cannot compare this league to the NHL/NFL/ect because:1. They have set schedules. Teams don't pick and choose who they want to play every year. 2. Team 32 can beat team 1 on any day in most professional sports leagues. There are very very few games in professional sports that can be considered “gimmies”. In the MCLA there is a huge disparity from teams 1-15 to teams 30-45 for example. There is close to 0 chance that team 45 can beat team 1 on any given day. Because of these two issues, the comparison with professional sports doesn't hold water. If you want to argue that CU shouldn't be there because they lost to Utah/New Hampshire/LMU, that's an entirely different story, but I think most would agree that wins over Michigan State/Michigan/BYU/SFU out weigh the bad losses for a tournament berth.

  • TP

    Complaining about bias on the committee on your twitter, then going on here to “defend” your statements?
    Are you 12?
    Watch what you put out there coach, it makes you and your program look bad.

  • Anonymous

    who should be 7 then?

    FSU beat michigan state.

    that would be the only other team i’de consider over fsu, maybe BYU.

  • Lou

    Even more sketch business in the D2 bracket….

  • Lol

    The fact that Colorado got in over New Hampshire is a travesty. New Hampshire lost in double OT to BC in their conference championship, and their only losses during the regular season were to BC and CSU. Are there perhaps teams more deserving than New Hampshire that should have got into the tournament? Perhaps. But Colorado? Definitely not. A losing record is a losing record, no matter who you beat.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention It’s Not Personal, It’s Just the Internet - 412 Lax -- Topsy.com

  • http://412.LaxAllStars.com 412 Lax
  • MCLAter

    Coach: If you’re going to put stuff on twitter, people are going to read it and possibly misinterpret it. 140 Characters leads to some ambiguity after all.

    That said I enjoy reading what you have to say so embrace it and keep the discussion going.

  • guest

    Why? He brings up some good points about the committee. Maybe they are not all valid, but at the very least they should be addressed by the powers that be.

    Would it be better if he hid behind an anonymous name and made the same complaints? I say good for him for backing it up with his real name.

    The MCLA has failed by not having the rest of the league informed about how the committee works. Making the proceedings public would be a gigantic leap in the right direction.

  • TP

    I agree that the system is flawed, and yes, he brings up good points, but twitter is not the right forum.
    Yes, making the proceedings public would be good but as a coach, he is representing the school, team, and league so what he puts on the internet is subject to criticism.
    I like that he made his voice heard, I just think he did it in the wrong way.

  • Jordo5150

    Great point. I need to take after Flip and have my own blog so I can fully articulate my thoughts. Peter does a great job on this blog and I am pretty sure it’s the guilty pleasure of most of the MCLA coaches.

    I still stand by the fact that I think concerns need to be made public. I also think they need to be addressed to the proper people, so I will continue my conversations with the proper people at the proper time.

    I am excited for the chat tonight on CollegeLax. Hopefully that will answer a lot of the questions people (read: me) have.

  • guest

    I would say from the outside looking in, it would be in the best interest of his team, school, and league to have these concerns addressed. Making them public is the first step. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    Twitter is the new blog. This is no different than Flip writing in his journal, it was just 3 series of 160 character posts.

  • Anonymous

    We beat the number one seed, nuff said. The MCLA wants to make some skrill on this tournament, a lot more locals will turn out if the two state schools are represented. We’ve beat higher seeded teams before we’ll do it again. RedHotBuffs ’10.

  • TP

    I think he could have done it in a smoother fashion, no matter how valid his points are, but that’s just my opinion.

  • TP

    Complaining about bias on the committee on your twitter, then going on here to “defend” your statements?Are you 12?Watch what you put out there coach, it makes you and your program look bad.

  • jamlando

    who should be 7 then?FSU beat michigan state.that would be the only other team i'de consider over fsu, maybe BYU.

  • Lou

    Even more sketch business in the D2 bracket….

  • Lol

    The fact that Colorado got in over New Hampshire is a travesty. New Hampshire lost in double OT to BC in their conference championship, and their only losses during the regular season were to BC and CSU. Are there perhaps teams more deserving than New Hampshire that should have got into the tournament? Perhaps. But Colorado? Definitely not. A losing record is a losing record, no matter who you beat.

  • http://412.LaxAllStars.com 412 Lax

    Not sure that a 5 question response is good enoughhttp://www.laxmagazine.com/college_men/club/200…

  • MCLAter

    Coach: If you're going to put stuff on twitter, people are going to read it and possibly misinterpret it. 140 Characters leads to some ambiguity after all.That said I enjoy reading what you have to say so embrace it and keep the discussion going.

  • guest

    Why? He brings up some good points about the committee. Maybe they are not all valid, but at the very least they should be addressed by the powers that be. Would it be better if he hid behind an anonymous name and made the same complaints? I say good for him for backing it up with his real name. The MCLA has failed by not having the rest of the league informed about how the committee works. Making the proceedings public would be a gigantic leap in the right direction.

  • TP

    I agree that the system is flawed, and yes, he brings up good points, but twitter is not the right forum.Yes, making the proceedings public would be good but as a coach, he is representing the school, team, and league so what he puts on the internet is subject to criticism.I like that he made his voice heard, I just think he did it in the wrong way.

  • Jordo5150

    Great point. I need to take after Flip and have my own blog so I can fully articulate my thoughts. Peter does a great job on this blog and I am pretty sure it's the guilty pleasure of most of the MCLA coaches.I still stand by the fact that I think concerns need to be made public. I also think they need to be addressed to the proper people, so I will continue my conversations with the proper people at the proper time. I am excited for the chat tonight on CollegeLax. Hopefully that will answer a lot of the questions people (read: me) have.

  • guest

    I would say from the outside looking in, it would be in the best interest of his team, school, and league to have these concerns addressed. Making them public is the first step. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Twitter is the new blog. This is no different than Flip writing in his journal, it was just 3 series of 160 character posts.

  • kennypwrs

    We beat the number one seed, nuff said. The MCLA wants to make some skrill on this tournament, a lot more locals will turn out if the two state schools are represented. We've beat higher seeded teams before we'll do it again. RedHotBuffs '10.

  • TP

    I think he could have done it in a smoother fashion, no matter how valid his points are, but that's just my opinion.