May 3, 2010

Coyne’s Bracket Breakdown: MCLA Division I

by Jac Coyne | Lacrosse Magazine Online Staff | Coyne Archive | Twitter

We can argue about whether Colorado should be in the MCLA Division I tourney, but the Buffs will be in Denver and are going to be a handful for Oregon in the first round.

The MCLA selection committee released the teams and pairings for the national championship, which will be played at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park in Denver starting on May 11. Much of the choices were obvious, but the tournament is not without its surprises.

Here’s my view of the final product.

(Click HERE for a Q&A with selection committee chair Ken Lovic. Click HERE for the MCLA D-II Bracket Breakdown).

LAST TEAM IN
Colorado

This is pretty straightforward. The five teams behind the No. 11-seeded Buffaloes are all automatic qualifiers, so CU was the last pick. Were they the right pick? More on that later.

FIRST TEAM OUT
UC Santa Barbara

Six of the Gauchos’ 16 games were against teams that made the field and they posted a 10-6 record, but it wasn’t enough. The oddity is UCSB had a worse record last year (8-7) at the end of the regular season but got the nod. This season, however, we’re through the looking glass in terms of the selection process.

SNUBBED?
Balance

I think there needs to be a balance between scheduling and results in the selection process, but the committee is simply ignoring losses. That creates a systemic imbalance in how teams are treated when compared to each other - how can Loyola Marymount receive credit for the win over Colorado when the committee is just ignoring it for their purposes? To have balance, the process needs to be a zero-sum game, and it's not right now. The lack of balance also eliminates the expectation of excellence, which should be what the tournament is all about.

BEST FIRST-ROUND MATCHUP
No. 10 Simon Fraser vs. No. 7 Florida State

This game could be a 17-15 affair with the way these two teams like to sling it. Fraser’s attack duo of Ben Towner and Adam Foss will be locked in a duel with the Seminoles’ Tyler Richey and Jon Yates for most goals on the afternoon. This one is a toss-up.

UPSET WATCH
Brigham Young

Coming in at as No. 8 seed, it would only be logical that the Cougars would draw a decent team, and they have in Michigan State. The Spartans are battle-tesed by their grueling schedule and their goalie, Dean Hall, is a game-changer when he’s on. Goals will be at a premium in this contest, so the BYU offense must be willing to grind out possessions or it’ll be one and done.

EASIEST TITLE ROUTE
Michigan

It’s the Wolverines again, but this draw isn’t nearly as soft as the cakewalk they had last spring when the other half of the bracket was stacked. After the first round, Michigan will see the winner of the Michigan State-BYU game and then likely Chapman (which means we won’t have the same championship game participants as the last two years). So UM’s route is marginally easier than Colorado State’s.

FIVE BURNING QUESTIONS

1. What is the committee saying when it admits a sub-.500 team as an at-large entrant to the tournament?

Schedule well, ignore your losses, and anxiously await your seed. Results are a tertiary criterion now; the bids are tacitly handed out in December when the schedules are finalized.

A perhaps unintended side effect of the decision is the committee has created a de facto “premier league.” There are only a handful of teams that have the resources, reputation and geographic location to stack their schedule in a way that will please the committee. The inevitable response by the conferences will be the implementation of the I-AA concept – it is already being used by the PNCLL and GRLC – which allows conferences to trim the fat from the league schedules so those dates can be used against high end opponents. We’ll also start to see the splintering of large conferences so more teams will have access to automatic qualifiers. Because the MCLA is really just a sum of its leagues, there will be nothing the executive board can do to stop it.

This decision will resonate for years.

2. Can Michigan Three-peat?

It’s tough to say whether the Wolverines have come back to the pack or the league has caught up, but Michigan is still the best team in the tournament. The streak is gone and teams have been playing UM tough all year, so the Wolverines won’t be complacent, meaning a third title is a probability.

3. Did Simon Fraser’s experiment backfire?

After being seeded lower than expected in last year’s tournament, the Clan went out and seemingly scheduled every top team in the country. Considering how this season has transpired, that sixth seed in 2009 is looking pretty good now that they are seeded 10th and facing the prospect of starting off with No. 7 Florida State. Even though they lost in the PNCLL championship game, conventional wisdom would say Fraser will be better off in the tournament grind after what it went through, but, unlike last year, the Clansmen may not get a chance to make it to Wednesday.

4. Can California rebound as the MCLA’s signature state?

The Golden State used to be ground zero for MCLA lacrosse. Of the 13 national championship games, there were only four that didn’t feature at least one California team. In addition, there have been five different teams from Cali who have made title game appearances. This year there are just two teams in total from the state and Cal Poly, the WCLL automatic qualifier, is seeded No. 14. Why the demise?

On a macro level, the growth of the sport has given rise to teams all over the country, which is obviously good for the MCLA and the sport. On a micro level, the California teams are lagging behind in terms of scheduling and they shouldn’t be. They are leaning on the notion that their tradition will give them the benefit of the doubt, but the poll is not driving the selections anymore; it’s all about scheduling (we saw that with UCSB getting left out). Once the programs figure this out, we should see a re-ascendancy of California lacrosse.

5. What is the committee’s grade for their work this year?

I’d give them a ‘B.’ They receive points for consistency and there’s nothing bizarre in terms of the seeding, but the Colorado situation is going to cause headaches in future years, so they get docked one grade.


RELATED HEADLINES


FOLLOW US


Lacrosse Magazine on Facebook

FOLLOW THEM

LaxMagazine.com features news, scores and standings tailored to your favorite teams.

» NCAA Division I Men
» NCAA Division I Women
» NCAA Division II Men
» NCAA Division II Women
» NCAA Division III Men
» NCAA Division III Women
» MCLA Division I Men
» MCLA Division II Men
» MLL
» NLL
» U.S. Senior Men
» U.S. Senior Women
» U.S. U19 Men
» U.S. U19 Women
» U.S. Indoor Men

View: Mobile | Desktop