Analysis: The MCLA Selection Criteria
by Jac Coyne |
Lacrosse Magazine Online Staff | Coyne Archive
| Twitter
|
| Ken Lovic, the chair of the MCLA national selection committee, released the critieria for picking and seeding the fields. Overall, it's not a bad start. |
When the MCLA abandoned its poll-driven selection process and
instituted a selection committee in 2009, I called for the
association to release the criteria it uses to determine the
at-large selections and tournament seeds.
In the wake of the 2010 selections -- which, to beat a dead horse,
included some decisions I strongly protested -- I again called for
some kind of framework be made available to the public and to MCLA
teams to allow all to operate on the same playing field
criteria-wise.
On Thursday, I requested and received what the MCLA honchos devised
during the summer meetings in San Diego a couple of weeks ago.
Before I give you my thoughts on what they came up with,
here’s what 2010 selection committee chair Ken Lovic sent me
(italicized), edited for format.
MCLA Automatic Qualifiers and At-Large Teams
The MCLA DI and DII Men's Lacrosse Championship
is a 16-team, single-elimination tournament. Each of the ten
conferences will receive an automatic qualification for each
division if they maintain the MCLA policy of at least six (6)
qualifying teams per division in a playing season. The
remaining teams for the tournament are selected by an at large
process by a diverse committee approved by the Board of Directors
at each summer meeting.
A team must play a minimum of 8 games against different Divisional
opponents during the regular season to be considered for selection
and to be eligible for their conference’s automatic
qualifier. All Division I teams must also play three distinct Out
Of Conference (OOC) games versus Division I opponents and Division
II teams must play two distinct OOC games versus Division II
opponents to be considered for an At Large bid.
Primary Factors for Selecting At-Large Teams
The MCLA Selection Committee employs criteria
specified in the MCLA Bylaws. When selecting teams for
possible at-large berths, primary factors considered when reviewing
teams' won-loss records and strength of schedule are (in priority
order) as follows:
- Must have played eight (8) MCLA Divisional Games.
- Must have played a minimum of three Out of Conference
contests
Once a team has qualified under these policies the
committee will then look at teams based on:
- Body of Work – wins and losses throughout the
season
- OOC Games – quality of opponent
- Record versus Top 25 and Top 10 teams as based on the
final collegelax.us regular season poll.
- Record versus teams outside the top 25 final
collegelax.us poll
Secondary Factors for Selecting At-Large
Teams
If an analysis of the primary selection factors listed above does
not result in a decision by the committee regarding at-large
selections, the following secondary criteria are evaluated
(although not in priority order):
- Head-to-head competition.
- Results against common opponents.
- Results against teams not under consideration.
Ranked opponents are those ranked at the time of the selection
process only (the final collegelax.us regular season poll).
Conference postseason games are included.
Tournament Pairings
Once selected, teams will be seeded based on committee input. Teams
are selected first to the tournament through either AQ or AL and
then a second process begins of seeding the qualifying teams. The
committee will use various polls (collegelax, laxpower power
rankings, lawpower strength of schedule), travel commitments from
the current season, and overall season results.
The committee will, when possible, avoid intra-conference
match-ups in the first round. The committee will only avoid these
match ups if they feel it would not diminish the overall structure
of the seeding.
What’s to
Like?
1. Just getting pen to paper is such a monumental step
forward for the MCLA. No longer do we have the perception of a
group of individuals operating with no set of guidelines. The
committee likely had them from the outset, but just illuminating
the process to this extent gives every coach, player and
administrator a feeling that everyone is operating with the same
knowledge as they prepare for the season.
Will these alleviate questions when the 2011 selections surface? Of
course not. The NCAA has much more specific criteria and there are
still gripes, although they have become fewer. At least a team left
out of the mix can go back over the criteria and pinpoint where it
fell short.
2. The document is incredibly vague when dealing with some issues,
even in the wording. Instead of using “winning
percentage,” the committee opted for “body of
work.” Instead of delineating exactly what determines
non-conference strength, they used the broad term
“quality.” I went back and forth about whether this
ambiguity was a good thing or a bad thing. After thinking about it,
I came to the conclusion that the vagueness was the right decision
for the MCLA.
The upcoming year will be just the third season with the committee
structure, and instead of hemming themselves in with specifics
after such a short trial period, the committee has allowed
themselves wiggle room via interpretation. This wouldn’t fly
in the varsity world, but the NCAA has had decades to fine-tune its
process. The association’s operation is still in its infancy,
so why would it try to build Rome in a day?
There will undoubtedly be loopholes that pop up in the coming years
from this set of guidelines – I would have like to see them
mandate the “must have a winning record to be eligible”
rule – and they’ll have to space to do that without
compromising the core tenets of the selection process. Assuming
this is a living document, allowing for precedent and amendments,
this is exactly what the MCLA needs at this point.
3. I also wavered on whether I liked the idea of incorporating
polls into the criteria. Coaches polls, such as the collegelax.us
rankings, not only react to current events at a glacial pace but
also trend toward giving established teams a discount. Computer
polls, such as LaxPower’s, are useful, but are also often
flawed (to wit: even after the D-III national championship game,
Tufts finished No. 6).
But the polls are part of the history of the MCLA. It is good that
the committee has kept this unique aspect intact to differentiate
it from any other league. Plus, due to the disparate geographical
nature of the MCLA – far broader than any other men’s
lacrosse league – it’s nearly impossible to judge the
field without a little help from coaches and computers. I’m
on board with the polls.
4. The committee was wise to use the “travel
commitment” criterion solely during the seeding process and
not during selection. It is such a nebulous criterion to start
with, and would be nearly impossible to quantify, considering how
geographically diverse the MCLA is. For instance, which team is
displaying more “travel commitment”: a California team
flying to Michigan or a Florida team trekking to Colorado? For the
most part, the tournament seeds itself, so this will be nearly a
non-factor – as it should be.
What to Question?
1. Putting head-to-head competition into the secondary
criteria doesn’t make a lot of sense. If two teams are vying
for the last spot in the at-large field, is there any truer gauge
of which team is more deserving than a head-to-head result? One can
nuance the issue and crunch the numbers to make the favored team
look better overall, but if two teams actually played, what’s
left to interpret?
2. In the primary criteria, there is a stipulation that the
“record versus teams outside the top 25 final collegelax.us
poll” will be considered, and in the secondary criteria there
is also a mandate to examine “results against teams not under
consideration.”
Without delving too deep into the semantics of “record”
and “results,” it would appear the committee has
double-weighted games against weaker teams. Again, we must give the
benefit of the doubt and operate under the assumption this is a
rough draft of the criteria, but on the surface this seems like an
oversight.
3. The MCLA has codified the importance of a non-conference
schedule while seemingly ignoring conference or
“regional” opponents. This is a dangerous
guideline.
Considering that a small portion of the overall schedule is, for
most teams, dedicated to non-league opponents, the association
further stacks the deck against programs both financially strapped
or geographically isolated by failing to acknowledge conference
success.
The solution? Integrate a weighted conference or regional component
into the selection criteria to compliment the importance of
non-conference action. Much like the Senate and the House of
Representatives combines to give each state a fair shake regardless
of population, the MCLA needs to have a proverbial
large-state/small-state system in place to ensure that the
association doesn’t stagnate to a point where only a handful
of programs are viable in May.
The Overall
As mentioned above, the MCLA is on the right track.
It’s not a perfect worksheet, but the framework has been set
in which the association can move forward into a future where it
will be larger and more diverse.
