The NCAA Division I Women’s Lacrosse Tournament bracket was announced Monday evening. Penn is the No. 2 seed and will face Colgate Sunday at 1pm. Over the next few days I’ll provide some analysis and team reactions to the draw. First: Did the Quakers get shafted? Second: Will the Quakers see some familiar faces? Now up: Are people biased against Penn and in love with Northwestern?

—————————————————————————————————————————-

If there’s one theme that the Penn women’s lacrosse team has reiterated this season, it’s that everyone thinks last year’s record of 16-2 was a fluke, that the Quakers’ Final Four appearance was nothing but a lucky break, and that they don’t deserve national recognition this year.

In February when I first interviewed the senior captains about the upcoming season they mentioned the apparent bias against Penn.

“People love to hate us,” senior goalkeeper Sarah Waxman said back then. “They make up excuses like ‘Penn’s not that good.’”

“Definitely some people in the Ivy League think [last year] was a fluke,” attack Allison Ambrozy said that day as well.

The most recent instance of this perceived bias came on Monday during the bracket selection show. Some might say that Northwestern getting the one seed over Penn is an example of bias against Penn. But as stated in a previous post, most statistical evidence pointed to Northwestern getting the one. So can numbers be biased? However, after the seeding was announced a commentator on CBS’s CollegeSports TV, which aired the selection show, was apparently anti-Penn.

While she admitted she was over Northwestern getting the one seed, Ambrozy was not happy with the commentator’s analysis.

“There was this additional commentator… she pretty much was hating on us,” the senior said.

“She predicted that us beating Northwestern, which no one else had done, was the best thing for [the Wildcats’] season. That they’re only going to be more fired up for Penn, and that essentially it was a fluke and there’s no way we could beat Maryland [in the Final Four], which is a lot of crap, a lot of crap.”

Ignoring the UMD part for now, the part about Northwestern being extra fired up for Penn has some validity. To be honest, my initial reaction after Penn’s win over Northwestern was similar, although I did not think it was a fluke, or that Penn could not accomplish the feat again. However, Northwestern will now have a whole game to look at Penn and learn from its mistakes. Does that mean the Wildcats automatically going to win a potential rematch? No. But will they have extra motivation to beat the Quakers and earn revenge? Yes.

(For example, yesterday (fourth paragraph from the bottom) I compared the Quakers and Wildcats to the Colts and Patriots, respectively. Continuing with this, in 2006 the Colts upset the Pats 27-20 in the regular season. When the two teams met in the AFC championship, many pundits believed the Pats couldn’t lose to the Colts twice, and that Tom Brady et al would get revenge for the earlier loss. Well they didn’t. They blew a lead and lost 38-34.)

At the same time, suggesting the Northwestern game was a fluke is a slight. Basically the commentator was scoffing at Penn, diminishing what has to be the biggest win of the year so far. Was holding Northwestern — a team that averages 16.00 goals per game — scoreless for over an entire half a fluke? I would say not. Marginalizing a great win does no service to the sport.

The second “hating” on Penn, picking No. 3 Maryland over No. 2 Penn in the Final Four, is less insulting. While one does not have to agree with her, the commentator’s prediction is valid.

Maryland had an outstanding year, going an incredible 17-2 and only losing to rivals Duke and Virginia by a goal apiece. Both of those teams are in the tournament, and the Cavaliers needed overtime to dispatch the Terps in the ACC Conference Tournament finals.

So to pick the three seed over the two seed isn’t that surprising, especially considering a) the Final Four will be played in Towson, Md., just under a hour from College Park, and b) the three seed (UVA) beat the two seed (Duke) in last year’s Final Four.

Penn Coach Karin Brower, picking her words carefully, did acknowledge the commentator’s bias.

“They were talking about the Final Four, and we weren’t even given any chance” of advancing from it, Brower said. “[The commentator] said it was Maryland and Northwestern.

“And we’re frustrated with that. But then again, it’s similar to how it’s been all year. No one has thought that we’re any good. And that’s fine … Hopefully we can prove some people wrong.”

Not everyone disrespects Penn. In its short preview of the Quakers’ first round matchup against Colgate, Inside Lacrosse says “The Quakers are the best team in the country right now.” Well, apparently everyone can’t hate the Quakers. (NB: I’ll be writing a more substantial preview later this weekend).

After the jump, the opposite situation: Northwestern

If Penn is the team the media bashes, then Northwestern is the team the media loves. Ironically many traditional powers actually do resent the Wildcats, who have gone from a non-varsity team to dynasty in just five years. But even if some of the sport’s bluebloods dislike Northwestern, the media is agog over them.

And why shouldn’t they be? The program’s meteoric rise from club status to three-time national championship is certainly an inspirational, Cinderella-esque tale. ESPN even acknowledged this, nominating the Wildcats for the ESPY of “Under Armor Undeniable Performance Best Women’s Collegiate Team” last year (they lost to Tennessee’s basketball program).

The most recent examples of the media’s favorable coverage of Northwestern have come from Sports Illustrated. Earlier this season they did a photo gallery of Northwestern players’ apartments as part of their “Campus Cribs” series that highlights collegiate athletes’ dorms. And in the most recent issue, dated May 12, there is a feature on the program (Sports Illustrated issues are dated for the following Monday). Here is the online version of the article. The article focuses on how coach Kelly Amonte Hiller has transformed the team over the last eight years into a national power.

(As many of you probably know, there is a supposed Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. Fortunately for Northwestern, they’re not on the cover, but the jinx could still apply. So if the Wildcats fade out really early from the NCAAs, maybe SI is at fault.)

But ignoring the potential negative results of the article, it’s interesting to analyze the actual contents of it.

Now before going any further, the rest of this post is not meant to bash Northwestern. They deserve all of this coverage, as they have won the last three championships.

Keeping this in mind, this article is basically recruiting propaganda for Northwestern. Except for a throw away paragraph at the end about how the bluebloods look down on Northwestern — which even the author admits he understates, the article is all bright and cheery about how Amonte Hiller has resurrected the program.

This kind of feature — as many Sports Illustrated articles are — probably was assigned several weeks in advance. As a result, there is no reference to Penn beating the Wildcats two weeks ago. Relevant to the story? Perhaps not.

But considering the article focuses on the rise of a lacrosse program, it’d be interesting if the article had a sidebar on Penn. While not as impressive of a run as Northwestern’s — no one, not even the Quakers, would disagree with that — Penn has gone from 1-12 in 1999 to 30-3 over the last two seasons. Would it not have been worthwhile to mention that Northwestern is not the only team on the rise?

But then again, this article is on Northwestern, so a Penn side bar could’ve been distracting. But in addition to this omission, some lines in the article grabbed my attention. Here’s the first example:

“…a school nestled in the Chicago suburbs becoming a lacrosse powerhouse is the equivalent of Miami fielding a top skiing program. “

It’s true that Chicago isn’t a lacrosse hotbed. So this would be applicable except lacrosse isn’t based on weather or climate.

But the line that Penn players would hate the most comes earlier in the article:

“…the Wildcats are the odds-on favorite to win a fourth title when the NCAA tournament starts next week.”

Northwestern is definitely the favorite. The NCAA Selection Committee admitted as much when it seeded them first. But wouldn’t a team that beat them not even two weeks ago have some sort of odds of winning? Well, I actually tried looking for some sort of lines/odds for the women’s lacrosse tournament, but I couldn’t find any. Yeah I looked up women’s lacrosse betting lines. Fortunately Americans aren’t that desperate for gambling action. Still I’m sure the Quakers’ odds aren’t that bad, nor would the Wildcats’ be that amazing.Then again, if everyone is hating against the Quakers and loving the Wildcats, perhaps that is the cause.

Tags: media, ncaa tournament, W. Lax

This entry was posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008 at 4:43 am and is filed under Lacrosse. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.