For those that can remember, it was not USC that started it. It was UCLA. Jovan and Bob Horn brought players from Canada, Germany, and maybe another country in the late 80s. Funny how the tables turned. Even Newland had a foreign player at that time - a Mexican player named Pablo Irizar. Good player!
UCLA had foreigners in the 80ās, I think Stanford even had a couple, but USC was the one who really elevated the numbers and started the trend
1 Like
Iām not sure how two people can watch the last weekend of games and say āFordham should be ranked higher than Stanfordā or āPacific is better than Davis & LBSUā
Stanford is closer to UCLA than they are to Fordham. I think Davis and LBSU are closer to Fordham than they are to Pacific.
4 Likes
I would agree. Iām a huge Fordham fan but not sure how you put Stanford below them after this weekend.
2 Likes
Half the show was a bunch of nonsense. Schedule the best teams and beat them you are #1. That rules all. We all know how weak the different conferences are no hiding it. Not fair to give them a handout into the NCAA champs. Sorry.
2 Likes
Why are posts getting censored? Someone sensitive today?
*Update: Glad to see everything restored. The healthy debate and knowledgeable back and forth makes this place a lot more interesting. 
1 Like
Its common sense. UCLA waxed Fordham and Stanford had UCLA on the ropes and barely lost. I think coach access is a factor in their rankings
2 Likes
no chance of that ever happening. They used March Madness as an example. NCAAB would never give the #1 seed to the conference tournament winner. It goes to the best team over the season
1 Like
I love the new tournament approach. Is it perfect, no. But, it does bring in parity and makes it a more competitive tournament. The current approach is due for a refresh and this would be much more exciting to watch and for the players.
1 Like
IMHO, the NCAA seedings should be based on the what teams are ranked the highest going into the tournament. I get that we all want parity, but it does not seem fair to penalize the MPSF just because they have 4 of the top teams.
1 Like
I see this POV and understand it, especially in a sport like football. In a smaller sport like water polo I do like the thought of winning your conference. Otherwise MPSF conference tournament is meaningless. I would like to see us try something different and it seems time. This year seems like a greta example. Most thought UCLA was untouchable, and maybe they are, but this weekend showed maybe there is a chance. I would like to avoid UCLA getting another week off to train due to being guaranteed that top 4 seed. Make everyone work.
I appreciate the WPW guysā effort and time spent to consider some kind of revampingā¦One thing I dont know if they mentioned was the number of teams possible to be invited ā¦ last year was 8 ā¦ I would love to see 16ā¦.. they landed on 12 ā¦ is there any NCAA imposed limitation on the numberā¦ ?
So, do you think that UCLA should have been seeded #6 in the tournament last year like the WPW guys suggested? They were 23-2 at the time, including a 3-1 record against USC.
2 Likes
Getting into a seeding debate is like banging my head against the wall. All I am saying is I agree with WPW that doing something different makes sense at this time. I love water polo, but the predictability of the tournament for the last couple of decades is a bit boring and not doing the sport any favors. If a team wants a top 4 spot in their proposed format they will go hard for it. today they donāt have to. And they get rewarded for it. I am thinking about more than the big 4. They have plenty of advantages, and have deserved them. I would love competitiveness and the depth of teams would make it great, even if UCLA still wins. More teams in the hunt, even if itās just perceived.
1 Like
There is a reason why the tournament wonāt expand. We are lucky they moved it from 4 to 8. There are only around 30 menās D1 teams. 8 is doing us a favor.
3 Likes
We can always dream.
That predictability is rooted in the small number of teams (dominated by the big 4), the concentration of high school/club talent mostly in California giving those schools a huge recruiting advantage, and the economic and timing realities of travel for non-CA teams trying to put together a competitive schedule. I donāt think there is a way to change that except for major growth in the sport. And that growth would need to start at the youth level to supply enough athletes to make non-CA teams competitive. Itās a long-term project. See lacrosse for a successful model. But todayās successful and competitive NCAA lacrosse started 40 years ago with grassroots growth around the country in high school and club teams. Some will say lack of pool time is a limiting factor, and there is some truth in that, but lack of pools has not limited swimming from producing competitive athletes and teams around the country, including in places where all the pools need to be indoors.
I get that and agree with what you are saying. I donāt think that should prevent a more dynamic NCAA.
I hear you. Add me to the list of easterners hoping Fordham can break through, but after 40 years of hoping for that starting back with UMass in the Russ Yarworth era, then Slippery Rock, Navy, Princeton, and Bucknell, Iām beginning to think itās not in the cards. Hope springs eternal thoughāand a future with 2 or 3 of those teams consistently in the top ten is not impossible. We just need to clone what Greenwich has done in places like Pennsylvania, DC area, Michigan, Florida, Illinois and Texas with some existing water polo interest and infrastructure. Perhaps we start by mapping out where concentrations of eastern Euro heritage are high.