lax tourney

[Q]ithacat Wrote:
BTW, SU & Towson are the only 2 teams (in the top-10 RPI) without a win vs a top-10 RPI team. As far as Towson goes I hope that streak continues.

I still think Cornell got screwed...again. [/q]
I agree, although it was easy to see it coming.

There used to be two safeguards against the problem of RPI and strength-of-schedule being too dependent on whom you played as opposed to how you did against them. One of those safeguards--requiring a winning percentage of at least .500--knocked UNC out of this year's tournament, despite their high RPI and SOS. The other safeguard--and allegedly the #1 priority criterion for selection--has in the past been wins against top teams, which meant you not only had to play top teams (which boosted your RPI) but actually had to beat one or more of them (anyone can lose to Hopkins, Virginia, and Maryland--as Towson did--but it does pad your RPI and SOS). This year they apparently disregarded "safeguard" number two in both the selection and the seeding.

I agree that it would have been just plain wrong to leave Syracuse out of a 16-team tournament. Interesting how the Hopkins partisans on LaxPower were one day saying Syracuse didn't deserve to be selected based on their record but the next day were complaining about how tough a draw they were given (Syracuse or UMass--but primarily the prospect of playing the former) in the quarterfinals.

>>> [Hillel:] Cornell's women's lax team got two freshmen on the All-Ivy second team.

That's a start.

Too bad the men's sports we care most about these days, hockey and lacrosse, have not done well this year or last on the women's side. Although women's lacrosse did have a national contender three (?) years back.

It's not an issue of Syracuse not deserving to be there, I agree they did, but it *is* an issue of purposefully modifying their weighting of the criteria from each of the previous years in order to accomplish such. Quality Wins being the only factor that counted is and always was stupid, but it was consistent. To pick and chose your weights and which criterias your consider in order to get the desired end result is exactly what hockey avoids, and exactly what is horribly wrong. It almost makes it a waste to bother having criteria at all.

Using RPI and SOS to keep Syracuse in the tournament makes sense, but consider QW is still (officlally anyway) the *primary* criteria, you could have knocked Syracuse down another peg or two and kept us home, allowing QWs to be primary and actually sensibly use the others. But when the good ol' boys get together in a smokey room, sense doesn't play into it. Heck, you do that and you could end up with a Syr @ Cornell matchup. That'd be fun.

On second thought, I'd rather face Towson

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote: ... Interesting how the Hopkins partisans on LaxPower were one day saying Syracuse didn't deserve to be selected based on their record but the next day were complaining about how tough a draw they were given (Syracuse or UMass--but primarily the prospect of playing the former) in the quarterfinals.[/q]Gripe, gripe, gripe. Hopkins has the easiest path into the finals of anybody in the Hopkins half of the bracket.

In the other bracket, Towson must be thrilled with home turf (home grass?) but not so pleased with its first-round opponent.

Seriously, why don't they just stop calling this crap "criteria" and just label it "Annual Post-Selection Justification" and be done with it. "Criteria" somehow implies that the same standards will apply next year, when we all know they won't.

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Although women's lacrosse did have a national contender three (?) years back. [/q]

They made the tourney in '01 and '02. In '02 they snapped maryland's streak of 7 titles in the quarters before falling to georgetown (do we ever beat them in anything? we get a shot at the hoyas in football in october...) in ot in the semis the day before the men lost to UVa in the quarters. It was a tough weekend for cu lax.

We said it in March, and we can say it now: if you can't beat ______, you don't deserve to move on. The boys need to stomp Towson. Prove the smoke-filled assholes wrong.

I can't make Saturday's game 'cause I'm on vacation in Texas. If we win this weekend, I'll be at Princeton.

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:
Interesting how the Hopkins partisans on LaxPower were one day saying Syracuse didn't deserve to be selected based on their record but the next day were complaining about how tough a draw they were given (Syracuse or UMass--but primarily the prospect of playing the former) in the quarterfinals.[/q]

I've also found it interesting that some people (particularly at laxpower) have been quick to dismiss SU as a worthy tourny team (and one that is over-rated) and then proclaim an SU win as a resume-building win. Can't have it both ways.

If the past few months have shown us anything it's SOS appears to matter more than people want to admit. I'm not sure Cornell would have pulled a top 4 seed even if they had gone undefeated.

lgr

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

It's not an issue of Syracuse not deserving to be there, I agree they did, but it *is* an issue of purposefully modifying their weighting of the criteria from each of the previous years in order to accomplish such. Quality Wins being the only factor that counted is and always was stupid, but it was consistent. To pick and chose your weights and which criterias your consider in order to get the desired end result is exactly what hockey avoids, and exactly what is horribly wrong. It almost makes it a waste to bother having criteria at all.

Using RPI and SOS to keep Syracuse in the tournament makes sense, but consider QW is still (officlally anyway) the *primary* criteria, you could have knocked Syracuse down another peg or two and kept us home, allowing QWs to be primary and actually sensibly use the others. But when the good ol' boys get together in a smokey room, sense doesn't play into it. Heck, you do that and you could end up with a Syr @ Cornell matchup. That'd be fun.

On second thought, I'd rather face Towson [/q]

At some point every measure has its subjectivity built into it and, thankfully, there's a playoff system to provide an answer (unlike football). Using laxpower's QWs ranking, Cornell is still only 10th, SU is 16th. Cornell had zero wins against teams in the top 10 in QWs, while SU beat 2 top-10 (as ranked by QWs) teams. So what does that say?

I don't think a program makes it to 22 straight final fours and wins 9 NCs with smoke and mirrors. SU has earned their greatness on the field, not in a selection board room.

I would have loved to see SU at Cornell in round one. If anyone's going to stop SU streak I'd have rather it be Cornell. This rivalry is getting very hot... Orange hot or Red hot?

Now, Let's Go Red...

The number of national championships or final four appearances shouldn't have anything to do with whether a team has earned the right to play for the championship this year.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

The number of national championships or final four appearances shouldn't have anything to do with whether a team has earned the right to play for the championship this year.[/q]

I think any team (how many have there been?) that's on a run of 22 straight final fours will need to disqualify themselves from consideration.

[q]I think any team (how many have there been?) that's on a run of 22 straight final fours will need to disqualify themselves from consideration.[/q]In a smoke filled room that certainly will be the case. But it's not right. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally in this regard, regardless of history.

Again, having somewhat subjective criteria makes more sense to me with such a short season. I'm just saying that SU shouldn't get any special consideration due to history. However, no opinion here on whether they deserve to be in or not this year.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:

I think any team (how many have there been?) that's on a run of 22 straight final fours will need to disqualify themselves from consideration.[/Q]
In a smoke filled room that certainly will be the case. But it's not right. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally in this regard, regardless of history.

Again, having somewhat subjective criteria makes more sense to me with such a short season. I'm just saying that SU shouldn't get any special consideration due to history. However, no opinion here on whether they deserve to be in or not this year.[/q]

I agree with you, in general: however, the tricky part is what's fair and equal? Is it fair and equal to have an inferior team from a weak conference get an AQ at the expense of a more talented team, which one might argue happens every year?

I'm not sure why people are beating on SU. There are 5 other schools in the tourny with as many losses as SU (and only one of them played as difficult a schedule), and there's one school with 7 losses. All of SU's losses are to teams ranked in the top 8 -- they may actually be the 9th best team in the country (a poor year by their standards, but deserving of a chance to defend their title), we'll see this weekend. Just about every measure one sees has them in the top ten. If people want to question a school's inclusion how about Marist? Maybe they should pull all the AQs and eliminate some of the bogus conference tournaments (which basically just give some schools another chance to rack up a "quality win" or redeem their regular season).

It is tough with so few teams making the tourny. I don't know what's fair... (though I have a strong feeling it sure doesn't look like Minneapolis in March ).

LGR...