2013 NCAA Lacrosse Tournament

(1) Syracuse v. Bryant
(8) Penn State v. Yale

(5) North Carolina v. Lehigh
(4) Denver v. Albany

(3) Ohio State v. Towson
(6) Maryland v. Cornell

(7) Duke v. Loyola
(2) Notre Dame v. Detroit

1/8 and 3/6 quarterfinals at College Park; 4/5 and 2/7 quarterfinals at Indianapolis.

How is UNC's seed not higher?

Damn we dont even get a home game

this makes us the last team in, right?

Reminds me of ncaa hockey seedings of years past. Cornell dropped to the 10th seed. If you have the home field for your conference tournament you should win at least one game.

UNC and Cornell demoted.

Ohio State got a bump up.

They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.




Projected braketology


Lacrosse Magazine

College Park

(1) BIG EAST/Syracuse vs. NORTHEAST/Bryant
(8) Cornell vs. Loyola

Indianapolis

(4) ECAC/Ohio State vs. PATRIOT/Lehigh
(5) Denver vs. Duke

College Park

(3) North Carolina vs. COLONIAL/Towson
(6) Maryland vs. AMERICA EAST/Albany

Indianapolis

(2) Notre Dame vs. METRO ATLANTIC/Detroit
(7) Penn State vs. IVY/Yale


Inside lacrosse

1. Syracuse (Big East)
Bryant (NEC)

8. Cornell
Albany (America East)

4. North Carolina
Towson (CAA)

Penn State
5. Ohio State

Yale (Ivy)
3. Denver (ECAC)

6. Maryland
Lehigh (Patriot League)

Loyola
7. Duke

Detroit (MAAC)
2. Notre Dame

The sport of lacrosse is ascending. The ESPNU selection show is descending, run by a bunch of amateurs (drawing paychecks) with game video backing them up. The studio announcers had a chance to talk about who's likely to advance and Kessenich and Carcaterra don't say squat beyond that Syracuse, the No. 1 seed, has a favorable matchup. Well, yes, Bryant (Laxpower RPI 32) and Detroit (RPI 53) don't belong in the tournament except they won conference championships. Which may be for the good of lacrosse. I think one of them mentioned that Cornell and Loyola (also Lehigh (?)) might be tough competition in an aside.

The show brings on Bryant (fired Duke) coach Mike Pressler about the excitement of being in the show but, please, in fairness at least mention it wasn't "circumstances" it was a coach who lost control of his players off-field that got him fired. They bring on the NCAA selection committee head and don't drill him harder on whether a formulaic selection system misses getting the best teams in the tournament, or why No. 1 (polls) UNC is a 5-seed. The most he admitted to was that Bucknell was probably that the last team not to make it.

Quint Kessenich looks like a young Bob Costas. But if he wants to be the next Bob Costas, he has to step us his game. Otherwise he's going to top out covering college lacrosse and wrestling.

I like Cornell and Albany to beat the higher seeds, maybe Lehigh over NC. The only two safe games are the 1-2 seeds, Syracuse over Bryant (although the Orange did lose to RPI-39 Hobart and Bryant is better than that at 32) and Notre Dame over Deroit (RPI 53 of 63).

kingpin248
(1) Syracuse v. Bryant <<< Syracuse
(8) Penn State v. Yale <<< pick 'em

(5) North Carolina v. Lehigh <<< Lehigh?
(4) Denver v. Albany <<< Albany

(3) Ohio State v. Towson <<< pick 'em, don't see either in the final four
(6) Maryland v. Cornell <<< Cornell

(7) Duke v. Loyola <<< pick 'em
(2) Notre Dame v. Detroit <<< disband the team if the Irish don't win; to save airfare Detroit buses to ND not flies to Syracuse

1/8 and 3/6 quarterfinals at College Park; 4/5 and 2/7 quarterfinals at Indianapolis.

Apparently so (Cornell as last team in) since Loyola gets a lower-seeded opponent, No. 7 duke instead of No. 6 Maryland. Give or take E-W brackets, we are the 11 seed and 12-16 are AQ cannon fodder.

phillysportsfan
How is UNC's seed not higher?

RPI has it Cornell, Maryland, NC as top three teams if I read it right

billhoward
The sport of lacrosse is ascending. The ESPNU selection show is descending, run by a bunch of amateurs (drawing paychecks) with game video backing them up. The studio announcers had a chance to talk about who's likely to advance and Kessenich and Carcaterra don't say squat beyond that Syracuse, the No. 1 seed, has a favorable matchup. Well, yes, Bryant (Laxpower RPI 32) and Detroit (RPI 53) don't belong in the tournament except they won conference championships. Which may be for the good of lacrosse. I think one of them mentioned that Cornell and Loyola (also Lehigh (?)) might be tough competition in an aside.

The show brings on Bryant (fired Duke) coach Mike Pressler about the excitement of being in the show but, please, in fairness at least mention it wasn't "circumstances" it was a coach who lost control of his players off-field that got him fired. They bring on the NCAA selection committee head and don't drill him harder on whether a formulaic selection system misses getting the best teams in the tournament, or why No. 1 (polls) UNC is a 5-seed. The most he admitted to was that Bucknell was probably that the last team not to make it.

Quint Kessenich looks like a young Bob Costas. But if he wants to be the next Bob Costas, he has to step us his game. Otherwise he's going to top out covering college lacrosse and wrestling.

Yeah and they are obsessed with Hopkins, they wasted 5 minutes talking about Hopkins and interviewing Pietramala instead of talking about the teams actually in the tournament

I think the nebulous "Strength of Schedule" burned us this year. We played one top 5 team, and too many weak teams. I understand we want to support NY state lax and keep travel costs down, but we need to pick some better teams if we want to be treated like a real program.

That and with the exception of Denver, the seeds all show signs of Big Name School Bias.

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

With the first round loss in the Ivy tournament and the lack of games against what ended up being the cream of the crop I think we got the placing we deserved +/- 1.

I don't think we were ever going to draw Bryant/Detroit in the first round and there is a lot of parity among the balance of the field so we were going to have to beat somebody good to get to he second round so it might as well be Maryland.

Towerroad
With the first round loss in the Ivy tournament and the lack of games against what ended up being the cream of the crop I think we got the placing we deserved +/- 1.

I don't think we were ever going to draw Bryant/Detroit in the first round and there is a lot of parity among the balance of the field so we were going to have to beat somebody good to get to he second round so it might as well be Maryland.

Should we get by Maryland, I like the potential QF pairing over any of the others, too.

RichH

Towerroad
With the first round loss in the Ivy tournament and the lack of games against what ended up being the cream of the crop I think we got the placing we deserved +/- 1.

I don't think we were ever going to draw Bryant/Detroit in the first round and there is a lot of parity among the balance of the field so we were going to have to beat somebody good to get to he second round so it might as well be Maryland.

Should we get by Maryland, I like the potential QF pairing over any of the others, too.

And fortunately our bracket plays the QF game at Maryland; I had thought our bracket was going to Indianapolis (since Mariucci Arena was not available to stuff Cornell in). The Cornell-Maryland winner gets the Towson-Ohio State winner in the QFs. The NCAA seeders have TOSU as the third best team in the country. [insidelacrosse.com]

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

IQ? Looks? Girth? Posts? Snarky posts? Semesters to graduate?

billhoward
IQ? Looks? Girth? Posts? Snarky posts? Semesters to graduate?

Many of those are subjective, and I would have no way of accurately judging any of them except for post count.

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

I object!

Tickets available at this link. According to the U-MD ticket office, "All seating in the bowl area is general admission. Typically, the visiting team fans will just congregate in an area behind the visiting team bench area."

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

Josh '99

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

Too bad (Rob) Szewczyk isn't a hockey fan.

Josh '99

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

Josh '99

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

Swampy

Josh '99

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

So, you couldn't be objective enough with 1 post?

Swampy

Josh '99

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

Well, you raise a good point in that there's subjectivity involved in the selection of any particular set of objective criteria to use, but that's the case even if the criteria are openly described like the PWR.

phillysportsfan
How is UNC's seed not higher?

That was the one semi-tough question asked on the ESPNU selection show. Its strength of schedule is No. 8, which is not bad. Its losses were by one goal each to UMass and Notre Dame (OT) and by three to Duke. It had three one-goal wins, over Fairfield 10-9, Princeton 16-15 and over Duke 18-17 in the ACC playoffs. They should not have lost to UMass or Fairfield. Maybe that had some impact.

To give you a better idea of how the 16 teams shake out in the 2013 NCAA lax tournament and who will win in the first round, chew on this, Quint: Selection Sunday Q&A, Reaction

QK
IL: Who is ripe to be upset?
QK: To answer that question, you've got to go watch practice all week and see who isn't mentally locked-in.

IL: How many of the 16 teams can really win the title?
QK: It would surprise me if Detroit, Towson and Bryant won the title.

IL: Who got snubbed?
QK: Bucknell has the strongest resume of the non-participants. ... Penn, Princeton and Drexel are the next best teams to be bypassed in 2013. Hopkins and Virginia will use May as a reflective month, soul searching for solutions. Both programs must evolve if they are going to maintain their status as the sports elite.
As my yoga instructor sister Kyle likes to remind me: "The moments between poses of breathing, thinking and peace are more important than the actual poses themselves."

Josh '99

Swampy

Josh '99

Towerroad

Josh '99

Chris '03

Rita

Kyle Rose

Josh '99

Trotsky

flyersgolf
They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding. I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's... not really true. If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective. Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list.

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

Well, you raise a good point in that there's subjectivity involved in the selection of any particular set of objective criteria to use, but that's the case even if the criteria are openly described like the PWR.

An "objective" criterion ought to be at least mimimally related to the purpose for which it is intended. Just because a selection criterion is definable does not mean it is objective. As a Yankees fan I do not want playoff slots determined by alphabetic order. (Age of the closer would be ok though)

Towerroad
An "objective" criterion ought to be at least mimimally related to the purpose for which it is intended. Just because a selection criterion is definable does not mean it is objective. As a Yankees fan I do not want playoff slots determined by alphabetic order. (Age of the closer would be ok though)

Stupid and irrational doesn't make something not objective.

KeithK

Towerroad
An "objective" criterion ought to be at least mimimally related to the purpose for which it is intended. Just because a selection criterion is definable does not mean it is objective. As a Yankees fan I do not want playoff slots determined by alphabetic order. (Age of the closer would be ok though)

Stupid and irrational doesn't make something not objective.

I beg to differ. Stupid and irrational are just that stupid and irrational. The root of the word objective is object. If the object to be considered is the winning of a tournament then objective criterion for selection should in some way relate to the probability of winning. A further constraint is that they should be clearly definable preferably well in advance of the actual application of the criterion.

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

Trotsky
Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

Towerroad

Trotsky
Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky
Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

That's not allowed unless you've paid.

Trotsky
Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

But what is an "observed fact"? You're not still trying to get that doggie of empiricism to hunt are you?

Facts are "theory laden," which calls into question the whole notion of "objectivity," at least if it's defined as "corresponding to observed fact."

Oh, and about correspondence theories of truth or meaning, well don't get me started.

Laxmagazine.com pre-game article here: [laxmagazine.com]

Al DeFlorio
Laxmagazine.com pre-game article here: [laxmagazine.com]

And thinks Cornell has the better team.

Weder

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky
Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

That's not allowed unless you've paid.

Shut your festering gob, you twit.

ugarte

Weder

Trotsky

Towerroad

Trotsky
Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object." It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

That's not allowed unless you've paid.

Shut your festering gob, you twit.

You vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!

Next round:

5/18 12:30 ET: (3) Ohio State vs Cornell at College Park
5/18 03:00 ET: (1) Syracuse vs Yale at College Park
5/19 02:30 ET: (2) Notre Dame vs (7) Duke at Indianapolis
5/19 12:00 ET: (4) Denver vs (5) UNC at Indianapolis

This is one case when it's okay to root for Yale

BearLover
This is one case when it's okay to root for Yale

Yes, although another win for Yale puts them dangerously close to fluke win of lacrosse national championship to go with hockey, at which point my head explodes.

BearLover
This is one case when it's okay to root for Yale

So was last week.

Considering how the Ivy league got dissed by the seeding committee, I think I'd pretty much like to see a Cornell-Yale final. That'll show the bastards.

JasonN95

BearLover
This is one case when it's okay to root for Yale

Yes, although another win for Yale puts them dangerously close to fluke win of lacrosse national championship to go with hockey, at which point my head explodes.

Yeah, this has been lurking in my mind as soon as Yale beat PSU.

Inside Lacrosse article on Onondaga CC winning their fifth straight championship.

Here's the Syracuse.com article.

Jeff Hopkins '82

BearLover
This is one case when it's okay to root for Yale

So was last week.

So was the game against Harvard.