Can someone please remind me who's got the auto-bids wrapped up?
The NCAA's "primary criteria" in evaluating won-lost record and strength of schedule (which are to be considered along with "eligibility and availability of student-athletes"--can you imagine if superstar injuries were considered in the NFL tiebreakers) are
(1) "results against teams in descending order, as determined by the column entitled normal RPI rank that is used during selections (e.g., vs. teams 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc.)."
(2) "Strength-of Schedule Index, based on the opponents' success ranking in the RPI that is used during selections."
(3) The column entitled normal RPI rank, based on the entire Division I schedule. The RPI includes the Division I winning percentage, opponents' success, and the opponents' strength-of-schedule."
I hear tell that #3 is the straight-up 25/50/25 RPI, which is in the column "NCAA RPI" on http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/rpi.shtml ; we are #7 in that, behind Hopkins, Georgetown, Syracuse, Virginia, UMass and Princeton.
Also, #2 is apparently Opponents' Winning Percentage, in which we are also #7, behind Duke, Hopkins, Princeton, Brown, UMass, and Virginia.
#1 is probably most important against teams with which we're a wash in #2 and #3, which at the moment consists of Georgetown, Syracuse, Duke and Brown. At the moment, using http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/current/crit.Cr.shtml as a guide, we are 1-1 against the top 5 in RPI, Georgetown is 0-0, Syracuse is 1-1, Duke is 1-2, and Brown is 0-2. Against the top ten, we're 2-1, Georgetown is 2-1, Syracuse is 3-2, Duke is 1-2, and Brown is 2-3. In the "secondary criteria", vs Georgetown we lost head-to-head and they have us 3-0 to 2-1 on common opponents, vs Syracuse we won head-to-head but they have us 3-0 to 1-2 on common opponents, Duke we didn't play and common opponents are a wash at 3-2, and Brown beat us head-to-head, but we have them 5-1 to 3-3 on common opponents.
To me this sounds like right now we're behind Georgetown and Syracuse (name-branding will make the committee spin the criteria so the Orange are ahead of us) and ahead of Duke and Brown.
That puts 6 teams ahead of us, of whom one (UMass) already has an AQ. We should of course root for Princeton to beat Brown and take the Ivy AQ, since they're ahead of us anyway (although apparently Princeton moving into the top 5 would be bad for us). Good news for us is that Hofstra, who are right behind us in the RPI, have already finished the season, so if we beat Hobart, we should stay clear of them. Duke plays Penn, so you should probably hold your nose and root for the Quakers.
I defer to the lax gurus for an authoritative statement, but it looks to me like if we win and Princeton beats Brown (and I counted right) we should manage to snag the fifth or sixth at-large bid. (If Brown wins, we could be in danger of being passed by Duke for the last bid.)
The committee meets Sunday afternoon. I'll try to re-run the RPI numbers after today's results are in, but it may not be until late tonight.
Auto-bids:
GWLL - Fairfield
ECAC - Massachusetts
Ivy - Princeton (defeated Brown 12-10 today)
MAAC - Manhattan (defeated Mt. St. Mary's 9-8 today)
America East - Stony Brook (defeated Albany 8-6 today)
Patriot League - Hobart (they had higher RPI than Army and Bucknell, the two teams with which they were tied for the regular season crown at 5-1)
(nb: this post has been changing throughout the day as results have come in)
The six AQ's go to the Ivy, ECAC, Patriot, MAAC, Great Western and Amercia East conferences. I think only two are decided at this point - UMASS won the ECAC (so Georgetown is in the at-large mix) and Fairfield won the GW.
As for the rest...
Ivy is between (sad to say) Brown and PU. I think we need PU to win.
Patriot is between Army and...gasp!...Hobart. We need CU to win.
Amercia East tournament winner will be in (Albany/Hartford/Stony Brook/Quinnipiac?)
MAAC tournament winner will be in (Manhattan/Mt. St. Mary's/Providence/St. Joseph?)
JHU, Syracuse are in no doubt. Virginia and Georgetown are very likely. The other two spots? It's too complicated for my addled mind. There are some good takes on it all in various places. Here's what "CuseLaxRules" had to say on Syrcuse.com (this post, unlike most - 99.9% - there was reasonable, I thought), though it does not make it sound good for CU:
"Anyone up for some tourney talk? I know there's been a lot of it going around lately, but I'll throw my two cents in.
We can safely assume that JHU, SU, Georgetown, and UVa have all assured themselves of an at large bid, win or lose this weekend.
That leaves two at-large bids remaining between the following teams: Hofstra, Loyola, Cornell, Duke, Maryland. I'll give a synopsis on each team, in the order I think they should be considered for those 2 spots.
1. Hofstra: 11-3. Rankings: RPI 9, Media and Coaches 6. Top 5 wins: 0. Top 10 wins: UMass, Duke. Top 15 wins: UNC. Losses: Princeton, JHU, Loyola. Hofstra is a quality team with quality wins and losses.
2. Loyola: 9-3. Rankings: RPI 12, Media 9, Coaches 11. Top 5 wins: 0. Top 10 wins: Duke, Hofstra. Losses: Syracuse, Georgetown, BUTLER. The Butler loss could be what keeps this team out of the tourney. If they beat JHU Saturday they're in. Otherwise they're on the bubble. Wins over fellow bubble teams Duke and Hofstra should help, but their RPI ranking is the worst out of all the bubble teams, which could come back to haunt them.
3. Duke: 7-6. Rankings: RPI 8, Media 8, Coaches 7. Top 5 wins: Virginia. Top 10 wins: Maryland, twice. Losses: Loyola, UNC, Georgetown, PU, Virginia, Hofstra. SOOO many losses, but more top quality wins than the other bubble teams, which is a complete result of the ACC Tourney. Duke needs Loyola to lose and Princeton to win on Saturday, or else I don't think they'll be able to pull it off.
4. Cornell: 9-3. Rankings: RPI 7, Media 11, Coaches 10. Top 5 Wins: Syracuse. Top 10: 0. Top 15 wins: Yale. Losses: Princeton, Georgetown, Brown. Cornell is living off their Cuse win...without that they aren't even in this discussion. In another year that may be enough to get them in, but not this year. Their strong RPI is the only thing keeping them afloat right now. [NOTE THAT PENN STATE IS NOW IN THE TOP 15 WHICH IMPROVES CU's STANDING SOMEWHAT]
5. Maryland: 8-4. Rankings: RPI 14, Media 7, Coaches 9. No top 5 or 10 wins. Top 15 wins: UNC, Navy, Yale. Losses: Virginia, JHU, Duke(twice). Poor RPI, no top 10 wins spells trouble for a team many consider the best of the bubble teams. I just don't think they've done enough to be placed ahead of the first three teams on the list, and at least Cornell has a big win to fall back on.
If Princeton loses to Brown, they lose the Ivy AQ and get put in the at-large mix. IF THAT HAPPENS, Princeton's line would look like this: Record: 7-5 (Current) Rankings: RPI 6, Media 3, Coaches 4. Top 5 wins: 0. Top 10 wins: Cornell, Hofstra, Duke. Top 15 wins: 0. Losses: Syracuse, Virginia, JHU, Brown, Yale. If this happens, I would place Princeton behind Hofstra for sure, despite their head to head thrashing. If Loyola beats JHU, PU falls in behind them and ahead of Duke, Cornell, and Maryland, which would mean no tournament appearance for the defending national champions."
I figure that by the time I try to figure out what we need to have happen to get CU in, all the games will be over and I'll have a splitting headache. So I'm heading to Geneva to root hard.
Let's Go Red.
Sorry to be slow about this, but didn't the loss to Brown eliminate Cornell no matter what?
No. If the committee uses the actual method outlined in the handbook, we have a good shot at the last at-large AQ if we win and princeton wins.
However, the committee also has an ad-hoc "which team do we like the best" tiebreaker. So the question becomes how much do you trust the committee?
Red finish at 10-3.
Final from Providence - Princeton 12, Brown 10
Hopkins defeats Loyola 8-4.
I think there's an error on the LaxPower composite schedule - Duke and Penn aren't playing today. Neither Duke nor Penn lists the game.
Sweet. That's the best possible outcome for today. Root for SU to cream G'town.
delete message. . .double post
Syracuse - 15
Georgetown - 14 final
It looks like all the cards played out the way we needed them too, now we have to wait & hope we get in over Duke or Loyola. . .we shall see
Anyone got a score for the Dartmouth-Harvard game? There's no result on laxpower, and lax.com has 0-0 as the score.
Game didn't start until 7. Can't find a webcast. Guess you'll just have to wait. :)
When will they announce the field?
For JTW:
Harvard 7 - Dartmouth 6
http://forums.laxpower.com/read.php?f=1&i=25834&t=25834
For JTW: Harvard 7, Dartmouth 6
For Greg: Tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 PDT. It will be on Empire Sports (on DirecTV ch. 626 and Dish Network ch. 432). NCAAchampionships.com also mentions something about an Internet cast. I haven't seen a link anywhere on their site. There is an audio link on Empire's site, so listening shouldn't be a problem.
For Greg:
(From the LaxPower Forum):
Since the Swami is
never wrong... ::rolleyes::
QuoteAuthor: Swami
Date: 05-03-02 21:39
The NCAA Lacrosse Selection Show is on this Sunday, 6:30 PM. The show will be aired over Empire Sports Network for New York area cable viewers. Empire Sports is also carried over DirecTV Channel 626.
Empire audio simulcasts its entire schedule, so you will be able to listen to it over the Internet by going to Empire's web site at http://www.empiresports.com/index.shtml
...And... other sources:
QuoteAuthor: radiomike
Date: 05-04-02 10:39
Also, WWW.WEOS.ORG and NCAACHAMPIONSHIPS.ORG
Heh-heh... Matt and I are such good citizens -- we were practically tripping over each other to answer the eLF Faithful's questions! :-D
A word on the Swami: his credibility has to take a hit. You'll note he rigged his competition so his "hated rival," the Ivyman, got just enough of a "late pick penalty" to put Venus Lee on top. Meanwhile, where did the Swami himself finish? Dead last.
Yeah, dead last on his own website -- that's pretty funny! He is now relegated to comic relief. Frankly, I wonder whether either Venus or Bunny actually exist (blow-up dolls don't count!).
Well, the games have all been played, and I just crunched the numbers. See http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/rpi.shtml
We stay #6 in the RPI, but drop to #10 (ouch!) in Opp Pct which is apparently the NCAA's schedule strength measure. (How dare we play Hobart!) Unfortunately, staying at #6 is actually a slip: we passed UMass (who are in anyway on an AQ), but idle Hofstra somehow managed to pass us! So if they went by RPI alone, we would be the last at-large bid: Hopkins, Syracuse, Virginia, Georgetown, Hofstra, and Cornell.
Behind us in the RPI but ahead in strength of schedule are Duke, Brown, Yale and UNC. We have one win against 1-5 (Syracuse) one against 6-10 (Yale), and one against 11-15 (Penn). Duke has one win against 1-5 (Virginia), one against 6-10 (Yale), and two against 11-15 (both Maryland). Brown has two wins against 6-10 (us and Yale) and nothing else. Yale has one win against 1-5 (Princeton), one against 6-10 (UMass) and one against 11-15 (Penn). UNC has one win against one win against 6-10 (Duke) and nothing else. I think Duke, at #9 in the RPI and #2 in schedule strength, is the team we have to worry about squeezing us out. (Of course, their 7-6 record might count against them.)
I have to say, this really makes you appreciate hockey, where we would know the definitive answer already.
Incidentally, we're comfortably ahead of Duke in both KRACH and PWR.
It doesn't affect the RPI, but Hobart is a TUC for PWR purposes. The Patriot League announced that since they had a higher RPI than Army or Bucknell (the other two tri-champions), the Statesmen get the Patriot automatic bid despite being 6-7.
So, I was surprised to see that Hofstra passed us in the RPI even though we won and they were idle. So I ran the numbers including all games except Cornell-Hobart, including all games, and including all games through Friday. It turns out that the Hobart game did not effect our RPI at all (to four significant figures). Our winning percentage went up by .0192 but our opponents' winning percentage went down by .0093 and our opponents' opponents' winning percentage went down by .0008. With the 25/50/25 weighting, we end up at .6380 both with and without that game. Meanwhile, the other results on Friday brought our schedule strength down and Hofstra's up. (E.g., Hopkins beating Georgetown hurt the Hoya's winning percentage.)
Sadly, the other selection criteria don't actually correct for this problem with RPI (that beating a weak team does nothing for you, and may hurt a little), but make it worse. Our strength of schedule was of course hurt by the Hobart game (since that criterion doesn't look at the result of the game) and since they're not in the top 15, they don't factor in the "vs top teams" criterion. So I think this is a process which really can "overvalue" a team's strength of schedule.
BTW, our Bradley-Terry RRWP was .8612 without the Hobart win and .8615 with it. Saturday's other results hurt our strength of schedule enough that our RRWP had dropped from .8615 to .8612, not including the Hobart game. (So our RRWP was unchanged from Friday to Saturday.) Meanwhile, Hofstra went from .8729 Friday to .8739 Saturday, with or without the Cornell-Hobart game being included, reflecting the stronger view of their strength of schedule.
Reference:
RPI as of Friday: http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/rpifri.shtml
RPI including all but Cornell-Hobart: http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/rpinoHb.shtml
Final RPI: http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/rpi.shtml
KRACH as of Friday: http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/krachfri.shtml
KRACH including all but Cornell-Hobart: http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/krachnoHb.shtml
Final KRACH: http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/krach.shtml
Thanks; I re-ran the script with Hobart as a TUC and modified the definition on the PWR page. I wasn't going to bother with the AQ-as-TUC business, but I saw in the NCAA Lax Champs Handbook that the literal definition as "Team Under Consideration" applies, since only teams with .500 or better records are allowed to get at-large bids.
Howdy folks, here's the probable breakdown of the tournament selection (so if you can't watch it. . .here's the deal), the first six are already in:
Automatic Qualifiers:
AQ Ivy - Princeton (8-4) - #4
AQ ECAC - UMass (11-3) - #7
AQ MAAC - Manhatten (11-5) - #42
AQ Patriot - Hobart (6-7) - #23
AQ GWLL - Fairfield (7-5) - #20
AQ America East - Stony Brook (10-6) - #30
Interesting to note that these teams have a combined 30 losses and their combined ranking is a huge 126!!!!
The at-large bids will most likely go to the following:
At- large #1 - Syracuse (12-2) - #1
At- large #2 - Johns Hopkins (11-1) - #2
At- large #3 - Virginia (10-3) - #3
At- large #4 - Georgetown (11-2) - #5
At- large #5 - Hofstra (11-3) - #6
At- large #6 - Maryland (9-4) - #8
Cornell (10-3) - #9
Duke (7-6) - #10
Loyola (9-4) - #11
Even if you take Duke (and their 6 losses) over the other three teams (Maryland, Cornell, and Loyola) the at-large field still only has 17 losses and a combined ranking on the high end of 28.
This should clearly illustrate the need for the 2003 expansion of the tournament field. If AQ's are going to conferences like the MAAC & America East resulting in two teams in the top 10 not making the field. . .we have a problem. A 16 team NCAA lax tournament will do justice to all.
Sorry. . .I'm getting off my soap box now ;-)
Rankings were taken from www.Laxpower.com
I got tired of trying to read my tables of selection criteria to see how many "quality wins" Cornell, Duke, and Loyola had, so I did a new version of the lacrosse RPI page which includes records against the top 5, 10, and 15 (inclusive).
http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/newrpi.shtml
Also, the team names are now links to a list of the team's opponents in RPI order, with 1-5, 6-10, and 11-15 teams highlighted in different colors. For example:
http://slack.net/~whelan/lax/current/rpi.Cr.shtml
Enjoy!
How do you get Maryland in? They're #13 in the RPI and 2-4 against the top 15, with the only wins coming against #10 Yale and #12 UNC.
Thanks JTW, I was just showing the teams that could potentially bump us from the tournament, the key word being could. I hope, as I'm sure anyone reading this hopes we get the nod (as we should). I was more intent on showing the teams that should NOT be in the tournament through the AQ process (Manhattan, Stony Brook, and Hobart). Thanks for the input with regard to the RPI, it definitely shows we have the best shot for the last at-large. Enjoy the sunshine. . .well at least it's sunny in Ithaca:-)
Teams in the running for the last two at-large berths. I'm still not sure if the opponents' percentage column is the right one for strength of schedule, nor exactly what the committee is supposed to do with it.
___vs_Top__
___RPI___ _Opp_Pct_ 5 10 15 ________Top_15_wins_________
Hofstra (11-3) #6 .6394 #12 .7857 0-2 2-2 3-3 #8 UMass, #9 Duke, #12 UNC
Cornell (10-3) #7 .6380 #10 .6115 1-2 2-2 3-3 #2 Syr, #10 Yale, #15 Penn
Duke (7-6) #9 .6299 #2 .6923 1-3 2-4 4-6 #3 UVa, #10 Yale, #13 UMd (x2)
Yale (9-4) #10 .6219 #7 .6155 1-0 2-2 3-4 #5 Prin, #8 UMass, #15 Penn
Loyola (9-4) #11 .6110 #14 .5844 0-3 2-3 3-3 #6 Hof, #9 Duke, #14 Brown
UNC (8-5) #12 .6060 #8 .6139 0-3 1-4 1-5 #9 Duke
Maryland (9-4) #13 .6032 #16 .5652 0-2 1-4 2-4 #10 Yale, #12 UNC
For all people say about Cornell only having the one quality win against Syracuse, no one else in this group has more than one win against the top 5 or two against the top 10. Duke has one more top 15 win, but they won 4 out of 10 and we won 3 out of 6. Yale is the only team with a better winning percentage against the top 5, but that was one game against Princeton. There are teams with tougher schedules, but all it seems to have got them is more losses.
If Duke gets in despite our .0081 RPI advantage over them, you'd have to think we'd get the nod ahead of Hofstra despite their .0014 RPI advantage over us, since we seem to have the edge over Hofstra in the strength of schedule and quality wins departments. Conversely, if Hofstra's in on the strength of their RPI, we should be too. It's hard to think of a single perspective from which two of the teams above are better than us.
John,
two questions about the rankings:
Is it possible to set it up so that a team that is 0-0 against a group (eg. top 5) is not considered equivalently ranked to a team that is 1-1 against that group?
Is it possible for teams with identical records to have identical rankings, rather than sequential rankings sorted alphabetically? What I am trying to ask is for Hopkins and UVA to both be ranked third against the top 5, with identical 2-1 records, rather than Hopkins 3rd and UVA 4th because Hopkins is first alphabetically.
These things are possible (in fact I'm planning to write a pseudo-sorting routine for next season's hockey rankings which allows for ties in the rankings), but I haven't taken the time to implement them. You should pay attention to the records rather than the rankings for the top 5/10/15 columns.
Cornell and Duke are in. Hofstra and Loyola are out. We play Stony Brook at Brown on Saturday.