NCAA Lax Selections

[David Harding]

I'd been thinking for the last few days that if they were going to put a heavy weight on "quality wins" they really ought to put a comparable weight on "defective losses" as well.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

If we very quickly put their point system on a points per game basis by dividing the total points by the number of games played we get:

Hopkins    6.75
Cornell    6.00
Duke       6.00
Virginia   5.83

It's better, because it at least puts Cornell and Duke closeer to each other, but it's still weighted in favor of playing top teams instead of beating top teams.

And another thought.  If they don't want to penalize teams too badly for losing to good teams, make the point total for a loss to a top ten team increase with the number of losses.  For example, make the first loss to a top ten team worth -2, the second -3, the third, -4, the fourth -5, etc.  Under this system, Hopkins doesn't lose 4 points for their four losses, they lose 14 points.

[Al DeFlorio]

Probably statistically insignificant, but interesting nonetheless:  Hopkins has failed to equal their seeding in six of the last nine NCAA championships, and in no instances did they surpass their seeding.

1998:  Seeded 4, beaten in quarterfinals
1999:  Seeded 2, beaten in semifinals
2000:  Seeded 4, beaten in semifinals (achieved seeding)
2001:  Seeded 4, beaten in quarterfinals
2002:  Seeded 1, beaten in semifinals
2003:  Seeded 1, beaten in finals (partial credit, perhaps?)
2004:  Seeded 1, beaten in semifinals
2005:  Seeded 1, champions            (achieved seeding)
2006:  Seeded 4, beaten in semifinals (achieved seeding)

I have results but not seedings for the rest of the 1990s.

[Al DeFlorio]

Same analysis for a team with an Ivy League schedule:

1998:  Seeded 2, champions (exceeded seeding)
1999:  Unseeded, beaten in first round (achieved seeding)
2000:  Seeded 3, beaten in finals (exceeded seeding)
2001:  Seeded 2, champions (exceeded seeding)
2002:  Seeded 4, beaten in finals (exceeded seeding)
2003:  Seeded 4, beaten in quarterfinals
2004:  Seeded 6, beaten in semifinals (exceeded seeding)
2005:  Did not make tournament
2006:  Seeded 7, beaten in quarterfinals (achieved seeding)

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Al DeFlorio]Just learned that Rahme's running another piece on the selection criteria in Sunday's Post-Standard.  I emailed him the Cottle revelations.[/quote]
Rahme's column today: http://www.syracuse.com/articles/sports/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/117904697686830.xml&coll=1&thispage=1

[ugarte]

That is the same column, isn't it?

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote ugarte]That is the same column, isn't it?[/quote]
No.  His first piece is in his blog.  Column is probably based on the blog.

[Chris '03]

For what it's worth, the NCAA keeps updating their RPI calculations: http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2007MLArpi1.html?

The Final Four by RPI will be:
#1 Cornell v. #2 Duke
#3 JHU v. #8 Delaware

[Jacob '06]

[quote Chris '03]For what it's worth, the NCAA keeps updating their RPI calculations: http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2007MLArpi1.html?

The Final Four by RPI will be:
#1 Cornell v. #2 Duke
#3 JHU v. #8 Delaware[/quote]

#1 played #4 in the quarters and will play #2 in the semi's? Genius!!

[ugarte]

[quote Jacob '06][quote Chris '03]For what it's worth, the NCAA keeps updating their RPI calculations: http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2007MLArpi1.html?

The Final Four by RPI will be:
#1 Cornell v. #2 Duke
#3 JHU v. #8 Delaware[/quote]

#1 played #4 in the quarters and will play #2 in the semi's? Genius!![/quote]
Duke scheduled a bunch of cupcakes in the postseason.

[Al DeFlorio]

Just noticed this "letter to the editor" at insidelacrosse.com:
         --------------------------------------------------
Obviously there are many Cornellians and Cornell lacrosse supporters that were deeply disappointed by the seedings that came out last Sunday evening. After spending nine successive weeks as the number 1 ranked Division 1 team in the country many people were shocked (not surprised) by Cornell's fourth place seeding. Also, I believe that there are many other lacrosse enthusiasts independent of Cornell that were unsettled by the committee's results. We believe the method employed in this selection process is flawed. However, as lacrosse fans and former players, our focus is now on supporting our team and the sport and, as you have kindly suggested, we will share our views on this issue and provide you with our more fully researched "point of view" at an appropriate time sometime after Memorial Day. Until then we're looking forward to reuniting with our friends, witnessing some great lacrosse from some of the nation's finest academic institutions. Let's fill the M&T Bank Stadium.
GO BIG RED

Michael French, Cornell '76 Thomas Marino, Cornell '78

 
- Michael French  Philadelphia,  

Editor:  There's a healthy attitude from two of the game's greats. We look forward to taking a closer look at this process after the season.
        -------------------------------------------------------
With that noted, I've yet to see anything specific about anyone rethinking the selection and seeding criteria.

[Josh '99]

[quote Al DeFlorio]With that noted, I've yet to see anything specific about anyone rethinking the selection and seeding criteria.[/quote]In any case, regardless of whether Inside Lacrosse looks into the criteria, I have a hard time believing anyone of consequence will do so.