Lacrosse at Harvard

[Jacob '06]

10-3 final

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Final: Cornell ten - Harvard twee

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Dartmouth ties it back up against Penn midway through 4th.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Key for Cornell was dominating the third quarter.

Penn back in front of Dartmouth, 4 minutes left.
Notre Dame up 2 on Butler, 4th quarter.
Penn State 9 - Hobart 4, 4th quarter.
Syracuse leads Princeton 2-1 in 2nd.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Penn won, 10-9. Durn.

[Al DeFlorio]

Nice effort by the Big Red today.  Defense completely stifled Harvard.  First Harvard goal was an unsettled situation, second was when a Cornell middie dropped a clearing pass with McMonagle out of the goal on the clear, and a Harvard guy picked it up and tossed it in.  Third came on an EMO.  Otherwise Harvard couldn't get a sniff of the net.

Great to see Fred and his friend Emily, and Tom P. at the game.  Wish we could get a "do-over" against Penn.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Al DeFlorio]
Great to see Fred and his friend Emily, and Tom P. at the game.  Wish we could get a "do-over" against Penn.[/quote]

Great to meet you too Al. Thanks for not telling everyone she's my girlfriend... wouldn't want that to get out


I agree with Al's summary. The D was smothering most of the game. Harvard couldn't get much, mostly just outside shots, and McMonagle was equal to most all of them.


The rest of our game was good, but not dominant. Transistions were a little shakier than I woulda hoped and offense got a bunch of great opportunities that they couldn't put home (but then they'd pass it out and Joe would just get a goal from the top of the box). But the D made up for it all.

I see how this team can be very very good. I also see how they could lose a game like they did last week.

But with wins against 11, 12, 16, and 17... and games coming up against 6 and 8 (all rankings are RPI), we're in pretty darn good shape. Not a bad chance at the Ivy title either if we can get by Princeton and if Penn loses again.

[ugarte]

[quote Hillel Hoffmann]Penn won, 10-9. Durn.[/quote]This is because of the AQ, right? I don't totally understand Lax bid rules (and I gather nobody really does) but, except for how the game relates to the Ivy title, don't we want Penn to keep winning for our SOS (and to minimize the damage from the loss)?

[DeltaOne81]

[quote ugarte][quote Hillel Hoffmann]Penn won, 10-9. Durn.[/quote]This is because of the AQ, right?[/quote]

I didn't say it, but yes. We play 6 Ivy games, one against each other Ivy team (Columbia doesn't have a lax team). Tiebreaker is head-to-head. If both us and Penn were to win out, we'd both be 5-1, but Penn would win the tiebreaker, so they'd get the AQ.


[quote ugarter]except for how the game relates to the Ivy title, don't we want Penn to keep winning for our SOS (and to minimize the damage from the loss)?[/quote]

Well, first off, I understand how the lax bids work, and I'll get to that in a second, but second, this is an Ivy league game, so we'll play both Penn & Dartmouth once, so who won really doesn't effect us or our RPI, except as far as the AQ goes.

However, RPI isn't really even part of the criteria...


Alright, so the lax selection criteria:

Division I
Selection Criteria. The Division I Men's Lacrosse Committee will select and seed teams based on the criteria listed in Bylaw 31.3.3 (won-lost record, strength of schedule, and eligibility and availability of student-athletes.) When evaluating teams' won-lost records and strength of schedule, the committee has received approval from the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet to consider the following primary factors as determined by the Rating Percentage Index (RPI) in selecting at-large teams for the field (in priority order):

1. Results against teams in descending order, as determined by the column titled "normal RPI rank" that is used during selections (e.g., vs. teams 1-5; vs. teams 6-10; vs. teams 11-15, etc.).
2. Strength-of-Schedule Index, based on the 10 highest-rated teams on a school's schedule.
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.

If an analysis of the primary criteria does not result in a decision by the committee, the following secondary criteria will be evaluated (not in priority order):
• Head-to-head competition.
• Results against common opponents.
• RAC rankings.
• Results against teams not under consideration.

To be considered for at-large selection, teams must have a .500 or better record against all opponents. Division I teams must play at least 10 games against Division I opponents.

Aha! you say, I lied! RPI is part of the criteria.

Well, yes, its the 3rd "primary" criteria, but look at the bolded 'in priority order'. This has typically meant that only if there's a tie in the 1st or 2nd criteria would they ever get that far. Heck, look at just the first criteria...

- wins against the top teams (in RPI) as broken down by 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, etc. And if its random or what, I don't know, but due to the wording, the commitee has typically done top 15 and that's it (ignoring the etc).

How likely are you to be to have a tie in that? Not too likely, hence that is typically the one and only criteria used. Since we lost to Penn, and the only criteria that really matters is who you beat, we don't care at all how they did, and only care about them as far as winning the AQ.


As of right now, Cornell has wins against #9 Army, and #15 Harvard. This would be referred to in the 3-category sense as "0-1-1" (no wins against top 5, 1 against 6-10, and 1 against 11-15).

We also have wins against #16 Notre Dame and #17 Lehigh, so with a little jockeying we could be 0-1-3, or at least we can hope that if Harvard falls out, one of those two would get some wins and move back up. Yes, there's definitely a "TUC cliff"-like situation here.


We also have game remaining against #6 Princeton, #7 Syracuse, and #20 Dartmouth. Two to 3 wins agains the top 15 is usually enough to get you an at large birth. We're near that now - and just would be in much better shape had Duke been able to keep playing and been in the top 10 or so. A win against Princeton or Syracuse would close to seal it, depending how they did the rest of the way - and both would be darn nice.


Now you may say, that's an awful selection criteria - only a few game in the season matter at all. If you beat some good teams and suck in the rest of the game you're still in. And if you don't, yet beat everyone you should, you're out. Yup.

In fact, you can be maybe top 5 in RPI, other teams get credit for beating you as a top 5 team, yet miss the tournament because you didn't beat enough good teams, maybe because you're in a weak conference and none of them would schedule you. Yup.

Besides, who's to say which is better, 1-0-2 or 1-1-0. Or a dozen other such combinations. Well, the committee is to say, apparently. Yup. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone has mathematically proven that there is no fixed set of 'value' for the 3 categories that could rationalize the decisions the committee has made.


One addition note: last year, Syracuse, and I think some other traditional powerhouse (Maryland maybe?), were pretty precarious to be included in the tournament based on this criteria. So the committee decided to include the other 'primary criterias' of SOS and RPI, in order to pull them up and get them in. Even though they hadn't even given a second those to those criterias in years.

Fun stuff.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

[quote ugarte][quote Hillel Hoffmann]Penn won, 10-9. Durn.[/quote]This is because of the AQ, right? I don't totally understand Lax bid rules (and I gather nobody really does) but, except for how the game relates to the Ivy title, don't we want Penn to keep winning for our SOS (and to minimize the damage from the loss)?[/quote]
Yeah, mostly because of the AQ. Many of Cornell's best wins (and potential future wins) have diminished RPI value. We may just need that AQ.

The NCAA selection and seeding process is bonkers as you noted. They tell us that the tournament selection committee is supposed to pay much more attention to high-RPI-yield wins. The "quality" of losses isn't supposed to count for  much (although last year's selection/seeding seemed to suggest otherwise). So if you believe what we're told, then it was more important for Dartmouth to win because we've already lost to Pennsylvania.

Even if you don't believe that quality of wins is more important to the selection committee than quality of losses, then the game was a wash because it was an Ivy-on-Ivy crime. So you might as well root for your favorite, and I hate Penn. Soooooooo much. More than ever.

[Beeeej]

[quote DeltaOne81](Columbia doesn't have a lax team)[/quote]

No men's lax team, anyway.

Beeeej

[ugarte]

Please reconcile these two statements, Fred:

[quote DeltaOne81]Well, first off, I understand how the lax bids work[/quote]

One addition note: last year, Syracuse, and I think some other traditional powerhouse (Maryland maybe?), were pretty precarious to be included in the tournament based on this criteria. So the committee decided to include the other 'primary criterias' of SOS and RPI, in order to pull them up and get them in. Even though they hadn't even given a second those to those criterias in years.

As far as I can tell, as long as the committee can do that, I'll modify my statement only to say that nobody understands lax bid practice. Thanks for the primer all the same.

Hillel - Do you really think that a committee that has shown a tendency to look beyond the criteria is going to forget that Cornell beat a talented (if - allegedly - shameful) Duke team? I would guess that if Cornell's truncated schedule makes them a borderline at-large, the Duke game will be unofficially considered and push them into the tournament.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote ugarte]
As far as I can tell, as long as the committee can do that, I'll modify my statement only to say that nobody understands lax bid practice. Thanks for the primer all the same.
[/quote]

Well, understanding how it works and predicting the actual teams are two different things. Not in hockey, but in about every other sport.

I can tell you how the basketball selection process works (RPI, and whatever else the committee wants). That doesn't mean I can tell you what they'll chose.

Lax is somewhere between the two. They don't get a blanket 'whatever you want' option like basketball does (who can consider injuries, the direction of the (indoor) wind, etc), but the procedure can indeed be fudged. If Harvard, Army, and Lehigh can all finish off their season well and all finish in the top 15, we'd be something like 0-1-3 or 0-0-4, we're a lock (even without Duke - see below). If they all suck, we lose to our two orange opponents, and end up 0-0-1, we probably wouldn't make it without the AQ.

Hillel - Do you really think that a committee that has shown a tendency to look beyond the criteria is going to forget that Cornell beat a talented (if - allegedly - shameful) Duke team? I would guess that if Cornell's truncated schedule makes them a borderline at-large, the Duke game will be unofficially considered and push them into the tournament.

You didn't ask me, and I'd be interested in Hillel's thoughts too, but the committee chair (I think it was) already said they'll have to discuss how to consider Duke. Which means that they may very well decide to count them as some kind of a win, on the assumption they would have finished in the top 15 had they played. As I purist, I'd hate it. As a Cornell fan, I'd be all for it. Hopefully it won't matter though.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

(Fred, I didn't realize you'd posted that excellent review of the lax selection mess before I had responded to Charles.)

I have heard nothing reliable or useful about how the committee will consider results against Duke.