NCAA Lax Selections

[Liz '05]

My high school used to (perhaps still does) have a girls v. boys lacrosse scrimmage.  I believe it was played with girls' rules (i.e. no contact) and boys' positions (number of people on the field, field set-up, etc.).  I never saw one, but I know the differences between men's and women's lacrosse are significant enough that they had to draw up new rules for these scrimmages.

[billhoward]

Once you can hit, as in men's lacrosse, and then you add more padding to the arms, plus deeper pockets in the sticks, it encourages a vicious cycle of even more vigorous stick checks and slashes-that-aren't-slashes. Those who've seen a generation of college lacrosse played (that is, going back to Cornell's powerhouse years 1968-88) have a sense there's a lot more pushing, shoving, slashing, and hitting. You pretty much have to tomahawk the attackman (is that term still allowed?) to get the ball loose.

By not having protective equipment, there's less violence players can do to each other. And because the women's stick pockets are shallower, less violence is necessary to get the ball loose.

OTOH, as the women playing the game become stronger and their shots become harder, protective goggles have become mandatory, and for good reason - there were too many eye injuries the previous decade.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Chris '03]For starters there's no real out of bounds in W. Lax.[/quote]
Makes it easy to run out the clock.  Put your cross-country star on the field, give her the ball, and have her head for Peoria.  Game over.:-P

[Rita]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Chris '03]For starters there's no real out of bounds in W. Lax.[/quote]
Makes it easy to run out the clock.  Put your cross-country star on the field, give her the ball, and have her head for Peoria.  Game over.:-P[/quote]

Peoria, IL? Oh gosh, isn't that bordering on cruel and unusual punishment? :-O

Thanks for the explanations.

[Al DeFlorio]

From Monday's Baltimore Sun:

"But the real controversy took place at the top of the bracket. That Duke inched up to the top seed was not a shock. But Virginia and Hopkins leapfrogging over Cornell, which is seeking to win its first national title since 1977, was a bit of a stunner.

"'The way the system worked, 50 percent of it was result-driven, 30 percent was strength of schedule and 20 percent was [Rating Percentage Index],' Cottle said. 'When the numbers came out, Duke clearly was No. 1, and Virginia and Hopkins were tied for No. 2, and Virginia won at Hopkins, which made that easy. But Cornell was easily No. 4. It was such a big difference, you couldn't play around with it.'"

While it may not have made much of a difference in the path to the championship, the fact that the criteria are so heavily weighted toward the "whom have they played" factor will continue to cause Cornell problems as it did a few years ago when we were sent to Towson rather than given a home game in the first round.  It could also easily mean being left out of the tournament while an 8-6 UMBC or Towson is given a bid instead.  Maybe the controversy over this year's seedings will cause someone to rethink the criteria.  [Wishful thinking, I know.]

[scoop85]

[quote Al DeFlorio]From Monday's Baltimore Sun:

"But the real controversy took place at the top of the bracket. That Duke inched up to the top seed was not a shock. But Virginia and Hopkins leapfrogging over Cornell, which is seeking to win its first national title since 1977, was a bit of a stunner.

"'The way the system worked, 50 percent of it was result-driven, 30 percent was strength of schedule and 20 percent was [Rating Percentage Index],' Cottle said. 'When the numbers came out, Duke clearly was No. 1, and Virginia and Hopkins were tied for No. 2, and Virginia won at Hopkins, which made that easy. But Cornell was easily No. 4. It was such a big difference, you couldn't play around with it.'"

While it may not have made much of a difference in the path to the championship, the fact that the criteria are so heavily weighted toward the "whom have they played" factor will continue to cause Cornell problems as it did a few years ago when we were sent to Towson rather than given a home game in the first round.  It could also easily mean being left out of the tournament while an 8-6 UMBC or Towson is given a bid instead.  Maybe the controversy over this year's seedings will cause someone to rethink the criteria.  [Wishful thinking, I know.][/quote]

It would seem our only real alternative is to either go independent (i.e., Hopkins and Syracuse) or join the ACC ;-)

[Chris '03]

[quote scoop85]
It would seem our only real alternative is to either go independent (i.e., Hopkins and Syracuse) or join the ACC ;-)[/quote]

[sarcastic rant about selection criteria]Or just play teams with consistently strong schedules several times a year. Next year I want a home and home with Hop and SU and will settle for singles with Duke and UVa. Then we can play an extra game with PU for fun and make the tourney at 8-5 or 7-6. We could also investigate splitting the Ivies into two divisions (PU and CU plus third place from the year before in one division and the other four in the other). Then Cornell wouldn't have to play yale, dartmouth, brown, penn and harvard every year. They'd just see one of them in division and one in an ivy title game if they got that far. Then we can add another game or two with Hop.

I can't wait to see how they tweak the system to count SOS in a new way this offseason. Maybe combined NCAA titles of opposing teams? Or just final fours?

Can Cornell just barnstorm the south next spring break? Play 4 games in 7 days against top teams. Even play the frosh every other day. It's not who you beat, it's who you play. [/rant...for now]

[billhoward]

>>> "'The way the system worked, 50 percent of it was result-driven, 30 percent was strength of schedule and 20 percent was [Rating Percentage Index],' Cottle said. 'When the numbers came out, Duke clearly was No. 1, and Virginia and Hopkins were tied for No. 2, and Virginia won at Hopkins, which made that easy. But Cornell was easily No. 4. It was such a big difference, you couldn't play around with it.'"

Nice to know we were easily No. 4, as opposed to a close No. 4.

This was before my time (not by much), but this crap persisted in lacrosse for a long, long time ... only before 1970 it was not for pecking order in tournament, but for the final ranking of the teams and the right to be called national champion.

And then in 1970 in the seeding for the first-ever tournament, the top two teams were generally believed to be Cornell and Army, or Army and Cornell, whereas it was an off year for the southren affiliation, and so Cornell's 17-16 win over Army (played at Army ... the army may travel on its stomach, but Cornell travels, period) was the de facto title game, even though the actually crowning came a week later when Cornell dismantled Maryland 12-6.

[billhoward]

We got screwed over by Syracuse having its worst record since around the time of Carter presidency ... by Colgate not doing a little better this year ... by playing Army-Colgate-Binghamton not Army-Colgate-Albany ... by Princeton having a weak year ... by Notre Dame not finishing higher.

We could improve our SOS by tossing away Hobart, which isn't what it was five and ten years ago, except maybe head coach Jeff Tambroni (Hobart '92) wouldn't like that idea.

We're helping advance lax in the near midwest by playing Notre Dame.

Imagine how far up the creek we'd be this year if the Duke lax problem took place in 2007 and it got wiped off this year's schedule? A bet we'd be on a bus somewhere for round one.

[Chris '03]

[quote billhoward]
We could improve our SOS by tossing away Hobart, which isn't what it was five and ten years ago, except maybe head coach Jeff Tambroni (Hobart '92) wouldn't like that idea.
[/quote]

In lax land, only the 10 best opponents count so Cornell drops its worst three, including Hobart. ACC teams on the other hand get to play each other twice, insulating their schedule and allowing them to drop more teams off their SOS. Duke played 16 games (including UVa and UNC twice) and gets to drop 6 from SOS calculations ((45)st. joe's, (32)army, (41)Bellarmine, (40)air force, (21)dartmouth, (25)denver). As a result the lowest RPI team they "played" was 13 delaware. They also played 2, 3, 4(twice), 6, 7(twice), 9, and 12.

[RichH]

Some remarks from Coach Tambroni:

http://cornellbigred.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/050607aab.html

Good job by those running the Athletics website in getting these, and putting them up.

[billhoward]

[quote RichH]Some remarks from Coach Tambroni:

http://cornellbigred.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/050607aab.html

Good job by those running the Athletics website in getting these, and putting them up.[/quote]

No offense intended but: The job of a PR department is to put out information about the people or product you're hired to publicize. Seems like what Cornell did falls within the realm of routine and ordinary, not extraordinary. Except, and this is a very big "except," in the realm of CSTV/Cornell failures to deliver, the normal now seems abnormally good.

But, yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see this.

[Ken70]

[quote Hillel Hoffmann]
Edit: Same for Duke, should they advance along with Navy. Now that would be a nightmare: advancing to play Navy in the quarterfinals at Navy-Marine Corps Stadium.[/quote]

And should Duke survive that they have a likely semi-final date with the Coaches/Sports Writers undefeated and unanimous #1 who beat them at their home field in March.  Of course, anyone you meet in a national semi-final is going to be a very good team, but doesn't putting these two particular obstacles in Duke's path to the championship game seem like a bit of a screwing for the #1 seed?

[RichH]

More confusion from the media.  It seems that they're more outraged than the fans at this point:

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-lacros/stories/050707aao.html

[ugarte]

Not this fan. I've read all of the sober analysis and any system that takes an undefeated team, including a win over the system's best team, and places them at #4 is stupid.

It may be good for us; it may screw Duke even harder; it may have come from good intentions.

It remains stupid.