Lacrosse bracketology

[RichH]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote RichH][quote DeltaOne81]So your 3 criteria basically boil down to SoS, SoS, and SoS.[/quote]

And our two esteemed independent friends are pretty much guaranteed a seeded slot, provided they can stay above .500 after piecing together whatever sweet schedule they please.  I have no doubt that Syracuse would've been seeded in 2007 had they won one more game. As it was, they had a losing record, and were out.[/quote]
Syracuse would have needed two more wins last year (record was 5-8) but, otherwise, you're probably right.[/quote]

Yeah, yeah, Al.  It was corrected before you posted. I figured someone here was fact-checking me simultaneously.  *grumble*

[Josh '99]

[quote Jim Hyla]But then we've known that for years now. That's always been the problem with comparing JHU and SU and the 4 ACC teams to the rest. Their SOS, I prefer all caps since it's such a help to those that have it, has always given them the edge.[/quote]On the one hand, I agree with you - what with the insularity of scheduling, the ACC teams will always have that SOS edge.

On the other hand, the ACC was 38-7 (0.844 winning percentage) in their non-conference games.  UVA was 1-3 in conference and 11-0 against everyone else.  UNC was 0-3 in conference and 8-2 against everyone else.  They're clearly a strong group of teams.  This year, in any case, there seems to be much more of an argument about Hopkins having a huge edge in seeding due to their strength of schedule than the ACC teams.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Josh '99]UNC was 0-3 in conference and 8-2 against everyone else.  [/quote]
UNC's only out-of-conference loss was to...gulp...Ohio State.

[FarEastLax]

I can't complain much about this year's bracket.  We had a good--but not outstanding--year, and for our efforts we get a home game in the first round against Ohio State.  And if we can win that one, we're looking at another home game in the quarter-final round.  Do any other teams have a realistic shot at consecutive home games in the first two rounds?  

If we beat the Buckeyes, our second-round opponent is--unfortunately-- likely to be Duke, a scary team that has completely dismantled virtually every team they've played this year.  One good thing is that we've seen that team four times since 2005, so at least we're familiar with them and their style of play.

Hillel is right: Duke didn't get much of a reward for their season.  And how about the G-men?  They were the only team to beat Duke.  And they beat Navy, but Navy gets in.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote FarEastLax]And how about the G-men?  They were the only team to beat Duke.  And they beat Navy, but Navy gets in.[/quote]
Georgetown was #18 in RPI and #25 in SOS.  They had to win their league's AQ.  (Navy was #13 and #10, respectively.)  

I'm no fan of the NCAA's formula, but just telling it like it is.

[Josh '99]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Josh '99]UNC was 0-3 in conference and 8-2 against everyone else.  [/quote]
UNC's only out-of-conference loss was to...gulp...Ohio State.[/quote]Oh, sorry, I slipped up there.  That 8-2 nonconference record includes their loss to Duke in the ACC tournament.

[Josh '99]

[quote Al DeFlorio]Georgetown was #18 in RPI and #25 in SOS.  They had to win their league's AQ.  (Navy was #13 and #10, respectively.)  

I'm no fan of the NCAA's formula, but just telling it like it is.[/quote]What SOS measure is that?  By Laxpower's reckoning Georgetown had the #9 SOS.  Looking at it qualitatively it's Duke, Maryland, Syracuse, Navy, Loyola and a pile of crap.  The win over Duke looks great, the losses to Loyola and Penn State not so much.  The overtime win over fellow bubble team Navy suggests, if anything, that Georgetown is also a bubble team.  Really, everything else about this schedule just SCREAMS that the win over Duke was a fluke.

[Scersk '97]

Hee.  Really, Duke is a victim of its own "perfection," and Syracuse's (intentional?) imperfection.  Had Syracuse not lost to Colgate, one could make a specious argument, based on some hand-waving like better worst loss or something, that the Cruisers deserve the #1 seed.  Then the committee could've matched us up with Syracuse and sent a "new" game, for example Virginia/Notre Dame, north.

As it is, Duke had to be the #1 seed, and we are clearly (if seeded at all) the #8.  Haha on Duke.

Myself, I'm glad (though I won't be able to attend) that those in Ithaca have the distinct possibility of seeing Cornell, Colgate, and Syracuse--quite a little CNY party.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Josh '99]What SOS measure is that?  By Laxpower's reckoning Georgetown had the #9 SOS.  Looking at it qualitatively it's Duke, Maryland, Syracuse, Navy, Loyola and a pile of crap.  The win over Duke looks great, the losses to Loyola and Penn State not so much.  The overtime win over fellow bubble team Navy suggests, if anything, that Georgetown is also a bubble team.  Really, everything else about this schedule just SCREAMS that the win over Duke was a fluke.[/quote]
This one: http://www.laxpower.com/update08/binmen/rpis01.php

The one you're looking at uses the laxpower computer rating to determine SOS.  The one linked to above uses RPI.  The NCAA uses RPI.

[Josh '99]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Josh '99]What SOS measure is that?  By Laxpower's reckoning Georgetown had the #9 SOS.  Looking at it qualitatively it's Duke, Maryland, Syracuse, Navy, Loyola and a pile of crap.  The win over Duke looks great, the losses to Loyola and Penn State not so much.  The overtime win over fellow bubble team Navy suggests, if anything, that Georgetown is also a bubble team.  Really, everything else about this schedule just SCREAMS that the win over Duke was a fluke.[/quote]
This one: http://www.laxpower.com/update08/binmen/rpis01.php

The one you're looking at uses the laxpower computer rating to determine SOS.  The one linked to above uses RPI.  The NCAA uses RPI.[/quote]Ah.  That's what I was figuring it must be that you were citing, I just couldn't find it.  Thanks.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Josh '99][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Josh '99]What SOS measure is that?  By Laxpower's reckoning Georgetown had the #9 SOS.  Looking at it qualitatively it's Duke, Maryland, Syracuse, Navy, Loyola and a pile of crap.  The win over Duke looks great, the losses to Loyola and Penn State not so much.  The overtime win over fellow bubble team Navy suggests, if anything, that Georgetown is also a bubble team.  Really, everything else about this schedule just SCREAMS that the win over Duke was a fluke.[/quote]
This one: http://www.laxpower.com/update08/binmen/rpis01.php

The one you're looking at uses the laxpower computer rating to determine SOS.  The one linked to above uses RPI.  The NCAA uses RPI.[/quote]Ah.  That's what I was figuring it must be that you were citing, I just couldn't find it.  Thanks.[/quote]
This chart ( http://www.laxpower.com/update08/binmen/rpit01.php ) purports to summarize the three criteria, where it appears the top team in each category is normalized to 1.00.  It isn't clear to me how the "Total" column is calculated from the other three (RPI, SOS, QW).  If you go down the list and check off the first nine non-AQ teams, they're the ones selected for the tournament.  

Not sure how Maryland got seeded rather than OSU based on this list.  Maybe Maryland's Virginia and UNC wins weighed heavily, or maybe the NCAA used a different QW calculation.  Somewhere I read the NCAA was going to weigh road wins more heavily than home wins this year. (Doesn't it work that way in hockey?)  That would have hurt Cornell, as only Penn, Harvard, and Hobart were road wins, with six wins at home and two at neutral sites.  (Wonder if they might have considered Gillette Stadium a neutral site rather than a road game?)

[Chris '03]

[quote Al DeFlorio]I'm not sure why ND got #6 over us, unless they didn't want two central NY teams in the same quarterfinal game.  ND edged Cornell in RPI and quality win/loss points (at least based on laf's calculations on laxpower) but Cornell's strength of schedule was much higher (16 vs. 23).  Maybe the NCAA did the quality points differently this year.  
[/quote]

I've been too tied up finishing school to crunch the numbers but I don't think the laxpower numbers are right. They overstate banding. Based on Cottle's disclosures last year I was able to reverse engineer the seeds pretty easily. QW points were determined by RPI rank to the single place (so beating #1 gains 58 points, losing to #1 is a loss of 1, #2 is a -57/+2).I'll have time later in the week to see if my formula last year still works.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Chris '03][quote Al DeFlorio]I'm not sure why ND got #6 over us, unless they didn't want two central NY teams in the same quarterfinal game.  ND edged Cornell in RPI and quality win/loss points (at least based on laf's calculations on laxpower) but Cornell's strength of schedule was much higher (16 vs. 23).  Maybe the NCAA did the quality points differently this year.  
[/quote]

I've been too tied up finishing school to crunch the numbers but I don't think the laxpower numbers are right. They overstate banding. Based on Cottle's disclosures last year I was able to reverse engineer the seeds pretty easily. QW points were determined by RPI rank to the single place (so beating #1 gains 58 points, losing to #1 is a loss of 1, #2 is a -57/+2).I'll have time later in the week to see if my formula last year still works.[/quote]
QW is the only criterion where laxpower's numbers could differ from the NCAA's.  RPI and SOS are pretty straightforward.  I'd be interested in what you find.

[TimV]

[quote FarEastLax]Do any other teams have a realistic shot at consecutive home games in the first two rounds?  

[/quote]

No, it's impossible because the other quarterfinal site is Navy, and they start on the road at UNC.

[ugarte]

Finally got around to reading last week's Swami. He is probably going to be apoplectic about G'town and very surprised by Cornell's seed, even though it is lower than his own rating for the team (6).