2013 NCAA Lacrosse Tournament

[Josh '99]

They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding.  I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's...  not really true.  If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective.  Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list. ;-)

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

Well, you raise a good point in that there's subjectivity involved in the selection of any particular set of objective criteria to use, but that's the case even if the criteria are openly described like the PWR.

[billhoward]

How is UNC's seed not higher?

That was the one semi-tough question asked on the ESPNU selection show. Its strength of schedule is No. 8, which is not bad. Its losses were by one goal each to UMass and Notre Dame (OT) and by three to Duke. It had three one-goal wins, over Fairfield 10-9, Princeton 16-15 and over Duke 18-17 in the ACC playoffs. They should not have lost to UMass or Fairfield. Maybe that had some impact.

[billhoward]

To give you a better idea of how the 16 teams shake out in the 2013 NCAA lax tournament and who will win in the first round, chew on this, Quint: Selection Sunday Q&A, Reaction

IL: Who is ripe to be upset?
QK: To answer that question, you've got to go watch practice all week and see who isn't mentally locked-in.

IL: How many of the 16 teams can really win the title?
QK: It would surprise me if Detroit, Towson and Bryant won the title.

IL: Who got snubbed?
QK: Bucknell has the strongest resume of the non-participants. ... Penn, Princeton and Drexel are the next best teams to be bypassed in 2013. Hopkins and Virginia will use May as a reflective month, soul searching for solutions. Both programs must evolve if they are going to maintain their status as the sports elite.
As my yoga instructor sister Kyle likes to remind me: "The moments between poses of breathing, thinking and peace are more important than the actual poses themselves."

[Towerroad]

They said they used computer rankings to help with seeding.  I do not see much of that.

If somebody keeps their objective criteria secret, they aren't using objective criteria.

That's...  not really true.  If someone keeps their objective criteria secret, it gives external observers reason to believe they might not be using objective critieria, but it doesn't mean they're not objective.  Here, this list of names is ranked using objective criteria:

Jeff Hopkins '82
ugarte
phillysportsfan
RichH
billhoward
kingpin248
flyersgolf
Josh '99
towerroad
Trotsky

The fact that you don't know what the criteria are (though I would imagine it's not a difficult code to crack) doesn't mean they weren't objective.

In this case, guessing is far more entertaining than knowing.

Yeah, that and speculating why Kyle didn't make the list. ;-)

Kyle would have been last in the list and Josh didn't want to pick any fights. And he wanted Greg to be last.

Greg being last in a list that I created to dispute a point he made was really just a coincidence.

Aphabetical starting with the second letter.

That's correct.

What's objective about that? You chose to use the Roman alphabet instead of Hebrew, Hangul, Aramaic, or any of the rest. What were your objective criteria for choosing this particular alphabet? Huh?

Well, you raise a good point in that there's subjectivity involved in the selection of any particular set of objective criteria to use, but that's the case even if the criteria are openly described like the PWR.

An "objective" criterion ought to be at least mimimally related to the purpose for which it is intended. Just because a selection criterion is definable does not mean it is objective. As a Yankees fan I do not want playoff slots determined by alphabetic order.  (Age of the closer would be ok though)

[KeithK]

An "objective" criterion ought to be at least mimimally related to the purpose for which it is intended. Just because a selection criterion is definable does not mean it is objective. As a Yankees fan I do not want playoff slots determined by alphabetic order.  (Age of the closer would be ok though)

Stupid and irrational doesn't make something not objective.

[Towerroad]

An "objective" criterion ought to be at least mimimally related to the purpose for which it is intended. Just because a selection criterion is definable does not mean it is objective. As a Yankees fan I do not want playoff slots determined by alphabetic order.  (Age of the closer would be ok though)

Stupid and irrational doesn't make something not objective.

I beg to differ. Stupid and irrational are just that stupid and irrational. The root of the word objective is object. If the object to be considered is the winning of a tournament then objective criterion for selection should in some way relate to the probability of winning. A further constraint is that they should be clearly definable preferably well in advance of the actual application of the criterion.

[Trotsky]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

[Towerroad]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

[Trotsky]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

[Weder]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

That's not allowed unless you've paid.

[Swampy]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

But what is an "observed fact"? You're not still trying to get that doggie of empiricism to hunt are you? ::deadhorse::

Facts are "theory laden," which calls into question the whole notion of "objectivity," at least if it's defined as "corresponding to observed fact."

Oh, and about correspondence theories of truth or meaning, well don't get me started.

[Al DeFlorio]

Laxmagazine.com pre-game article here: http://laxmagazine.com/college_men/DI/2012-13/news/050913_uncensered_maryland_cornell_a_titanic_matchup

[billhoward]

Laxmagazine.com pre-game article here: http://laxmagazine.com/college_men/DI/2012-13/news/050913_uncensered_maryland_cornell_a_titanic_matchup

And thinks Cornell has the better team.

[ugarte]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

That's not allowed unless you've paid.

Shut your festering gob, you twit.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Objective does not mean "oriented towards the object."  It means "corresponding to observed fact."

An objective criterion could be irrelevant to the object, and thus stupid or irrational, but it would still be objective.

I don't think you are being objective.

I came in here for an argument

That's not allowed unless you've paid.

Shut your festering gob, you twit.

You vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!