Cornell-Princeton lacrosse 4/27/19

[CU2007]

is scoring own goals any less sporting than running up a score?

I think so. The assumed objective by all vested parties (let's not forget about bettors here - there is a Vegas spread on this game) is to score on the opposition. Running up the score can enter a moral gray area at a somewhat arbitrary point (i.e. Answer will vary based on who you ask) but scoring on yourself goes against the spirit of competition pretty unanimously. (I hope)

No, not unanimously in the least. College athletes owe absolutely nothing to the bettors except for their legal obligation not to manipulate the score for the financial gain of themselves or others. (EDIT to add: And by the way, if a bettor wagers money on this game without knowing all the factors that could contribute to the final score, they're not doing their due diligence.) The athletes' duty is to do everything they can to win individual games (and in the described scenario, they've already done that), then set themselves up for tournament success in the post-season, which would be more difficult the better they play in this hypothetical game. In this case I think it's the way the tournament qualification is set up that quite obviously goes against the spirit of competition. Once it's set up that way, it isn't up to the players and coaches to judge the morality of what they're doing to qualify for the tournament as long as they're not breaking the rules of the game.

Otherwise, you're basically saying that you'd rather have them win the game by too many goals and miss the tournament so that they can feel better about not violating the spirit of a rule that doesn't even exist, than have them qualify for the tournament by doing what's required.

Yea, I don't know what to tell you. If you really think there's no moral/legal/spirit of competition/whatever difference between scoring a couple more goals when some people might assume the game is in hand and purposefully scoring on yourself to manipulate a goal differential, we're probably not going to agree.

[Al DeFlorio]

Situation:  Princeton leads by two when Cornell picks up a ground ball with 80 seconds left to play.

Does Cornell try to score and then hope to force overtime or play keep-away to prevent Princeton from scoring and winning by three?  Reminds me of the bizarre two-games-total-goals series in NCAA hockey tournament hockey.

[upprdeck]

so basically if the rule says you can only win the war one way we should give up and win the battle?

[CU77]

Situation:  Princeton leads by two when Cornell picks up a ground ball with 80 seconds left to play.

Does Cornell try to score and then hope to force overtime or play keep-away to prevent Princeton from scoring and winning by three?

Holds the ball, of course. The probability of scoring two goals in 80 sec (with a weak FO game), and then first in OT, is very very small.

This situation is not even the weird one where it benefits Cornell to lose by 6 or more instead of by 3, 4, or 5. No tie-breaking system can avoid situations like the one you describe.

Two 2-"games"-total-goals hockey "series" was, in effect, a single two-hour game played over two days.

[Al DeFlorio]

Situation:  Princeton leads by two when Cornell picks up a ground ball with 80 seconds left to play.

Does Cornell try to score and then hope to force overtime or play keep-away to prevent Princeton from scoring and winning by three?

Holds the ball, of course. The probability of scoring two goals in 80 sec (with a weak FO game), and then first in OT, is very very small.

What complicates this situation is losing to Princeton kisses at-large chances goodbye.

This situation is not even the weird one where it benefits Cornell to lose by 6 or more instead of by 3, 4, or 5. No tie-breaking system can avoid situations like the one you describe.

Yes, I identified that 6-goal anomaly on the other forum and corrected your subsequent chart.  This situation was not brought about by the tiebreaker but by the two paths--at-large and auto-bid--to the NCAA tournament.  What if the situation  involved scoring only one goal to get to OT?  Do you pass on the chance to protect a solid at-large posture with a win over Princeton to leave yourself where you have to beat both Penn and Yale to make the NCAAs?

Two 2-"games"-total-goals hockey "series" was, in effect, a single two-hour game played over two days.

Yes, I know.  I lived through that absurdity.  Deciding an important competition using different rules from those used in all other games was ridiculous.

[Al DeFlorio]

Interesting that the Big Ten caps the victory margin at three for tiebreaking purposes, rather than the Ivy six.  If it were three, Cornell would have the three-seed locked up.  Brown would be at zero, not plus-one.  Cornell would be plus-three and Princeton minus-three.  A one or two goal Princeton win would give Cornell the goal differential win.  A three or more goal Princeton win would give a three-way tie at zero and the next tiebreaker, goal differential against the number-one team, Penn, would decide.  And Cornell wins that.

Don't think this would eliminate the six-goal margin anomaly we have now but it would minimize it.

[Jim Hyla]

is scoring own goals any less sporting than running up a score?

I think so. The assumed objective by all vested parties (let's not forget about bettors here - there is a Vegas spread on this game) is to score on the opposition. Running up the score can enter a moral gray area at a somewhat arbitrary point (i.e. Answer will vary based on who you ask) but scoring on yourself goes against the spirit of competition pretty unanimously. (I hope)

No, not unanimously in the least. College athletes owe absolutely nothing to the bettors except for their legal obligation not to manipulate the score for the financial gain of themselves or others. (EDIT to add: And by the way, if a bettor wagers money on this game without knowing all the factors that could contribute to the final score, they're not doing their due diligence.) The athletes' duty is to do everything they can to win individual games (and in the described scenario, they've already done that), then set themselves up for tournament success in the post-season, which would be more difficult the better they play in this hypothetical game. In this case I think it's the way the tournament qualification is set up that quite obviously goes against the spirit of competition. Once it's set up that way, it isn't up to the players and coaches to judge the morality of what they're doing to qualify for the tournament as long as they're not breaking the rules of the game.

Otherwise, you're basically saying that you'd rather have them win the game by too many goals and miss the tournament so that they can feel better about not violating the spirit of a rule that doesn't even exist, than have them qualify for the tournament by doing what's required.

I'll add to being on Beeeej's side. Competition is not just for 1 game. Competition is for the season. If the crazy rules say that the only way to extend the season is to only win by a certain amount, then the competition is to satisfy that rule.

They set up rules to play the game. We compete according to those rules. If those rules are crazy, so-be-it, we play according to those rules, for the season.

[billhoward]

So I understand there are scenarios where Cornell would benefit from scoring an own goal or two, but my question is: would this be a detriment to Princeton? I assume not and it would only push out Brown, but I'm trying to envision a scenario where Princeton would be defending our net from us scoring an own goal - total mayhem.

Obviously Milman wouldn't do this because it's the type of thing that makes national news and gets coaches fired for "teaching the kids a bad lesson" but it's fun to think about.

What teaches kids a bad lesson is the governing body of a sport laying down rules for tournament qualification that even make such a scenario possible, thus putting the kids and their coach in a difficult position. Unlike the famous fifth down game, there's nothing sportsmanlike about allowing yourself to be eliminated from your post-season tournament because you played too well.

The players also learn that the older people of the governing body haven't considered all the possibilities and unintended consequences. Good skill to learn about for the rest of life. Cornell's athletes, all Ivy athletes, if not necessarily all NCAA athletes, need to keep in mind fair play. It's more important long-term than scoring against goals to get into a tournament we could have gotten into by, say, beating Penn. Lord knows, if you want to screw somebody based on arcane reading of the rules, Wall Street and the law beckon.

[djk26]

Win and Cornell is in the Ivy lacrosse tournament.

I read through this whole thread and started to get nervous--but then I reminded myself that Bill's quote above is the key.  Do that (win) and the other stuff doesn't matter.

Beating Princeton (or Yale or Penn) will be tough, but that's what Cornell has to do now.

[billhoward]

Had me worried for a moment, did this email from the athletic ticketing office: Would the Princeton-Cornell lax game be a sellout? They've come close at Yale. Not so, just the early reminder to buy tickets for Red Hot Hockey vs. BU, again Thanksgiving Saturday 2019. Best attendance this year I believe was at Yale, 2,716.

[upprdeck]

SU losing to UNC is not a good result for Cornell. puts them back in the bubble talk and still could win the ACC.. So up 3 with 5 min left and blew it

[billhoward]

SU losing to UNC is not a good result for Cornell. puts them back in the bubble talk and still could win the ACC.. So up 3 with 5 min left and blew it

What's this you're saying? Not the opponent but Syracuse is up by 3 late in the game ... and Syracuse loses?

[upprdeck]

yeah.. SU was up 3 late and lost

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

SU losing to UNC is not a good result for Cornell. puts them back in the bubble talk and still could win the ACC.. So up 3 with 5 min left and blew it

What's this you're saying? Not the opponent but Syracuse is up by 3 late in the game ... and Syracuse loses?

I wasn't going to bring it up...

[upprdeck]

OSU losing to Mich is probably a good result for us.  

OSU has ND win, PSU loss just like us BU/Umass their only solid wins, but that mich loss is bad
our Towson/hobart wins are better I think.