Page 18 of 35
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
by OCanada
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:10 pm
by LaxAllStars
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:23 pm
by joewillie78
Comes up with last week's, the 18th, not the new one today.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
by Gobigred
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:44 pm
by coda
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:52 am
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:30 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:18 am
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:06 am
keno in reno wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 10:06 pm
Cornell at 5 is laughable
Quint has 'em at 6 and IL at 7. Maybe it's your opinion that's "laughable."
GBR
He is welcome to his opinion, BUT when you beat the #1 RPI team, have the #2 SOS, and are #6 RPI, I don't think my ranking them #5 is complete homerism.
I think Quints and the IL rankings kind of proved that.
Penn, Cuse, and ND next 3. I would think that are SOS would go to #1 after this gauntlet.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Cornell is 10th in SOS.
https://lacrossereference.com/stats/str ... le-d1-men/
Third here based on RPI:
https://www.laxmath.com/men/sos001.php
RPI is the most useless metric in existence.. No need to base anything off of that.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
by Chousnake
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:38 pm
by SCLaxAttack
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:23 pm
Comes up with last week's, the 18th, not the new one today.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Not a hard url to adjust - here you go
https://laxallstars.com/quint-kessenich ... -25th-2024
Two MAAC teams in Quint's Top 20 article? Wow times have changed, even if one only made his honorable mention section, and even though it's only Quint.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:49 pm
by wgdsr
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
none, actually. but you're going to run into a lot of folks that don't understand rpi. so there's a reach for "improvement" in all the wrong places. not to mention it has been applied poorly. and arguably incorrectly.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
by coda
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
by rolldodge
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:41 pm
by OCanada
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
Poor wording on my part. I con’t do drafts etc
Factors like score differentials. The incentive is to playing a difficult schedule with a tight spread on scores among others while remaining over .500 to qualify. Gou might want to talk to an administrator in one of the tournzment states in the NE. I am not part of what if anything is being discussed to see how they are doing it. dissatisfaction w the current approach
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:24 pm
by LaxAllStars
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:28 pm
by SCLaxAttack
If you’re referring to my comment I didn’t say in his top 20. I said two made the article “even if one only made his honorable mention section.” LIU is “On the radar.”
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
by coda
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:10 pm
by wgdsr
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
the line is where the house figures half of the money will go. what question are we answering, where to rank teams in a poll? i thought this emanated out of tourney selection profile?
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:37 pm
by Farfromgeneva
SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:28 pm
If you’re referring to my comment I didn’t say in his top 20. I said two made the article “even if one only made his honorable mention section.” LIU is “On the radar.”
Nice record by that LIU profile leaves a lot to be desired. Quinnys a little
Better but owns over brown don’t look that sweet now.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:44 pm
by rolldodge
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
First, its never as simple as evaluating one game versus one other when making a poll.
Second, as a rough measure, any team in the top 30 (lets use RPI despite its flaws) is capable of losing by 1 to any team in the top 10 on a given game day.
Third, good teams find a way to still win despite a bad day or extenuating circumstances. And beating a team in the top 20 (BU) on any given day is not easy for any team.
Losses can never be a positive. They can only be more or less of a negative. Given other data points, I might not take anything away from a team for losing to ND in OT, but it wouldn't add to their resume. They need to prove themselves through wins.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2024 7:29 am
by joewillie78
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
First, I would need to know, which team is the HOME team, or is it a neutral site, as I always give weight to the home team, especially in a scenario where it's a "warm" weather team venturing into our northern tundra.
Second, I would need to know how healthy teams came out of their last game. Ex. Cornell lost its top Fogo, so that needed to be factored into their next game.
Third, Scheme is important to me as some schemes give certain teams fits, but not to other teams.
Just saying team A lost to a great team in OT, and Team B beat an average team in OT, and simply make a line from those results seems very simplistic, when many other factors need to be weighed.
And for complete transparency, remember I am in the school of their is NO SUCH THING AS A "GOOD" LOSS. I know many on this list disagree with me on this but that's my old and stubborn nature showing through.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:03 am
by Finster
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 7:29 am
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:53 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 2:47 pm
OCanada wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:00 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:35 pm
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:17 pm
ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:47 am
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 8:15 pm
coda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 7:48 pm
I can say my model hates Army. I think it is due to the weak schedule. I think you have Cornell a bit high, but you are a fan. I still have them around 10, hard to get them inside the top 5 until that defense improves
Maybe, but they just beat the #1 RPI team, and are currently #6 RPI, and #2 SOS. Pretty good resume, so far.
I agree that #5 seems a bit high, but not egregious. Though it is hard for me to take the RPI argument seriously when I find RPI to be such a laughable metric.
Icgrad,
I absolutely agree about RPI as the all worldly metric, BUT it seems to drive the selection committee. As long as Cornell stays high in that metric, I have less of a feeling that the committee can screw us over again.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Excellent point. Laughable metric, but not one that can be ignored...and one to embrace passionately when it favours your (our) team!
I will be mildly surprised if RPI has not been replaced by a multifactor formula that will encourage teams to play ss difficult schedule as possible with winning a game not as important as other aspects of the game. A version is already being used to determine tournament participation and seeding for HS tourneys in some states .
What are "the other aspects of the game" that are more important than winning?
I guess some people want to go back to the halcyon days of "good losses" being the most important criterion for getting a bid and seeding.
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
First, I would need to know, which team is the HOME team, or is it a neutral site, as I always give weight to the home team, especially in a scenario where it's a "warm" weather team venturing into our northern tundra.
Second, I would need to know how healthy teams came out of their last game. Ex. Cornell lost its top Fogo, so that needed to be factored into their next game.
Third, Scheme is important to me as some schemes give certain teams fits, but not to other teams.
Just saying team A lost to a great team in OT, and Team B beat an average team in OT, and simply make a line from those results seems very simplistic, when many other factors need to be weighed.
And for complete transparency, remember I am in the school of their is NO SUCH THING AS A "GOOD" LOSS. I know many on this list disagree with me on this but that's my old and stubborn nature showing through.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
'Good losses' can be a matter of perspective. Two friends being chased by a bear, one turns to the other and said, ‘I just realized that I don’t need to outrun the bear; I only need to outrun you.‘
Always know who you need to beat; you're likely not to get eaten when/if you figure out the real game.
Re: 2024 top 20
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:21 am
by coda
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:44 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pm
rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:10 pm
coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:04 pm
I just can not understand this logic. There is a huge difference between losing to ND by 1 and beating BU by 1. Rankings are all about relative performance. Ignoring that is just wrong
Yeah, the "huge difference" is that one is a win and one is a loss.
Simple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
First, its never as simple as evaluating one game versus one other when making a poll.
Second, as a rough measure, any team in the top 30 (lets use RPI despite its flaws) is capable of losing by 1 to any team in the top 10 on a given game day.
Third, good teams find a way to still win despite a bad day or extenuating circumstances. And beating a team in the top 20 (BU) on any given day is not easy for any team.
Losses can never be a positive. They can only be more or less of a negative. Given other data points, I might not take anything away from a team for losing to ND in OT, but it wouldn't add to their resume. They need to prove themselves through wins.
figured you wouldnt answer the question. Team like Quinnipiac is not playing UVA or ND to 1 goal, most the top 20 isnt going to play either to a goal. Nobody has said losses were a positive, merely that you need to judge every performance for what it was. Its impressive to take a top 3 team in the country to OT. It gives you a glimpse to the ceiling of the team. Beating a middle of the pack team in OT, doesnt tell you much. Beating them by 10 may give you much more insight. MOV is important. There are differences between wins. The idea of win is win and lose is lose is too simple to base rankings off of.