Cornell 2024

[another fan]

Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.

[Finster]

Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.

It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.

That said, which high school is this kid coming from?

[10stone5]

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/recruiti ... commitment

[Chousnake]

Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.

It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.

That said, which high school is this kid coming from?

South Side on Long Island.

[Chousnake]

CU77 - you are correct on the head-to-head.
It is in the listed selection criteria. I had previously read an erroneous post.
If it comes down to splitting hairs between Cornell and Yale, this could be to Cornell's benefit.
Not so for Denver, if Georgetown win an AQ.

Two points here.

First, I will just never understand why - in a sport where wins and losses determine qualification for post season league tournaments, automatic bids to the NCAA tourney, and the national champion- when two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes, so many people prefer complicated mathematical formulas over head to head. There is no better criteria for deciding between two teams than who beat who when they played. I've heard the counter arguments, but give me a break. I'm not saying it's the only criterion, only that when things are close, it should be the primary one. I think back to 2018 when Cornell and Syracuse had virtually identical resumes and were ranked and rated 8/9, but Cornell beat Syracuse rather handily in the regular season. But Syracuse was seeded 8th and Cornell had to play them in the first round in the dome. There are other examples. In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't (one of the many "good losses" bids earned byJHU).

Second, I still fear the Denver loss (after the avalanche of horrible penalties and calls ) could crush Cornell's chances for a bid this year. I know many feel it's time to move on from that early season loss, but out of conference games like that in the short season in college lax are so important when it comes to RPI and other criteria and that "theft" still burns me. If Cornell wins that game, they are likely in the tournament now instead of having to win the next 2-3 games. I'd love to know what Cornell's RPI would be if that game was a win rather than a loss.

[HopFan16]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

[BigTurn]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

Beating a team once could be a fluke. Beating a team twice in one season (once by 7 goals) means you’re better than them.

[Chousnake]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

[HopFan16]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.

If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.

[laxfan1313]

During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!

LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c

[joewillie78]

Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.

It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.

That said, which high school is this kid coming from?

I agree, but he still must be 1 of the best HS Fogo's, and given that you don't know how it will translate, you just have to give the guy a shot and see how it works out. I'm sure Cascadden will be back, and they have the kid from Victor, so theirs really little pressure on Melkonian right away. I have all the confidence that he will be a solid Fogo, and Cornell, if all goes well, could have a great 3 headed monster at the X next year.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

[laxjuris]

Concerning next year's fogo situation-- Melkonian won 17 of 18 faceoffs against a good Carey team, and is at 74% for the season.

It’s really difficult to know how a high school FOGO will translate to the college game.

That said, which high school is this kid coming from?

South Side on Long Island.

It’s interesting (to me, anyway) that in our next two recruiting classes as listed on IL, Melkonian and the Blake Cascadden are the only two Long Islanders committed to Cornell, and Jack Herendeen is our only recruit from upstate. While Long Island and upstate NY still produce plenty of good recruits, it seems each year more of the top kids are going the private school route, with the Philly and Boston areas gaining more prominence as hot beds. And places like Culver Military, Hill Academy, and Western Reserve are now churning out elite talent with regularity.

[drunkmonkey30]

During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!

LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c

That announcer was awesome! had a one liner or metaphor for almost every play.

[Chousnake]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.

If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.

Maybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.

[HopFan16]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.

If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.

Maybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.

Lol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.

It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.

[laxfan1313]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.

If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.

Maybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.

Lol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.

It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.

As long as you're bringing up 2015, I fondly remember a game in which the Big Red led the Blue Jays 16-3 in the middle of the 3rd quarter. At that point Coach Moran emptied the bench. Final score 16-8. 1977 NC Game.

[Chousnake]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.

If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.

Maybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.

Lol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.

It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.

Touche. We're off track here and it's my fault. Sorry.

My original point is that H2H should be a major criteria when two teams are competing for a spot or seed. There just is no better indication of one team vs another that have comparable post season resumes than an actual game. To override an actual game with some formula often yields unfair results and historically, the old guard ACC/B10 teams have been the beneficiary over the Ivies and others. Cornell/Syracuse in 2018 for the 8 seed and home game is still a good example (even though Cornell won the game in Syracuse any way). Cornell Duke in 2007 is another example when Cornell beat Duke in Duke, but Duke was seeded 1 and an undefeated Cornell a baffling 4. There are others that don't involve Cornell, but I can't recall them and don't want to take the time to research them now.

[HopFan16]

In 2016 Rutgers beat Hopkins twice, but Hopkins got the bid and Rutgers didn't

Rutgers had the #20 RPI, two bad losses, and those wins over Hopkins were their only quality wins. They didn't have a tournament resume. There was no Hopkins vs. Rutgers H2H comparison because Rutgers wasn't even in the conversation. It wasn't close. Had Rutgers put together a better overall resume, they would have looked at the two together and almost certainly given Rutgers the edge due to the H2H. But they weren't even in the stratosphere. It'd be like putting Colgate in over Penn State this year.

The Colgate analogy doesn't work. Rutgers was in the same conference, finished above JHU, and beat them twice late in the season. To argue that JHU was the better team that season based on their schedule just proves my point.

"When two teams competing for a bid or seed have similar resumes" — your exact words. They didn't have similar resumes. End of story. I absolutely agree that when there are two teams with comparable resumes, they should heavily weigh H2H. But that wasn't the case here.

If Rutgers wanted to get in they should have considered not losing to the worst Princeton team in nearly 30 years. They also lost to Stony Brook, who was on the bubble as well and had the higher RPI.

Maybe Hopkins should have justified the questionable selection by playing a marginally competitive first round tournament game. Instead, they got blown out by Brown in a game that was over at halftime. They just didn't earn a bid that year, despite the number of good teams they scheduled and lost to.

Lol cool, the "similar resume" thing didn't work so we're pivoting to something completely different. I guess Cornell failed to justify their selection in 2015 because they were obliterated in the first round in a game that was 11-3 at halftime? Or does that not count.

It's not the committee's job to predict results — if they tried to do that it'd be a disaster several orders of magnitude worse than the current system.

Touche. We're off track here and it's my fault. Sorry.

My original point is that H2H should be a major criteria when two teams are competing for a spot or seed. There just is no better indication of one team vs another that have comparable post season resumes than an actual game. To override an actual game with some formula often yields unfair results and historically, the old guard ACC/B10 teams have been the beneficiary over the Ivies and others. Cornell/Syracuse in 2018 for the 8 seed and home game is still a good example (even though Cornell won the game in Syracuse any way). Cornell Duke in 2007 is another example when Cornell beat Duke in Duke, but Duke was seeded 1 and an undefeated Cornell a baffling 4. There are others that don't involve Cornell, but I can't recall them and don't want to take the time to research them now.

I completely agree. This year, if it comes down to Penn and Georgetown for one spot, I would hope (and expect) the committee to give Georgetown the bid by virtue of their H2H win, even though they might be a spot or two lower in the RPI and have one fewer quality win. That to me is not enough of a difference for Penn to overcome the H2H loss. If they had, say, 3 more quality wins, then you have to think about it. But as things stand now, it's got to be GTown. And say Princeton wins the Ivy and takes a bid away from some other team — I'd hope the committee puts Cornell in over Yale, if it comes to that. When resumes are somewhat close, H2H should take precedent, and the committee tends to agree.

But it's easy to look at H2H when you're only evaluating two teams for one spot. A lot of the time, like in 2016, it's not team A vs. team B. It's A vs. B vs. C vs. D and every other permutation of that. H2H doesn't work as cleanly when there are more than two teams in consideration.

[ICGrad]

During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!

LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c

That announcer was awesome! had a one liner or metaphor for almost every play.

My oldest son, who is not a lacrosse fan, was loving the announcer.

One of my favorites came early in the in the game, when a Cornell player (I think) shot the ball and it went wide of net. The announcer said something to the effect of "If that shot were any further right, it would have its own talkshow on FoxNews."

[The Orfling]

During the Notre Dame game, after Ryan Goldstein scored, the ESPN+ announcer described Ryan as "skinny as a chimney sweep with the hands of a mohel.!

LOL! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VAmi8WUK-6c

That announcer was awesome! had a one liner or metaphor for almost every play.

Pretty sure that was Booker Corrigan -- he has a ton of fun on the mic and he brings a lot of energy to the games he calls. I enjoyed his call also. The "hands of a mohel" line is an all-timer.