Nike/US Lacrosse’s ranking doesn’t make sense. We’re not saying they’re wrong. Heck, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But their opinion doesn’t make sense. The only way it makes sense is if they were to say “I don’t base the Rankings on wins and losses” (which is insane) or “I’m only looking at specific games, not their whole season” (which is less insane but still intellectual dishonest). If you discount a team’s games from earlier in the season, you need to do the same for all teams. i.e. You can’t say, “I’m ignoring that loss because it was so early in the season” and then crush Syracuse because they lost to Albany in the beginning of the season. Based on Nike/US Lacrosse’s rankings, this each teams best and worst losses as well as where they should be ranked if each team was ranked based on wins and losses. Whenever possible, we give Nike/USL the benefit of the doubt.
This is the Nike/US Lacrosse ranking:
| 1 | Albany |
| 2 | UMD |
| 3 | Duke |
| 4 | Denver |
| 5 | Yale |
| 6 | Loyola |
| 7 | JHU |
| 8 | Cornell |
| 9 | Rutgers |
| 10 | Syracuse |
| 11 | Bucknell |
| 12 | Penn State |
| 13 | Notre Dame |
| 14 | UVA |
| 15 | Navy |
| 16 | Georgetown |
| 17 | Villanova |
| 18 | Mass |
| 19 | Lehigh |
| 20 | Penn |
NR=Not Rated. AC=Also Considered.
If Nike/US Lacrosse’s Ranking was based on each teams’ quality wins, it would look like this:
| 2nd Worst L | Worst L | Rank | Best W | 2nd Best W | ||
| 1 | Albany | 0 | NR | 1 | #2 | #10 |
| 10 | Syracuse | #7 | #9 | 2 | #3 | #13 |
| 3 | Duke | #10 | #20 | 3 | #4 | #13 |
| 13 | Notre Dame | #3 | NR | 4 | #4 | #14 |
| 17 | Villanova | #16 | NR | 5 | #5 | #12 |
| 11 | Bucknell | #15 | NR | 6 | #5 | #6 |
| 6 | Loyola | #11 | #14 | 7 | #6 | #15 |
| 2 | UMD | 0 | #1 | 8 | #7 | #17 |
| 12 | Penn State | #17 | AC | 9 | #7 | #20 |
| 5 | Yale | #11 | #17 | 10 | #8 | #20 |
| 7 | JHU | #6 | NR | 11 | #9 | #10 |
| 8 | Cornell | #5 | NR | 12 | #10 | #12 |
| 4 | Denver | #3 | #13 | 13 | #16 | #17 |
| 20 | Penn | NR | NR | 14 | #3 | NR |
| 14 | UVA | #7 | #13 | 15 | #6 | NR |
| 9 | Rutgers | AC | NR | 16 | #10 | NR |
| 15 | Navy | #6 | NR | 17 | #11 | NR |
| 16 | Georgetown | NR | NR | 18 | #17 | AC |
| 18 | Mass | AC | NR | 19 | NR | NR |
| 19 | Lehigh | #15 | NR | 20 | NR | NR |
If NIKE/US Lacrosse’s ranking was based on the teams’, so to speak, quality losses, the ranking would look like this:
| 2nd Worst L | Worst L | Rank | Best W | 2nd Best W | ||
| 2 | UMD | 0 | #1 | 1 | #7 | #17 |
| 1 | Albany | 0 | NR | 2 | #2 | #10 |
| 4 | Denver | #3 | #13 | 3 | #16 | #17 |
| 10 | Syracuse | #7 | #9 | 4 | #3 | #13 |
| 14 | UVA | #7 | #13 | 5 | #6 | NR |
| 3 | Duke | #10 | #20 | 6 | #4 | #13 |
| 6 | Loyola | #11 | #14 | 7 | #6 | #15 |
| 5 | Yale | #11 | #17 | 8 | #8 | #20 |
| 13 | Notre Dame | #3 | NR | 9 | #4 | #14 |
| 8 | Cornell | #5 | NR | 10 | #10 | #12 |
| 7 | JHU | #6 | NR | 11 | #9 | #10 |
| 15 | Navy | #6 | NR | 12 | #11 | NR |
| 12 | Penn State | #17 | AC | 13 | #7 | #20 |
| 11 | Bucknell | #15 | NR | 14 | #5 | #6 |
| 19 | Lehigh | #15 | NR | 15 | NR | NR |
| 17 | Villanova | #16 | NR | 16 | #5 | #12 |
| 18 | Mass | AC | NR | 17 | NR | NR |
| 9 | Rutgers | AC | NR | 18 | #10 | NR |
| 20 | Penn | NR | NR | 19 | #3 | NR |
| 16 | Georgetown | NR | NR | 20 | #17 | AC |
Now, if you look at each team’s ranking when looking at Best Losses and Best Wins relative to the actual Rankings, you can see the inconsistencies. There are numerous teams that stick out as being too over- or under-rated. It appears that UMD and Denver are being rewarded to heavily for having good Best Losses. It’s ridiculous to judge teams based so heavily on Best Losses. All this does is reward having a noncompetitive schedule. (e.g. Vermont has a terrible schedule, their best win was vs. Jacksonville, and the only recently moved off the Top 20 list. And even with their loss to Stony Brook, there still an “Also Considered”. This is ridiculous. None the less, giving Nike/USL the benefit of the doubt, if this is how they want to reward teams, so be it. At least UMD has the best Best Losses so ranking them at #2, at least this makes logical sense. But… How can Yale have an 8/10 (Ranked 8th in Best losses and 10 in Best Wins) and be ranked #5. Rutgers is 18/16 and ranked #9? What about Syracuse being a 4/2 and being ranked at #10? It makes no sense. Notre Dame is similarly under-rated. Numerous teams are being squeezed into a ranking. e.g. One can see how Denver could be #4 based on there numbers but… Really? Others make absolutely no sense. e.g. Rutgers. Bottomline, these rankings suck and, even worse, FanLax has yet to figure out a ranking method to make their Rankings obsolete.
| Best Losses | Best Wins | ||
| 1 | Albany | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | UMD | 1 | 8 |
| 3 | Duke | 6 | 3 |
| 4 | Denver | 3 | 13 |
| 5 | Yale | 8 | 10 |
| 6 | Loyola | 7 | 7 |
| 7 | JHU | 11 | 11 |
| 8 | Cornell | 10 | 12 |
| 9 | Rutgers | 18 | 16 |
| 10 | Syracuse | 4 | 2 |
| 11 | Bucknell | 14 | 6 |
| 12 | Penn State | 13 | 9 |
| 13 | Notre Dame | 9 | 4 |
| 14 | UVA | 5 | 15 |
| 15 | Navy | 12 | 17 |
| 16 | Georgetown | 20 | 18 |
| 17 | Villanova | 16 | 5 |
| 18 | Mass | 17 | 19 |
| 19 | Lehigh | 15 | 20 |
| 20 | Penn | 19 | 14 |
