I don’t know. Did JMU start off number one last year? I think you need to take into account who graduated, who transferred, and how good the incoming freshmen are. And you need to do that for each team in order to can come up with some sort of ranking. I agree, though, that preseason rankings are not particularly valuable. They are fun discussion starters for fans, though.
Princeton
Re: Princeton
Re: Princeton
1-Rankings should be earned. Not given based on subjective metrics. In that way, I like RPI and other number-based metrics. (I just don't like the RPI metric as a number based metric.)
2- Yes, in theory, 25% of the team from last season is gone. But a ranking based on 75% of a team, to me, is better than a ranking based on "I think...".
3- JMU should've been #1 or not ranked at all.
2- Yes, in theory, 25% of the team from last season is gone. But a ranking based on 75% of a team, to me, is better than a ranking based on "I think...".
3- JMU should've been #1 or not ranked at all.
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
I guess I am more old-school than you are. Numbers have their place, but they are only one factor, in my view. For many years I did end of year girls high school rankings on LaxPower. I used the LaxPower ratings as a starting point, but almost always deviated from them for (I thought) valid reasons.
I agree rankings should be earned. But RPI before the season starts is worthless so you have to look at the available information which I think primarily involves personnel.
It depends on which 25% graduated. In the case of JMU last year, they had lost a huge amount of talent from the 2017 team and simply weren’t going to be the number one team in 2018.
Yes, where a team ended up last year is a relevant factor, but only one factor. More important to me is the changes in personnel.
I agree rankings should be earned. But RPI before the season starts is worthless so you have to look at the available information which I think primarily involves personnel.
It depends on which 25% graduated. In the case of JMU last year, they had lost a huge amount of talent from the 2017 team and simply weren’t going to be the number one team in 2018.
Yes, where a team ended up last year is a relevant factor, but only one factor. More important to me is the changes in personnel.
Re: Princeton
100% agree. And in the name of time constraints, you do what you need to do. With this said, if you had more time, I bet you could've figured out why the rankings "didn't seem right". And, in theory, you could've figured out why it wasn't right and how you could've amended it... with numbers.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:18 am I guess I am more old-school than you are. Numbers have their place, but they are only one factor, in my view. For many years I did end of year girls high school rankings on LaxPower. I used the LaxPower ratings as a starting point, but almost always deviated from them for (I thought) valid reasons.
Agreed. And I can even imagine how this could be calculated. Especially on offense.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:18 am I agree rankings should be earned. But RPI before the season starts is worthless so you have to look at the available information which I think primarily involves personnel.
It depends on which 25% graduated. In the case of JMU last year, they had lost a huge amount of talent from the 2017 team and simply weren’t going to be the number one team in 2018.
Yes, where a team ended up last year is a relevant factor, but only one factor. More important to me is the changes in personnel.
Re: Princeton
Re: Princeton
admin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:46 am100% agree. And in the name of time constraints, you do what you need to do. With this said, if you had more time, I bet you could've figured out why the rankings "didn't seem right". And, in theory, you could've figured out why it wasn't right and how you could've amended it... with numbers.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 11:18 am I guess I am more old-school than you are. Numbers have their place, but they are only one factor, in my view. For many years I did end of year girls high school rankings on LaxPower. I used the LaxPower ratings as a starting point, but almost always deviated from them for (I thought) valid reasons.
Haha. I’m embarrassed to admit how much time I did spend on those rankings. I did know, or at least had a very good idea I thought, why the LaxPower rankings were what they were. There’s a fair amount to it, but the crux was that I gave more weight to big games, particularly playoff games, then did LaxPower.
Re: Princeton
If you beat a team in the play-offs, even if you're currently ranked #54 and they're ranked #1, the formerly #1 team drops due to this loss and the formerly #54 team is automatically at least 1 ahead of the formerly #1. For end-of-season, single-loss-elimination games, winning trumps everything.
And that's a good example of creating a number-based rule in order to make the rankings right.
And that's a good example of creating a number-based rule in order to make the rankings right.
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
Based on IL's own ranking, Penn is #15 and PSU is unranked. https://www.insidelacrosse.com/league/WDI/polls. OK wins and a loss to Brown and they're #6? I don't get it...
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
At the time Princeton beat them they were ranked #12 and #8 respectively.Matnum PI wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:17 pm Based on IL's own ranking, Penn is #15 and PSU is unranked. https://www.insidelacrosse.com/league/WDI/polls. OK wins and a loss to Brown and they're #6? I don't get it...
Re: Princeton
Sure it would. I'll show you how. JMU won. The last time the ball was in the field of play they were the champion. Until the ball enters the field of play again they remain the champion and number 1. Could that last all of an hour after the season starts? Absolutely but until someone beats them they are at the top of the heap. IMO the initial #1 ranking comes with winning the National Championship it is up to the other teams to take that away. Just one persons $0.02.
Re: Princeton
Re: Princeton
And, by definition, the same should hold true for #2, #3, #4, etc.
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
Gee, I don’t agree with this approach at all. Winning the national championship in 2017 entitles the team to the number one ranking in 2017. 2018 is a different year. You look at how the teams are going to do that year, not how they did in the past. I guess that’s my two cents.
Re: Princeton
You gotta start somewhere. And at least the rankings were earned.
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
They were earned. For the prior year. Two things. First, why even have preseason rankings if they’re going to be the same as the final prior year’s rankings? They wouldn’t add anything. Second, this is not how preseason rankings are done in most sports. Generally those who prepare preseason rankings try to make an effort to guess as to how the teams will do in the year in question.
Re: Princeton
And those same people are creating purely subjective Rankings throughout the season as well. Which is fine. I'm just saying, for a Ranking based on numbers, the preseason rankings also need to be based on numbers. Thus, last season's numbers. For the more subjective Rankings, then a preseason ranking of this same ilk only make sense. With this said...
I have zero issue with subjective rankings. But, when they don't make sense, admittedly, it bothers me. And, for me, when a rank-er says, I just think they're better!, this doesn't make snese to me. (For the record, I'm not saying this about anybody in this thread. Not even IL necessarily. Just speaking generally.)
I have zero issue with subjective rankings. But, when they don't make sense, admittedly, it bothers me. And, for me, when a rank-er says, I just think they're better!, this doesn't make snese to me. (For the record, I'm not saying this about anybody in this thread. Not even IL necessarily. Just speaking generally.)
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
No offense, just the sophomoric way we talked about Michigan. Guess it comes from Ohio relatives.wlaxnut wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:59 amStill doesn’t make sense. Why chicken?cltlax wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:49 amJust sound it out phonetically with the emphasis on the Mewlaxnut wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:59 am“Mechicken” eh?Dr. Tact wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:08 am And the NCAA has Princeton as #4.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/lacrosse-wome ... 020-season
Mechicken #8, UVA #10, ND #11, Denver #13
So who knows....good thread though.
Would the good doctor please expound?
I like Michigan, really I do....
Re: Princeton
NCAA has P'ton at #5. I dunno. I don't get it. https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse- ... crosse-rpi
Ahead of SU? I dunno...
Caddy Day
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Caddies Welcome 1-1:15
Re: Princeton
Well the article I posted had them at 4, but either way it is better than your question on #6.Matnum PI wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:08 pmNCAA has P'ton at #5. I dunno. I don't get it. https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/lacrosse- ... crosse-rpi
Ahead of SU? I dunno...