Lehigh-Rutgers

[Farfromgeneva]

If you wanted to check my posts you’ll find a few comments personally where I’ve stated “I think they are good” but we have zero evidence. (and consequently it’s inconsistent to not press the “who’d you beat” comparison with other teams as that would be the standard applied to Bucknell, UVM, UMBC, RoMo, Bryant (who has a first round playoff win on their resume in a less than 15yr history), Richmond, HPU, etc)

There’s been a lot of thin skins and misdirected anguish (from in house administrative decisions) around all of this but if we wanted to be both consistent, not just with the rule set as I’ll throw up if another person regurgitates how they said their tossing the criteria this year which I’m well aware but that doesn’t mean their dumping the conceptual weight of “who’d you play” (we couldn’t say for conference only folks this year with zero data points) and “who’d you beat” (except in some years with respect to Hopkins if the first part was satisfied as a singular outlier). What if there was Bryant and SJU sitting in NEC finals undefeated (and a few half decent OOC wins would have been require like UDel and SBU, Boston U) vs an 8-3 Rutgers with this years schedule. A 10-1 loser who’s only loss was to an undefeated team with a proven coach and playoff history. Would Rutgers still have deserved to get in on the body of tangible literal evidence?

Hoyaboy made a correct and great case back in LP in the year that for Urick pushes out when ND made the playoffs over GT. The fact that ND made the finals (2010 if I recall correctly) didn’t negate the fact that GTown still deserves to get in over them and he was right.

[DocBarrister]

If you wanted to check my posts you’ll find a few comments personally where I’ve stated “I think they are good” but we have zero evidence. (and consequently it’s inconsistent to not press the “who’d you beat” comparison with other teams as that would be the standard applied to Bucknell, UVM, UMBC, RoMo, Bryant (who has a first round playoff win on their resume in a less than 15yr history), Richmond, HPU, etc)

There’s been a lot of thin skins and misdirected anguish (from in house administrative decisions) around all of this but if we wanted to be both consistent, not just with the rule set as I’ll throw up if another person regurgitates how they said their tossing the criteria this year which I’m well aware but that doesn’t mean their dumping the conceptual weight of “who’d you play” (we couldn’t say for conference only folks this year with zero data points) and “who’d you beat” (except in some years with respect to Hopkins if the first part was satisfied as a singular outlier). What if there was Bryant and SJU sitting in NEC finals undefeated (and a few half decent OOC wins would have been require like UDel and SBU, Boston U) vs an 8-3 Rutgers with this years schedule. A 10-1 loser who’s only loss was to an undefeated team with a proven coach and playoff history. Would Rutgers still have deserved to get in on the body of tangible literal evidence?

Hoyaboy made a correct and great case back in LP in the year that for Urick pushes out when ND made the playoffs over GT. The fact that ND made the finals (2010 if I recall correctly) didn’t negate the fact that GTown still deserves to get in over them and he was right.

Again, way too much deference to pretty records built on lesser competition.

Since the formation of the B1G lacrosse conference in 2015, the B1G has consistently been among the best conferences in Division I lacrosse. Why did you think this year was any different.

Let’s say there were no AQs and the choice was between an undefeated NEC champion and an 8-3 Rutgers team that had lost only to Maryland and a late-surging Hopkins team. Should we take the NEC champs over Rutgers if there were no AQs?

NO WAY.

It’s not the pretty records that matter. Anyone who has watched the B1G this year knows it is a strong conference from top to bottom. I think all the B1G teams were among the 25 best in the nation. Every single one of them.

I never got too upset by all the Hopkins losses this season, mainly because the Jays were improving each week and I knew how good every team in the conference was.

Rutgers won 8 B1G conference games this season. That was really tough.

Lehigh was a very good team, but they weren’t winning their matchups on offense. Lehigh’s D could compete in the B1G, but not their offense.

Just how good was the B1G this season? Hopkins finished 4-9 and just over a week ago our middies were routinely winning their matchups with Rutgers’ defenders, something Lehigh wasn’t able to do.

Just sayin’....

DocBarrister

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok so the argument is Rutgers is good because the BigTen is good. Don’t look at the lack of a win over a team with a winning record. Don’t look at best win being against a 4-8 team earlier in the year only to lose to them more recently (but let’s please mention where Hop, OSU and PSU we’re ranked when the wins occurred right).

What tangible evidence on the field in this season is presented for the case? All I see and hear is they’re good because the BigTen is good. They got in, showed up (against a team and league many here besmirched not very long ago) and that’s all that should matter. However I’ve yet to see any tangible argument for their inclusion that doesn’t involve major speculation. Can you provide it please since I’m not seeing it? Prior to today’s game of course

[LaxPundit07]

Rutgers goalie is legit.

Still trying to figure out why Cassesse would be in running at Duke when Dino retires.

[Farfromgeneva]

Because from 1985-2007 (prior two coaches) they we’re 45.5% win over 316 games and he’s 56.2% over the last 210 games including three app titles and playoff appearances. The prior two coach regime had 0.

So beating the long term historical win % by over 100Bps in arguably a more difficult competitive landscape is fairly compelling. Kind of reminds me of the guy that replaced Pressler at Duke...

[DocBarrister]

Ok so the argument is Rutgers is good because the BigTen is good. Don’t look at the lack of a win over a team with a winning record. Don’t look at best win being against a 4-8 team earlier in the year only to lose to them more recently (but let’s please mention where Hop, OSU and PSU we’re ranked when the wins occurred right).

What tangible evidence on the field in this season is presented for the case? All I see and hear is they’re good because the BigTen is good. They got in, showed up (against a team and league many here besmirched not very long ago) and that’s all that should matter. However I’ve yet to see any tangible argument for their inclusion that doesn’t involve major speculation. Can you provide it please since I’m not seeing it? Prior to today’s game of course

Each of those B1G teams with a losing record could probably have made a good run at the championships of some of the lesser conferences. Hopkins was probably among the ten best teams in the nation when their season ended.

Maryland and Rutgers deserve a lot more respect than you’re giving them.

You are way too enamored of pretty records.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

If you wanted to check my posts you’ll find a few comments personally where I’ve stated “I think they are good” but we have zero evidence. (and consequently it’s inconsistent to not press the “who’d you beat” comparison with other teams as that would be the standard applied to Bucknell, UVM, UMBC, RoMo, Bryant (who has a first round playoff win on their resume in a less than 15yr history), Richmond, HPU, etc)

There’s been a lot of thin skins and misdirected anguish (from in house administrative decisions) around all of this but if we wanted to be both consistent, not just with the rule set as I’ll throw up if another person regurgitates how they said their tossing the criteria this year which I’m well aware but that doesn’t mean their dumping the conceptual weight of “who’d you play” (we couldn’t say for conference only folks this year with zero data points) and “who’d you beat” (except in some years with respect to Hopkins if the first part was satisfied as a singular outlier). What if there was Bryant and SJU sitting in NEC finals undefeated (and a few half decent OOC wins would have been require like UDel and SBU, Boston U) vs an 8-3 Rutgers with this years schedule. A 10-1 loser who’s only loss was to an undefeated team with a proven coach and playoff history. Would Rutgers still have deserved to get in on the body of tangible literal evidence?

Hoyaboy made a correct and great case back in LP in the year that for Urick pushes out when ND made the playoffs over GT. The fact that ND made the finals (2010 if I recall correctly) didn’t negate the fact that GTown still deserves to get in over them and he was right.

Again, way too much deference to pretty records built on lesser competition.

Since the formation of the B1G lacrosse conference in 2015, the B1G has consistently been among the best conferences in Division I lacrosse. Why did you think this year was any different.

Let’s say there were no AQs and the choice was between an undefeated NEC champion and an 8-3 Rutgers team that had lost only to Maryland and a late-surging Hopkins team. Should we take the NEC champs over Rutgers if there were no AQs?

NO WAY.

It’s not the pretty records that matter. Anyone who has watched the B1G this year knows it is a strong conference from top to bottom. I think all the B1G teams were among the 25 best in the nation. Every single one of them.

I never got too upset by all the Hopkins losses this season, mainly because the Jays were improving each week and I knew how good every team in the conference was.

Rutgers won 8 B1G conference games this season. That was really tough.

Lehigh was a very good team, but they weren’t winning their matchups on offense. Lehigh’s D could compete in the B1G, but not their offense.

Just how good was the B1G this season? Hopkins finished 4-9 and just over a week ago our middies were routinely winning their matchups with Rutgers’ defenders, something Lehigh wasn’t able to do.

Just sayin’....

DocBarrister

the absurd '21 b1g takes just continue and get bigger.

and i think michigan just made the top 25 for the first time in their history after going 3 and 9. hop's in at 4 and 9. but top 10!!!

sad, really.

[Wheels]

Oooh...that RU-UNC game is going to be a lot of fun. Neither team will play slowdown lacrosse. They're going to be who they are.

RU struggled with elite X attackmen this year. Jean-Felix gets put on an island and RU tries to pack in behind him. With guys like Anderson and Kelly being able to sling it from 15 yards, Chris Gray is either going to score a lot of goals or a lot of assists (or both).

One thing to note. RU's shorties on D aren't the biggest dudes out there, but UNC's midfielders (like 3 lines worth of them) are.

RU can definitely hang in this game if Colin Kirst plays like he did today. RU had the fewest TOs per game in the B1G, so they play pretty clean even with as much as they like to run. UNC's ride is ferocious, and I wonder how RU will handle that. No team in the B1G rides like UNC, and RU struggled when Michigan turned up its ride against them late in the season.

UNC likes to press out on defense and will give RU attackmen a lot of space to beat their defenders. UNC's slides come from a long way away. This is the kind of game where Kieran Mullins will probably thrive. Does Bowen take him or Connor Kirst?

I think UNC wins the game, but this could be like a 23-18 kind of game where both teams just race up and down the field. Will be a blast to watch.

[Farfromgeneva]

Ok so the argument is Rutgers is good because the BigTen is good. Don’t look at the lack of a win over a team with a winning record. Don’t look at best win being against a 4-8 team earlier in the year only to lose to them more recently (but let’s please mention where Hop, OSU and PSU we’re ranked when the wins occurred right).

What tangible evidence on the field in this season is presented for the case? All I see and hear is they’re good because the BigTen is good. They got in, showed up (against a team and league many here besmirched not very long ago) and that’s all that should matter. However I’ve yet to see any tangible argument for their inclusion that doesn’t involve major speculation. Can you provide it please since I’m not seeing it? Prior to today’s game of course

Each of those B1G teams with a losing record could probably have made a good run at the championships of some of the lesser conferences. Hopkins was probably among the ten best teams in the nation when their season ended.

Maryland and Rutgers deserve a lot more respect than you’re giving them.

You are way too enamored of pretty records.

DocBarrister

I wish you would just say in this instance what you mean which is they're simply deserving because of the (well earned) reputation of the league in prior years. I’m not that enamored don’t confuse me w fattylax but I’ve yet to hear a single case made in tangible evidence from this seasons results. Stupid because I always thought they deserved to be in based on my opinion, but I also know I had nothing to back that up by. Great they were out in, I have no issue w the team or program just some of the folks various heuristics. But at this point I just want someone else who’s crapped on the ACC and pined about their bias and how all these other leagues are trash to acknowledge that there’s no tangible evidence to support it but “we’re just better because look at the roster and the conference and who cares if we don’t prove it outside of conference once because our administrators locked us up on this so we can’t prove it until getting there but we all know we belong there so just f**k all the framework (not specific criteria) and we should be talking about a third bid for a hot Hopkins”

[DocBarrister]

Ok so the argument is Rutgers is good because the BigTen is good. Don’t look at the lack of a win over a team with a winning record. Don’t look at best win being against a 4-8 team earlier in the year only to lose to them more recently (but let’s please mention where Hop, OSU and PSU we’re ranked when the wins occurred right).

What tangible evidence on the field in this season is presented for the case? All I see and hear is they’re good because the BigTen is good. They got in, showed up (against a team and league many here besmirched not very long ago) and that’s all that should matter. However I’ve yet to see any tangible argument for their inclusion that doesn’t involve major speculation. Can you provide it please since I’m not seeing it? Prior to today’s game of course

Each of those B1G teams with a losing record could probably have made a good run at the championships of some of the lesser conferences. Hopkins was probably among the ten best teams in the nation when their season ended.

Maryland and Rutgers deserve a lot more respect than you’re giving them.

You are way too enamored of pretty records.

DocBarrister

I wish you would just say in this instance what you mean which is they're simply deserving because of the (well earned) reputation of the league in prior years. I’m not that enamored don’t confuse me w fattylax but I’ve yet to hear a single case made in tangible evidence from this seasons results. Stupid because I always thought they deserved to be in based on my opinion, but I also know I had nothing to back that up by. Great they were out in, I have no issue w the team or program just some of the folks various heuristics. But at this point I just want someone else who’s crapped on the ACC and pined about their bias and how all these other leagues are trash to acknowledge that there’s no tangible evidence to support it but “we’re just better because look at the roster and the conference and who cares if we don’t prove it outside of conference once because our administrators locked us up on this so we can’t prove it until getting there but we all know we belong there so just f**k all the framework (not specific criteria) and we should be talking about a third bid for a hot Hopkins”

No, the B1G was pretty good this season from top to bottom. Anyone who watched Michigan this season knows they are not a bad team. Hopkins was the 6th (last place) seed in the B1G tournament. Ohio State and Penn State had tough seasons, but both those teams had lots of talent.

Anyone who followed Rutgers this season wasn’t too surprised that they blew out Lehigh ... and again, I have a fondness for Lehigh that goes back to my HS days.

DocBarrister

[Laxfan#1969]

Oooh...that RU-UNC game is going to be a lot of fun. Neither team will play slowdown lacrosse. They're going to be who they are.

RU struggled with elite X attackmen this year. Jean-Felix gets put on an island and RU tries to pack in behind him. With guys like Anderson and Kelly being able to sling it from 15 yards, Chris Gray is either going to score a lot of goals or a lot of assists (or both).

One thing to note. RU's shorties on D aren't the biggest dudes out there, but UNC's midfielders (like 3 lines worth of them) are.

RU can definitely hang in this game if Colin Kirst plays like he did today. RU had the fewest TOs per game in the B1G, so they play pretty clean even with as much as they like to run. UNC's ride is ferocious, and I wonder how RU will handle that. No team in the B1G rides like UNC, and RU struggled when Michigan turned up its ride against them late in the season.

UNC likes to press out on defense and will give RU attackmen a lot of space to beat their defenders. UNC's slides come from a long way away. This is the kind of game where Kieran Mullins will probably thrive. Does Bowen take him or Connor Kirst?

I think UNC wins the game, but this could be like a 23-18 kind of game where both teams just race up and down the field. Will be a blast to watch.

I like this post...fair analysis

A couple thoughts...

We all knew going in Lehigh was gonna dominate the face off x and slow it down...try to play a slug fest...well that worked sort of...but what happened was RU had the better athletes....especially of defense. Lehigh struggled to win one v one matchups anywhere on the field offensively...Lehigh midfield could not win a battle with the RU SSDM's...at all

The game was played the way Lehigh wanted to play...and RU said "OK, we will win a grinder 12-5"...

Of course UNC will cause issues for RU...they're the number one team in this event...they should cause issues for everyone based on the seeding...UNC is very very good...the favorite right

UNC will come at you in waves and I doubt Rutgers will win...BUT...I do think RU will get out and run with UNC and who knows...

As far as RU's SSDM crew...UNC will put stress on them like they put stress on every team...but RU's guys like Kamish, Franckowiak, Coyne, and Daniger will get out and run with anyone...and they are not afraid to press early offense...

I think it will be a fun game to watch...much easier on the eyes than today...and I think UNC wins...but I'm glad we get to see it

Rutgers did what they had to do...I'm not moving the goalposts...people wanted to see how they would do outside the conference...well we saw it and handled the task well...no debating that...

UNC will probably/likely be a different story...but RU is in the final 8 and they deserve to be there...we will see how they stack up vs the best ACC team next week...

[Matnum PI]

No, the B1G was pretty good this season from top to bottom. Anyone who watched Michigan this season knows they are not a bad team. Hopkins was the 6th (last place) seed in the B1G tournament. Ohio State and Penn State had tough seasons, but both those teams had lots of talent.

I wish JHU, OSU, and PSU played a similar-to-RU-vs-Lehigh game. Even just one. Curious where they'd stand.

[Wheels]

I like this post...fair analysis

A couple thoughts...

We all knew going in Lehigh was gonna dominate the face off x and slow it down...try to play a slug fest...well that worked sort of...but what happened was RU had the better athletes....especially of defense. Lehigh struggled to win one v one matchups anywhere on the field offensively...Lehigh midfield could not win a battle with the RU SSDM's...at all

The game was played the way Lehigh wanted to play...and RU said "OK, we will win a grinder 12-5"...

Of course UNC will cause issues for RU...they're the number one team in this event...they should cause issues for everyone based on the seeding...UNC is very very good...the favorite right

UNC will come at you in waves and I doubt Rutgers will win...BUT...I do think RU will get out and run with UNC and who knows...

As far as RU's SSDM crew...UNC will put stress on them like they put stress on every team...but RU's guys like Kamish, Franckowiak, Coyne, and Daniger will get out and run with anyone...and they are not afraid to press early offense...

I think it will be a fun game to watch...much easier on the eyes than today...and I think UNC wins...but I'm glad we get to see it

Rutgers did what they had to do...I'm not moving the goalposts...people wanted to see how they would do outside the conference...well we saw it and handled the task well...no debating that...

UNC will probably/likely be a different story...but RU is in the final 8 and they deserve to be there...we will see how they stack up vs the best ACC team next week...

It looks like Lehigh's coach got asked about their game plan to just pack it in that zone all game and not take chances. He was too afraid of RU's transition game, so he pretty much negated the advantage Lehigh had at the face-off X by also playing slowdown on offense.

The thing that's going to be great about the UNC-RU game is that neither team will be afraid to run. Both teams play very clean, too...both only average 12 TOs a game. Given how go-go both teams are, it's amazing how few TOs they commit. You never hear much about UNC's 2nd and 3rd poles. You only hear about Bowen. UNC's defensive efficiency is pretty low. I'm sure RU's top 6 will be licking their chops and attacking those match ups.

[10 10 2]

I think Lehigh was lucky to even be in the tournament. I highly doubt they would have beat Loyola in the PL Championship. Clearly weren't playing their best lacrosse in May. Seems like losing Schelling really hurt that offense.

[Essexfenwick]

Rutgers sure looked better than Notre Dame and Syracuse literally sucks.

Unc should worry.

[lorin]

Rutgers sure looked better than Notre Dame and Syracuse literally sucks.

Unc should worry.

Unc will be six point favorites

[molo]

That sounds about right to me. I would expect the UNC-Rutgers game to be similar to the Rutgers-Maryland game. Rutgers is good enough to make it competitive but UNC is correctly seeded first.

[jrn19]

UNC was a 7.5 point favorite over Monmouth. There is a zero point zero percent chance that Rutgers only gets 1.5 more goals than Monmouth. That's insane.

[bananas]

UNC was a 7.5 point favorite over Monmouth. There is a zero point zero percent chance that Rutgers only gets 1.5 more goals than Monmouth. That's insane.

The Lehigh line over accounted for Sisselberger factor. Knights should have favored as clearly better team.

RU-UNC line should not be greater than three. If it is then Knights are still being disrespected.

Gonna be a fun quarter final, dont be shocked when RU outplays UNC at their own game.

[wgdsr]

UNC was a 7.5 point favorite over Monmouth. There is a zero point zero percent chance that Rutgers only gets 1.5 more goals than Monmouth. That's insane.

The Lehigh line over accounted for Sisselberger factor. Knights should have favored as clearly better team.

RU-UNC line should not be greater than three. If it is then Knights are still being disrespected.

Gonna be a fun quarter final, dont be shocked when RU outplays UNC at their own game.

firstly, are we talking about "las vegas lines"? because lvl best i can tell is a fun sideline for some rando lax enthusiast where wagering, or at least bookmaking, isn't part of the plan.

someone said draftkings jumped in last week? maybe with the small amount of wagering expected they co-opted some of those odds, too. i guess you'd have to have an account to know.

in any event, the strength of lehigh or rutgers or the impact of sisselberger is only tangentially tied in to the setting of real sportsbook odds.

the only thing "vegas" cares about is trying to balance the action on both sides, scrape the vig, and have you take the risk. full stop. they're not predicting the pre-game probability of who will win by how much. they only "overvalue sisselberger" if their implied probability/guess of "x line balances bets" piles rutty enthusiasts on one side of the trade. which means they got it wrong calculating how many people like lehigh (not a ton of data points in betting lax as of yet). and then they move the line... in the real world .