Potential New Top 20

[wgdsr]

Just read the latest Bracketology. Well… Terry Foy is just embarassing himself now. He just can’t accept that the Ivies are as good as they are this year. And he started the article out so promisingly… actually only including one ACC team, as the current RPI/SOS/QWF call for.

there is no formula the nc$$ uses for what you speak. love laf, he's educated us a lot. if what has been posted here is true, he's been wrong 3x in 7 years.

[MoralTerpitude]

Just read the latest Bracketology. Well… Terry Foy is just embarassing himself now. He just can’t accept that the Ivies are as good as they are this year. And he started the article out so promisingly… actually only including one ACC team, as the current RPI/SOS/QWF call for.

At least be honest......Of course you Maryland fans don't want any ACC teams. Regardless of record, several of them have the personnel to take down Maryland, as they always seem to do. I am actually betting that the final on Memorial Day won't include Maryland or Virginia.....Now that would be something.....

Of course, the less the better, I’m not trying to hide it. I’m also not writing for the premier lacrosse media outlet… where at least the perception of impartiality would be nice.

In case you missed it, Foy basically teamed up with Quint to try to discredit Ivy success by saying they’re 11-1 in one-goal games. He then provided an RPI where all of those wins were reversed, and the losing team won them. For a major media outlet’s foremost writer to even entertain such an idea is ridiculous, let alone waste Bracketology column space discussing it.

Yeah, I’m a Maryland fan, and if you ran the same exercise with the NCAA championship game the last ten years, the Terps would have three national championships in that time. So what? Even the most diehard Maryland fan would never bring up such a scenario to try to make a point.

The Ivies won those 11 games, you can’t take that away from them, and you can’t imply that they weren’t legitimate wins, which is pretty much what Foy and Quint are doing. Quint’s tweet: “This explains alot.” Yeah, it explains that this year the Ivies are really good at coming through in the clutch and winning close games.

[masondixonlax]

Just read the latest Bracketology. Well… Terry Foy is just embarassing himself now. He just can’t accept that the Ivies are as good as they are this year. And he started the article out so promisingly… actually only including one ACC team, as the current RPI/SOS/QWF call for.

At least be honest......Of course you Maryland fans don't want any ACC teams. Regardless of record, several of them have the personnel to take down Maryland, as they always seem to do. I am actually betting that the final on Memorial Day won't include Maryland or Virginia.....Now that would be something.....

??? MD I feel like would feel much more threatened by an Ivy. No one cares about the ACC, stop trying to make them relevant on a down year

[10stone5]

Foy isn’t really that nutty,
at least in his final bracket,

6 Ivy teams in
3 B1G teams
1 ACC with UVA getting a low seed.

[bearlaxfan]

As an Ivy fan (note the nym ) I have a real concern going into the natty tourney no matter how the Ivy tourney turns out because accross the board the least impressive groups in the Ivies are the faceoff squads. Not bad, but 55% wins at best. And the BEST f/o guy may be the one on the winless Ivy team.
Teams can make up for this with rides, turnovers, etc but in the Quarters & beyond the opponents are so good relying on that formula is very risky.

[joewillie78]

Just read the latest Bracketology. Well… Terry Foy is just embarassing himself now. He just can’t accept that the Ivies are as good as they are this year. And he started the article out so promisingly… actually only including one ACC team, as the current RPI/SOS/QWF call for.

At least be honest......Of course you Maryland fans don't want any ACC teams. Regardless of record, several of them have the personnel to take down Maryland, as they always seem to do. I am actually betting that the final on Memorial Day won't include Maryland or Virginia.....Now that would be something.....

Of course, the less the better, I’m not trying to hide it. I’m also not writing for the premier lacrosse media outlet… where at least the perception of impartiality would be nice.

In case you missed it, Foy basically teamed up with Quint to try to discredit Ivy success by saying they’re 11-1 in one-goal games. He then provided an RPI where all of those wins were reversed, and the losing team won them. For a major media outlet’s foremost writer to even entertain such an idea is ridiculous, let alone waste Bracketology column space discussing it.

Yeah, I’m a Maryland fan, and if you ran the same exercise with the NCAA championship game the last ten years, the Terps would have three national championships in that time. So what? Even the most diehard Maryland fan would never bring up such a scenario to try to make a point.

The Ivies won those 11 games, you can’t take that away from them, and you can’t imply that they weren’t legitimate wins, which is pretty much what Foy and Quint are doing. Quint’s tweet: “This explains alot.” Yeah, it explains that this year the Ivies are really good at coming through in the clutch and winning close games.

I have never seen anything like this. These 2 are trying to diminish the Ivy League by trying to say that 1 goal wins are somehow now interpreted as BAD wins, and that the Ivy Leagues OOC record is not as good as everyone thinks.
Instead of hiding behind flawed stats, why not simply come out and say the Ivy League has been LUCKY this year, and that their records are flawed and phony.
WOW, I sometimes scoff at the so called biases toward other leagues and that the Ivies are somehow slighted, but this article is the worst example of the biases that are brought out many times on this and other forums and publications. Shame on Quint and Terry.
GOBIGRED Joewillie78

[Henpecked]

You know what a one-goal win is? It is a win. And it's a win by the better team on that day. No reason to diminish one-goal victories.

Quint is a fool who should be ignored. Terry Foy? Not sure what the hell he is thinking.

[bearlaxfan]

You know what a one-goal win is? It is a win. And it's a win by the better team on that day. No reason to diminish one-goal victories.

Quint is a fool who should be ignored. Terry Foy? Not sure what the hell he is thinking.

Clickbait. And/or, "I have x words due and t to do it in sooooo... yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah..."

[joewillie78]

You know what a one-goal win is? It is a win. And it's a win by the better team on that day. No reason to diminish one-goal victories.

Quint is a fool who should be ignored. Terry Foy? Not sure what the hell he is thinking.

HP,
Who would have ever thought that the IVIES success this year would rub so many people the wrong way. Any fan of this wonderful sport should be CELEBRATING the success the Ivy League is having after a 2 year hiatus, as this success has helped the ENTIRE lax world.
But sadly, we obviously have people like these 2 that just can't deal with the Leagues success and are now showing how shallow they really are by doing anything they can to denigrate the league.
Poor Mr. Moran, who was an ambassador for the ENTIRE lacrosse world is already rolling over in his grave. So sad.
GOBIGRED
Joewillie78

[Typical Lax Dad]

You know what a one-goal win is? It is a win. And it's a win by the better team on that day. No reason to diminish one-goal victories.

Quint is a fool who should be ignored. Terry Foy? Not sure what the hell he is thinking.

This is how the lax mafia works on many levels. Cronyism at the club level and it exists at every single level of lacrosse. It’s a small sport. Everyone greases everyone’s palms. Not a lot or meritocracy in the sport. Buddy - buddy system.

[PizzaSnake]

You know what a one-goal win is? It is a win. And it's a win by the better team on that day. No reason to diminish one-goal victories.

Quint is a fool who should be ignored. Terry Foy? Not sure what the hell he is thinking.

This is how the lax mafia works on many levels. Cronyism at the club level and it exists at every single level of lacrosse. It’s a small sport. Everyone greases everyone’s palms. Not a lot or meritocracy in the sport. Buddy - buddy system.

Ah, the joys of sport. An elevation and enrichment of humanity…

Of course it is a nest of perfidy. Why would it be anything else?

[rolldodge]

Meanwhile they are missing a really interesting story about how this year could be the most competitive first round we’ve ever seen. Just take a look at some of the potential matchups for example a three seed having to play Harvard or Duke in the first round? That would be a story that would be great for the sport of lacrosse. And would even benefit their (implicit?) biases of driving ESPN viewership.

[faircornell]

Just read the latest Bracketology. Well… Terry Foy is just embarassing himself now. He just can’t accept that the Ivies are as good as they are this year. And he started the article out so promisingly… actually only including one ACC team, as the current RPI/SOS/QWF call for.

At least be honest......Of course you Maryland fans don't want any ACC teams. Regardless of record, several of them have the personnel to take down Maryland, as they always seem to do. I am actually betting that the final on Memorial Day won't include Maryland or Virginia.....Now that would be something.....

Of course, the less the better, I’m not trying to hide it. I’m also not writing for the premier lacrosse media outlet… where at least the perception of impartiality would be nice.

In case you missed it, Foy basically teamed up with Quint to try to discredit Ivy success by saying they’re 11-1 in one-goal games. He then provided an RPI where all of those wins were reversed, and the losing team won them. For a major media outlet’s foremost writer to even entertain such an idea is ridiculous, let alone waste Bracketology column space discussing it.

Yeah, I’m a Maryland fan, and if you ran the same exercise with the NCAA championship game the last ten years, the Terps would have three national championships in that time. So what? Even the most diehard Maryland fan would never bring up such a scenario to try to make a point.

The Ivies won those 11 games, you can’t take that away from them, and you can’t imply that they weren’t legitimate wins, which is pretty much what Foy and Quint are doing. Quint’s tweet: “This explains alot.” Yeah, it explains that this year the Ivies are really good at coming through in the clutch and winning close games.

I have never seen anything like this. These 2 are trying to diminish the Ivy League by trying to say that 1 goal wins are somehow now interpreted as BAD wins, and that the Ivy Leagues OOC record is not as good as everyone thinks.
Instead of hiding behind flawed stats, why not simply come out and say the Ivy League has been LUCKY this year, and that their records are flawed and phony.
WOW, I sometimes scoff at the so called biases toward other leagues and that the Ivies are somehow slighted, but this article is the worst example of the biases that are brought out many times on this and other forums and publications. Shame on Quint and Terry.
GOBIGRED Joewillie78

They see their future as the ACC and B1G sports schools. The Ivies have less commercial value to them. Smaller fan bases. Less mass appeal.

[wgdsr]

to me, this is mostly lazy. it may have nefarious underpinnings, and the 2 of them should at least be cognizant of that perception or expect it could generate this kind of reaction.

they don't explain in any detail why they went through this little exercise. if it's to say -- holy moly, how did the ivy get 6!! teams that may be tournament worthy, when that's rarely been the case for anywhere near that? & coming off a lost year and a half of competition. well then, at least explain that. and then give some other reasons, like a couple new blood coaches, smart scheduling, more mature teams or whatever. using the word clutch once and not inferring only lucky might go over better, too.

writers, bloggers and posters the world over talk about revert to the mean stats. smart money bets heavily on it.

i have noticed all those 1 goal games, too. never said anything bc i also noticed uva losing many 1 goal games in 2016 when people said it wasn't clicking. they were right there, but winning matters at any score. 2 years and 3 years and 5 years later... they'd won a lot of one goal games.

[youthathletics]

I also heard QK arguing against RPI (rightfully so) for lacrosse, during a game a week or so ago, cant recall which one.

[FannOLax]

to me, this is mostly lazy. it may have nefarious underpinnings, and the 2 of them should at least be cognizant of that perception or expect it could generate this kind of reaction.

they don't explain in any detail why they went through this little exercise. if it's to say -- holy moly, how did the ivy get 6!! teams that may be tournament worthy, when that's rarely been the case for anywhere near that? & coming off a lost year and a half of competition. well then, at least explain that. and then give some other reasons, like a couple new blood coaches, smart scheduling, more mature teams or whatever. using the word clutch once and not inferring only lucky might go over better, too.

writers, bloggers and posters the world over talk about revert to the mean stats. smart money bets heavily on it.

i have noticed all those 1 goal games, too. never said anything bc i also noticed uva losing many 1 goal games in 2016 when people said it wasn't clicking. they were right there, but winning matters at any score. 2 years and 3 years and 5 years later... they'd won a lot of one goal games.

Well, if you want to apply this one-goal game result reversal, Rutgers would be very hurt by it, with "losses" to Loyola, Stony Brook, Michigan and Penn State, which in total would alter Rutgers' record from 12-2 to 8-6. Big difference, but we're applying this little "parlor trick" only to the Ivy League, so that only the Ivy looks worse and everyone else looks better.

[wgdsr]

to me, this is mostly lazy. it may have nefarious underpinnings, and the 2 of them should at least be cognizant of that perception or expect it could generate this kind of reaction.

they don't explain in any detail why they went through this little exercise. if it's to say -- holy moly, how did the ivy get 6!! teams that may be tournament worthy, when that's rarely been the case for anywhere near that? & coming off a lost year and a half of competition. well then, at least explain that. and then give some other reasons, like a couple new blood coaches, smart scheduling, more mature teams or whatever. using the word clutch once and not inferring only lucky might go over better, too.

writers, bloggers and posters the world over talk about revert to the mean stats. smart money bets heavily on it.

i have noticed all those 1 goal games, too. never said anything bc i also noticed uva losing many 1 goal games in 2016 when people said it wasn't clicking. they were right there, but winning matters at any score. 2 years and 3 years and 5 years later... they'd won a lot of one goal games.

Well, if you want to apply this one-goal game result reversal, Rutgers would be very hurt by it, with "losses" to Loyola, Stony Brook, Michigan and Penn State, which in total would alter Rutgers' record from 12-2 to 8-6. Big difference, but we're applying this little "parlor trick" only to the Ivy League, so that only the Ivy looks worse and everyone else looks better.

they actually posted a guy reversing every 1 goal game and how it shakes out to rpi down to like late 20s. and specifically name rutgers.

what i found more interesting is how low and tight every place's rpi's got. like a .61 might now be .57+ to .58 .with the notable exception of maryland.

[rolldodge]

to me, this is mostly lazy. it may have nefarious underpinnings, and the 2 of them should at least be cognizant of that perception or expect it could generate this kind of reaction.

they don't explain in any detail why they went through this little exercise. if it's to say -- holy moly, how did the ivy get 6!! teams that may be tournament worthy, when that's rarely been the case for anywhere near that? & coming off a lost year and a half of competition. well then, at least explain that. and then give some other reasons, like a couple new blood coaches, smart scheduling, more mature teams or whatever. using the word clutch once and not inferring only lucky might go over better, too.

writers, bloggers and posters the world over talk about revert to the mean stats. smart money bets heavily on it.

i have noticed all those 1 goal games, too. never said anything bc i also noticed uva losing many 1 goal games in 2016 when people said it wasn't clicking. they were right there, but winning matters at any score. 2 years and 3 years and 5 years later... they'd won a lot of one goal games.

Well, if you want to apply this one-goal game result reversal, Rutgers would be very hurt by it, with "losses" to Loyola, Stony Brook, Michigan and Penn State, which in total would alter Rutgers' record from 12-2 to 8-6. Big difference, but we're applying this little "parlor trick" only to the Ivy League, so that only the Ivy looks worse and everyone else looks better.

they actually posted a guy reversing every 1 goal game and how it shakes out to rpi down to like late 20s. and specifically name rutgers.

what i found more interesting is how low and tight every place's rpi's got. like a .61 might now be .57+ to .58 .with the notable exception of maryland.

They could have easily used the 1 goal games to point to how competitive the D1 landscape is this year, and how potentially competitive the tournament will be -- again, good for the sport and good to drive viewership. Missed opportunity.

[Laxfan#1969]

to me, this is mostly lazy. it may have nefarious underpinnings, and the 2 of them should at least be cognizant of that perception or expect it could generate this kind of reaction.

they don't explain in any detail why they went through this little exercise. if it's to say -- holy moly, how did the ivy get 6!! teams that may be tournament worthy, when that's rarely been the case for anywhere near that? & coming off a lost year and a half of competition. well then, at least explain that. and then give some other reasons, like a couple new blood coaches, smart scheduling, more mature teams or whatever. using the word clutch once and not inferring only lucky might go over better, too.

writers, bloggers and posters the world over talk about revert to the mean stats. smart money bets heavily on it.

i have noticed all those 1 goal games, too. never said anything bc i also noticed uva losing many 1 goal games in 2016 when people said it wasn't clicking. they were right there, but winning matters at any score. 2 years and 3 years and 5 years later... they'd won a lot of one goal games.

Well, if you want to apply this one-goal game result reversal, Rutgers would be very hurt by it, with "losses" to Loyola, Stony Brook, Michigan and Penn State, which in total would alter Rutgers' record from 12-2 to 8-6. Big difference, but we're applying this little "parlor trick" only to the Ivy League, so that only the Ivy looks worse and everyone else looks better.

they actually posted a guy reversing every 1 goal game and how it shakes out to rpi down to like late 20s. and specifically name rutgers.

what i found more interesting is how low and tight every place's rpi's got. like a .61 might now be .57+ to .58 .with the notable exception of maryland.

They could have easily used the 1 goal games to point to how competitive the D1 landscape is this year, and how potentially competitive the tournament will be -- again, good for the sport and good to drive viewership. Missed opportunity.

Correct. I don’t care about margin. Sure it may say a few teams are dominant (see MD) but all I see is Ivies and Rutgers (in a couple cases) playing tough games with competitive teams and parity is all over. The bottom of the Big Ten (PSU and UM) have good players. The bottom of the Ivy is playing good lacrosse. It’s very competitive out there. Just win your games. That’s it

[GSP]

I also heard QK arguing against RPI (rightfully so) for lacrosse, during a game a week or so ago, cant recall which one.

RPI statistics for Basketball's 64+ teams field, who each play 28-30 games a season does have some statistical value as its universe is 2 to 3 times larger. Its accuracy falls off significantly when it is applied to Lacrosse.

An example of its weakness, would be the effect of UVA's loss to Richmond. UVA was dominating, up by 4 goals and LaSalla had won 9 of the first 10 faceoffs even with All American defenseman, Saustad still limping on a bad leg. Then LaSalla gets knocked out of the game and Moore is taken off with a bad hamstring, breaking up the 1st line of middies. Richmond then brilliantly takes advantage, wins 12 of 13 faceoffs and outscores UVA 13 to 5 the rest of the way for the win. Fast Forward a month, LaSalla is back at full strength, Saustad is at 100%, and Matt Moore is back to lighting it up. Which UVA team does today's RPI reflect, the UVA team less LaSalla, Moore, and Saustad at 60% or the current one? I would argue, that it reflects the one who lost to Richmond not the current one vying for a seeding reflective of who it is for the Tourney.
Like it or not, relying heavily upon RPI statistics will neither produce the strongest At-Large field nor the proper seeding. Full disclosure, I am an alum of Wharton's Grad School, but there is no way that Penn should be seeded higher than UVA. UVA would beat them by at least 4 or 5 goals. Handley and Gergar would be held in check by Kastner, and Saustad (no other Quaker has more than 18 goals) and the Moore, Shellenberger, Cormier line would shred UVA's former backup goalie. As my Finance Professor used to admonish us, the "numbers are like expensive French perfume, they are to be sniffed but never swallowed!"