random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Maverick, the ACC had Breschi on the committee. What are you saying about his persuasive capabilities?
CU77 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 2:36 pm
The one change I would make is to follow hockey and use a mathematical formula for selection and seeding. Straight RPI would work just as well as anything else (and would have Duke and ND in this year instead of OSU and Harvard).
No, no, no. There is no mathematical formula worth a p00p that gives good results with such a short season. You, of all people, should know that.
I completely disagree. What doesn't give good results is a bunch of assistant ADs and coaches juggling numbers that they don't understand. Same for the "eye test", which usually involves looking at the school name on the uniform and not much more.
A short season is a short season. It means there is less data for ANY ranking system. I'll take math any day over highly fallible, unknowingly biased human beings.
In total agreement here. Because this leads to consistency and accountability. Teams won't be able to argue that they were left out. Try arguing with a calculator, it won't go well. It's too ambiguous currently and hurts the credibility of college lacrosse
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Maverick, the ACC had Breschi on the committee. What are you saying about his persuasive capabilities?
Why would he want other acc teams to have title shots?
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:49 pm
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
All Duke had to do was beat Notre Dame.
And they were in.
They had the game well in hand.
CU77 wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 2:36 pm
The one change I would make is to follow hockey and use a mathematical formula for selection and seeding. Straight RPI would work just as well as anything else (and would have Duke and ND in this year instead of OSU and Harvard).
No, no, no. There is no mathematical formula worth a p00p that gives good results with such a short season. You, of all people, should know that.
I completely disagree. What doesn't give good results is a bunch of assistant ADs and coaches juggling numbers that they don't understand. Same for the "eye test", which usually involves looking at the school name on the uniform and not much more.
A short season is a short season. It means there is less data for ANY ranking system. I'll take pure math any day over highly fallible, unknowingly biased human beings.
This has the advantage of removing any question of bias.
Fine. We'll just disagree. Any of the three most widely cited mathematical formulas would have resulted in a flawed field this year, as RPI had done for seemingly an eternity until somewhat recently when consideration began to be given to the teams you beat and the teams who beat you...something RPI completely ignores.
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
I'm thinking you don't understand Vegas. They don't look at the most talent at all. That's the last thing they care about. All they care about is who will make them or lose them money. Not sure if you've been out there but those casinos are pretty big and nice. They didn't build them by backing the wrong horse
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
I'm thinking you don't understand Vegas. They don't look at the most talent at all. That's the last thing they care about. All they care about is who will make them or lose them money. Not sure if you've been out there but those casinos are pretty big and nice. They didn't build them by backing the wrong horse
I think it's semantics in this case. Vegas is picking the team they think will -- I was using "more talented" as a euphemism for that. Bottomline my argument remains the same. Regardless of what happens in this tournament, if Maryland doesn't win and was offered a rematch vs. the champ, Vegas would peg them as the favorite. Does that invalidate the NCAA tournament and its champion? Of course not. Because sometimes the better team doesn't win. There are consequences to what happens on the field, otherwise what's the point?
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
I'm thinking you don't understand Vegas. They don't look at the most talent at all. That's the last thing they care about. All they care about is who will make them or lose them money. Not sure if you've been out there but those casinos are pretty big and nice. They didn't build them by backing the wrong horse
I think it's semantics in this case. Vegas is picking the team they think will -- I was using "more talented" as a euphemism for that. Bottomline my argument remains the same. Regardless of what happens in this tournament, if Maryland doesn't win and was offered a rematch vs. the champ, Vegas would peg them as the favorite. Does that invalidate the NCAA tournament and its champion? Of course not. Because sometimes the better team doesn't win. There are consequences to what happens on the field, otherwise what's the point?
If they lost in the final and it was close I agree they may be favored in a rematch. If they lost to UVA decidedly and another team won the finals unlikely they would be favored
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
I'm thinking you don't understand Vegas. They don't look at the most talent at all. That's the last thing they care about. All they care about is who will make them or lose them money. Not sure if you've been out there but those casinos are pretty big and nice. They didn't build them by backing the wrong horse
ok, i feel i have to step in here. vegas doesn't back horses. or they wouldn't have those fancy casinos. they play the vig.
opening lines are what they believe sharps will put even money on both sides. the line can shift depending on that and also once the public starts weighing in with their wallets.
vegas plays for the vig on the loser. they want 50% on both sides. do that millions of times and collect the vig on half of all bets and you've got something. they're not predicting who will win by how much. they're setting a line that'll get half the money on each side.
random observer wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 9:18 pm
People keep making this an Ivy League issue and it really shouldn't be. Brown, Cornell, Penn, Yale, and Princeton were all solidly and deservedly in the field. And now that they mostly held serve and the tournament record can't be used to say they're weak, people are grasping at total goals scored. It's beyond grasping at straws and frankly lame; you play to win the game, not to win by the amount of goals ACC fans deem appropriate.
The question at hand was specifically Harvard getting in over ND and Duke. They lost big today and people are conveniently using the margin of defeat to drag the whole conference down. I think when you look at the resume it was a lot closer than people will give credit, but that it's hard to defend putting them in over either of the ACC teams. But it wasn't so lopsided that it warrants all the whining we've seen on ESPN and on Twitter. ND wasn't some juggernaut fated for Memorial Day. They had a shot for sure, but so did a dozen other teams. Last year's team was better.
I agree with almost everything you said. The goal margin was just an interesting stat at net zero exactly. And the rain is ivy specific is the conf schedule raised everyone's rpi.
And it was deservedly so. The conference dominated on the field this year, and that's inarguable. Thus Harvard deserves credit for beating Princeton and Brown. If we're going to use Harvard (the 6th best team in the conference) to ding the Ivy, then why aren't we holding the failings of UNC and Cuse against ND and Duke? After all UNC is ND's best win other than Duke.
You are the first logical and reasonable person I've gotten to converse with today, so thank you very much for that. I can't stand Duke and I'm glad they aren't in and I'm not saying they deserved it, but if I had to put money down the only ivy I would pick over them is Princeton. So if I was a Duke fan I'd be upset watching this weekend. Did they do enough to get in? Apparently not. Did Syracuse significantly hurt the entire acc's rpi? Decidedly yes. And NCAA committee favored brown, but Vegas favored UVA. Vegas was clearly right, so that has to mean the NCAA was wrong doesn't it? Something is broken
Well Penn already beat Duke so there's another Ivy; what's the point of playing the games if we've already decided who the best teams are in spite of what happens in the actual games?
Your last sentence is everything that is wrong with the argument of the people going to bat for the ACC. Who cares what Vegas thinks; if UVA or any Ivy wins the title I guarantee Maryland would be favored by Vegas in a rematch. Should we just do away with the national championship altogether because Vegas disagrees? The point of sports is not to crown the most talented team. It's to crown the team that wins on the field.
I'm thinking you don't understand Vegas. They don't look at the most talent at all. That's the last thing they care about. All they care about is who will make them or lose them money. Not sure if you've been out there but those casinos are pretty big and nice. They didn't build them by backing the wrong horse
ok, i feel i have to step in here. vegas doesn't back horses. or they wouldn't have those fancy casinos. they play the vig.
opening lines are what they believe sharps will put even money on both sides. the line can shift depending on that and also once the public starts weighing in with their wallets.
vegas plays for the vig on the loser. they want 50% on both sides. do that millions of times and collect the vig on half of all bets and you've got something. they're not predicting who will win by how much. they're setting a line that'll get half the money on each side.
So all they care about is making money right? Exactly.. that's why they wouldn't favor brown because they know everyone would bet on UVA and they would lose money
Last edited by Maverick on Sun May 15, 2022 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chousnake wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:11 pm
By the reasoning of the ACC fanboys, Georgetown was overseeded too. UP 1 late. Where is the outrage?
Clearly, to Maverick, a disappointment to God, country, and their mothers.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
Chousnake wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:11 pm
By the reasoning of the ACC fanboys, Georgetown was overseeded too. UP 1 late. Where is the outrage?
Really disappointed by their performance definitely playing way below the standard they set this season. Delaware on the other hand has way exceeded expectations and whatever happens can hold their heads high
Chousnake wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 10:11 pm
By the reasoning of the ACC fanboys, Georgetown was overseeded too. UP 1 late. Where is the outrage?
Really disappointed by their performance definitely playing way below the standard they set this season. Delaware on the other hand has way exceeded expectations and whatever happens can hold their heads high
So this magic cake that you can eat and still have on your plate, where do you get it?
Milagro Bakers?
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
