D1 Men NCAA Tournament

[kennypowers]

When looking at the bubble teams it almost seems the committee uses the numbers that fit the narrative which they believe is in the NCAA tournament's best interest. If Hop were to swap resumes with Cornell or even OSU I think they would still be in. I don't really think there is a big conspiracy in college lacrosse. It's more likely an implicit bias.

You also can't point to a computer metric like SOS or RPI and say this team is more deserving because their numbers calculate better. It is fine to use that data to get the conversation started but it takes deep human analysis to really break down what teams are most deserving based on their full body of work.

You can't argue with their strength of schedule though. Hopkins played a lot of really great teams this year. They even beat one of them.

You're right that a committee is going to use the metric that best suits them, but it probably has more to do with Hopkins beating Maryland twice in a row and taking PSU to overtime in their last three games than them just wanting JHU in the tournament. When you consider that their best player is a true freshman, it's not surprising that it took them a bit of time to mature as a team. Rewarding teams that excel at the end of the season and demonstrate improvement is a good thing, even if it's not officially part of the selection criteria.

[a fan]

And you have been wrong for 20 years.

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Sorry mate, QW does that all by itself. It completely ignores weak wins.

QW looks at Hopkins' wins over Michigan and Delaware and says "I don't care".

Precisely as you want. Ignore weak wins.

SOS makes no sense, and rewards losing. It serves no other purpose other than to count "good" losses. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.


None of this is Hopkins' fault. Or yours. They're not the idiots who designed this system. It's the fault of AD's at places like High Point who don't correct the system. Surely they have a math program at High Point? Guess not. Oh well.

So I have no complaints, and wish you luck.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins.

Sure. But you're forgetting, naturally, that Cornell and High Point can make a longer list like this, of better teams they have actually beaten.

Well that and, Hop is 0-2 against Penn State. You want this to be a badge that give them a bid. I respectfully disagree.

Or perhaps we should use your SOS in the tournament, if it makes so much sense? I'd sign on for that. Would you? Decide who goes to the Final Four not based on who wins the games...but on who played the tougher teams and "lost" better?

[a fan]

Rewarding teams that excel at the end of the season and demonstrate improvement is a good thing, even if it's not officially part of the selection criteria.

That makes zero sense. Why bother playing games in February if they "count less"?

Moreover. Hopkins LOST to Penn St., remember?

So by your own metric, they're out, no?

[kennypowers]

Rewarding teams that excel at the end of the season and demonstrate improvement is a good thing, even if it's not officially part of the selection criteria.

That makes zero sense. Why bother playing games in February if they "count less"?

Moreover. Hopkins LOST to Penn St., remember?

So by your own metric, they're out, no?

Due to limitations in practice time and new starters each year, it can take an entire season for chemistry to build (especially when the best player on your team is a true freshman). You see recency bias in every NCAA sport (football, basketball, etc) when it comes to NCAA tournament selection and seeding. That's why conference tournament and late season games tend to count more than the beginning of the season. And yes, they did lose to PSU, but that loss only furthered the point that they are a different team than earlier in the season.

[Homer]

Tournament teams and others, by number of QWs (wins vs. RPI top 20)...

7 WINS
Penn State (AQ, #1 seed)
Duke (#2 seed)
Virginia (#3 seed)

5 WINS
Notre Dame (#7 seed)
Syracuse (unseeded, presumptive #9)
Maryland (unseeded, presumptive #11)

4 WINS
Penn (AQ, #4 seed)
Loyola (#8 seed)
Denver (not selected)

3 WINS
Yale (#5 seed)
Towson (AQ, #6 seed)
Johns Hopkins (unseeded, presumptive #10)
High Point (not selected)

2 WINS
Georgetown (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #12)
Richmond (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #15)
Cornell (not selected)
North Carolina (not selected)
Ohio State (not selected)
Villanova (not selected)
Boston U. (not selected)

1 WIN
Army (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #13)

0 WINS
Robert Morris (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #14)
Marist (AQ, play-in game)
UMBC (AQ, play-in game)

[RumorMill]

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins. That 8-7 record was built on the toughest schedule in the entire nation ... #1 SOS. How many teams could play Penn State to a draw in regulation?

SOS doesn’t give schools credit for losses. It puts a team’s win-loss record in proper perspective.

DocBarrister

Cheers! This.

And then the rest in selection committee.

[wgdsr]

denver, cornell, high point. start there?

Denver lost to P'ton, Villanova, and G'town. Those aren't great losses. (Their loss to Notre Dame isn't so bad.) And their 3 best Ws were Towson, Georgetown, and UNC. Looking at who they beat and who they lost to, this isn't a great team.

HP beat Duke and UVA. This is awesome. And, early in the season, they were rewarded for doing so. And then they lost to St. Johns... and Jacksonville... and Richmond. That's a problem.

Cornell is different. they beat Notre Dame and Towson... which is pretty good. and they lost to Yale x2, Penn and SU, respectable losses. It's a good season. But, when you're on the bubble, good is relative.

disappointed in ya, matnum. this post makes little sense. how is losing to villanova, georgetown, and richmond bad, and ohio state ok? they're top 20, just like hop's loss. and denver beat villanova, too. high point richmond (top 20), etc.

if anyone is ok with things as long as strength of schedule is rewarded, own it. no biggie and today is a big day for that crowd. not everyone has to like it when there are teams who actually won against more/better teams, and didn't just go about losing to awesome teams.

[RumorMill]

Tournament teams and others, by number of QWs (wins vs. RPI top 20)...

7 WINS
Penn State (AQ, #1 seed)
Duke (#2 seed)
Virginia (#3 seed)

5 WINS
Notre Dame (#7 seed)
Syracuse (unseeded, presumptive #9)
Maryland (unseeded, presumptive #11)

4 WINS
Penn (AQ, #4 seed)
Loyola (#8 seed)
Denver (not selected)

3 WINS
Yale (#5 seed)
Towson (AQ, #6 seed)
Johns Hopkins (unseeded, presumptive #10)
High Point (not selected)

2 WINS
Georgetown (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #12)
Richmond (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #15)
Cornell (not selected)
North Carolina (not selected)
Ohio State (not selected)
Villanova (not selected)
Boston U. (not selected)

1 WIN
Army (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #13)

0 WINS
Robert Morris (AQ, unseeded, presumptive #14)
Marist (AQ, play-in game)
UMBC (AQ, play-in game)

Sorry, missed AQ at first. Good info taking into consideration conference champs.

[DocBarrister]

And you have been wrong for 20 years.

SOS is a reality check on pretty records built against weak teams.

Sorry mate, QW does that all by itself. It completely ignores weak wins.

QW looks at Hopkins' wins over Michigan and Delaware and says "I don't care".

Precisely as you want. Ignore weak wins.

SOS makes no sense, and rewards losing. It serves no other purpose other than to count "good" losses. You know it. I know it. The fans know it.


None of this is Hopkins' fault. Or yours. They're not the idiots who designed this system. It's the fault of AD's at places like High Point who don't correct the system. Surely they have a math program at High Point? Guess not. Oh well.

So I have no complaints, and wish you luck.

Ask Penn State and Maryland what they think of 8-7 Johns Hopkins.

Sure. But you're forgetting, naturally, that Cornell and High Point can make a longer list like this, of better teams they have actually beaten.

Well that and, Hop is 0-2 against Penn State. You want this to be a badge that give them a bid. I respectfully disagree.

Or perhaps we should use your SOS in the tournament, if it makes so much sense? I'd sign on for that. Would you? Decide who goes to the Final Four not based on who wins the games...but on who played the tougher teams and "lost" better?

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

lmao.
where did you hear that playing a lacrosse game a week (or nearly every week!) against top teams is "the hard grind". that's hilarious.

[a fan]

Due to limitations in practice time and new starters each year, it can take an entire season for chemistry to build (especially when the best player on your team is a true freshman). You see recency bias in every NCAA sport (football, basketball, etc) when it comes to NCAA tournament selection and seeding. That's why conference tournament and late season games tend to count more than the beginning of the season. And yes, they did lose to PSU, but that loss only furthered the point that they are a different team than earlier in the season.

So they lost their final game. And your claim here is: that's STILL good? Neat trick.

Understand the logic you are selling. If early season losses are no big deal, and should count less-----that means you have to discount early season wins.

Sensing a problem yet?

It's as wgdsr points out: if you like rewarding losing, that's cool. But don't pretend that's not what you're doing.

Understand what using SOS for bids says. SOS tells you: we're going to assign massive value to this BEFORE a single faceoff.

You get that, yes? 0-10. 10-0. SOS doesn't care, not even a little, about how YOUR team does against said schedule.

You're saying you prefer that teams schedule their way to a bid, not win their way to a bid.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[calourie]

[quote=kennypowers

Due to limitations in practice time and new starters each year, it can take an entire season for chemistry to build (especially when the best player on your team is a true freshman). You see recency bias in every NCAA sport (football, basketball, etc) when it comes to NCAA tournament selection and seeding. That's why conference tournament and late season games tend to count more than the beginning of the season. And yes, they did lose to PSU, but that loss only furthered the point that they are a different team than earlier in the season.
[/quote]

If recency is to be a factor then put it in the list of considerations for the committee; a real can of worms discussion. I've come around to CU77's arguement on the Cornell thread that lacrosse should go to some cut and dried numerical system such as D1 Hockey does with pairwise rankings and let the numerical chips fall where they may, keeping any sort of committee-speak evaluation out of the equation. If the basis were to be solely RPI, the seeds this year would have been 1. PSU 2. Virginia 3. Penn 4. Duke 5.Yale 6. Towson 7. Loyola 8. Hopkins and the last team out would still be Cornell, and there would be no discussion of committee bias. Argue for a tweaking of the RPI if you must (but for Cripes sake include all games no matter when they were played) but let's come up with a numerical system that leaves subjective evaluation out of the equation.

[a fan]

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Your asking a guy who has taken classes in logic, no?

My answer: you can't be serious..

I'd rather have eight chances at pulling an upset or two, than just three chances. No question whatsoever.

Doubly so when the Committee and guys like you want to give me tons of credit for simply showing up for the faceoff.

[a fan]

Seems to me winning a conference tournament should be the end of the recency discusssion or Maryland and Syracuse should be punished for sagging at year end just like Hopkins should be rewarded. A real can of worms discussion.

Am I hallucinating? All three teams lost their last game of the year. You know that, yes? So Hopkins should be rewarded: why?

[DocBarrister]

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

lmao.
where did you hear that playing a lacrosse game a week (or nearly every week!) against top teams is "the hard grind". that's hilarious.

My apologies, but it needs to be said ...

... your post is simply stupid.

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Fine. Then you'd be for giving weight to teams that play more games then, right?

[calourie]

Seems to me winning a conference tournament should be the end of the recency discusssion or Maryland and Syracuse should be punished for sagging at year end just like Hopkins should be rewarded. A real can of worms discussion.

Am I hallucinating? All three teams lost their last game of the year. You know that, yes? So Hopkins should be rewarded: why?

a fan, I edited my post when I realized I'd said that. See above.

[CU77]

Simple solution:

Drop all at-large teams. Declare the conference tournaments to be part of the NCAA tournament. Include the 5-team ACC as a conference. Then only the 10 conference-tournament champions advance beyond the conference stage. Two preliminary games to reduce the field to 8. Then continue as now.

Shaves a week off the post-season, and makes the conference tournaments actually mean something, so that teams like Loyola (and Yale last year) might pay a bit more attention.

The NCAA will never go for it, of course, but sure saves a lot of arguing about who should be in and who should be out.

[a fan]

Cool. Sorry, calourie, I was utterly confused.

[wgdsr]

Again, you’re wrong.

Is it as hard to beat top twenty teams when you play only a few a year?

Or is it harder when you play them nearly every week?

Quality Wins doesn’t take into account the hard grind of playing top teams every week. SOS does.

SOS is in the selection criteria for a good reason.

DocBarrister

lmao.
where did you hear that playing a lacrosse game a week (or nearly every week!) against top teams is "the hard grind". that's hilarious.

My apologies, but it needs to be said ...
... your post is simply stupid.
DocBarrister

really? to whom? the guy that had the chemistry team one week, the physics squad the next? back to back?
this is a posting forum, but it's not the holiday inn express you stayed in last night.
you should stick to advising david pietramala on how he should be running his defense from underneath your lemon trees. your sweet spot.