Maybe do away with preseason rankings?NovaLax17 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:54 amExactly Coda. There is a polling bias that favors the historical success of certain programs. It is true that early season rankings are more of a prediction as Keno in Reno pointed out. However, crediting certain teams with "good losses" continues throughout the season and into post-season seeding. It's inevitable.coda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:44 pmYou mean 0-4 Manhattan and 1-2 Monmouth (LIU being the lone W from those teams)NovaLax17 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:41 pm It has always appeared that some programs get the benefit of a "good loss" and some programs do not.
Ranking Cornell at #11 after beating unranked Lehigh by four (17-13), and losing a "close one" ranked Denver would have to based on a "good loss" to Denver.
Ranking Princeton at #18 after beating unranked Monmouth and unranked Manhattan, and losing to ranked Maryland 13-7 must also be based on a "good loss" to Maryland
2024 top 20
-
- Posts: 34200
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: 2024 top 20
“I wish you would!”
Re: 2024 top 20
Typical Lax Dad: I actually enjoy the preseason rankings. As Asleep@theswitch pointed out, the preseason polling is speculative fun, which is probably based primarily on prior season success and the loss of contributors to graduation. However, we are about three weeks into the regular season now, so the typical biases have resurfaced, e.g. benefitting some programs with "good losses" (or "quality losses") while excluding other programs for the same.
We know polling is not a science and remains subjective. The teams that win on ESPN probably get more credit than those that don't. Further, the pollsters from the media polls (Inside Lacrosse, Lacrosse Bucket, USA Lacrosse Magazine, Lacrosse All Stars) and coaches' poll likely cross-reference each other and carry these biases throughout the season.
At tournament time, these biases come into play. That probably is not fair, but its part of the game and c'est la vie.
Regarding Tournament seeding: Recently, I recall Quint Kessenich argue the NCAA tournament committee should give weight to the teams that are "trending upward," while a representative of the committee stated it looks at the "overall body of work" of each team.
I suspect that "body of work" analysis includes credit to media-preferred programs for a close loss against a team with an excellent winning record. And, I take Kessenich's comment to indicate that "good losses" and quality wins early in the season should be give less credit than those toward the end of the season. If I am correct, I would venture to say Kessenich would give more credit to a close loss by a blue blood program in May than an upset victory by a NON blue blood program in February.
We know polling is not a science and remains subjective. The teams that win on ESPN probably get more credit than those that don't. Further, the pollsters from the media polls (Inside Lacrosse, Lacrosse Bucket, USA Lacrosse Magazine, Lacrosse All Stars) and coaches' poll likely cross-reference each other and carry these biases throughout the season.
At tournament time, these biases come into play. That probably is not fair, but its part of the game and c'est la vie.
Regarding Tournament seeding: Recently, I recall Quint Kessenich argue the NCAA tournament committee should give weight to the teams that are "trending upward," while a representative of the committee stated it looks at the "overall body of work" of each team.
I suspect that "body of work" analysis includes credit to media-preferred programs for a close loss against a team with an excellent winning record. And, I take Kessenich's comment to indicate that "good losses" and quality wins early in the season should be give less credit than those toward the end of the season. If I am correct, I would venture to say Kessenich would give more credit to a close loss by a blue blood program in May than an upset victory by a NON blue blood program in February.
-
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:31 am
Re: 2024 top 20
Yeah at the end of the day, the rankings are just a source of entertainment and to give a surface level view of the ebbs and flows of the season. In lacrosse at least, the media rankings play no factor at all in the actual outcomes of games/tournament selection (the committee analyzes resumes using the RPI), so there's no harm and no foul in any of this.
I am of two minds on Quint's suggestion; on the one hand he is right that performances in April are much more indicative of a team's level than performances in February (just look at how Georgetown and Loyola have looked since their opener vs. each other). In college basketball the committee considers a team's performance over their past 12 games as a selection criteria (or at least used to).
Having said that, I also don't like trivializing a full third/half of the season, especially when those February/March games are the only times we get to see OOC matchups that can give us a window into relative conference strength. The more you start to weight certain games more than others, the easier it is for confirmation bias to run rampant. Two years ago, Duke and ND were probably two of the most talented teams in the country, but neither performed well enough to warrant inclusion in the NCAA tournament. Because the committee considered all of the games, and factored in that the Ivy League dominated OOC, we got the most deserving teams in. If we start playing with the formula, it allows undeserving teams to get backdoored in because of the name on the resume rather than the wins.
I am of two minds on Quint's suggestion; on the one hand he is right that performances in April are much more indicative of a team's level than performances in February (just look at how Georgetown and Loyola have looked since their opener vs. each other). In college basketball the committee considers a team's performance over their past 12 games as a selection criteria (or at least used to).
Having said that, I also don't like trivializing a full third/half of the season, especially when those February/March games are the only times we get to see OOC matchups that can give us a window into relative conference strength. The more you start to weight certain games more than others, the easier it is for confirmation bias to run rampant. Two years ago, Duke and ND were probably two of the most talented teams in the country, but neither performed well enough to warrant inclusion in the NCAA tournament. Because the committee considered all of the games, and factored in that the Ivy League dominated OOC, we got the most deserving teams in. If we start playing with the formula, it allows undeserving teams to get backdoored in because of the name on the resume rather than the wins.
Re: 2024 top 20
I think 4 games in you can throw out the preseason rankings. I'd like to see Duke face some more formidable competition before I put them #1 over teams that have already faced a tougher set of teams and proven themselves. Syracuse also blew teams out until they faced Maryland. Notre Dame blew teams out until they faced Georgetown. Meanwhile, Virginia is winning games against stronger competition by 4 / 6/ 8 goals. Lets see how Duke fairs against Penn -- a very well coached top 20 team that can grind against anybody. Will be a better test of their relative strength.HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 1:01 pm I have no problem with Duke at #1. They started the season at #1 or #2 in most polls and are destroying teams. It's not like they've looked bad.
The poll is not a ranking of tournament resumes. If it was, the top 10 would look much different than just Duke being lower.
Last edited by rolldodge on Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:46 am
Re: 2024 top 20
There is a second order effect of playing a cupcake schedule like Duke and Cuse are playing early on beyond just the rankings debate. The downside is they aren’t as battle tested for when league play starts. The upside is they aren’t as beaten up and worn down.
Re: 2024 top 20
You know, all due respect to JoeWillie, but these are just one man's opinions.NovaLax17 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:41 pm It has always appeared that some programs get the benefit of a "good loss" and some programs do not.
Ranking Cornell at #11 after beating unranked Lehigh by four (17-13), and losing a "close one" ranked Denver would have to based on a "good loss" to Denver.
Ranking Princeton at #18 after beating unranked Monmouth and unranked Manhattan, and losing to ranked Maryland 13-7 must also be based on a "good loss" to Maryland
You're free to start your own thread and post your own weekly rankings. Or, hell, I bet he wouldn't mind if you contributed to his thread by posting your own top 25. Pro Tip: It's not as easy as you might think it is.
I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with a little back-and-forth on his rankings, but you'd have a lot more credibility in doing so if you rolled up your sleeves and put yourself on the line at the same time.
I'll add, as awful as the officiating was in Denver, JoeWillie probably should have ranked Cornell above Denver. The Big Red were the better team on the field, but the officials made sure that that's not what the final scoreboard said.
-
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:28 pm
Re: 2024 top 20
What's the pro tip on why it's not so easy? Once the media and coaches polls are out, it's not very hard to predict where teams would jump or fall. If you're gonna start a topic with your own poll, you should be able to accept criticism about the poll. There's been no personal attacks or anything beyond the actual topic.ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:05 pmYou know, all due respect to JoeWillie, but these are just one man's opinions.NovaLax17 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:41 pm It has always appeared that some programs get the benefit of a "good loss" and some programs do not.
Ranking Cornell at #11 after beating unranked Lehigh by four (17-13), and losing a "close one" ranked Denver would have to based on a "good loss" to Denver.
Ranking Princeton at #18 after beating unranked Monmouth and unranked Manhattan, and losing to ranked Maryland 13-7 must also be based on a "good loss" to Maryland
You're free to start your own thread and post your own weekly rankings. Or, hell, I bet he wouldn't mind if you contributed to his thread by posting your own top 25. Pro Tip: It's not as easy as you might think it is.
Re: 2024 top 20
I'm certainly not trying to imply that JW can't take a little friendly critique; just pointing out that, maybe instead of expending so much energy arguing that JW is counting this as a good loss and not counting that as a good loss, or whatever, that he could throw out his own poll instead. Nothing magical about the JoeWillie poll. And hey, you're right: it's so easy there's no reason for NovaLax not to throw one out there; show us all how it's done.keno in reno wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:20 pm
What's the pro tip on why it's not so easy? Once the media and coaches polls are out, it's not very hard to predict where teams would jump or fall. If you're gonna start a topic with your own poll, you should be able to accept criticism about the poll. There's been no personal attacks or anything beyond the actual topic.
Re: 2024 top 20
What do people think rankings and tourney selection are supposed to represent or be based on? Is it (1) which team would be a favorite on a neutral field at a given moment in time or (2) which team has the most impressive resume at that time? Or a little of both? Or something else? Until everyone can agree on that question, there’s always going to be this kind of debate. And probably would be even after that.
Re: 2024 top 20
joewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:26 pm My new top 20, 2/25:
1. Duke
2. Virginia
3. Maryland
4. Denver
5. Army
6. Notre Dame
7. Yale
8. Johns Hopkins
9. Syracuse
10. Penn State
11. Cornell
12. Michigan
13. Harvard
14. Rutgers
15. Georgetown
16. Penn
17. Towson
18. Princeton
19. North Carolina
20. Ohio State
Gobigred
Joewillie78
JoeWillie is a national treasure. Hard to argue with most of his rankings, but even more impressively, the guy has his numbers ready the second an OT game ends late on a Sunday!!!
-
- Posts: 1260
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:21 am
Re: 2024 top 20
Thanks Finster, but this really is a testament to an old Cornell alumni and fan who obviously has no life.Finster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:59 pmjoewillie78 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:26 pm My new top 20, 2/25:
1. Duke
2. Virginia
3. Maryland
4. Denver
5. Army
6. Notre Dame
7. Yale
8. Johns Hopkins
9. Syracuse
10. Penn State
11. Cornell
12. Michigan
13. Harvard
14. Rutgers
15. Georgetown
16. Penn
17. Towson
18. Princeton
19. North Carolina
20. Ohio State
Gobigred
Joewillie78
JoeWillie is a national treasure. Hard to argue with most of his rankings, but even more impressively, the guy has his numbers ready the second an OT game ends late on a Sunday!!!
Every Saturday and especially Sunday, I spend hours pouring over all the results and comparing teams.
I have multiple polls ready with each scenario that could occur on Sunday, and this past Sunday was a perfect example.
I had polls for ND win, a loss etc.
As soon as that last game goes final, I like to post my poll immediately, sort of giving me the chance to be the first person to post a new poll.
It shows in reality that I have no life, but also shows I love this great sport.
And to IC GRADS point, I don't mind one bit putting myself out there and accepting any criticism that comes with my polls.
Kenoinreno questioned some of my rankings and my methodology for my polls. He never personally attacked me, just my polls which I gladly accept.
As I stated previously, I love POLLS, in all sports and not to sound self centered at all but I do think that people on this great forum look forward to my poll as soon as that last game on Sunday is completed.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
- 44WeWantMore
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:11 pm
- Location: Too far from 21218
Re: 2024 top 20
When I saw how quickly he posted, I assume he had two lists ready (maybe at half-time when it was clear it would be a close game), and just pasted in the right one.
The head of NASA (IIRC) in The Martian had two speeches written in advance that he could deliver based on the outcome of an event.
The head of NASA (IIRC) in The Martian had two speeches written in advance that he could deliver based on the outcome of an event.
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
-
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:28 pm
Re: 2024 top 20
All good JW. The board wouldn't exist without ideas like yours. Keep posting and good luck to Cornell.joewillie78 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 7:43 pm Kenoinreno questioned some of my rankings and my methodology for my polls. He never personally attacked me, just my polls which I gladly accept.
As I stated previously, I love POLLS, in all sports and not to sound self centered at all but I do think that people on this great forum look forward to my poll as soon as that last game on Sunday is completed.
Gobigred
Joewillie78
Re: 2024 top 20
So did Eisenhower for D-Day.44WeWantMore wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 7:48 pm When I saw how quickly he posted, I assume he had two lists ready (maybe at half-time when it was clear it would be a close game), and just pasted in the right one.
The head of NASA (IIRC) in The Martian had two speeches written in advance that he could deliver based on the outcome of an event.
- 44WeWantMore
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:11 pm
- Location: Too far from 21218
Re: 2024 top 20
Thanks for reminding me. Interesting that I had heard that at least once, yet it did not occur to me when I read The Martian.
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:36 pm
Re: 2024 top 20
Here are my week 3 rankings, so far I have noticed a lot of different aspects for each team that help me place each team in the spot I have them in.
1. UVA
2. Duke
3. Denver
4. Notre Dame
5. Army
6. Maryland
7. Syracuse
8. Cornell
9. Georgetown
10. Johns Hopkins
11. Penn State
12. Yale
13. Michigan
14. Rutgers
15. UNC
16. UPenn
17. Delaware
18. Richmond
19. Towson
20. Ohio State
Any thoughts? I feel like this is an accurate look at where the league sits now.
1. UVA
2. Duke
3. Denver
4. Notre Dame
5. Army
6. Maryland
7. Syracuse
8. Cornell
9. Georgetown
10. Johns Hopkins
11. Penn State
12. Yale
13. Michigan
14. Rutgers
15. UNC
16. UPenn
17. Delaware
18. Richmond
19. Towson
20. Ohio State
Any thoughts? I feel like this is an accurate look at where the league sits now.
Re: 2024 top 20
No team should be allowed to have 8 home games to open the season like SyracuseAsleep@theswitch wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 5:22 pm There is a second order effect of playing a cupcake schedule like Duke and Cuse are playing early on beyond just the rankings debate. The downside is they aren’t as battle tested for when league play starts. The upside is they aren’t as beaten up and worn down.
Re: 2024 top 20
Playing home games in a dome is embarrassing enough, but 8 is downright hiding from the elements and the opponents home fields. An outdoor lacrosse venue and some cold weather games would garner some respect.
Lux et veritas
-
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:23 pm
Re: 2024 top 20
I have no strong conviction about this, but I wonder if Princeton should be in the mix. I guess that their upcoming game vs UNC should show a lot.TurfToeVictim wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:45 pm Here are my week 3 rankings, so far I have noticed a lot of different aspects for each team that help me place each team in the spot I have them in.
1. UVA
2. Duke
3. Denver
4. Notre Dame
5. Army
6. Maryland
7. Syracuse
8. Cornell
9. Georgetown
10. Johns Hopkins
11. Penn State
12. Yale
13. Michigan
14. Rutgers
15. UNC
16. UPenn
17. Delaware
18. Richmond
19. Towson
20. Ohio State
Any thoughts? I feel like this is an accurate look at where the league sits now.
-
- Posts: 23826
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am
Re: 2024 top 20
Well tossing around things like “this is just media confirmation bias” is quite a Hegelian dialect heuristic to elevate one’s own standing on this topic over the other. Is it a personal attack? Not really and JW is just screwing around which most everyone who pay attention knows. By taking this so seriously and setting up a conflation of correlation and causation to elevate one over another is arguably the same thing as a personal attack.keno in reno wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:20 pmWhat's the pro tip on why it's not so easy? Once the media and coaches polls are out, it's not very hard to predict where teams would jump or fall. If you're gonna start a topic with your own poll, you should be able to accept criticism about the poll. There's been no personal attacks or anything beyond the actual topic.ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:05 pmYou know, all due respect to JoeWillie, but these are just one man's opinions.NovaLax17 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:41 pm It has always appeared that some programs get the benefit of a "good loss" and some programs do not.
Ranking Cornell at #11 after beating unranked Lehigh by four (17-13), and losing a "close one" ranked Denver would have to based on a "good loss" to Denver.
Ranking Princeton at #18 after beating unranked Monmouth and unranked Manhattan, and losing to ranked Maryland 13-7 must also be based on a "good loss" to Maryland
You're free to start your own thread and post your own weekly rankings. Or, hell, I bet he wouldn't mind if you contributed to his thread by posting your own top 25. Pro Tip: It's not as easy as you might think it is.
I don’t give an F either way but to get so salty and contentious like at least one person did as if personally offended is just a technique to get to the same place as saying “damn you dumb f**k, this poll is trash and clearly you are incapable of thinking in a non linear fashion like such elevated persons as myself”.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah