2024 Bracketology

[laxreference]

I am not sure that that is supposed to even mean, just nonsensical rambling. It is pretty simple. You know only have the following information and you have to bet on the game between Team A and Team C..

Team A beat Team B by 9 goals
Team C beat beat Team B by 1 goal.

base on that limited information I can not imagine a person saying "put my money on Team C". Perhaps that would be you, if it is I would love to bet with you.

I'm not saying that scoring margin cannot help improve a model. For an individual's model to rank teams, of course use it if you want.

But we should separate out the debate into two questions:

1) Is it a useful data point for ranking system? (Sure, I don't think anyone is really saying otherwise)
2) Should it be a part of the criteria for the Selection process in some way?

The important question to me is #2. If someone wants to build a model to help them bet on games, that's a question #1 issue. Question #2 is what my concerns about scoring margin are related to. I don't think anyone is really arguing here about Question #1.

But if we are talking about using is in the selection process, that's where it becomes a question of weighing the lift that you'd get from including it and the negative consequences of including it.

In my opinion, the negative consequences outweigh any potential improvement to the ranking process.

[NYlax222]

I'm not suggesting scoring margin alone solves the issue of ranking teams who ultimately don't play common schedule. However, truly am amazed by anyone who thinks that winning (or losing) by 10 is the same (i.e, provides same insight into respective rankings of teams) as winning (or losing) by one.

Imagine a world where two teams play same exact schedule. Both go 11-2. Firs team averages 8 goal margin in their win, and loses 2 in OT. Other team averages 2 goals marin in 11 wins, and gets blown out by 10 in losses. Per RPI, they are the same. Nobody would look at those two teams and conclude they are equivalent.

Folks love to call a 'bad loss' a loss (regardless of margin) to a non-Top 20 team, yet, losing by 10 isn't?

[coda]

I'm not suggesting scoring margin alone solves the issue of ranking teams who ultimately don't play common schedule. However, truly am amazed by anyone who thinks that winning (or losing) by 10 is the same (i.e, provides same insight into respective rankings of teams) as winning (or losing) by one.

Imagine a world where two teams play same exact schedule. Both go 11-2. Firs team averages 8 goal margin in their win, and loses 2 in OT. Other team averages 2 goals marin in 11 wins, and gets blown out by 10 in losses. Per RPI, they are the same. Nobody would look at those two teams and conclude they are equivalent.

Folks love to call a 'bad loss' a loss (regardless of margin) to a non-Top 20 team, yet, losing by 10 isn't?

Can lacrosse do better? Yes. That is what this discussion is about. Nobody is saying there is a perfect model that will be 100% correct. Its just about improving. I just dont understand people arguing that less information is better.

[Big Dog]

I'm not suggesting scoring margin alone solves the issue of ranking teams who ultimately don't play common schedule. However, truly am amazed by anyone who thinks that winning (or losing) by 10 is the same (i.e, provides same insight into respective rankings of teams) as winning (or losing) by one.

Imagine a world where two teams play same exact schedule. Both go 11-2. Firs team averages 8 goal margin in their win, and loses 2 in OT. Other team averages 2 goals marin in 11 wins, and gets blown out by 10 in losses. Per RPI, they are the same. Nobody would look at those two teams and conclude they are equivalent.

Folks love to call a 'bad loss' a loss (regardless of margin) to a non-Top 20 team, yet, losing by 10 isn't?

Can lacrosse do better? Yes. That is what this discussion is about. Nobody is saying there is a perfect model that will be 100% correct. Its just about improving. I just dont understand people arguing that less information is better.

The problem for lax is that there are too few games in a season to make "other information" statistically meaningful. And once league play starts, RPIs can't change much. (All your opponent's play each other.) The Net ranking in basketball (kinda) works bcos they play 30+ games.

That said, not a fan of scoring margin in such a short season.

[coda]

I'm not suggesting scoring margin alone solves the issue of ranking teams who ultimately don't play common schedule. However, truly am amazed by anyone who thinks that winning (or losing) by 10 is the same (i.e, provides same insight into respective rankings of teams) as winning (or losing) by one.

Imagine a world where two teams play same exact schedule. Both go 11-2. Firs team averages 8 goal margin in their win, and loses 2 in OT. Other team averages 2 goals marin in 11 wins, and gets blown out by 10 in losses. Per RPI, they are the same. Nobody would look at those two teams and conclude they are equivalent.

Folks love to call a 'bad loss' a loss (regardless of margin) to a non-Top 20 team, yet, losing by 10 isn't?

Can lacrosse do better? Yes. That is what this discussion is about. Nobody is saying there is a perfect model that will be 100% correct. Its just about improving. I just dont understand people arguing that less information is better.

The problem for lax is that there are too few games in a season to make "other information" statistically meaningful. And once league play starts, RPIs can't change much. (All your opponent's play each other.) The Net ranking in basketball (kinda) works bcos they play 30+ games.

That said, not a fan of scoring margin in such a short season.

You would obviously love more data-points, but college lacrosse season mirrors college football pretty well. I dont see a huge difference in the season in comparison. The less data-points you have the more information you need. Simpler models work better with more data pts.

[wgdsr]

Sadly, I am always reminded it isn't the 18 best teams that make the D1 lacrosse tourney. It is the 18 that qualify or picked.

Forget Ivy situation (cause same thing happened to ACC a few years ago when Carc and Quint about had stroke's, live on-air), the seeding is a complete disaster. Uva seeded after getting doors blown off by ND and losing 4 straight. UMD seeded after getting doors blown off by PSU (and PSU barely got in), Denver has higher seed after losing to freakin Villanova, over G'Town won the conference tourney again. Princeton, the winner of one of the top 3 conference tourney, no seed. 50% of the seeds are airballs by the "Committee".

The committee counts every game equally in theory and that is what is annoying fans. They see teams struggling down the stretch and forget about the other 80% of the season. Princeton didnt play a top 10 team in its conference and lost to the same Maryland team you are talkign about. Michigan beat 2 top 10 teams to finish the season (3 overall) and they are unseeded. This is RPI top 10:

1 Notre Dame- #1 seed

2 Duke- #2 seed

3 Johns Hopkins- #3 seed

4 Syracuse- #4 seed

5 Virginia- #5 seed

6 Denver- #6 seed

7 Maryland- #7 seed

8 Princeton

9 Penn State

10 Georgetown - #8 seed

Only one that is off is Princeton and Gtown. Maybe that is based on top 10 wins, which Princeton had none. Gtown had the best win in the country this year..

Until the reliance on RPI is ended, this is basically what people should expect every year. Its going to closely reflect the RPI.

and everybody knows in advance what goes into rpi. the only time that's drastically changed is 2022 (and 2021). if you have a fluid system (in theory) teams know what's expected, and the teams do, too. there's a base to part of that, and penn as an example has played the rpi game pretty well over time.

the rest on late games meaning more is shouting at clouds, imo. as someone said, that's what conference tournies are for. so is goal differential (no offense, coda). the object is to win games. and cheapening earlier games makes no sense to me. these guys play for a lot of the year, to be prepared from the jump, and when late season pressure is on if you're bubble territory.

I don’t think you cheapen games, but teams either grow over the course of a season or fall back. Various things can contribute to that. It should be accounted for. The committee is using the most basic and out-dated model available (RPI). I think the sport deserves better. I would not be upset, if there was an off-season discussion on how to do a better job.

i read in my opinion to most posts when i can. so that is how i'll read yours, and in this case why i couched mine. i disagree, that's fanlax. they don't erase the games when it comes to who qualifies for a conference's tournaments bc who is playing better lately, either. the whole season matters. and again, most every team has been given an opportunity to turn it on late and be rewarded thru aqs. it's been great for the game, i am all for that change. i love march madness.

rpi is not the problem. it's a short season, you won't find a system that works awesome-sauce with it. the application of it is turrible. it's not supposed to consider straight rpi as even a primary, if anyone reads the actual rulebook. it's supposed to be what rpi's you win and lose to. the committee has gotten morphed into it being a driver.

it could be set up with actual hard based numbers, giving you a result. it's not. it's bunched in groups of 5 and discounting or nicking a win/loss vs #21 rpi, same as team 70. and different than #20. it's dumb.

rpi is not outdated. it's wins and losses. winning by how much is dumb also. imo.

I dont get the score differential hatred. I am not sure how you are supposed to judge the performance. This has proven wrong at every study of modeling sports, but each to their own. This would be like trying to rank 100m racers by simply whether or not they won. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

i don't believe that you are flummoxed by the idea that wins and losses should take precedence over efficiency or score differential in evaluating who has earned the few spots available. wins and losses being the arbiter of performance in that vein is a wholly legitimate view. you want to have an opinion poll on who's better, have at it. or have a sports bar debate.

any system that might give the advantage to a team's scoreboard differential vs how many of those games they actually won, which is the ultimate goal each time out, is faulty. imo.

i also don't believe that you actually think something like swim times are any kind of equivalency or even in the same ballpark. and saying this is all settled science is just funny.

[coda]

Sadly, I am always reminded it isn't the 18 best teams that make the D1 lacrosse tourney. It is the 18 that qualify or picked.

Forget Ivy situation (cause same thing happened to ACC a few years ago when Carc and Quint about had stroke's, live on-air), the seeding is a complete disaster. Uva seeded after getting doors blown off by ND and losing 4 straight. UMD seeded after getting doors blown off by PSU (and PSU barely got in), Denver has higher seed after losing to freakin Villanova, over G'Town won the conference tourney again. Princeton, the winner of one of the top 3 conference tourney, no seed. 50% of the seeds are airballs by the "Committee".

The committee counts every game equally in theory and that is what is annoying fans. They see teams struggling down the stretch and forget about the other 80% of the season. Princeton didnt play a top 10 team in its conference and lost to the same Maryland team you are talkign about. Michigan beat 2 top 10 teams to finish the season (3 overall) and they are unseeded. This is RPI top 10:

1 Notre Dame- #1 seed

2 Duke- #2 seed

3 Johns Hopkins- #3 seed

4 Syracuse- #4 seed

5 Virginia- #5 seed

6 Denver- #6 seed

7 Maryland- #7 seed

8 Princeton

9 Penn State

10 Georgetown - #8 seed

Only one that is off is Princeton and Gtown. Maybe that is based on top 10 wins, which Princeton had none. Gtown had the best win in the country this year..

Until the reliance on RPI is ended, this is basically what people should expect every year. Its going to closely reflect the RPI.

and everybody knows in advance what goes into rpi. the only time that's drastically changed is 2022 (and 2021). if you have a fluid system (in theory) teams know what's expected, and the teams do, too. there's a base to part of that, and penn as an example has played the rpi game pretty well over time.

the rest on late games meaning more is shouting at clouds, imo. as someone said, that's what conference tournies are for. so is goal differential (no offense, coda). the object is to win games. and cheapening earlier games makes no sense to me. these guys play for a lot of the year, to be prepared from the jump, and when late season pressure is on if you're bubble territory.

I don’t think you cheapen games, but teams either grow over the course of a season or fall back. Various things can contribute to that. It should be accounted for. The committee is using the most basic and out-dated model available (RPI). I think the sport deserves better. I would not be upset, if there was an off-season discussion on how to do a better job.

i read in my opinion to most posts when i can. so that is how i'll read yours, and in this case why i couched mine. i disagree, that's fanlax. they don't erase the games when it comes to who qualifies for a conference's tournaments bc who is playing better lately, either. the whole season matters. and again, most every team has been given an opportunity to turn it on late and be rewarded thru aqs. it's been great for the game, i am all for that change. i love march madness.

rpi is not the problem. it's a short season, you won't find a system that works awesome-sauce with it. the application of it is turrible. it's not supposed to consider straight rpi as even a primary, if anyone reads the actual rulebook. it's supposed to be what rpi's you win and lose to. the committee has gotten morphed into it being a driver.

it could be set up with actual hard based numbers, giving you a result. it's not. it's bunched in groups of 5 and discounting or nicking a win/loss vs #21 rpi, same as team 70. and different than #20. it's dumb.

rpi is not outdated. it's wins and losses. winning by how much is dumb also. imo.

I dont get the score differential hatred. I am not sure how you are supposed to judge the performance. This has proven wrong at every study of modeling sports, but each to their own. This would be like trying to rank 100m racers by simply whether or not they won. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

i don't believe that you are flummoxed by the idea that wins and losses should take precedance over efficiency or score differential in evaluating who has earned the few spots available. wins and losses being the arbiter of performance in that vein is a wholly legitimate view. you want to have an opinion poll on who's better, have at it. or have a sports bar debate.

any system that might give the advantage to a team's scoreboard differential vs how many of those games they actually won, which is the ultimate goal each time out, is faulty. imo.

and i also don't believe that you think something like swim times are any kind of equivalancy or even in the same ballpark.

Not sure why they are not. The only difference is in swimming you have set constraints. In team sports those constraints vary, based on the quality of the opponent. There is a difference between beating Virginia by 9 goals and beating Hampton by 9 goals.

[wgdsr]

Sadly, I am always reminded it isn't the 18 best teams that make the D1 lacrosse tourney. It is the 18 that qualify or picked.

Forget Ivy situation (cause same thing happened to ACC a few years ago when Carc and Quint about had stroke's, live on-air), the seeding is a complete disaster. Uva seeded after getting doors blown off by ND and losing 4 straight. UMD seeded after getting doors blown off by PSU (and PSU barely got in), Denver has higher seed after losing to freakin Villanova, over G'Town won the conference tourney again. Princeton, the winner of one of the top 3 conference tourney, no seed. 50% of the seeds are airballs by the "Committee".

The committee counts every game equally in theory and that is what is annoying fans. They see teams struggling down the stretch and forget about the other 80% of the season. Princeton didnt play a top 10 team in its conference and lost to the same Maryland team you are talkign about. Michigan beat 2 top 10 teams to finish the season (3 overall) and they are unseeded. This is RPI top 10:

1 Notre Dame- #1 seed

2 Duke- #2 seed

3 Johns Hopkins- #3 seed

4 Syracuse- #4 seed

5 Virginia- #5 seed

6 Denver- #6 seed

7 Maryland- #7 seed

8 Princeton

9 Penn State

10 Georgetown - #8 seed

Only one that is off is Princeton and Gtown. Maybe that is based on top 10 wins, which Princeton had none. Gtown had the best win in the country this year..

Until the reliance on RPI is ended, this is basically what people should expect every year. Its going to closely reflect the RPI.

and everybody knows in advance what goes into rpi. the only time that's drastically changed is 2022 (and 2021). if you have a fluid system (in theory) teams know what's expected, and the teams do, too. there's a base to part of that, and penn as an example has played the rpi game pretty well over time.

the rest on late games meaning more is shouting at clouds, imo. as someone said, that's what conference tournies are for. so is goal differential (no offense, coda). the object is to win games. and cheapening earlier games makes no sense to me. these guys play for a lot of the year, to be prepared from the jump, and when late season pressure is on if you're bubble territory.

I don’t think you cheapen games, but teams either grow over the course of a season or fall back. Various things can contribute to that. It should be accounted for. The committee is using the most basic and out-dated model available (RPI). I think the sport deserves better. I would not be upset, if there was an off-season discussion on how to do a better job.

i read in my opinion to most posts when i can. so that is how i'll read yours, and in this case why i couched mine. i disagree, that's fanlax. they don't erase the games when it comes to who qualifies for a conference's tournaments bc who is playing better lately, either. the whole season matters. and again, most every team has been given an opportunity to turn it on late and be rewarded thru aqs. it's been great for the game, i am all for that change. i love march madness.

rpi is not the problem. it's a short season, you won't find a system that works awesome-sauce with it. the application of it is turrible. it's not supposed to consider straight rpi as even a primary, if anyone reads the actual rulebook. it's supposed to be what rpi's you win and lose to. the committee has gotten morphed into it being a driver.

it could be set up with actual hard based numbers, giving you a result. it's not. it's bunched in groups of 5 and discounting or nicking a win/loss vs #21 rpi, same as team 70. and different than #20. it's dumb.

rpi is not outdated. it's wins and losses. winning by how much is dumb also. imo.

I dont get the score differential hatred. I am not sure how you are supposed to judge the performance. This has proven wrong at every study of modeling sports, but each to their own. This would be like trying to rank 100m racers by simply whether or not they won. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

i don't believe that you are flummoxed by the idea that wins and losses should take precedence over efficiency or score differential in evaluating who has earned the few spots available. wins and losses being the arbiter of performance in that vein is a wholly legitimate view. you want to have an opinion poll on who's better, have at it. or have a sports bar debate.

any system that might give the advantage to a team's scoreboard differential vs how many of those games they actually won, which is the ultimate goal each time out, is faulty. imo.

and i also don't believe that you think something like swim times are any kind of equivalency or even in the same ballpark. and saying this is all settled science is just funny.

Not sure why they are not. The only difference is in swimming you have set constraints. In team sports those constraints vary, based on the quality of the opponent. There is a difference between beating Virginia by 9 goals and beating Hampton by 9 goals.

whoa, ok color me corrected. you do believe it.

[coda]

Sadly, I am always reminded it isn't the 18 best teams that make the D1 lacrosse tourney. It is the 18 that qualify or picked.

Forget Ivy situation (cause same thing happened to ACC a few years ago when Carc and Quint about had stroke's, live on-air), the seeding is a complete disaster. Uva seeded after getting doors blown off by ND and losing 4 straight. UMD seeded after getting doors blown off by PSU (and PSU barely got in), Denver has higher seed after losing to freakin Villanova, over G'Town won the conference tourney again. Princeton, the winner of one of the top 3 conference tourney, no seed. 50% of the seeds are airballs by the "Committee".

The committee counts every game equally in theory and that is what is annoying fans. They see teams struggling down the stretch and forget about the other 80% of the season. Princeton didnt play a top 10 team in its conference and lost to the same Maryland team you are talkign about. Michigan beat 2 top 10 teams to finish the season (3 overall) and they are unseeded. This is RPI top 10:

1 Notre Dame- #1 seed

2 Duke- #2 seed

3 Johns Hopkins- #3 seed

4 Syracuse- #4 seed

5 Virginia- #5 seed

6 Denver- #6 seed

7 Maryland- #7 seed

8 Princeton

9 Penn State

10 Georgetown - #8 seed

Only one that is off is Princeton and Gtown. Maybe that is based on top 10 wins, which Princeton had none. Gtown had the best win in the country this year..

Until the reliance on RPI is ended, this is basically what people should expect every year. Its going to closely reflect the RPI.

and everybody knows in advance what goes into rpi. the only time that's drastically changed is 2022 (and 2021). if you have a fluid system (in theory) teams know what's expected, and the teams do, too. there's a base to part of that, and penn as an example has played the rpi game pretty well over time.

the rest on late games meaning more is shouting at clouds, imo. as someone said, that's what conference tournies are for. so is goal differential (no offense, coda). the object is to win games. and cheapening earlier games makes no sense to me. these guys play for a lot of the year, to be prepared from the jump, and when late season pressure is on if you're bubble territory.

I don’t think you cheapen games, but teams either grow over the course of a season or fall back. Various things can contribute to that. It should be accounted for. The committee is using the most basic and out-dated model available (RPI). I think the sport deserves better. I would not be upset, if there was an off-season discussion on how to do a better job.

i read in my opinion to most posts when i can. so that is how i'll read yours, and in this case why i couched mine. i disagree, that's fanlax. they don't erase the games when it comes to who qualifies for a conference's tournaments bc who is playing better lately, either. the whole season matters. and again, most every team has been given an opportunity to turn it on late and be rewarded thru aqs. it's been great for the game, i am all for that change. i love march madness.

rpi is not the problem. it's a short season, you won't find a system that works awesome-sauce with it. the application of it is turrible. it's not supposed to consider straight rpi as even a primary, if anyone reads the actual rulebook. it's supposed to be what rpi's you win and lose to. the committee has gotten morphed into it being a driver.

it could be set up with actual hard based numbers, giving you a result. it's not. it's bunched in groups of 5 and discounting or nicking a win/loss vs #21 rpi, same as team 70. and different than #20. it's dumb.

rpi is not outdated. it's wins and losses. winning by how much is dumb also. imo.

I dont get the score differential hatred. I am not sure how you are supposed to judge the performance. This has proven wrong at every study of modeling sports, but each to their own. This would be like trying to rank 100m racers by simply whether or not they won. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

i don't believe that you are flummoxed by the idea that wins and losses should take precedence over efficiency or score differential in evaluating who has earned the few spots available. wins and losses being the arbiter of performance in that vein is a wholly legitimate view. you want to have an opinion poll on who's better, have at it. or have a sports bar debate.

any system that might give the advantage to a team's scoreboard differential vs how many of those games they actually won, which is the ultimate goal each time out, is faulty. imo.

and i also don't believe that you think something like swim times are any kind of equivalency or even in the same ballpark. and saying this is all settled science is just funny.

Not sure why they are not. The only difference is in swimming you have set constraints. In team sports those constraints vary, based on the quality of the opponent. There is a difference between beating Virginia by 9 goals and beating Hampton by 9 goals.

whoa, ok color me corrected. you do believe it.

Do I believe that there is a difference between winning by 10 and winning in OT or losing by 10 and losing in OT? Yes. That seems only rational to me. Having the scoring margin gives me some idea of game control. Just looking at Wins and Losses can not tell me that.

Do I think there is a difference between losing by 1 goal to ND and losing by 1 goal to Hampton? Yes. I cant imagine anyone with disagree with that.

[wgdsr]

Sadly, I am always reminded it isn't the 18 best teams that make the D1 lacrosse tourney. It is the 18 that qualify or picked.

Forget Ivy situation (cause same thing happened to ACC a few years ago when Carc and Quint about had stroke's, live on-air), the seeding is a complete disaster. Uva seeded after getting doors blown off by ND and losing 4 straight. UMD seeded after getting doors blown off by PSU (and PSU barely got in), Denver has higher seed after losing to freakin Villanova, over G'Town won the conference tourney again. Princeton, the winner of one of the top 3 conference tourney, no seed. 50% of the seeds are airballs by the "Committee".

The committee counts every game equally in theory and that is what is annoying fans. They see teams struggling down the stretch and forget about the other 80% of the season. Princeton didnt play a top 10 team in its conference and lost to the same Maryland team you are talkign about. Michigan beat 2 top 10 teams to finish the season (3 overall) and they are unseeded. This is RPI top 10:

1 Notre Dame- #1 seed

2 Duke- #2 seed

3 Johns Hopkins- #3 seed

4 Syracuse- #4 seed

5 Virginia- #5 seed

6 Denver- #6 seed

7 Maryland- #7 seed

8 Princeton

9 Penn State

10 Georgetown - #8 seed

Only one that is off is Princeton and Gtown. Maybe that is based on top 10 wins, which Princeton had none. Gtown had the best win in the country this year..

Until the reliance on RPI is ended, this is basically what people should expect every year. Its going to closely reflect the RPI.

and everybody knows in advance what goes into rpi. the only time that's drastically changed is 2022 (and 2021). if you have a fluid system (in theory) teams know what's expected, and the teams do, too. there's a base to part of that, and penn as an example has played the rpi game pretty well over time.

the rest on late games meaning more is shouting at clouds, imo. as someone said, that's what conference tournies are for. so is goal differential (no offense, coda). the object is to win games. and cheapening earlier games makes no sense to me. these guys play for a lot of the year, to be prepared from the jump, and when late season pressure is on if you're bubble territory.

I don’t think you cheapen games, but teams either grow over the course of a season or fall back. Various things can contribute to that. It should be accounted for. The committee is using the most basic and out-dated model available (RPI). I think the sport deserves better. I would not be upset, if there was an off-season discussion on how to do a better job.

i read in my opinion to most posts when i can. so that is how i'll read yours, and in this case why i couched mine. i disagree, that's fanlax. they don't erase the games when it comes to who qualifies for a conference's tournaments bc who is playing better lately, either. the whole season matters. and again, most every team has been given an opportunity to turn it on late and be rewarded thru aqs. it's been great for the game, i am all for that change. i love march madness.

rpi is not the problem. it's a short season, you won't find a system that works awesome-sauce with it. the application of it is turrible. it's not supposed to consider straight rpi as even a primary, if anyone reads the actual rulebook. it's supposed to be what rpi's you win and lose to. the committee has gotten morphed into it being a driver.

it could be set up with actual hard based numbers, giving you a result. it's not. it's bunched in groups of 5 and discounting or nicking a win/loss vs #21 rpi, same as team 70. and different than #20. it's dumb.

rpi is not outdated. it's wins and losses. winning by how much is dumb also. imo.

I dont get the score differential hatred. I am not sure how you are supposed to judge the performance. This has proven wrong at every study of modeling sports, but each to their own. This would be like trying to rank 100m racers by simply whether or not they won. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

i don't believe that you are flummoxed by the idea that wins and losses should take precedence over efficiency or score differential in evaluating who has earned the few spots available. wins and losses being the arbiter of performance in that vein is a wholly legitimate view. you want to have an opinion poll on who's better, have at it. or have a sports bar debate.

any system that might give the advantage to a team's scoreboard differential vs how many of those games they actually won, which is the ultimate goal each time out, is faulty. imo.

and i also don't believe that you think something like swim times are any kind of equivalency or even in the same ballpark. and saying this is all settled science is just funny.

Not sure why they are not. The only difference is in swimming you have set constraints. In team sports those constraints vary, based on the quality of the opponent. There is a difference between beating Virginia by 9 goals and beating Hampton by 9 goals.

whoa, ok color me corrected. you do believe it.

Do I believe that there is a difference between winning by 10 and winning in OT or losing by 10 and losing in OT? Yes. That seems only rational to me. Having the scoring margin gives me some idea of game control. Just looking at Wins and Losses can not tell me that.

Do I think there is a difference between losing by 1 goal to ND and losing by 1 goal to Hampton? Yes. I cant imagine anyone with disagree with that.

you're cherry picking specific bad examples (that would never happen). here is the reality:
2 teams around the bubble might play very similar (not exact) teams against their schedule. but let's say for example they were the exaxt same schedule.

one team could go 11-3 against that schedule and another 9-5, but have better goal differential numbers. a mov model would put the 9 and 5 team in. that is the kind of nonsense that actually would be happening, when the actual main goal of lacrosse is to win games. selection into an invite tourney is supposed to be rewarding that, not handicapping teams.

[coda]

Sadly, I am always reminded it isn't the 18 best teams that make the D1 lacrosse tourney. It is the 18 that qualify or picked.

Forget Ivy situation (cause same thing happened to ACC a few years ago when Carc and Quint about had stroke's, live on-air), the seeding is a complete disaster. Uva seeded after getting doors blown off by ND and losing 4 straight. UMD seeded after getting doors blown off by PSU (and PSU barely got in), Denver has higher seed after losing to freakin Villanova, over G'Town won the conference tourney again. Princeton, the winner of one of the top 3 conference tourney, no seed. 50% of the seeds are airballs by the "Committee".

The committee counts every game equally in theory and that is what is annoying fans. They see teams struggling down the stretch and forget about the other 80% of the season. Princeton didnt play a top 10 team in its conference and lost to the same Maryland team you are talkign about. Michigan beat 2 top 10 teams to finish the season (3 overall) and they are unseeded. This is RPI top 10:

1 Notre Dame- #1 seed

2 Duke- #2 seed

3 Johns Hopkins- #3 seed

4 Syracuse- #4 seed

5 Virginia- #5 seed

6 Denver- #6 seed

7 Maryland- #7 seed

8 Princeton

9 Penn State

10 Georgetown - #8 seed

Only one that is off is Princeton and Gtown. Maybe that is based on top 10 wins, which Princeton had none. Gtown had the best win in the country this year..

Until the reliance on RPI is ended, this is basically what people should expect every year. Its going to closely reflect the RPI.

and everybody knows in advance what goes into rpi. the only time that's drastically changed is 2022 (and 2021). if you have a fluid system (in theory) teams know what's expected, and the teams do, too. there's a base to part of that, and penn as an example has played the rpi game pretty well over time.

the rest on late games meaning more is shouting at clouds, imo. as someone said, that's what conference tournies are for. so is goal differential (no offense, coda). the object is to win games. and cheapening earlier games makes no sense to me. these guys play for a lot of the year, to be prepared from the jump, and when late season pressure is on if you're bubble territory.

I don’t think you cheapen games, but teams either grow over the course of a season or fall back. Various things can contribute to that. It should be accounted for. The committee is using the most basic and out-dated model available (RPI). I think the sport deserves better. I would not be upset, if there was an off-season discussion on how to do a better job.

i read in my opinion to most posts when i can. so that is how i'll read yours, and in this case why i couched mine. i disagree, that's fanlax. they don't erase the games when it comes to who qualifies for a conference's tournaments bc who is playing better lately, either. the whole season matters. and again, most every team has been given an opportunity to turn it on late and be rewarded thru aqs. it's been great for the game, i am all for that change. i love march madness.

rpi is not the problem. it's a short season, you won't find a system that works awesome-sauce with it. the application of it is turrible. it's not supposed to consider straight rpi as even a primary, if anyone reads the actual rulebook. it's supposed to be what rpi's you win and lose to. the committee has gotten morphed into it being a driver.

it could be set up with actual hard based numbers, giving you a result. it's not. it's bunched in groups of 5 and discounting or nicking a win/loss vs #21 rpi, same as team 70. and different than #20. it's dumb.

rpi is not outdated. it's wins and losses. winning by how much is dumb also. imo.

I dont get the score differential hatred. I am not sure how you are supposed to judge the performance. This has proven wrong at every study of modeling sports, but each to their own. This would be like trying to rank 100m racers by simply whether or not they won. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

i don't believe that you are flummoxed by the idea that wins and losses should take precedence over efficiency or score differential in evaluating who has earned the few spots available. wins and losses being the arbiter of performance in that vein is a wholly legitimate view. you want to have an opinion poll on who's better, have at it. or have a sports bar debate.

any system that might give the advantage to a team's scoreboard differential vs how many of those games they actually won, which is the ultimate goal each time out, is faulty. imo.

and i also don't believe that you think something like swim times are any kind of equivalency or even in the same ballpark. and saying this is all settled science is just funny.

Not sure why they are not. The only difference is in swimming you have set constraints. In team sports those constraints vary, based on the quality of the opponent. There is a difference between beating Virginia by 9 goals and beating Hampton by 9 goals.

whoa, ok color me corrected. you do believe it.

Do I believe that there is a difference between winning by 10 and winning in OT or losing by 10 and losing in OT? Yes. That seems only rational to me. Having the scoring margin gives me some idea of game control. Just looking at Wins and Losses can not tell me that.

Do I think there is a difference between losing by 1 goal to ND and losing by 1 goal to Hampton? Yes. I cant imagine anyone with disagree with that.

you're cherry picking specific bad examples (thatbwould never happen). here is the reality:
2 teams around the bubble might play very similar (not perfect) teams against their schedule. but let's say for example they were the exaxt same schedule.

one team could go 11-3 against that schedule and another 9-5, but have better goal differential numbers. a mov model would put the 9 and 5 team in. that is the kind of nonsense that actually would be happening, when the actual main goal of lacrosse is to win games. selection into an invite tourney is supposed to be rewarding that, not handicapping teams.

Talk about cherry picking an example. That would be highly unlikely, especially in a model that filters out garbage time.
I am quite confused by people continually saying that wins are the be all and end all of the discussion on ranking teams. Its completely absurd. Sacred Heart is 13-3 this year. They have the most wins and 2nd best win percentage in the country. Not single person demanded they should be seeded in the tournament. I am guessing that is because people realize that it is about more than simply winning games.

[wgdsr]

haha. no, it wouldn't be highly unlikely. i follow uva basketball, and others, and i can promise you it wouldn't. it would be very likely.
this sounds like about time i should mention that 3/4 of rpi measures your wins against the schedule you played.
in 2024, that would prevent sacred heart from being an at large consideration. so you're good there. no worries, mov is coming soon enough to lax. it made its way into hoops, and has been in play for football for a very long time. at present, the powers @ nc$$ lax don't seem to be too concerned with a fairly broken system, but you can bet that at some point that will change, and probably quickly. maybe after they eliminate faceoffs and need to propose new changes on something in their 2 year cycle. tho i guess there's always the dive and now replay.

[coda]

haha. no, it wouldn't be highly unlikely. i follow uva basketball, and others, and i can promise you it wouldn't. it would be very likely.
this sounds like about time i should mention that 3/4 of rpi measures your wins against the schedule you played.
in 2024, that would prevent sacred heart from being an at large consideration. so you're good there. no worries. mov is coming, soon enough to lax. it made it's way into hoops, and has been in play for football for a very long time. at present, the powers @ nc$$ lax don't seem to be too concerned with a fairly broken system, but you can bet that at some point that will change, and probably quickly. maybe after they eliminate faceoffs and need to propose new changes on something in their 2 year cycle. tho i guess there's always the dive and now replay.

Like I said if your model eliminates garbage time it becomes, much less likely. Not surprised you would pick UVa as the example. They are famous for there lack of pace. I get it you going to try to use the extreme to find the possible disadvantage and apply it to the norm, while ignoring the overall benefits. Basketball is modeled on a per possession basis. Interestingly if they eliminate faceoffs, you will see lacrosse modeling move to a per possession bases. That is one thing that is problematic in lacrosse modeling. It is the one of the few sports where a team can actually be more efficient on offense and defense per possession and lose games. Penn State comes to as an example of that. Very good on offense and defense, but struggles at the faceoff. 61st in the nation. That does make me wonder how teams like Cornell, Penn, Penn State, and Colgate seasons would have looked like in a world of alternating possessions. On flip side where would UNC, DEnver, Army, Michigan, Cuse. and Towson be without top 10 faceoff percentages. I wonder if anyone has modeled faceoffs and applied them to their overall model. @laxreference?

[wgdsr]

haha. no, it wouldn't be highly unlikely. i follow uva basketball, and others, and i can promise you it wouldn't. it would be very likely.
this sounds like about time i should mention that 3/4 of rpi measures your wins against the schedule you played.
in 2024, that would prevent sacred heart from being an at large consideration. so you're good there. no worries. mov is coming, soon enough to lax. it made it's way into hoops, and has been in play for football for a very long time. at present, the powers @ nc$$ lax don't seem to be too concerned with a fairly broken system, but you can bet that at some point that will change, and probably quickly. maybe after they eliminate faceoffs and need to propose new changes on something in their 2 year cycle. tho i guess there's always the dive and now replay.

Like I said if your model eliminates garbage time it becomes, much less likely. Not surprised you would pick UVa as the example. They are famous for there lack of pace. I get it you going to try to use the extreme to find the possible disadvantage and apply it to the norm, while ignoring the overall benefits. Basketball is modeled on a per possession basis. Interestingly if they eliminate faceoffs, you will see lacrosse modeling move to a per possession bases. That is one thing that is problematic in lacrosse modeling. It is the one of the few sports where a team can actually be more efficient on offense and defense per possession and lose games. Penn State comes to as an example of that. Very good on offense and defense, but struggles at the faceoff. 61st in the nation. That does make me wonder how teams like Cornell, Penn, Penn State, and Colgate seasons would have looked like in a world of alternating possessions.

eliminating garbage time might help some?, but it doesn't solve it in the least. what if a team is up 8 in the 3rd quarter? what if there's a cap and that cap is post- a game still being winnable, but still needs to be coached around? now, you can't save guys that are banged up and may get reinjured, or get others pt. you're influencing coaching, development, injuries and more all around a winning margin. i could go on. i'm not ignoring the overall benefits, i personally don't see any with respect to what we're talking about, at larges. none.

again, it is extremely likely a team can play essentially to a better record vs their relative schedule and have worse mov or efficiency numbers. that is a disqualifier for me. there are lots of examples in hoops, not 1 and not extremes or outliers. entire conferences (including mid-majors) are gaming the system in ways that would make lacrosse blush. and again, for the record your opinion about it all is great. but it is just that, an opinion. and you'll likely have company soon enough.

[coda]

haha. no, it wouldn't be highly unlikely. i follow uva basketball, and others, and i can promise you it wouldn't. it would be very likely.
this sounds like about time i should mention that 3/4 of rpi measures your wins against the schedule you played.
in 2024, that would prevent sacred heart from being an at large consideration. so you're good there. no worries. mov is coming, soon enough to lax. it made it's way into hoops, and has been in play for football for a very long time. at present, the powers @ nc$$ lax don't seem to be too concerned with a fairly broken system, but you can bet that at some point that will change, and probably quickly. maybe after they eliminate faceoffs and need to propose new changes on something in their 2 year cycle. tho i guess there's always the dive and now replay.

Like I said if your model eliminates garbage time it becomes, much less likely. Not surprised you would pick UVa as the example. They are famous for there lack of pace. I get it you going to try to use the extreme to find the possible disadvantage and apply it to the norm, while ignoring the overall benefits. Basketball is modeled on a per possession basis. Interestingly if they eliminate faceoffs, you will see lacrosse modeling move to a per possession bases. That is one thing that is problematic in lacrosse modeling. It is the one of the few sports where a team can actually be more efficient on offense and defense per possession and lose games. Penn State comes to as an example of that. Very good on offense and defense, but struggles at the faceoff. 61st in the nation. That does make me wonder how teams like Cornell, Penn, Penn State, and Colgate seasons would have looked like in a world of alternating possessions.

eliminating garbage time might help some?, but it doesn't solve it in the least. what if a team is up 8 in the 3rd quarter? what if there's a cap and that cap is post- a game still being winnable, but still needs to be coached around? now, you can't save guys that are banged up and may get reinjured, or get others pt. you're influencing coaching, development, injuries and more all around a winning margin. i could go on. i'm not ignoring the overall benefits, i personally don't see any with respect to what we're talking about, at larges. none.

again, it is extremely likely a team can play essentially to a better record vs their relative schedule and have worse mov or efficiency numbers. that is a disqualifier for me. there are lots of examples in hoops, not 1 and not extremes or outliers. entire conferences (including mid-majors) are gaming the system in ways that would make lacrosse blush. and again, for the record your opinion about it all is great. but it is just that, an opinion. and you'll likely have company soon enough.

In College football they have done the work and garbage time can start in the 2Q. From Football outsiders:

Garbage Time %Run
This personality stat looks at how an offense operated when a game was out of reach -- i.e. not within 28 points in the first quarter, 24 in the second, 21 in the third, or 16 in the fourth -- either when a team was winning or losing.

Pace of play will effect the final MOV. Like I said per possession modeling is prevalent in basketball to mitigate that variable. It still uses MOV. It simply applies it on per possession basis, so you are still using margin of victory. MOV is still important. Seems you are saying you would like MOV to factor in pace of play. I have 0 issues with that.

[coda]

haha. no, it wouldn't be highly unlikely. i follow uva basketball, and others, and i can promise you it wouldn't. it would be very likely.
this sounds like about time i should mention that 3/4 of rpi measures your wins against the schedule you played.
in 2024, that would prevent sacred heart from being an at large consideration. so you're good there. no worries. mov is coming, soon enough to lax. it made it's way into hoops, and has been in play for football for a very long time. at present, the powers @ nc$$ lax don't seem to be too concerned with a fairly broken system, but you can bet that at some point that will change, and probably quickly. maybe after they eliminate faceoffs and need to propose new changes on something in their 2 year cycle. tho i guess there's always the dive and now replay.

Like I said if your model eliminates garbage time it becomes, much less likely. Not surprised you would pick UVa as the example. They are famous for there lack of pace. I get it you going to try to use the extreme to find the possible disadvantage and apply it to the norm, while ignoring the overall benefits. Basketball is modeled on a per possession basis. Interestingly if they eliminate faceoffs, you will see lacrosse modeling move to a per possession bases. That is one thing that is problematic in lacrosse modeling. It is the one of the few sports where a team can actually be more efficient on offense and defense per possession and lose games. Penn State comes to as an example of that. Very good on offense and defense, but struggles at the faceoff. 61st in the nation. That does make me wonder how teams like Cornell, Penn, Penn State, and Colgate seasons would have looked like in a world of alternating possessions.

eliminating garbage time might help some?, but it doesn't solve it in the least. what if a team is up 8 in the 3rd quarter? what if there's a cap and that cap is post- a game still being winnable, but still needs to be coached around? now, you can't save guys that are banged up and may get reinjured, or get others pt. you're influencing coaching, development, injuries and more all around a winning margin. i could go on. i'm not ignoring the overall benefits, i personally don't see any with respect to what we're talking about, at larges. none.

again, it is extremely likely a team can play essentially to a better record vs their relative schedule and have worse mov or efficiency numbers. that is a disqualifier for me. there are lots of examples in hoops, not 1 and not extremes or outliers. entire conferences (including mid-majors) are gaming the system in ways that would make lacrosse blush. and again, for the record your opinion about it all is great. but it is just that, an opinion. and you'll likely have company soon enough.

In College football they have done the work and garbage time can start in the 2Q. From Football outsiders:

Garbage Time %Run
This personality stat looks at how an offense operated when a game was out of reach -- i.e. not within 28 points in the first quarter, 24 in the second, 21 in the third, or 16 in the fourth -- either when a team was winning or losing.

Pace of play will effect the final MOV. Like I said per possession modeling is prevalent in basketball to mitigate that variable. It still uses MOV. It simply applies it on per possession basis, so you are still using margin of victory. MOV is still important. Seems you are saying you would like MOV to factor in pace of play. I have 0 issues with that.

[Big Dog]

I'm not suggesting scoring margin alone solves the issue of ranking teams who ultimately don't play common schedule. However, truly am amazed by anyone who thinks that winning (or losing) by 10 is the same (i.e, provides same insight into respective rankings of teams) as winning (or losing) by one.

Imagine a world where two teams play same exact schedule. Both go 11-2. Firs team averages 8 goal margin in their win, and loses 2 in OT. Other team averages 2 goals marin in 11 wins, and gets blown out by 10 in losses. Per RPI, they are the same. Nobody would look at those two teams and conclude they are equivalent.

Folks love to call a 'bad loss' a loss (regardless of margin) to a non-Top 20 team, yet, losing by 10 isn't?

Can lacrosse do better? Yes. That is what this discussion is about. Nobody is saying there is a perfect model that will be 100% correct. Its just about improving. I just dont understand people arguing that less information is better.

The problem for lax is that there are too few games in a season to make "other information" statistically meaningful. And once league play starts, RPIs can't change much. (All your opponent's play each other.) The Net ranking in basketball (kinda) works bcos they play 30+ games.

That said, not a fan of scoring margin in such a short season.

You would obviously love more data-points, but college lacrosse season mirrors college football pretty well. I dont see a huge difference in the season in comparison. The less data-points you have the more information you need. Simpler models work better with more data pts.

And yet College football does not use margin of victory.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/spor ... e-protocol

[wgdsr]

haha. no, it wouldn't be highly unlikely. i follow uva basketball, and others, and i can promise you it wouldn't. it would be very likely.
this sounds like about time i should mention that 3/4 of rpi measures your wins against the schedule you played.
in 2024, that would prevent sacred heart from being an at large consideration. so you're good there. no worries. mov is coming, soon enough to lax. it made it's way into hoops, and has been in play for football for a very long time. at present, the powers @ nc$$ lax don't seem to be too concerned with a fairly broken system, but you can bet that at some point that will change, and probably quickly. maybe after they eliminate faceoffs and need to propose new changes on something in their 2 year cycle. tho i guess there's always the dive and now replay.

Like I said if your model eliminates garbage time it becomes, much less likely. Not surprised you would pick UVa as the example. They are famous for there lack of pace. I get it you going to try to use the extreme to find the possible disadvantage and apply it to the norm, while ignoring the overall benefits. Basketball is modeled on a per possession basis. Interestingly if they eliminate faceoffs, you will see lacrosse modeling move to a per possession bases. That is one thing that is problematic in lacrosse modeling. It is the one of the few sports where a team can actually be more efficient on offense and defense per possession and lose games. Penn State comes to as an example of that. Very good on offense and defense, but struggles at the faceoff. 61st in the nation. That does make me wonder how teams like Cornell, Penn, Penn State, and Colgate seasons would have looked like in a world of alternating possessions.

eliminating garbage time might help some?, but it doesn't solve it in the least. what if a team is up 8 in the 3rd quarter? what if there's a cap and that cap is post- a game still being winnable, but still needs to be coached around? now, you can't save guys that are banged up and may get reinjured, or get others pt. you're influencing coaching, development, injuries and more all around a winning margin. i could go on. i'm not ignoring the overall benefits, i personally don't see any with respect to what we're talking about, at larges. none.

again, it is extremely likely a team can play essentially to a better record vs their relative schedule and have worse mov or efficiency numbers. that is a disqualifier for me. there are lots of examples in hoops, not 1 and not extremes or outliers. entire conferences (including mid-majors) are gaming the system in ways that would make lacrosse blush. and again, for the record your opinion about it all is great. but it is just that, an opinion. and you'll likely have company soon enough.

In College football they have done the work and garbage time can start in the 2Q. From Football outsiders:

Garbage Time %Run
This personality stat looks at how an offense operated when a game was out of reach -- i.e. not within 28 points in the first quarter, 24 in the second, 21 in the third, or 16 in the fourth -- either when a team was winning or losing.

Pace of play will effect the final MOV. Like I said per possession modeling is prevalent in basketball to mitigate that variable. It still uses MOV. It simply applies it on per possession basis, so you are still using margin of victory. MOV is still important. Seems you are saying you would like MOV to factor in pace of play. I have 0 issues with that.

literally the only thing i'm saying is for selecting at larges, it is my opinion that committees should factor in who won, and who lost.

if others want to model margin of victory, pace of play, etc. for their polls, bar discussions, vegas lines or advanced metrics hobbies, go for it.

[coda]

I'm not suggesting scoring margin alone solves the issue of ranking teams who ultimately don't play common schedule. However, truly am amazed by anyone who thinks that winning (or losing) by 10 is the same (i.e, provides same insight into respective rankings of teams) as winning (or losing) by one.

Imagine a world where two teams play same exact schedule. Both go 11-2. Firs team averages 8 goal margin in their win, and loses 2 in OT. Other team averages 2 goals marin in 11 wins, and gets blown out by 10 in losses. Per RPI, they are the same. Nobody would look at those two teams and conclude they are equivalent.

Folks love to call a 'bad loss' a loss (regardless of margin) to a non-Top 20 team, yet, losing by 10 isn't?

Can lacrosse do better? Yes. That is what this discussion is about. Nobody is saying there is a perfect model that will be 100% correct. Its just about improving. I just dont understand people arguing that less information is better.

The problem for lax is that there are too few games in a season to make "other information" statistically meaningful. And once league play starts, RPIs can't change much. (All your opponent's play each other.) The Net ranking in basketball (kinda) works bcos they play 30+ games.

That said, not a fan of scoring margin in such a short season.

You would obviously love more data-points, but college lacrosse season mirrors college football pretty well. I dont see a huge difference in the season in comparison. The less data-points you have the more information you need. Simpler models work better with more data pts.

And yet College football does not use margin of victory.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/spor ... e-protocol

I dont even know how they calculate SOS. What metrics are they relying on? That we do not know. Likely that the models they look at uses pts and/or yards in their calculations, but without knowing what information they rely on it is impossible to say. More likely to use yards/play than pts per play, but that is unique to football.

[rolldodge]

Apologies if this has been discussed above, but in taking margin of victory into account how do you incorporate different styles and pace of play? One can realistically imagine a team that is defense oriented and may only win their games by 2 or 3 goals but the outcome of the game is never in doubt. Do they get penalized for that?