FanLax Forum Poll

[Laxallday]

Is Ohio St the only top 20 win for Rutgers ?
[/quote

RU beat Army (currently 16) and Loyola and Stony Brook who were ranked at the time, in addition to OSU.

[Matnum PI]

Is Ohio St the only top 20 win for Rutgers ?

RU beat Army (currently 16) and Loyola and Stony Brook who were ranked at the time, in addition to OSU.

Agreed. Rutgers three best wins, in order, are OSU, Army, and Stony Brook.

[wgdsr]

Is Ohio St the only top 20 win for Rutgers ?

RU beat Army (currently 16) and Loyola and Stony Brook who were ranked at the time, in addition to OSU.

Agreed. Rutgers three best wins, in order, are OSU, Army, and Stony Brook.

so all of 1 top 20 win as things stand now, tosu @ 13. hmmm...

[RopeUnit]

Lacrosse Reference offer a Strength of Record table also, that may be instructive. Takes into account the W’s and L’s

https://lacrossereference.com/stats/str ... rd-d1-men/

I don’t really see any holes in the Rutgers resume. They don’t have huge wins, but they also didn’t take any bad, or mediocre losses. They defeated OSU/Loyola/Army, which all the bubble teams (Duke, ND, Harvard) lost to. Cornell 1/1 vs OSU and Army.

4-7 seed pending tournament outcomes seems very fair.

[Matnum PI]

Agreed. Rutgers three best wins, in order, are OSU, Army, and Stony Brook.

so all of 1 top 20 win as things stand now, tosu @ 13. hmmm...

Though, I think OSU and Army should be ranked higher than they are. Both should be Top 20: #9 and #19.

[wgdsr]

Agreed. Rutgers three best wins, in order, are OSU, Army, and Stony Brook.

so all of 1 top 20 win as things stand now, tosu @ 13. hmmm...

Though, I think OSU and Army should be ranked higher than they are. Both should be Top 20: #9 and #19.

ok, this is the forum poll thread. but that has shinola to do with nc$$ sans one covid year and maybe pre-2007 or something.

[Matnum PI]

ok, this is the forum poll thread. but that has shinola to do with nc$$ sans one covid year and maybe pre-2007 or something.

Wadya mean? I'm not following...

[Homer]

ok, this is the forum poll thread. but that has shinola to do with nc$$ sans one covid year and maybe pre-2007 or something.

Wadya mean? I'm not following...

The Committee's modern-era practice has been to treat RPI as definitive for purposes of assessing the quality of wins/losses, regardless of whether some teams appear intuitively to be slotted too high or too low (or were ranked higher/lower at the time the game was played). If Rutgers has only one Top 20 win according to RPI, then they have one Top 20 win, full stop.

Last year was an exception with many teams playing fewer games and the Big Ten being a closed loop, etc., so they had to deviate from their normal practice and use the eye test to some extent. And nobody really knows what they were doing back in the day. But presumably this year will be back to the 2008-2019 norm.

[ICGrad]

That's why they play the games. The truth will out.

Or it won't, right? I mean, Quint's adoration aside, it will be hard for ND or Duke to make much noise in the tournament if they have to rely on their actual resumes - and not the fact that they play in the ACC, or their "potential" - and don't make the field.

[wgdsr]

ok, this is the forum poll thread. but that has shinola to do with nc$$ sans one covid year and maybe pre-2007 or something.

Wadya mean? I'm not following...

the entire conversation preceding had been about nc$$ selection. evolving into rutgers' resume of wins. evaluation of wins is based on rpi, full stop. not media polls, qk polls, fanlax or coaches polls or your poll.

they beat #13 (as of now), not #9. they beat #21, not #19. polls are for fun. not for eval. all with the caveat... nc$$ regional advisory committee, and selection committee polls. they supposedly put one out somewhere and jax was #10. suggesting their "polls" may matter.

past maybe prologue, we go into the nc$$ selection with not a clue what they will do and what matters.

[Homer]

Addendum:

Note that, in fact, Rutgers currently has two Top 20 wins: #13 Ohio State and #18 Johns Hopkins.

[Matnum PI]

past maybe prologue, we go into the nc$$ selection with not a clue what they will do and what matters.

agreed. though i have to believe that the ncaa has heard the plethora of squeaky wheels within the lacrosse community.

[wgdsr]

past maybe prologue, we go into the nc$$ selection with not a clue what they will do and what matters.

agreed. though i have to believe that the ncaa has heard the plethora of squeaky wheels within the lacrosse community.

this might be a very odd time to change things up without transparency well beforehand, like pre-season. namely, some of those loudest squeaky wheels getting short shrift potentially.

i have said several times, be careful what you wish for. we shall see.

[Homer]

they supposedly put one out somewhere and jax was #10. suggesting their "polls" may matter.

Jacksonville at #10 isn't really that weird IMO. They have 3 QWs (#10, #15, #16), which is more than a lot of teams can say, and both of their losses are Top 20. What's unusual about their resume is they have an anomalously low RPI for a 13-2 team with those kind of high-end wins, essentially because the bottom third of their schedule is really, really bad. Unfortunately getting VMI in the semis isn't going to help with that. But in theory, their own RPI isn't supposed to matter. As you've often said, it does seem like the committee tacitly has one eyeball on RPI a lot of the time. But dinging Jax in a really obvious way for having a bad RPI when their resume is otherwise selection-worthy would be kind of saying the quiet part out loud.

[Matnum PI]

this might be a very odd time to change things up without transparency well beforehand, like pre-season. namely, some of those loudest squeaky wheels getting short shrift potentially.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Preseason, pick a fair (according to all) data-based metric and then come pre-Memorial Day, no one, including the fans, should be complaining. And... RPI, most certainly, is not that metric.

But dinging Jax in a really obvious way for having a bad RPI when their resume is otherwise selection-worthy would be kind of saying the quiet part out loud.

This is awful to say but... I'm kind of hoping this happens so that a real, legitimate complaint can be voiced and real change will/might come to the selection process.

[rolldodge]

they supposedly put one out somewhere and jax was #10. suggesting their "polls" may matter.

Jacksonville at #10 isn't really that weird IMO. They have 3 QWs (#10, #15, #16), which is more than a lot of teams can say, and both of their losses are Top 20. What's unusual about their resume is they have an anomalously low RPI for a 13-2 team with those kind of high-end wins, essentially because the bottom third of their schedule is really, really bad. Unfortunately getting VMI in the semis isn't going to help with that. But in theory, their own RPI isn't supposed to matter. As you've often said, it does seem like the committee tacitly has one eyeball on RPI a lot of the time. But dinging Jax in a really obvious way for having a bad RPI when their resume is otherwise selection-worthy would be kind of saying the quiet part out loud.

In my poll, I basically disregard any wins that are below top 30 (I use RPI, but some other number could work too) --- they don't factor in one way or another (wins, not losses). The rationale is that any team that might be considered for the top 25 should be able to regularly dispatch any under 30 team. Then you can evaluate the quality of their above 30 wins and any losses. My system is pretty loose, but I'm sure there is a way to make it more rigorous. Something like it, or some aspect of it, could resolve the issue we are currently seeing with Jacksonville fairly well (their three top wins put them solidly in the top 15 at least) -- rather than #22 RPI. It also helps deal with the question of a team that has a very good winning percentage, but a very weak schedule.

[wgdsr]

they supposedly put one out somewhere and jax was #10. suggesting their "polls" may matter.

Jacksonville at #10 isn't really that weird IMO. They have 3 QWs (#10, #15, #16), which is more than a lot of teams can say, and both of their losses are Top 20. What's unusual about their resume is they have an anomalously low RPI for a 13-2 team with those kind of high-end wins, essentially because the bottom third of their schedule is really, really bad. Unfortunately getting VMI in the semis isn't going to help with that. But in theory, their own RPI isn't supposed to matter. As you've often said, it does seem like the committee tacitly has one eyeball on RPI a lot of the time. But dinging Jax in a really obvious way for having a bad RPI when their resume is otherwise selection-worthy would be kind of saying the quiet part out loud.

it'd be great for everybody if they told us what year we're in. 2015? 2019? 2021?

gaming out jax only, they're at the bottom of their 10. they take a loss for now at large consideration... can now be dispatched in their "poll". but the smoke signal is out.

we'll find out if it's a red herring or a canary soon enough.

[1766]

It's comical to think back to when Rutgers had beaten Hopkins twice yet they got selected over them in 16 I believe, then again in 17 (after beating number 2 OSU) I believe, though could have the years confused.

At the time, we were told to shut up and look at RPI. That's all that mattered. Now that certain schools aren't looking too hot there, the RPI is a huge problem that needs to be completely overhauled. Hearing that former Hopkins goalie whine about it is especially rich given he was one of the biggest RPI proponents.

Now look at them.

[rolldodge]

It's comical to think back to when Rutgers had beaten Hopkins twice yet they got selected over them in 16 I believe, then again in 17 (after beating number 2 OSU) I believe, though could have the years confused.

At the time, we were told to shut up and look at RPI. That's all that mattered. Now that certain schools aren't looking too hot there, the RPI is a huge problem that needs to be completely overhauled. Hearing that former Hopkins goalie whine about it is especially rich given he was one of the biggest RPI proponents.

Now look at them.

To be fair, I don't think there were ever many (any?) people defending RPI -- just pointing out the reality that that is what the committee's criteria was going to be so that expectations were aligned. Talk of overhauling RPI and the selection criteria is a topic every single year without fail.

[HopFan16]

It's comical to think back to when Rutgers had beaten Hopkins twice yet they got selected over them in 16 I believe, then again in 17 (after beating number 2 OSU) I believe, though could have the years confused.

At the time, we were told to shut up and look at RPI. That's all that mattered. Now that certain schools aren't looking too hot there, the RPI is a huge problem that needs to be completely overhauled. Hearing that former Hopkins goalie whine about it is especially rich given he was one of the biggest RPI proponents.

Now look at them.

This is wrong. Rolldodge is correct. Quint has never been an RPI proponent. He's always hated it. There's a big difference between pointing out the fact that the committee uses it and actually liking it. You can do the former without personally preferring it as a metric, which has long been Quint's and a lot of other people's stances.