LaxPower Back-Up Stick

NovaLax17 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:54 am

coda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:44 pm

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 mean 0-4 Manhattan and 1-2 Monmouth (LIU being the lone W from those teams)

Exactly 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.

Maybe do away with preseason rankings?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 know, all due respect to JoeWillie, but these are just one man's opinions.

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.

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:05 pm

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 know, all due respect to JoeWillie, but these are just one man's opinions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

Finster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:59 pm

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!!!

Thanks Finster, but this really is a testament to an old Cornell alumni and fan who obviously has no life.

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

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.

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

All good JW. The board wouldn't exist without ideas like yours. Keep posting and good luck to Cornell.

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.

So did Eisenhower for D-Day.

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.

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.

Asleep@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.

No team should be allowed to have 8 home games to open the season like Syracuse

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.

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.

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.

keno in reno wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:20 pm

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:05 pm

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 know, all due respect to JoeWillie, but these are just one man's opinions.

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.

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.

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.

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”.