LaxPower Back-Up Stick

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 mean Georgetown above Hopkins with 2 losses? And Hopkins who by all accounts should have won that Denver game but lost in OT at 10? Not very accurate imo.

norcalhop wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:39 am

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 mean Georgetown above Hopkins with 2 losses? And Hopkins who by all accounts should have won that Denver game but lost in OT at 10? Not very accurate imo.

I would say the 3 toughest teams for me to find a slot for right now are:
Georgetown
Richmond
Princeton.

All 3 I think can beat anybody, but can also possibly lose to teams they should beat.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

norcalhop wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:39 am I mean Georgetown above Hopkins with 2 losses? And Hopkins who by all accounts should have won that Denver game but lost in OT at 10? Not very accurate imo.

He's a troll. Same guy who didn't rank Hopkins at all last week. He's doing it deliberately. Just don't engage.

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 6:09 am

norcalhop wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:39 am

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 mean Georgetown above Hopkins with 2 losses? And Hopkins who by all accounts should have won that Denver game but lost in OT at 10? Not very accurate imo.

I would say the 3 toughest teams for me to find a slot for right now are:
Georgetown
Richmond
Princeton.

All 3 I think can beat anybody, but can also possibly lose to teams they should beat.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

Richmond is the toughest. I think season to date you can argue for top 10, but top 15 seems correct. Competitive game vs UVa, took Maryland to 2OTs, and absolutely destroyed St Johns and Robert Morris. I have Gtown around 15. Trending in right direction, but need some evidence ND wasnt a 1 hit wonder. Princeton closer to 20. They maybe a dangerous team in a month or so, but I think they have some growing to do. Faceoffs appear to be a real issue.

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.

There's a difference between starting out with lesser teams and having a schedule full of them. Syracuse already played Maryland, Plays Army tomorrow and then plays a neutral site game in Carolina against Hopkins next Saturday followed by a neutral site game vs Delaware in Virginia. They also play at Cornell late in the year. They'll be plenty battle tested by the start of the ACC schedule.

mdk01 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:01 pm

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

Syracuse always plays a loaded front home schedule due to the weather. This year its actually 7 straight not 8. They finish the year with 4 out of 5 on the road and two total home games after 3/2. That usually gets left out when people complain about it.

JeremyCuse wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:51 am

mdk01 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:01 pm

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

Syracuse always plays a loaded front home schedule due to the weather. This year its actually 7 straight not 8. They finish the year with 4 out of 5 on the road and two total home games after 3/2. That usually gets left out when people complain about it.

This year is an outlier. Jeremy is correct in that historically Syracuse has indeed been front schedule loaded at home. I don’t think I’ve seen one where we start 7 straight at home.

That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:34 am That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Really? The Dome is a huge advantage for Syracuse. Sight lines are weird, home crowd is loud and travel is a hassle for almost everyone (Cornell excepted). The one series that really bothers me is Army. The last time Syracuse travelled to West Point was 2003, and these teams play basically every year. Is Army some kind of mid tier program who's just lucky to be playing the Orange and so has to agree to travel every year? Does Army really want to travel every year?

nyjay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:20 am

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:34 am That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Really? The Dome is a huge advantage for Syracuse. Sight lines are weird, home crowd is loud and travel is a hassle for almost everyone (Cornell excepted). The one series that really bothers me is Army. The last time Syracuse travelled to West Point was 2003, and these teams play basically every year. Is Army some kind of mid tier program who's just lucky to be playing the Orange and so has to agree to travel every year? Does Army really want to travel every year?

Army and Cuse always play at the Dome because Army doesn't have ability to play the game in late March or April due to conf scheduling. Alberici has commented a few times that he likes playing the Dome and feels its good for his team (helps they have won the last 2 matchups). Cuse isn't playing outdoor at Army in mid February, right or wrong its just the way it is. SU does try and give the other NY teams some home games as they have played many times at Hobart (and are this year), play a regular home and away with Cornell obviously, have played at Colgate multiple times and are likely to play at Albany again in the near future. SU also just played at Hofstra and Stony Brook the last few years as well.

nyjay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:20 am

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:34 am That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Really? The Dome is a huge advantage for Syracuse. Sight lines are weird, home crowd is loud and travel is a hassle for almost everyone (Cornell excepted). The one series that really bothers me is Army. The last time Syracuse travelled to West Point was 2003, and these teams play basically every year. Is Army some kind of mid tier program who's just lucky to be playing the Orange and so has to agree to travel every year? Does Army really want to travel every year?

The idea that teams would rather play in the Dome than at their own home fields is preposterous. Cuse holds all the cards in their relationships with pretty much every non-con opponent, especially schools in smaller conferences who only get national exposure when they play a team like Syracuse. Many of these teams have to accept playing in the Dome several seasons in a row —  or not playing Syracuse at all.

From a weather perspective, it makes sense that Cuse would front-load their schedule with home games. If you have an indoor stadium, you might as well take advantage of it in February. I think the more valid criticism is that Cuse only has 5 true road games this year compared to 9 home games. That strikes me as a tad overboard in its imbalance and something the selection committee could take into account.

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:47 am

nyjay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:20 am

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:34 am That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Really? The Dome is a huge advantage for Syracuse. Sight lines are weird, home crowd is loud and travel is a hassle for almost everyone (Cornell excepted). The one series that really bothers me is Army. The last time Syracuse travelled to West Point was 2003, and these teams play basically every year. Is Army some kind of mid tier program who's just lucky to be playing the Orange and so has to agree to travel every year? Does Army really want to travel every year?

The idea that teams would rather play in the Dome than at their own home fields is preposterous. Cuse holds all the cards in their relationships with pretty much every non-con opponent, especially schools in smaller conferences who only get national exposure when they play a team like Syracuse. Many of these teams have to accept playing in the Dome several seasons in a row —  or not playing Syracuse at all.

From a weather perspective, it makes sense that Cuse would front-load their schedule with home games. If you have an indoor stadium, you might as well take advantage of it in February. I think the more valid criticism is that Cuse only has 5 true road games this year compared to 9 home games. That strikes me as a tad overboard in its imbalance and something the selection committee could take into account.

UVA has 6
Duke has 5 (3 in Long Island, for recruiting purposes I assume)
UNC has 4
ND at 5...

coda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:59 am

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:47 am

nyjay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:20 am

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:34 am That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Really? The Dome is a huge advantage for Syracuse. Sight lines are weird, home crowd is loud and travel is a hassle for almost everyone (Cornell excepted). The one series that really bothers me is Army. The last time Syracuse travelled to West Point was 2003, and these teams play basically every year. Is Army some kind of mid tier program who's just lucky to be playing the Orange and so has to agree to travel every year? Does Army really want to travel every year?

The idea that teams would rather play in the Dome than at their own home fields is preposterous. Cuse holds all the cards in their relationships with pretty much every non-con opponent, especially schools in smaller conferences who only get national exposure when they play a team like Syracuse. Many of these teams have to accept playing in the Dome several seasons in a row —  or not playing Syracuse at all.

From a weather perspective, it makes sense that Cuse would front-load their schedule with home games. If you have an indoor stadium, you might as well take advantage of it in February. I think the more valid criticism is that Cuse only has 5 true road games this year compared to 9 home games. That strikes me as a tad overboard in its imbalance and something the selection committee could take into account.

UVA has 6
Duke has 5 (3 in Long Island, for recruiting purposes I assume)
UNC has 4
ND at 5...

ND only plays 11 games though, so it's 6 home and 5 away. UVA is 8 home and 6 away. The ratio is more important than the sheer number of each.

Duke's schedule is pretty outrageous this year, we agree on that.

Cuse was due for the yearly lecture. Surprised it came so late this year.

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:47 am

nyjay wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:20 am

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:34 am That said, it’s the opponents and the ncaa that want this. No weather issues, and the kids can play like they should. This may sound homer/ish, but I feel like opponents can occasionally play even better in a Dome because of the atmosphere. Notre dame and UNC spanked rhe Orange last year in the Dome.

Really? The Dome is a huge advantage for Syracuse. Sight lines are weird, home crowd is loud and travel is a hassle for almost everyone (Cornell excepted). The one series that really bothers me is Army. The last time Syracuse travelled to West Point was 2003, and these teams play basically every year. Is Army some kind of mid tier program who's just lucky to be playing the Orange and so has to agree to travel every year? Does Army really want to travel every year?

The idea that teams would rather play in the Dome than at their own home fields is preposterous. Cuse holds all the cards in their relationships with pretty much every non-con opponent, especially schools in smaller conferences who only get national exposure when they play a team like Syracuse. Many of these teams have to accept playing in the Dome several seasons in a row —  or not playing Syracuse at all.

From a weather perspective, it makes sense that Cuse would front-load their schedule with home games. If you have an indoor stadium, you might as well take advantage of it in February. I think the more valid criticism is that Cuse only has 5 true road games this year compared to 9 home games. That strikes me as a tad overboard in its imbalance and something the selection committee could take into account.

Certainly Syracuse holds power over most of the non-conf teams, any power team from the ACC, B10 or IVY does. SU still played a home and away schedule with Hobart and Colgate for years when they were an independent and even into the early conf years. With backloaded conf schedules most non conf games have to be played in February or March. SU isn't going to play Army or Vermont at on the road in early to mid February when they have the Dome. Is some of that throwing their weight around, sure but again they do give most of these teams home games ie Hobart, Colgate, even Albany got one. They also played at Stony Brook and at Hofstra the last few years later in the season and are playing at Utah next year.

This years schedule is an outlier with only 4 true road games because the Delaware and Hop games are neutral site fields in Virg and as your aware Carolina respectively.

Antonio114 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:30 pm Cuse was due for the yearly lecture. Surprised it came so late this year.

It's not a lecture. I was responding to Finster saying that Cuse's opponents "want this" which I think reasonable people would agree is probably not true most of the time.

JeremyCuse wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:38 pm SU isn't going to play Army or Vermont at on the road in early to mid February when they have the Dome.

I get why they wouldn't feel the need to go play in a blizzard in Vermont — Cuse doesn't need that game and can easily find a replacement. But West Point in mid-late February is usually not that bad and that's an important/historic rivalry, you'd think they'd find a way to play it at Army once in awhile. It's in the 50s this week in the Hudson Valley. It's not like some unplayable arctic wasteland, plenty of teams play outside there in Feb or in similar locations. But I guess if Alberici is willing to play in the Dome every year then Cuse is not going to force the issue. I just don't believe that Army would prefer to play that game at Cuse every year — and never at home — as a previous poster insinuated.

Army is the only difficult opponent Cuse has ever played consistently in the dome. Them and Albany during their brief period of relevance. Why we never EVER play down at West Point I honestly do not know, but it is certainly more than Cuse throwing it's weight around and Army putting its tail between it's legs and giving in every year. Army recruits heavily in the greater Upstate region which I assume is a part of it. It is not like there is intense debate between Gait/Desko and Alberici every preseason and we overpower him every year. That is the only relevant school where there is a skew. Literally every other difficult opponent in or out of conference we are consistently switching between home and away.

You can debate the scheduling strategy, but we are not the only school that plays borderline scrubs to start the year. Due to a combo of our status, our conference's status, and the February weather, those are in the dome. Army is a unique interesting situation that I understand questioning. As a fan I would love if we played at West Point on and off. But there is literally nothing else worth mentioning every year beyond that, and yet it always starts with some vague yapping about the number of home games, not Army. Duke has a 10-5 home away ratio same as ours. Notre Dame is 7-4. UNC is 8-6 but has a road gauntlet to start the year with Mercer Hofstra Wagner and Stony Brook. Where's their yap?

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:00 pm

Antonio114 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:30 pm Cuse was due for the yearly lecture. Surprised it came so late this year.

It's not a lecture. I was responding to Finster saying that Cuse's opponents "want this" which I think reasonable people would agree is probably not true most of the time.

JeremyCuse wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:38 pm SU isn't going to play Army or Vermont at on the road in early to mid February when they have the Dome.

I get why they wouldn't feel the need to go play in a blizzard in Vermont — Cuse doesn't need that game and can easily find a replacement. But West Point in mid-late February is usually not that bad and that's an important/historic rivalry, you'd think they'd find a way to play it at Army once in awhile. It's in the 50s this week in the Hudson Valley. It's not like some unplayable arctic wasteland, plenty of teams play outside there in Feb or in similar locations. But I guess if Alberici is willing to play in the Dome every year then Cuse is not going to force the issue. I just don't believe that Army would prefer to play that game at Cuse every year — and never at home — as a previous poster insinuated.

If I’m on Army, I definitely would rather play in the Dome than even on my home field pre-March 15 or so. That mid-50’s forecast this weekend could just as easily be 20degrees with sideways sleet. Here are my reasons:

One, my boys and I can warm up pregame and the day before to our hearts content without freezing our peanuts off.

Two, road trips are bonding opportunities, especially away from the instructors at West Point. We might even sleep in the day of the game.

Three, I’d rather play in front of 6,000 hostile fans in a Dome than 100 freezing fans at home. Any. Freaking. Day. You live for this stuff as a player.

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:39 pm

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:00 pm

Antonio114 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:30 pm Cuse was due for the yearly lecture. Surprised it came so late this year.

It's not a lecture. I was responding to Finster saying that Cuse's opponents "want this" which I think reasonable people would agree is probably not true most of the time.

JeremyCuse wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:38 pm SU isn't going to play Army or Vermont at on the road in early to mid February when they have the Dome.

I get why they wouldn't feel the need to go play in a blizzard in Vermont — Cuse doesn't need that game and can easily find a replacement. But West Point in mid-late February is usually not that bad and that's an important/historic rivalry, you'd think they'd find a way to play it at Army once in awhile. It's in the 50s this week in the Hudson Valley. It's not like some unplayable arctic wasteland, plenty of teams play outside there in Feb or in similar locations. But I guess if Alberici is willing to play in the Dome every year then Cuse is not going to force the issue. I just don't believe that Army would prefer to play that game at Cuse every year — and never at home — as a previous poster insinuated.

If I’m on Army, I definitely would rather play in the Dome than even on my home field pre-March 15 or so. That mid-50’s forecast this weekend could just as easily be 20degrees with sideways sleet. Here are my reasons:

One, my boys and I can warm up pregame and the day before to our hearts content without freezing our peanuts off.

Two, road trips are bonding opportunities, especially away from the instructors at West Point. We might even sleep in the day of the game.

Three, I’d rather play in front of 6,000 hostile fans in a Dome than 100 freezing fans at home. Any. Freaking. Day. You live for this stuff as a player.

Actually, for about the past 10 or so Cornell/Cuse games, the venue, the Dome or the Kopf has seemed to make little difference. In fact , I seem to remember us winning up there more than at the Kopf, and Syracuse winning here more than at the Dome. I'm not sure that's completely accurate but it seems that way in recent history.

Gobigred
Joewillie78

Finster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:39 pm If I’m on Army, I definitely would rather play in the Dome than even on my home field pre-March 15 or so. That mid-50’s forecast this weekend could just as easily be 20degrees with sideways sleet.

I guess Army shouldn't have played Mercer at Michie Stadium last Saturday, given that the weather was probably better in Macon, GA than in West Point, NY.

I'm sure Alberici likes the trips to the Dome, but I truly doubt that he wouldn't prefer a home and home series.

Good for you that you guys can pull this off and are willing to actually do it. But I don't really like the fact that you do it, especially against Army, who, as you noted, has beaten you soundly two years in a row at your place as is deserving of a little more respect.

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.

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: Your passionate defense of JoeWillie is admirable, but initially, I found it to be unnecessary as JoeWillie subsequently noted politely.

Based on your comments, it appears you missed the prior discussion leading up to my posts. I did not initiate the topic about whether or not schools receive credit for “good losses,” but rather continued a discussion earlier in the thread initiated by JoeWillie, who stated, “ I think I have been pretty consistent on insisting that their is no such thing as a ‘good’ loss.”

I disagreed and argued his Cornell ranking appeared to rely on “good losses,” adding that some programs do receive credit for “good losses” while other programs do not. In this regard, I addressed the subjective, nonscientific nature of lacrosse polling overall, not merely the ranking of one person’s poll on Fanlax. In addition to JoeWillie’s poll, I referenced the media polls and the coaches' poll, and argued at tournament time, these biases come into play. There was no reference to the notion that polling is “easy.”

Polling inaccuracy and seeding are issues that have been discussed in this forum and in Laxpower on numerous occasions. They are inevitable. An opinion on the poll of a fellow lacrosse fan does not require a prior “credibility” analysis dependent upon whether or not the commenter has previously created his own poll or put himself “on the line.” It does not amount to teaching other fans how polling is “done better.” It is simply a conversation where reasonable minds can find different nuances