LaxPower Back-Up Stick

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:24 am I mean, not sure those two things are related to one another. ACC decided a couple years back to play 6 conference games with one another. Last year ND played Duke and Cuse twice. This year they’re playing UNC twice. They’re going back to 4 ACC games next year so perhaps that allows more scheduling flexibility

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:06 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:46 am

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:24 am I mean, not sure those two things are related to one another. ACC decided a couple years back to play 6 conference games with one another. Last year ND played Duke and Cuse twice. This year they’re playing UNC twice. They’re going back to 4 ACC games next year so perhaps that allows more scheduling flexibility

Because the closed loop only had so much benefit and they see the downside now after trying to game the schedules (the ACC as a whole). Strikes me as cheap for programs that have so much to start with.

Playing with yourself too much makes you blind…

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:20 am

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:24 am I mean, not sure those two things are related to one another. ACC decided a couple years back to play 6 conference games with one another. Last year ND played Duke and Cuse twice. This year they’re playing UNC twice. They’re going back to 4 ACC games next year so perhaps that allows more scheduling flexibility

has that been announced somewhere? the original announcement was the 6 game reg season/double up was set through 2024. 4 years so everyone got the same home/away opponents an = number of times.

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:34 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:20 am

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:24 am I mean, not sure those two things are related to one another. ACC decided a couple years back to play 6 conference games with one another. Last year ND played Duke and Cuse twice. This year they’re playing UNC twice. They’re going back to 4 ACC games next year so perhaps that allows more scheduling flexibility

has that been announced somewhere? the original announcement was the 6 game reg season/double up was set through 2024. 4 years so everyone got the same home/away opponents an = number of times.

Gait said it in his media availability this past week

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:14 pm

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:06 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:46 am

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:24 am I mean, not sure those two things are related to one another. ACC decided a couple years back to play 6 conference games with one another. Last year ND played Duke and Cuse twice. This year they’re playing UNC twice. They’re going back to 4 ACC games next year so perhaps that allows more scheduling flexibility

Because the closed loop only had so much benefit and they see the downside now after trying to game the schedules (the ACC as a whole). Strikes me as cheap for programs that have so much to start with.

Playing with yourself too much makes you blind…

Define “too much”. Because I may be a living contra indicator.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:58 pm

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:34 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:20 am

jrn19 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:24 am I mean, not sure those two things are related to one another. ACC decided a couple years back to play 6 conference games with one another. Last year ND played Duke and Cuse twice. This year they’re playing UNC twice. They’re going back to 4 ACC games next year so perhaps that allows more scheduling flexibility

has that been announced somewhere? the original announcement was the 6 game reg season/double up was set through 2024. 4 years so everyone got the same home/away opponents an = number of times.

Gait said it in his media availability this past week

thanks. good for my hoos if they can avoid the basement again most years. who knew modeling your schedule based on a year that 2 major conferences didn't play any outside parties would be a mistake? the only benefactor was getting the #5 team a 30 rpi. and of course, thursday night lights.

my guess the b1g drops the 6 team tourney, too.

fcalax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:40 pm Here come the IRISH! Get ready for a revenge season after missing out on the playoffs last year.

Lacrosse Playground Article: https://www.lacrosseplayground.com/why- ... zLVvixVQ2E

Henpecked wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:02 am Notre Dame is looking for revenge for what?!!

For not beating a single team that made the tournament last year?

Had they won just one of those four games, there would be no reason for “revenge.” Or how about scheduling more than 12 games?

Complete garbage imo.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:17 am

Henpecked wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:02 am Notre Dame is looking for revenge for what?!!

For not beating a single team that made the tournament last year?

Had they won just one of those four games, there would be no reason for “revenge.” Or how about scheduling more than 12 games?

Complete garbage imo.

what makes u think they would be in if they beat one of those teams?

That group included Brown, Duke, Harvard, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Virginia.

“From that, we said, ‘Let’s break these down in the exact same way to one another,’” said Woodruff, the athletic director at Loyola. “And at the end of the day, really what we ended up with was we were comparing significant wins, meaning the top 20, significant losses, and then if we had to and it kept going and we were still debating, head-to-head.”

Often, the committee uses things that differentiate a team to make a decision about it, one way or the other. This committee saw three losses outside the top 20 for Duke — against Loyola, Jacksonville and Syracuse — as a noteworthy difference.

“The truth of the matter, right away with Duke, when we were looking at significant wins and significant losses, yep, they had significant wins, but at the end of the day, we could not overlook from the significant losses standpoint that they had three losses outside of the top 20,” Woodruff said. “There were no other at-large teams that came even close to that. So they were a quick choice after we looked through all that with everybody.”

And with Duke effectively eliminated, that devalued Notre Dame’s signature accomplishment — a sweep of the Blue Devils, including a comeback victory Saturday in South Bend.

“Notre Dame, unfortunately for them, while they have three significant wins, none of them were over teams that are in the tournament, where others did have that,” Woodruff said. “Ohio State had the Harvard win. Obviously, Brown has Penn/Yale/Cornell, etc. Head-to-head, [Notre Dame] lost to Ohio State and UVA.”

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:32 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:17 am

Henpecked wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:02 am Notre Dame is looking for revenge for what?!!

For not beating a single team that made the tournament last year?

Had they won just one of those four games, there would be no reason for “revenge.” Or how about scheduling more than 12 games?

Complete garbage imo.

what makes u think they would be in if they beat one of those teams?

The commitee chair pretty much said it in this article

https://www.usalaxmagazine.com/college/ ... selections

That group included Brown, Duke, Harvard, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Virginia.

“From that, we said, ‘Let’s break these down in the exact same way to one another,’” said Woodruff, the athletic director at Loyola. “And at the end of the day, really what we ended up with was we were comparing significant wins, meaning the top 20, significant losses, and then if we had to and it kept going and we were still debating, head-to-head.”

Often, the committee uses things that differentiate a team to make a decision about it, one way or the other. This committee saw three losses outside the top 20 for Duke — against Loyola, Jacksonville and Syracuse — as a noteworthy difference.

“The truth of the matter, right away with Duke, when we were looking at significant wins and significant losses, yep, they had significant wins, but at the end of the day, we could not overlook from the significant losses standpoint that they had three losses outside of the top 20,” Woodruff said. “There were no other at-large teams that came even close to that. So they were a quick choice after we looked through all that with everybody.”

And with Duke effectively eliminated, that devalued Notre Dame’s signature accomplishment — a sweep of the Blue Devils, including a comeback victory Saturday in South Bend.

“Notre Dame, unfortunately for them, while they have three significant wins, none of them were over teams that are in the tournament, where others did have that,” Woodruff said. “Ohio State had the Harvard win. Obviously, Brown has Penn/Yale/Cornell, etc. Head-to-head, [Notre Dame] lost to Ohio State and UVA.”

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:43 am please,16. that doesn't mean anything. they already had tosu on every other metric. every one that's actually a criterion... and the tourney thing, which isn't, comes up in an interview. we have zero idea.

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:58 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:43 am please,16. that doesn't mean anything. they already had tosu on every other metric. every one that's actually a criterion... and the tourney thing, which isn't, comes up in an interview. we have zero idea.

You really think if ND beat, say, Virginia, they still wouldn't have gotten in? "We don't know" — we do, the head of the committee is trying to tell us but you won't listen.

ND had OSU, Brown, and Harvard beat in RPI. What other metrics were they lacking in apart from the one that the committee chair is specifically pointing out as the reason they weren't included?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:10 am
whoever's on their schedule better watch out.

ICGrad wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:23 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:10 am
whoever's on their schedule better watch out.

If only they had played with that kind of passion early last year, they might have made the tourney.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:10 am

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:58 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:43 am please,16. that doesn't mean anything. they already had tosu on every other metric. every one that's actually a criterion... and the tourney thing, which isn't, comes up in an interview. we have zero idea.

You really think if ND beat, say, Virginia, they still wouldn't have gotten in? "We don't know" — we do, the head of the committee is trying to tell us but you won't listen.

ND had OSU, Brown, and Harvard beat in RPI. What other metrics were they lacking in apart from the one that the committee chair is specifically pointing out as the reason they weren't included?

so they beat tosu (and a lot of uva) in all the criteria except for one... a road game... and you think that all changes 100 bc of one non-criterion data point? that's not supposed to matter? it's not a metric. that's not how this works and it makes no sense. they had to say something, bc they couldn't point to evaluating all the criteria. i could just as easily say they would've said something else.

we have no idea. revenge tour. whoever's on their schedule better watch out.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:43 am

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:32 am

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:17 am

Henpecked wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:02 am Notre Dame is looking for revenge for what?!!

For not beating a single team that made the tournament last year?

Had they won just one of those four games, there would be no reason for “revenge.” Or how about scheduling more than 12 games?

Complete garbage imo.

what makes u think they would be in if they beat one of those teams?

The commitee chair pretty much said it in this article

https://www.usalaxmagazine.com/college/ ... selections

That group included Brown, Duke, Harvard, Notre Dame, Ohio State and Virginia.

“From that, we said, ‘Let’s break these down in the exact same way to one another,’” said Woodruff, the athletic director at Loyola. “And at the end of the day, really what we ended up with was we were comparing significant wins, meaning the top 20, significant losses, and then if we had to and it kept going and we were still debating, head-to-head.”

Often, the committee uses things that differentiate a team to make a decision about it, one way or the other. This committee saw three losses outside the top 20 for Duke — against Loyola, Jacksonville and Syracuse — as a noteworthy difference.

“The truth of the matter, right away with Duke, when we were looking at significant wins and significant losses, yep, they had significant wins, but at the end of the day, we could not overlook from the significant losses standpoint that they had three losses outside of the top 20,” Woodruff said. “There were no other at-large teams that came even close to that. So they were a quick choice after we looked through all that with everybody.”

And with Duke effectively eliminated, that devalued Notre Dame’s signature accomplishment — a sweep of the Blue Devils, including a comeback victory Saturday in South Bend.

“Notre Dame, unfortunately for them, while they have three significant wins, none of them were over teams that are in the tournament, where others did have that,” Woodruff said. “Ohio State had the Harvard win. Obviously, Brown has Penn/Yale/Cornell, etc. Head-to-head, [Notre Dame] lost to Ohio State and UVA.”

please,16. that doesn't mean anything. they already had tosu on every other metric. every one that's actually a criterion... and the tourney thing, which isn't, comes up in an interview. we have zero idea.