Here we go again with the Face Off

[FMUBart]

Whatever dude, I am against facing off with the back of the stick...or is that not allowed anymore, either...thanks for your insightful commentary.

Hey.....don't sling mud and NOT expect some land on your pearly whites....

Not a fan, but can YOU do what some of those WWE guys can do ? That ROCK guy won a NCAA football championship, is HE not an athlete?

To call FOGO's non athletes make you flat out wrong. I mean, what's your point?

Never called fogo's non-athletes, just don't think a faceoff scrum is athletic...but keep trolling

[PicLax]

Just 78 more pages and this conversation can catch Hopkins.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I’ll meet Hop in any dark alley of his choosing, as long as he promises not to scratch my Philippe Patek. Daddy would be really upset.

Scratch a Lange if you really want to see a fight!

[DMac]

If there's any side betting on the bout, I wanna put a few bucks on the Can Opener.

[DocBarrister]

I’ll meet Hop in any dark alley of his choosing, as long as he promises not to scratch my Philippe Patek. Daddy would be really upset.

Down goes Steel Hop!

Down goes Steel Hop!!

Down goes Steel Hop!!!

DocBarrister

[Surfs_Up]

So how will coaches recruit the 2021 and 2022 FOGOS now?

Some kids may not adapt well. Technique is different. Hips, strength.

[bearlaxfan]

Not just abt fogos and the rule change effect, but we can probably expect a future uptick in transfers as a result of the difficulties in evaluating HS players as a result of the pandemic as well as the f/o change. Top 15 talents will begin at mid-majors or below, show their stuff for a year or 2, then look for better comp at tradional and trending top programs.

[DMac]

from Paul Cantabene. he is a shade biased, but aren't we all:

I like your letter a lot, PC, couple of comments:
As many of you know, the NCAA rules committee has released the new rule changes for the upcoming season. And as always, the face-off was a big topic for the committee.
I took my first face-off in 1984, and my last in 2006. My first face-off was just as important to me as my last face-off was. I have been able to use those experiences to help my career and teach my craft to 100's of other men. I have been a passionate supporter of the position and the rules we play by. But, what I truly have a passion for is the different ways they do it. I believe that face-off men play a unique role in the game. They have elevated the position to where they are MVP's and role models for a generation of players. They have exceptional characteristics that we wish all players had. They're tough, have high IQs, are mentally tough, and have to bring it every day. Because you are only as good as your last face-off.
These men have dedicated themselves to being better every day and putting themselves out there for all to see. They are dedicating themselves to play a position to help their team win. A job that few others would play. No other position in the modern age has there been so much of a spotlight on it time after time. But even though all that they have turned themselves into some of the most critical players in the game of lacrosse.
I don't think dedicating themselves and putting themselves out there is anything FOGOs do that pretty much everyone else does too. Everyone one on the team is "critical". NC day in OT...FOGO wins the face off, gets the ball to an attackman, D man strips that attackman, ball goes the other way and that team scores. What was the most critical play in that sequence?
But, this has upset the mainstream of current college coaches, and they want to see changes. Especially a majority of the DI coaches. They have talked for years to modifications to the face-offs. With changes that could lead to the elimination of the face-off altogether, I have had many conversations about the coaches' concerns and why they think changes are needed. But, the bottom line is they don't want to spend the time coaching the position. They feel the position has too big of an emphasis on a game, and it's unfair for one person to be so dominant.
So to change this, they decided to change the rules once again, and this time I feel they are more drastic than necessary. I think the NCAA rules committee has missed the point and overstepped their bounds.
If what you say here is true, I have lost an awful lot of respect for these D1 coaches.
There is nowhere else in the rulebook that says how you have to play your position and how you have to hold your stick. Attackman, Midfielders, Defenseman, and goalies can hold their sticks any way they want. They can play their positions anyway they want. They can keep their sticks upside down and backward, and it's completely legal. They can play their positions with their backs to their man and can even throw the ball any way they want. There are no rules in the NCAA rule book saying you can only stand this way, and you have to hold your stick this way. All the Attack, Middies, DMen, and goalies are given the freedom to play their positions. But when it comes to face-off men, they have to conform to a certain way to play their position. And now have to throw away years of training because coaches think the face-off takes too big of a role.
This is why the NCAA rules committee changed the rules. DI coaches especially think the face-off has to be quick and not take a few seconds. They think there are too many tie-ups and wanted change. I guess I am in the minority here. Since 1984 I have never heard that there was a time limit on a face-off. That there was only a certain amount of time they were allowed to do their jobs the best they can that it had to be done in 2 seconds, 3 seconds or 10 seconds. If you watch two Face-off men battle it out 5 seconds or 20 seconds, they are giving it their all.
Completely agree. There is nothing more that brings a bench alive more than a great face-off win. Yes there is. Plenty of things, actually.Forty teammates, who were coming over to you, slapped you on the helmet, and told you what a great job you did. These are dedicated, goal-oriented men that want to do their best every time. Could you stop trying to fix them? They have been doing a great job. We should be rewarding them for cleaning up the position, their professionalism, and leadership abilities. Don’t you think its time we ask the players for their opinion?
Stop trying to fix something that is not broken. Stop kicking the can down the street and address the real problem for a change. The sticks!!!Yup, this is the crux of the issue and as long as it is tip toed around committees will come up with half aszed rule changes to try to "fix" things. The problem is the sticks that bend too much and are illegal after five face-offs!!! A coach told me there is a rule among officials that do not check face-offs guys sticks because they are all illegal. I said to him, that is the problem. Call the illegal sticks and hold them accountable for it. He told me there would be penalties all the time. If we can't even enforce our own stick rules, why do we also have a rules committee? Rules Committee, please address the real problem and stops being afraid of the manufacturers.BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO. Some of us here have been saying this for years and you are dead nuts on the money with this.
The current set of rules that have been approved could possibly make the so-called problem worse. By making everyone be a drone to what you want and take away the creative of what they want to be. It's okay to have dominant players. That's what makes lacrosse so great.
I face-off against some of the legends of the game, Cercy, Reese, Flynn, Dirrgle, Jacobs, Towers, Snider, Harrison, Berry, Suodan, Wedin, Silcott, Jenkins, Brothers, Goerrs, Lucky and a host of other outstanding men. Along with coaching dozens of outstanding face-off men!! What was great about them - They all did it different! there was no mandate how to do it.
I encourage age all athletes that face-off in college to call your college coach. And ask him if he supports these rules and why. And if he supports you to reach out to the committee on your all behalf. I urge all college face-off men to email all members of the rules committee and state your reasons for why you want the rules overturned. I encourage all high school, club, and youth face-off men to email the committee. I encourage any face-off man who has an issue with these changes to email the committee.
We have a voice to make a change!!! We have a decision to make. To stand up for what is right in our profession and ask the committee to start addressing the real problem.
I stand with all the tremendous young men who have dedicated all their time to becoming the best they can.
Paul Cantabene

The NCAA committee's email addresses:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

[steel_hop]

Steel Hop -- Thanks for digging in. I think you are saying that the number of guys at the very high end (winning more than 60%) has gone from "double digits" historically to 18 in 2019.

No, I am saying it has gone from 6 and increased by 300% from 2005 to 2019. From 2001 to 2019 there have been 12 individual game seasons where a player has gone over 700 FO win percentage. 9 of those seasons have been in the last 3 years. Between 2001 and 2015 it happened about once every 5 years.

I'm not sure what else needs to be shown that there is an issue that needed to be addressed because if kept going down this path, you would absolutely see some type of alternate possession occur. I don't think a large majority of people want that.

and there were dozens and dozens and dozens in the high 60s probably. how many of those 9 were from 2 guys? more than half? can we skew numbers both ways to make an argument?

here are all the all-time single season stats prior to 2019:

Faceoff Winning Percentage
Player, Team Year Games Won Att. Pct.
TD Ierlan, Albany (NY) 2018 19 359 454 .791
Mark Goers, Towson 1994 12 166 214 .776
Steve Shaw, Delaware 1985 16 185 239 .774
Steve Shaw, Delaware 1986 16 237 318 .750
Trevor Baptiste, Denver 2017 17 297 399 .744
Trevor Baptiste, Denver 2018 17 279 375 .744
Donnie McNichol, North Carolina 1993 16 108 146 .740
Steve Kraus, Virginia 1980 12 150 204 .735
Kevin Massa, Bryant 2013 19 315 434 .726
Alex Smith, Delaware 2007 19 311 430 .723
Chris Cercy, Syracuse 2000 16 253 356 .711
Alex Smith, Delaware 2005 17 251 354 .709
Dylan Protesto, Hartford 2016 18 272 384 .708
TD Ierlan, Albany (NY) 2017 18 323 456 .708
Hunter Forbes, Jacksonville 2018 15 258 367 .703
Will Gural, Brown 2016 18 270 386 .699
Bill Dirrigl, Syracuse 1988 15 274 393 .697
Ray Ignacio, UMBC 1987 13 151 217 .696
Sam Talkow, Boston U. 2016 13 139 200 .695

look at that. 80s, 90s, 2000s, there were some guys that were really good at faceoffs. if the list went down to 65%, you'd probably see a hundred more including from every era. the only thing that's consistent is they change the rules every couple years.

what would the big problem be if they decided... maybe just for a 2 year stretch... if they went by the actual rules and didn't allow guys to withhold?
who wants to bet me if this goes through they'll be changing rules again for faceoffs in another 2 years?

First, I was going off of stats that I could pull off the NCAA website. Their archive only goes to 2001 and I said as much in my first post. I also didn't go into names because I didn't want to get bog down in names.

Second, I'm not sure we should intermix some 80s lacrosse stats with the last 10 years. I think you can draw a delineation between face-offs when there were six poles on the field (yes, I know most teams kept a short stick and long stick on the wings like now) and when there were 3 areas playing HS lacrosse - MD, upstate NY and LI.

Third, like everyone else has stated in prior topics, the breadth of athleticism and more players playing should reduce (just like winning championships) the spread of the curve. But, that is not what is happening. We are getting a sort of bulge at the top and bottom and a hallowing out of the middle level guys - at least from my perspective. That is what the changes were about. They want a bell curve - not a sort of reverse martini glass shape for FO percentages.

[steel_hop]

Steel Hop -- Thanks for digging in. I think you are saying that the number of guys at the very high end (winning more than 60%) has gone from "double digits" historically to 18 in 2019.

No, I am saying it has gone from 6 and increased by 300% from 2005 to 2019. From 2001 to 2019 there have been 12 individual game seasons where a player has gone over 700 FO win percentage. 9 of those seasons have been in the last 3 years. Between 2001 and 2015 it happened about once every 5 years.

I'm not sure what else needs to be shown that there is an issue that needed to be addressed because if kept going down this path, you would absolutely see some type of alternate possession occur. I don't think a large majority of people want that.

My uncle runs a fruit operation in South Carolina. I will let him know about your cherry picking skills and ask if he needs any help this summer. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I am having trouble following the bouncing ball of 60%, 70%, '01, '05, '19, odd-numbered Wednesdays, etc. Wise guy banter aside, you now seem focused on seasons where FO specialists topped 70%. There have been 18 of those in history according to the NCAA record book. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/LAX_Recor ... /D1Men.pdf Of those 18, TD and Trevor are responsible for 5. They are two of the hardest-working and most creative talents in lacrosse. I don't hear many people begrudge their outlier careers. Of the other 13 times someone has topped 70%, here are the years in which they did it:
1980, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018 & 2019 (2x)
There have always been guys who stood out over the years. There's nothing wrong with that.
BTW, in 1982, there were 1,658 D1 lacrosse players. That more than doubled to 3,489 in 2019. So on a per capita basis, the rate of 70% guys has stayed about the same.

More importantly, who cares? The position has become more specialized and a few guys have gotten really good. Did they change the height of the rim for Jordan or the width of the net for Gretzky?

As any good Hopkins engineering student can confirm, you can't find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas C. Neidermeyer

What a monumental battle, ladies and gentlemen!

The gritty and grinding Hopkins alumnus going against the polished and suave Yale intellectual ... ohhhhh, what a contest.

Steel Hop’s a grinder and his style isn’t pretty, but he can land those devastating body shots! Meanwhile, Can Opener does what he does best ... dancin’ and jabbin’ around the ring, while steadily poundin’ Hop’s ugly mug.

Final round coming up!!!

DocBarrister

Doc, the next time you are right about lacrosse will be about the 3rd time in your life.

As for an Eli, I've faced them in court and not lost to any and it isn't about to start. His point about more players and per capita is sort of pointless. Because while he is comparing playing in the 80s with the 2010s. I'm not. As I said a second ago, there is a vast difference in playing in the 80s and playing now given the growth of the game means the bell curve should be wider. You should have fewer opportunities for guys to reach that end of the bell curve not more. This doesn't even account for the fact there are more athletic guys playing - i.e. less chance to dominate over competition because the competition is that much better just like at every other position in sport.

For example, look at players points per game - http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/LAX_Recor ... /D1Men.pdf - Ament and Spencer had great years but would only be 6 and 14th on the all time season list. After that most of the list is filled with guys in the 70s, and 80s (only 1 guy in the 90s) and no guys in the 2000s. I'm not surprised by these stats for the 90s and 2000s because we had Tierney choking the life out of the ball and sport moved in the direct.

Take a look at goals per game - only one guy from 2014 makes the list. Everyone else is from older eras.

Now, compare the defensive side - look at the best GAAs. Almost all are from the 2000s. What did they just play better defense at that point and teams didn't play defense like that in the 70s and 80s or 2010s. Not in the least. Teams played much slower, took fewer shots and held the ball longer.

Further, as noted in this https://imgur.com/a/BH90O39, you can see a direct trend line of the FO win percentage. You can see the top of bracket move up over the ten years, you can also see the bulge in the middle grow bigger. In other words, this proves my point. There are a top set of guys but you also have a set of guys below them winning at rates that would be equivalent to what the top guy won FO in past years. You can also see the bottom guys drop too.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The NCAA coaching committee agrees with me that face-off rules needed to be changed.

[Surfs_Up]

When will there be transparency on the rules committee?
When will the rules committee post its meeting notes?
When will the rules committee post its voting record on this issue?
WHen will someone from the rules committee speak to the lacrosse world and explain WHY under the current circumstances, they felt a need to make this change?

Why the secrecy? Lets see and hear what is going on

[HooDat]

So how will coaches recruit the 2021 and 2022 FOGOS now?

Some kids may not adapt well. Technique is different. Hips, strength.

who said anything about coaches recruiting 2021's and 2022's???

With COVID and remote learning, what does "recruit" even mean now? Are we back to nothing other than the old boy network placing players of coaches with the right connections? That was fine in the 70's and 80's when basically every kid who played lacrosse and wanted to play in college most likely had a school where he fit and his HS coach new a guy...

The supply / demand mix has changed - and boy was the transition painful! ...hello 2008-2018....

We had just started settling into a recruiting process that seemed sane and reasonable and wham! COVID blows apart "normalcy".

[HooDat]

The NCAA coaching committee agrees with me that face-off rules needed to be changed.

enforce the withholding rule that is already on the books ... problem solved.

[pcowlax]

Steel Hop -- Thanks for digging in. I think you are saying that the number of guys at the very high end (winning more than 60%) has gone from "double digits" historically to 18 in 2019.

No, I am saying it has gone from 6 and increased by 300% from 2005 to 2019. From 2001 to 2019 there have been 12 individual game seasons where a player has gone over 700 FO win percentage. 9 of those seasons have been in the last 3 years. Between 2001 and 2015 it happened about once every 5 years.

I'm not sure what else needs to be shown that there is an issue that needed to be addressed because if kept going down this path, you would absolutely see some type of alternate possession occur. I don't think a large majority of people want that.

My uncle runs a fruit operation in South Carolina. I will let him know about your cherry picking skills and ask if he needs any help this summer. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I am having trouble following the bouncing ball of 60%, 70%, '01, '05, '19, odd-numbered Wednesdays, etc. Wise guy banter aside, you now seem focused on seasons where FO specialists topped 70%. There have been 18 of those in history according to the NCAA record book. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/LAX_Recor ... /D1Men.pdf Of those 18, TD and Trevor are responsible for 5. They are two of the hardest-working and most creative talents in lacrosse. I don't hear many people begrudge their outlier careers. Of the other 13 times someone has topped 70%, here are the years in which they did it:
1980, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018 & 2019 (2x)
There have always been guys who stood out over the years. There's nothing wrong with that.
BTW, in 1982, there were 1,658 D1 lacrosse players. That more than doubled to 3,489 in 2019. So on a per capita basis, the rate of 70% guys has stayed about the same.

More importantly, who cares? The position has become more specialized and a few guys have gotten really good. Did they change the height of the rim for Jordan or the width of the net for Gretzky?

As any good Hopkins engineering student can confirm, you can't find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas C. Neidermeyer

What a monumental battle, ladies and gentlemen!

The gritty and grinding Hopkins alumnus going against the polished and suave Yale intellectual ... ohhhhh, what a contest.

Steel Hop’s a grinder and his style isn’t pretty, but he can land those devastating body shots! Meanwhile, Can Opener does what he does best ... dancin’ and jabbin’ around the ring, while steadily poundin’ Hop’s ugly mug.

Final round coming up!!!

DocBarrister

Doc, the next time you are right about lacrosse will be about the 3rd time in your life.

As for an Eli, I've faced them in court and not lost to any and it isn't about to start. His point about more players and per capita is sort of pointless. Because while he is comparing playing in the 80s with the 2010s. I'm not. As I said a second ago, there is a vast difference in playing in the 80s and playing now given the growth of the game means the bell curve should be wider. You should have fewer opportunities for guys to reach that end of the bell curve not more. This doesn't even account for the fact there are more athletic guys playing - i.e. less chance to dominate over competition because the competition is that much better just like at every other position in sport.

For example, look at players points per game - http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/LAX_Recor ... /D1Men.pdf - Ament and Spencer had great years but would only be 6 and 14th on the all time season list. After that most of the list is filled with guys in the 70s, and 80s (only 1 guy in the 90s) and no guys in the 2000s. I'm not surprised by these stats for the 90s and 2000s because we had Tierney choking the life out of the ball and sport moved in the direct.

Take a look at goals per game - only one guy from 2014 makes the list. Everyone else is from older eras.

Now, compare the defensive side - look at the best GAAs. Almost all are from the 2000s. What did they just play better defense at that point and teams didn't play defense like that in the 70s and 80s or 2010s. Not in the least. Teams played much slower, took fewer shots and held the ball longer.

Further, as noted in this https://imgur.com/a/BH90O39, you can see a direct trend line of the FO win percentage. You can see the top of bracket move up over the ten years, you can also see the bulge in the middle grow bigger. In other words, this proves my point. There are a top set of guys but you also have a set of guys below them winning at rates that would be equivalent to what the top guy won FO in past years. You can also see the bottom guys drop too.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The NCAA coaching committee agrees with me that face-off rules needed to be changed.

Steel_hop, you aren't going to beat anyone from Bob's College of Knowledge in court contradicting yourself like this. In two consecutive posts you said that the problem was, "We are getting a sort of bulge at the top and bottom and a hallowing (sic) out of the middle level guys" and "You can see the top of bracket move up over the ten years, you can also see the bulge in the middle grow bigger". Is the middle "hallowing" out or bulging? We are back to Wobegon. If the top guys are winning more AND the middle guys are winning more it would seem that the problem, based on previous posts of others, is that there are just a few guys on the bottom who need to practice, practice, practice a little more and then everyone could be winning at 60%!
Also, I'm not a lawyer but I do know more than a thing or two about statistics. The fact that many more players are playing today than in the 80s should not at all cause the bell curve to widen. The scale on the y-axis would change and your middle would in fact tighten as the SD shrunk but that doesn't impact anyone's ability to reach the far end. The more people who are playing, the bigger the N, the NARROWER the bell curve but the more opportunity for a few unicorns at the extreme. In fact, whatever your arbitrary threshold is for "too high" of a win percentage, the more time passes the more people will be across it. As far as the specific numbers in the past 5 years, it is really hard to say anything about this because of the historic nature of just 2 guys. And absent them, if you only want to look at the 2010s, there is way too little data to make anything of any trend. Anyway, as noted, most of the other extreme win percentage comes from guys no one has heard of on losing teams. Why is this a problem? There are a lot more people playing tennis now than there were 40 years ago and yet there is much less parody at the top of the men's profession. Is that a reason to change the rules or an opportunity to appreciate Federer, Nadal and Djokovic as historical outliers and realize that the extremes on the bell curve of winning percentage in major matches will return to historic norms once they retire?

And given their performance on other rule changes across the years (excepting the shot clock which I like), I am not sure having the rules committee agree with you is something to brag about.

[CU77]

When will there be transparency on the rules committee?
When will the rules committee post its meeting notes?
When will the rules committee post its voting record on this issue?
WHen will someone from the rules committee speak to the lacrosse world and explain WHY under the current circumstances, they felt a need to make this change?

Such easy questions. Never, never, never, probably never.

Why the secrecy?

This one's a little harder, but it seems to be the general culture of the NCAA. For example, they tweak the RPI formula for hockey and soccer, but refuse to say what the tweaks are. Every year savvy fans reverse-engineer them anyway. Why not just announce the formula? Who knows??

[runrussellrun]

When will there be transparency on the rules committee?
When will the rules committee post its meeting notes?
When will the rules committee post its voting record on this issue?
WHen will someone from the rules committee speak to the lacrosse world and explain WHY under the current circumstances, they felt a need to make this change?

Such easy questions. Never, never, never, probably never.

Why the secrecy?

This one's a little harder, but it seems to be the general culture of the NCAA. For example, they tweak the RPI formula for hockey and soccer, but refuse to say what the tweaks are. Every year savvy fans reverse-engineer them anyway. Why not just announce the formula? Who knows??

tweaked so much that teams that have barely a winning record get into the playoffs?

Could you imagine what would happen to the B1G's RPI if a few of them played Hampton, like the Sunshine conference does. (or, rather, does the RPI include those games in the opponents opponents records ? Same for other teams not eligible for the playoffs. Like Merrimack. Does Maryland take an RPI hit because Michigan lost to Merrimack ?

Rpi should ONLY count against teams you beat. Or, a formula change, rewarding actual WINS. like in grown up world.

Oh....whats that, hockey doesn't invite teams with a winning percentage equivalent to what, say, a Hopkins has had for the past ten years. record wize. Nope, NO tweeking in lacrosse. Notre Dame Irish.....six loses to what, 8 wins. BUT........good to lose

Simple to avoid

fatty's old timey RPI-invite recipe.

Set the AQ's out for the nite to soften up, you won't need the Aq'S until later

start with a good batch of good ole arse kicking WINNERS. (go by winning percentage. )
Go by NEW rpi formula
Start to choose field.
NO team can be invited, regardless of rpi, unless ALL teams that have a winning % that is at least 15 percentage points higher, for winning, than that team the committee oh so much wants to , has to, invite. Simple. Hopkins would have been safe from every team but High Point. Who should have taken the Blue Jays spot. Or rather, bump Notre Dame for HIGH point, and bump Hopkins for Cornell. What's so hard about that?

[runrussellrun]

When will there be transparency on the rules committee?
When will the rules committee post its meeting notes?
When will the rules committee post its voting record on this issue?
WHen will someone from the rules committee speak to the lacrosse world and explain WHY under the current circumstances, they felt a need to make this change?

Such easy questions. Never, never, never, probably never.

Why the secrecy?

This one's a little harder, but it seems to be the general culture of the NCAA. For example, they tweak the RPI formula for hockey and soccer, but refuse to say what the tweaks are. Every year savvy fans reverse-engineer them anyway. Why not just announce the formula? Who knows??

tweaked so much that teams that have barely a winning record get into the playoffs?

Could you imagine what would happen to the B1G's RPI if a few of them played Hampton, like the Sunshine conference does. (or, rather, does the RPI include those games in the opponents opponents records ? Same for other teams not eligible for the playoffs. Like Merrimack. Does Maryland take an RPI hit because Michigan lost to Merrimack ? or, just playing them was bad enough for the Terps. obviously bad for the FurCoats.

Rpi should ONLY count against teams you beat. Or, a formula change, rewarding actual WINS. like in grown up world.

Oh....whats that, hockey doesn't invite teams with a winning percentage equivalent to what, say, a Hopkins has had for the past ten years. record wize. Nope, NO tweeking in lacrosse. Notre Dame Irish.....six loses to what, 8 wins. BUT........good to lose

Simple to avoid

fatty's old timey RPI-invite recipe.

Set the AQ's out for the nite to soften up, you won't need the Aq'S until later

start with a good batch of good ole arse kicking WINNERS. (go by winning percentage. )
Go by NEW rpi formula
Start to choose field.
NO team can be invited, regardless of rpi, unless ALL teams that have a winning % that is at least 15 percentage points higher, for winning, than that team the committee oh so much wants to , has to, invite. Simple. Hopkins would have been safe from every team but High Point. Who should have taken the Blue Jays spot. Or rather, bump Notre Dame for HIGH point, and bump Hopkins for Cornell. What's so hard about that?

[AreaLax]

IL latest podcast is with Irelan about the rule changes

[spartanslynx]

Gurenlian says the rule changes are going through

https://twitter.com/GregBeast32/status/ ... 13286?s=20

[kramerica.inc]

Gurenlian says the rule changes are going through

https://twitter.com/GregBeast32/status/ ... 13286?s=20

Awesome. Good for the game!