LaxPower Back-Up Stick

High Point hasn't lost to anyone bad, either. (only a handful of teams, if that, are "bad" )

The reality is, and the coaches know it, that if you're NOT in the B1G conference, the likely hood of getting an at large are none. Since the ACC takes most of them. (Notre Dame and UNC got in, 2017, with records of 8-5 and 8-7 respectively ) The outlier is the BigEast last year, which got 3.

So, do they experiment with D schemes? Rides? Play kids that may not be good in OOC games?

Ask coaches that have played Jacksonville and get back to us about how "bad" they are. Detroit Mercy, 7-3 record, is very young and getting better every week. Is there loss to Notre Dame a "good loss"

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:58 am High Point hasn't lost to anyone bad, either. (only a handful of teams, if that, are "bad" )

There's something to this. St. John's is currently #58 in RPI, which looks terrible, but on the field there doesn't actually seem to be that much separating them from the teams ranked in the 35-45 range. I think it's probably true that the big drop-off comes only with the bottom 10 or so teams and the rest are pretty closely bunched competitively. By the same token, though, I don't think it's realistic to say we're not going to scrutinize who you lose to at all unless it happens to be to a Mercer or an NJIT.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:58 am Detroit Mercy, 7-3 record, is very young and getting better every week. Is there loss to Notre Dame a "good loss"

If it's a question of potential at-large resumes, then yes, that loss would be "good" in the sense of not hurting their profile very much. If we're talking about the eye test, given that the score was 19-6 I don't think "good loss" would be the term that applies.

The Coaches' Poll is out. UMd dropped to #3 with their unimpressive win over Michigan. Denver is ahead of Villanova here.
This week the big dip in points comes after Notre Dame at #12.

1 Penn State (18) 379 9-1 1
2 Loyola Maryland (1) 337 8-2 3
3 Maryland 334 9-2 2
4 Virginia 319 9-2 4
5 Yale 309 7-2 5
6 Duke 297 9-3 6
7 Penn 260 6-3 8
8 Ohio State 225 7-2 7
9 Towson 209 7-3 11
10 Cornell 204 7-3 12
11 Syracuse 199 6-3 13
12 Notre Dame 196 5-4 9
13 Denver 135 6-4 10
14 High Point 122 9-2 15
15 Johns Hopkins 97 6-4 20
16 Villanova 89 7-4 n/r
17 Lehigh 76 7-4 14
18 North Carolina 64 7-4 18
19 Rutgers 32 6-5 19
20 Army West Point 31 8-3 16

Others receiving votes: Massachusetts 30, Georgetown 16, Delaware 15, Boston University 10, Richmond 5

Cooter wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:01 pmUMd dropped to #3 with their unimpressive win over Michigan.

... that they won. I dunno. Instead of Standings and Polls, Leagues and Rank-ers should start giving teams scores like they do with gymnasts and divers. 10.0, 9.8, 9.8, 9.7, and... 10.0! i don't get it...

admin wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:12 pm ... that they won. I dunno. Instead of Standings and Polls, Leagues and Rank-ers should start giving teams scores like they do with gymnasts and divers. 10.0, 9.8, 9.8, 9.7, and... 10.0! i don't get it...

Do you see all wins as being equal? A win is a win is a win is a win?

Definitely no. We parse all Ws by the number of Points of the team beaten, the difference in Points between the two teams, and how much the team won by (though this is set very low right now). Winning is not a commodity. But teams being evaluated based on anything but Ws and Ls and other calculate-able factors, i just don't get it. Don't get me wrong. i'll be the first to say, Team A looked great. i can't believe they lost. but to lift their ranking based on "looking great", i don't get it. Ws and Ls.

I'm sorry, I just don't see Rutgers as the #19 ranked squad at all. They certainly have the talent to be a top 20 team, but they are 6-5. And as a wise man once said, "You are what your record says you are." And the fact is, it's true, they are a very mediocre team

The win over Ohio State last week was really impressive. But their other five wins were against injured or just very mediocre teams. And their losses for the most part were not too competitive. The Hopkins game on Saturday was never really close. Hell, they even lost to Army who for some reason is ranked behind them. In the end it is all meaningless, but it makes you wonder how accurate these polls really are.

I'd put both Army and UMass (7-4) with three one-goal losses (Yale, Hofstra and Army) ahead of them.

I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if they somehow win 2 of the next three games (MD, Michigan, Penn State). But they are staring at a a 7-7 record this year and another missed NCAA tournament. It's a shame because I have pulled for this team to break through every year. They are LOADED with talent - Charalambides, Rose, Mullins, Gallagher, Coyne, Pless, Bullett Michaeli and arguably the best goalie in D1, Max Edelmann (.603) - but don't play like a great team.

My $.02

can't understand the continued love for High Point. Yes, two quality wins, but two bad losses, a 20 RPI, and high 40 SOS (which will continue to decline)

1. If they win the next 2 games you won't be wrong because... the Rankings evaluate the past. it doesn't predict the future.
2. 6-5 is meaningless unless we look at who they played. a team can be 1-9 and be the #10 team in the country (if they lose to #1-#9 and beat #11.)
3. You can't base Rankings on "Army beat Rutgers". If you do, you'll be chasing your tail. It's pretty awful. Even if ynu anchor one team so the moving pieces are better stabilized, it's still ridiculous. Micro doesn't work. it needs to be macro.
4. One goal losses are losses. Usain Bolt just needs to beat you. you can walk away saying, He only beat me by this much! And he did. But even if he could've beaten you by more, all he had to do was beat you and... He did.

The D1 Men are currently normalized at "4 Best Wins". Rutgers has no terrible losses and their best wins are OSU, Princeton, Hofstra and St. Johns. Not amazing but... It's all relative. Army beat Rutgers but... That's their best W. i.e. When RU drops, so will Army. Army also beat UMass and then Holy Cross and then.... Marist. RU's is better. Umass's losses are OK but their Ws are Drexel, Harvard, Albany and brown. Then Utah. Felass, c'mon... with RU, give credit where credit is due. Ws and Ls.

Henpecked wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:22 pm I'm sorry, I just don't see Rutgers as the #19 ranked squad at all. They certainly have the talent to be a top 20 team, but they are 6-5. And as a wise man once said, "You are what your record says you are." And the fact is, it's true, they are a very mediocre team

My $.02

The eventual n$aa champion ended the regular season with an 8-6 record, two of those wins against Furman & Manhatten. Loses to

Still got invited and won it all. Mediocre is a matter of perspective. And, a team could lose every single game and have the #1SOS in the country. seem like a good metric to invite teams by? Not to me.

D1 MEN: The favorite teams won except... Syracuse beat Cornell. So Cornell dropped and Syracuse jumped up. SU's wins over Duke, JHU, and Cornell are good but their loss to Colgate continues to haunt them. Computer Rankings.

That doesn't much change my lack of faith or credence to polls/rankings.
Was just at the Cuse-Cornell game, Cornell didn't look five spots better to me.

it was adjusted last night. Look again. Also, the rankings aren't based on one game. It's the teams full resume for 2019.

Matt Carberry’s Z ratings, a couple days old.

https://mattcarberry.com/ZRatings/ZRatings.html

I'm curious what this looks like post-SU v. Cornell. Also, interesting to see how similar his computer ranking is to ours (while the human rankings are relatively dis-similar.)

10stone5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:19 am Matt Carberry’s Z ratings, a couple days old.

https://mattcarberry.com/ZRatings/ZRatings.html

So true.

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is a linear combination of a team's winning percentage (25%), the winning percentages of its opponents (50%), and the winning percentages of its opponents' opponents (25%). The latter two factors are included so that the strength of a team's schedule is factored into its rating. Using these criteria, a group of teams (e.g. a conference) can accumulate inflated ratings by playing a large number of games amongst themselves.

Tough to compare winning % between conferences into any formula, because the lack of consistency in playing OOC games.
Oldtimey teams and rivalries keep games like Army vs ANY Southern Conference game from happening, Or rarely playing Air Force . I guess the defence budget is tite!
Point is, how many Conference's never play anyone in another conference? Loyola plays only 3 OOC teams, and probably only the CAA's Towson b/c you can walk to JohnyU field. Same for other geographic considerations. Another example is not one B1g team plays a contest against a MAAC team. And the NEC only plays 2 games against the BIg, again, for geographic reasons. JHU vs Mt St. Marys and Nitme Lions vs RobbieMo.......thats it.

The Play-offs, if you qualify, guarantee OOC.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:07 am So true.

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is a linear combination of a team's winning percentage (25%), the winning percentages of its opponents (50%), and the winning percentages of its opponents' opponents (25%). The latter two factors are included so that the strength of a team's schedule is factored into its rating. Using these criteria, a group of teams (e.g. a conference) can accumulate inflated ratings by playing a large number of games amongst themselves.

Tough to compare winning % between conferences into any formula, because the lack of consistency in playing OOC games.
Oldtimey teams and rivalries keep games like Army vs ANY Southern Conference game from happening, Or rarely playing Air Force . I guess the defence budget is tite!
Point is, how many Conference's never play anyone in another conference? Loyola plays only 3 OOC teams, and probably only the CAA's Towson b/c you can walk to JohnyU field. Same for other geographic considerations. Another example is not one B1g team plays a contest against a MAAC team. And the NEC only plays 2 games against the BIg, again, for geographic reasons. JHU vs Mt St. Marys and Nitme Lions vs RobbieMo.......thats it.

It's almost like they play the teams they do for a reason? And that conferences exist for a reason? Hmmm.

Many people fundamentally do not understand what conferences are:
a) a mechanism for guaranteed scheduling of games
b) a revenue sharing proposition

^among "like minded" schools. That's it.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:07 am

10stone5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:19 am Matt Carberry’s Z ratings, a couple days old.

https://mattcarberry.com/ZRatings/ZRatings.html

So true.

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is a linear combination of a team's winning percentage (25%), the winning percentages of its opponents (50%), and the winning percentages of its opponents' opponents (25%). The latter two factors are included so that the strength of a team's schedule is factored into its rating. Using these criteria, a group of teams (e.g. a conference) can accumulate inflated ratings by playing a large number of games amongst themselves.

Tough to compare winning % between conferences into any formula, because the lack of consistency in playing OOC games.
Oldtimey teams and rivalries keep games like Army vs ANY Southern Conference game from happening, Or rarely playing Air Force . I guess the defence budget is tite!
Point is, how many Conference's never play anyone in another conference? Loyola plays only 3 OOC teams, and probably only the CAA's Towson b/c you can walk to JohnyU field. Same for other geographic considerations. Another example is not one B1g team plays a contest against a MAAC team. And the NEC only plays 2 games against the BIg, again, for geographic reasons. JHU vs Mt St. Marys and Nitme Lions vs RobbieMo.......thats it.

The point of non con games is to strengthen the teams “resume” in case they don’t win their conference.. and like what Hawkeye said the point of conference games is revenue sharing and to efficiently schedule games year in year out... you schedule games against usually tougher conferences to simply boost your resume, you do not usually schedule non con games against severely weaker conferences because a win would hurt your resume not boost it.

Second. Loyola plays 6 out of conference teams. Used to be 5. 2 ACC, 2 BIG 1 Big East 1 CAA.

Hawkeye wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:52 am

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:07 am So true.

The Rating Percentage Index (RPI) is a linear combination of a team's winning percentage (25%), the winning percentages of its opponents (50%), and the winning percentages of its opponents' opponents (25%). The latter two factors are included so that the strength of a team's schedule is factored into its rating. Using these criteria, a group of teams (e.g. a conference) can accumulate inflated ratings by playing a large number of games amongst themselves.

Tough to compare winning % between conferences into any formula, because the lack of consistency in playing OOC games.
Oldtimey teams and rivalries keep games like Army vs ANY Southern Conference game from happening, Or rarely playing Air Force . I guess the defence budget is tite!
Point is, how many Conference's never play anyone in another conference? Loyola plays only 3 OOC teams, and probably only the CAA's Towson b/c you can walk to JohnyU field. Same for other geographic considerations. Another example is not one B1g team plays a contest against a MAAC team. And the NEC only plays 2 games against the BIg, again, for geographic reasons. JHU vs Mt St. Marys and Nitme Lions vs RobbieMo.......thats it.

It's almost like they play the teams they do for a reason? And that conferences exist for a reason? Hmmm.

Many people fundamentally do not understand what conferences are:
a) a mechanism for guaranteed scheduling of games
b) a revenue sharing proposition

^among "like minded" schools. That's it.