LaxPower Back-Up Stick

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:03 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:16 pm we need a system, and one that's better than rpi or "whatever the committee thinks".

Straight RPI would have had Duke in and seeded, ND in, UVa in (but getting pasted by Duke having cost them a seed), Harvard and OSU out.

I've said for decades that DI lacrosse should go the way of DI hockey, and select and seed by RPI. These discussions do NOT happen on hockey boards, because everyone (coaches, players, fans) knows what the formula is, and that the committee will not mess with it. So there are no bias claims to be made.

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:06 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm in our new system, no one knows what's important.

What do you mean, "new"? This system has been in place since 2009.

Prior to that, the same criteria were rank-ordered in importance, with strength-of-schedule officially most imporant.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

1766 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:28 pm

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

Nothing has changed. Except the Ivy teams are better than the Acc now. So they got 5 teams in just as the Acc did last year.

It's all over except the crying.

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

1766 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:28 pm

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

Nothing has changed. Except the Ivy teams are better than the Acc now. So they got 5 teams in just as the Acc did last year.

It's all over except the crying.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:17 pm

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

Removing easily identifiable data to approach anonymity would debase the selection criteria.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:33 pm

1766 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:28 pm

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:14 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:01 pm

HGK wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 3:50 pm If ND’s resume was let’s say Drexel’s, i think the conversation would be very different. It would probably go something like “they picked a bad year to beat a non tournament Duke 2x and lost to every tournament team they played. Great season but just not enough given lost to OSU head to head and Harvard had some very strong wins. Great season Dragons but just not quite enough”

Do I think ND is a top 10 team - I 100% do. Do I think their resume merited inclusion in the tournament - I honestly don’t.

in our new system, no one knows what's important. notre dame's resume is cornell 2019's resume.
head to head is if teams are equal-ish for your important metrics. which for this year, the committee said were top wins and worst losses among examined teams. then they decided what mattered was different between losses and wins.

this is exactly what you get when the committee decides year to year what's important. and the cutoffs are as bad as rpi. in 2023, there will be complaints on the circular logic, but the jerseys will likely be different.

What new system? It's the same OLD system, just different beneficiaries/losers this year.

Maybe try making a card for every team, with no team name. Certainly, it will be obvious who some teams are, but there could be some way to better make the process/teams more anonymous.

Would that be better and more acceptable? Not just for this year, but for every year?

Just askin'

Nothing has changed. Except the Ivy teams are better than the Acc now. So they got 5 teams in just as the Acc did last year.

It's all over except the crying.

That and this year the Ivies are around to illustrate the weakness of the ACC. Last year was a “gimme” for OOC play for teams who didn’t have to play the Ivies. You’d think they’d be grateful and not whinge so much.

QuakerSouth wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:36 pm 1766

Its SIX Ivy teams, not five.

Antonio114 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:03 pm ACC Fans:
2016-2021: Committee rules are rules. If you're out there is nobody to blame but yourself and your schedule.
2022: THIS IS RIGGED!!

Big 10/Patriot League/Ivy League fans:
2016-2021: THIS IS RIGGED!!
2022: Committee rules are rules. If you're out there is nobody to blame but yourself and your schedule.

Expect the takes to switch around again next year and the circle of hypocrisy will be complete.

1766 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 2:28 pm

Ezra White wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 2:27 pm

1766 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 2:00 pm

Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 11:46 am It is hilarious and satisfying to see the same group of posters who defended teams like JHU getting in the tourney in the past with 8-6 records because of RPI and SOS and good losses etc now complaining when the same criteria benefiting another conference. Karma is a b*itch sometimes.

For years, the ACC teams fed off intra conference games building up RPIs. For years, the ACC tournament raised those RPIs and played into the selection criteria. That is why other conferences added post season tourneys - to compete with the monopoly on NCAA at large selections the ACC had built.

In past years, the ACC/JHU crowd told the fans of those schools on the wrong side of the bubble to play a tougher schedule, that wins against low rated teams mean nothing, that head to head was not important, that late season surges mean nothing, that the eye test meant less than the "criteria"

Now you know how it feels to be on the wrong side of the rules of the game created by ACC.

I hope this brings about some changes. For example, as some have mentioned, more OOC games in locations outside of the ACC/Baltimore region. Until then, you'll just have to live with the results that came from the rule book you wrote. It backfired on the ACC - for once - in 2022 and the whining is incessant. It is not flattering for those that are whining. In the past, you told us to shut up. Maybe it's time to listen to your own advice from past years.

This is an exceptional post.

I see a consensus taking shape: the ACC just has to get out more.

This will be interesting in future years, because it’s a readily observable path to recovery. We shall see.

I can tell you that Rutgers offered every Acc team a home and home. This was after Syracuse dropped the game. All said no.

Think that wouldn't have helped one of them? And no, a series all at their place wasn't happening. Sorry.

1766 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:08 pm The problem with just the RPI is there are so few games in lacrosse as compared to hockey.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:35 pm imo and i may be in the minority, but it went to straight rpi in 2017-2019 barring some huge discrepency. which is a turrible metric. but teams would know what they needed to do.

so we are back to whatever this year's committee thinks. 2016 and before. and they don't even apply that evenly, which i'd say isn't surprising.

maybe anonymous works better if they kept it to that. i don't know how other sports do it. basketball's a cluster, similar. cu77 says hockey works fine with a system (not one that could work with lacrosse).

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:38 pm I personally would prefer KRACH to RPI, but there is zero chance that the NCAA would switch to KRACH.

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:43 pm But I imagine teams left out still complain.