LaxPower Back-Up Stick

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:44 pm What were the final KRACH rankings?

Chousnake wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:36 pm Bingo. The ACC apologists don't want to hear that. By the way, if you paid attention to the early 2020 results, the rise of the Ivy League was happening then. When the plug was pulled, 3 of the top 5 teams were Ivies - Cornell, Princeton and Yale.

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:48 pm So WHO exactly is this group that is whining about the outcome?

johnnyonthegunpowder wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:32 am Woodruff and company are absolutely ridiculous, and most of them have no business being on that committee. "Data" without actual interpretation is why higher education is such a absolutely disaster and Woodruff epitomizes that thoughtlessness to a perfection while chairing this committee.

Breschi, wow, very, very disappointed in him. Weird year. Not much to like about 2022's Tarheels and then add to to the equation.

I agree with Typical Lax Dad, give it to ESPN and PLL guys. Though they can be impossible to listen to, at least they know how to watch a game and they understand competition and aesthetics.

What a joke.

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:47 pm

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:44 pm What were the final KRACH rankings?

I posted them in the Forum Poll thread, but here they are again:

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:59 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:48 pm So WHO exactly is this group that is whining about the outcome?

HooDat, meet johnny:

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:01 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:47 pm

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:44 pm What were the final KRACH rankings?

I posted them in the Forum Poll thread, but here they are again:

Thank you. Seems reasonable.

So under this scenario, using straight KRACH, ND is in and Harvard is out.

Personally, I don't have an issue with this, and I went into Sunday with 0 expectation that Harvard would get a bid. That said, I also see the committee's reasoning and have no problem with Harvard being in, either.

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.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:52 pm The ACC needs to recruit more Ivy League type athletes.

rasheed wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:38 pm When you lose Dick Vitale, you've lost the country... https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/lo ... ament-snub

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:21 pm So I have a question and it struck me when I read for the 8th time that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was the highest-ranked RPI team to ever be excluded from the tournament.

And my question gets to the heart of what I mean when I say that the RPI is a deeply flawed metric, and maybe even suggests that it's so deeply flawed as to be unsalvageable and so flawed that even the so-called small sample size that hinders the RPI ratings in lacrosse aren't to blame for what is, at heart, a hopeless methodology.

So anyway:

Why in the hell was Duke's RPI so high? Why did they have the #7 RPI at the end of the season?

The highest-ranked team that they defeated had the #9 RPI. The next highest after that was #13 (Richmond) and then #17 (twice: UNC). They had six (!) losses, including a couple in Syracuse and Loyola (30 and 22) to teams well outside the top 20 in RPI.

So instead of expressing surprise that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was left out of the tournament, maybe the real question should be why anyone pays attention to a deeply-flawed metric that would have a team like Duke ranked at #7.

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:02 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:59 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 5:48 pm So WHO exactly is this group that is whining about the outcome?

HooDat, meet johnny:

You might also find this an interesting read:

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... ment/59592

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:46 pm

rasheed wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 6:38 pm When you lose Dick Vitale, you've lost the country... https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/lo ... ament-snub

Dickey V will fit right in with the lax community…..if Little Tony ain’t good enough, complain loudly enough!! Welcome aboard Dickey V….Welcome aboard!!

"Watching the Men’s Lacrosse Selection Show as a fan since my grandson has committed to [Notre Dame lacrosse]," Vitale tweeted. "How in THE WORLD can the Irish be denied a bid to the NCAA tournament after winning 6 in a row including wins over UNC and Duke? It’s a joke to deny those kids."

Someone needs to tell Vitale these are the 2022 Duke and UNC lacrosse teams….not the basketball teams!

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:21 pm So I have a question and it struck me when I read for the 8th time that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was the highest-ranked RPI team to ever be excluded from the tournament.

And my question gets to the heart of what I mean when I say that the RPI is a deeply flawed metric, and maybe even suggests that it's so deeply flawed as to be unsalvageable and so flawed that even the so-called small sample size that hinders the RPI ratings in lacrosse aren't to blame for what is, at heart, a hopeless methodology.

So anyway:

Why in the hell was Duke's RPI so high? Why did they have the #7 RPI at the end of the season?

The highest-ranked team that they defeated had the #9 RPI. The next highest after that was #13 (Richmond) and then #17 (twice: UNC). They had six (!) losses, including a couple in Syracuse and Loyola (30 and 22) to teams well outside the top 20 in RPI.

So instead of expressing surprise that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was left out of the tournament, maybe the real question should be why anyone pays attention to a deeply-flawed metric that would have a team like Duke ranked at #7.

MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:43 pm

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:21 pm So I have a question and it struck me when I read for the 8th time that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was the highest-ranked RPI team to ever be excluded from the tournament.

And my question gets to the heart of what I mean when I say that the RPI is a deeply flawed metric, and maybe even suggests that it's so deeply flawed as to be unsalvageable and so flawed that even the so-called small sample size that hinders the RPI ratings in lacrosse aren't to blame for what is, at heart, a hopeless methodology.

So anyway:

Why in the hell was Duke's RPI so high? Why did they have the #7 RPI at the end of the season?

The highest-ranked team that they defeated had the #9 RPI. The next highest after that was #13 (Richmond) and then #17 (twice: UNC). They had six (!) losses, including a couple in Syracuse and Loyola (30 and 22) to teams well outside the top 20 in RPI.

So instead of expressing surprise that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was left out of the tournament, maybe the real question should be why anyone pays attention to a deeply-flawed metric that would have a team like Duke ranked at #7.

I’ve been wondering this same thing the last few days, and there is only one conclusion. I have also wondered how UVa is ranked where they are, when they also had no top 10 wins.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:05 pm

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:21 pm So I have a question and it struck me when I read for the 8th time that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was the highest-ranked RPI team to ever be excluded from the tournament.

And my question gets to the heart of what I mean when I say that the RPI is a deeply flawed metric, and maybe even suggests that it's so deeply flawed as to be unsalvageable and so flawed that even the so-called small sample size that hinders the RPI ratings in lacrosse aren't to blame for what is, at heart, a hopeless methodology.

So anyway:

Why in the hell was Duke's RPI so high? Why did they have the #7 RPI at the end of the season?

The highest-ranked team that they defeated had the #9 RPI. The next highest after that was #13 (Richmond) and then #17 (twice: UNC). They had six (!) losses, including a couple in Syracuse and Loyola (30 and 22) to teams well outside the top 20 in RPI.

So instead of expressing surprise that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was left out of the tournament, maybe the real question should be why anyone pays attention to a deeply-flawed metric that would have a team like Duke ranked at #7.

because the vast majority of their games were against competitive teams.
5 teams they beat won their conference's aq. they also beat co-champ of the acc, but by having a good record against a mostly competitive schedule across the board, they earned a high rpi.

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:25 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:05 pm

ICGrad wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:21 pm So I have a question and it struck me when I read for the 8th time that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was the highest-ranked RPI team to ever be excluded from the tournament.

And my question gets to the heart of what I mean when I say that the RPI is a deeply flawed metric, and maybe even suggests that it's so deeply flawed as to be unsalvageable and so flawed that even the so-called small sample size that hinders the RPI ratings in lacrosse aren't to blame for what is, at heart, a hopeless methodology.

So anyway:

Why in the hell was Duke's RPI so high? Why did they have the #7 RPI at the end of the season?

The highest-ranked team that they defeated had the #9 RPI. The next highest after that was #13 (Richmond) and then #17 (twice: UNC). They had six (!) losses, including a couple in Syracuse and Loyola (30 and 22) to teams well outside the top 20 in RPI.

So instead of expressing surprise that Duke, with a #7 RPI, was left out of the tournament, maybe the real question should be why anyone pays attention to a deeply-flawed metric that would have a team like Duke ranked at #7.

because the vast majority of their games were against competitive teams.
5 teams they beat won their conference's aq. they also beat co-champ of the acc, but by having a good record against a mostly competitive schedule across the board, they earned a high rpi.

I guess you would have to define competitive for me. (All are RPI rankings)

RM: 29
Vermont: 35
Manhattan: 48
Jacksonville (L): 24
Denver: 20
Delaware: 25
Penn (L): 4
High Point: 32
Richmond: 13
Loyola (L): 22
Towson: 27
Syracuse (L): 30

That's their OOC schedule; I included Syracuse because it's a loss to a #30 ranked team.

AFAIK, RIP doesn't take into consideration whether the team you beat won their conference AQ.

Remember: I'm not asking why Duke had a decent RPI. I'm not asking why they were top 20 (though looking at the above, that would seem to be a legit question - 6 losses including OOC losses to 4, 22 and 24, an in-conference loss to #30, and best OOC win over #13 - which is also your second-best win). I'm asking why they were ranked #7. I just don't see it.

I know it's a formula, but any formula that spits Duke out as #7 should be discarded altogether.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 8:34 pm i don't get what the quibble is. those teams who won conferences have 2 #s attached to get their own rpi. one of those (opp' opp' record) drops off when they are attached to duke. duke has 6 teams ahead of them in rpi, and 3 of them have 4 (!) losses in a number of fewer games. duke played 17 games.