Toughest/Softest Lacrosse Schedule 2023?

[wgdsr]

Much like life, it’s the haves and the have nots.

Yes

Just another reason why RPI should not be the barometer metric in lacrosse. see

Double yes

Last year, Notre Dame deserved a bid beating Detroit, Michigan, Marquette, Duke , UNC and Syracuse. None of them made the NCAA but ND and Duke “deserved” a bid….ask Quint and Anish.

notre dame beat duke twice. and they were #7. what were tosu's and rutgers' best wins?
duke beat more teams in the top 20 than anyone ever has and been left out. by 2, 5 to 3.

but the system is fine. can't wait for selection sunday. i'm ready.

Every single season some teams have an argument that they were snubbed by the committee. The incessant whining by those who felt ND and Duke were snubbed in 2022 is the worst complaining ever. When the old and new ACC/JHU were the beneficiaries of some past shaky selection committee decisions, the same people on this board told the fans of the snubbed teams to "get over it" and "win games" and "play a tougher schedule." Now the same apples to ND and Duke. There is an "argument" that ND or Duke deserved a bid over Harvard, but the snub was no worse than past snubs or the many past seeding injustices. Get over it. Play a tougher non-conference schedule and try winning some of those non-conference games. It's 2023.

nope. i backed your boys, i backed g'town over notre dame. and backed many others when i thought a team of players was hosed. you calling it whining is you thinking you're superior and can toss that around. so get over yourself, homeboy.

besides, i'm all about the committee now. just like you.

[wgdsr]

deserving is a bad word. rpi isn't even supposed to be one criterion, never mind the only one.

there is only one that matters now. smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

One Final Note
While it no doubt is clear from reading this document that the authors believe the RPI is an excellent tool for the Division I Men’s Lacrosse Committee, it also must be said that at no time has the NCAA staff or the committee ever desired to use the RPI as the sole factor in determining selection or seeding. There never will be a better way to select teams than the current committee process, no matter how many mathematicians, statisticians or others try to improve a computer rating system.

lmao, who wrote that, myers or a fanlax ivy fan?

Byrne


About the authors
Jim Wright has worked for the NCAA Statistics Service for over 30 years and helped create the original RPI. He has edited every baseball and women’s basketball RPI from the beginning and served as media coordinator for the Division I Baseball Championship from 1979 to 2004. You can reach Jim with questions and suggestions by email ([email protected]) or phone (317/917-6137).

Jenn Rodgers has been a part of the Statistics staff since September 4, 2005, and has compiled the RPI for both softball and volleyball over the past two years. She can be reach via email

i don't even know what this means. doesn't matter. your own rpi isn't supposed to be used to select nc$$ lax, but sometimes or most times it is. that doesn't matter.

what matters is 5? men and women in a room. they will come out with 8 names. just be one of those 8 names if you can't win your conference. #gocommittee

I know what this means: at no time has the NCAA staff or the committee ever desired to use the RPI as the sole factor in determining selection or seeding. #don’tbeonthebubble

you and i are having 2 separate conversations. not once did i say anything about a team's rpi to be selected. what the committee did last year was say we are choosing the field and we don't care what the stated criteria is. the lacrosse world, by and large or at least those that matter (coaches), is good with that. it so happens fanlax is good with it, too.

so i am good with it as well. for 2023+ selections, i am all about the committee. pinky swear.

You have a link to a quote or that’s what it “looked like”? #beatgoodteamsandyourchancesarebettetthanlosingtogoodteams.

good luck this season, tld!!! beat teams that are selected to the tournament!! i think?!?!

[Typical Lax Dad]

deserving is a bad word. rpi isn't even supposed to be one criterion, never mind the only one.

there is only one that matters now. smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

One Final Note
While it no doubt is clear from reading this document that the authors believe the RPI is an excellent tool for the Division I Men’s Lacrosse Committee, it also must be said that at no time has the NCAA staff or the committee ever desired to use the RPI as the sole factor in determining selection or seeding. There never will be a better way to select teams than the current committee process, no matter how many mathematicians, statisticians or others try to improve a computer rating system.

lmao, who wrote that, myers or a fanlax ivy fan?

Byrne


About the authors
Jim Wright has worked for the NCAA Statistics Service for over 30 years and helped create the original RPI. He has edited every baseball and women’s basketball RPI from the beginning and served as media coordinator for the Division I Baseball Championship from 1979 to 2004. You can reach Jim with questions and suggestions by email ([email protected]) or phone (317/917-6137).

Jenn Rodgers has been a part of the Statistics staff since September 4, 2005, and has compiled the RPI for both softball and volleyball over the past two years. She can be reach via email

i don't even know what this means. doesn't matter. your own rpi isn't supposed to be used to select nc$$ lax, but sometimes or most times it is. that doesn't matter.

what matters is 5? men and women in a room. they will come out with 8 names. just be one of those 8 names if you can't win your conference. #gocommittee

I know what this means: at no time has the NCAA staff or the committee ever desired to use the RPI as the sole factor in determining selection or seeding. #don’tbeonthebubble

you and i are having 2 separate conversations. not once did i say anything about a team's rpi to be selected. what the committee did last year was say we are choosing the field and we don't care what the stated criteria is. the lacrosse world, by and large or at least those that matter (coaches), is good with that. it so happens fanlax is good with it, too.

so i am good with it as well. for 2023+ selections, i am all about the committee. pinky swear.

You have a link to a quote or that’s what it “looked like”? #beatgoodteamsandyourchancesarebettetthanlosingtogoodteams.

good luck this season, tld!!! beat teams that are selected to the tournament!! i think?!?!

That is directionally accurate . Bad teams don’t generally get selected, besides last season…. So it’s generally better to beat teams that get selected versus teams that don’t. You are free to see it otherwise.

[Farfromgeneva]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

[Gobigred]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

[OCanada]

I have not been very immersed the last few years but in my experience you are correct in saying they have not wanted an auto-pilot system. What the Committee has wanted in the past is criteria that is understood by the coaches. That seems a little lacking but maybe the coaches did know.

There was a tine when teams were playing down to give exposure to lesser teams and help the sport grow.

[Farfromgeneva]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

I’ve looked into that a little but not deeply so less familiar but I can speak to D3-FCS football, soccer, BB, baseball and a few others.

Specific to here where anyone who really payed attention to the criterion and can read critically (I know you can) to act surprised or disappointed that some singular piece of criterion wasn’t strictly followed and ignore the entirety of the language of the criteria is similar applying narrative fallacy and thinking they figured it out but ignored reality.

[Typical Lax Dad]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

Does lacrosse use the same system?

[Farfromgeneva]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

Does lacrosse use the same system?

I did say every, my mistake for using an absolute term. But the essence of my point remains. If folks think the sports and their overseer* have the agenda of fairness or perfect parity in mind they would be mistaken.

*(overseer overseer officer - you know what I’m referencing as Scott Larocks old partner, fits with the way the NCAA has treated its student athletes over time)

[laxjuris]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

Does lacrosse use the same system?

No, the Pairwise is a straight number-crunching exercise with zero discretion as to who makes the tournament. I believe the argument against it as far as lacrosse goes is that there are fewer games in NCAA lacrosse than hockey so a numbers only system wouldn’t be as “fair.”

[Typical Lax Dad]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

Does lacrosse use the same system?

No, the Pairwise is a straight number-crunching exercise with zero discretion as to who makes the tournament. I believe the argument against it as far as lacrosse goes is that there are fewer games in NCAA lacrosse than hockey so a numbers only system wouldn’t be as “fair.”

Thanks.

[wgdsr]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

I’ve looked into that a little but not deeply so less familiar but I can speak to D3-FCS football, soccer, BB, baseball and a few others.

Specific to here where anyone who really payed attention to the criterion and can read critically (I know you can) to act surprised or disappointed that some singular piece of criterion wasn’t strictly followed and ignore the entirety of the language of the criteria is similar applying narrative fallacy and thinking they figured it out but ignored reality.

div 1 lacrosse is one that has certainly gone off topic on using criterion for years. at a minimum, they absolutely would have to weigh the criteria for feel in a best case because there's no set formula.

don't recall anyone saying one criterion should've been strictly followed, but could've missed it fo sho. it was 8 months ago.

[Farfromgeneva]

In every sport the NCAA has created criteria with the flexibility for said committee to utilize their “instinct/opinion”. It’s been built into every set of rules I’ve seen it over and over for 20yrs. The idea that they’ve ever created a hard rule set or a system that AI could’ve selected teams without a human committee is specious. They never did nor have they ever wanted to create a hard, explicit rules set without any flexibility to select as desired. Being let down that one couldn’t anticipate or predict the selections is a massive mistake of epic proportions. I’ve seen it in at least 7 different sports now and long before last year.

Pairwise in hockey.

I’ve looked into that a little but not deeply so less familiar but I can speak to D3-FCS football, soccer, BB, baseball and a few others.

Specific to here where anyone who really payed attention to the criterion and can read critically (I know you can) to act surprised or disappointed that some singular piece of criterion wasn’t strictly followed and ignore the entirety of the language of the criteria is similar applying narrative fallacy and thinking they figured it out but ignored reality.

div 1 lacrosse is one that has certainly gone off topic on using criterion for years. at a minimum, they absolutely would have to weigh the criteria for feel in a best case because there's no set formula.

don't recall anyone saying one criterion should've been strictly followed, but could've missed it fo sho. it was 8 months ago.

D3 football has a big problem nationally and with this regional ranking system embedded which is now being gamed by the regional committees as a backdoor way to introduce qualitative into that system. As is constant conference hopping though in D1 it’s driven by Football over all else. (BB is secondary for mid major schools like RoMo etc)

[PizzaSnake]

Not sure if it's allowed to discuss March games here, but I put the St.Joe's game on March 8 followed by Villanova March 11 as "must-wins" for Penn, and the Ivies in general for SOS based on OOC games.

St. Joe's and Villanova look like the real deal this year. No cupcakes in Penn's schedule.

As others have noted, the OOC results of the Ivies the past couple of years is what has elevated their repute.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not sure if it's allowed to discuss March games here, but I put the St.Joe's game on March 8 followed by Villanova March 11 as "must-wins" for Penn, and the Ivies in general for SOS based on OOC games.

St. Joe's and Villanova look like the real deal this year. No cupcakes in Penn's schedule.

As others have noted, the OOC results of the Ivies the past couple of years is what has elevated their repute.

Penn always has about the toughest OOC in the Ivy League. This year will be an interesting year for the league. It way too early but I expect maybe 3 teams to make the NCAA tournament this year.