LaxPower Back-Up Stick

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 12:50 pm there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

nyjay wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:40 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 12:27 am
- there are over 360 basketball teams and over 130 football teams. and like 73-75 lax teams.
- lacrosse allows a much higher percentage of teams into "playoffs" than both sports. vs. football, it's comically higher and the bowl games you cite are now exhibitions
- football and basketball pay for all the other sports.
- it's 8 at larges @ present.
- it's soon to be be voted on for all sports to come into a 25% ish zone, consistent with an expansion of march madness. my guess, we go to 10 at larges.

and again, football and basketball pay for everything. with nil, that may change. if anyone's upset now, be prepared for what may be coming.

I think the disconnect (at least for me) is that we all grew up with basketball as our reference point - where teams with a top 20 ranking are guaranteed of at large bids in the tournament. And then we come to lacrosse, where top 20 teams are regularly left out (along with the occasional top 10 team). Makes the tournament feel too small, even if as a % of DI as a whole, it's actually just about the right size.

nyjay wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:40 pm I think the disconnect (at least for me) is that we all grew up with basketball as our reference point - where teams with a top 20 ranking are guaranteed of at large bids in the tournament. And then we come to lacrosse, where top 20 teams are regularly left out (along with the occasional top 10 team). Makes the tournament feel too small, even if as a % of DI as a whole, it's actually just about the right size.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 3:12 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 12:50 pm there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:18 pm Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

chosen1lax wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:30 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:18 pm Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

I mean this is just simply the wrong answer. In what world would the same amount of ACC or B10 teams get in as the MAAC or the ASUN.

Your take completely disregards strength of schedule. The purpose of AQs is so that schools who play in weaker divisions get a shot at the big dance where they normally would not qualify based on merit alone. The ACC does not even have an AQ for crying out loud

10stone5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:06 pm

chosen1lax wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:30 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:18 pm Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

I mean this is just simply the wrong answer. In what world would the same amount of ACC or B10 teams get in as the MAAC or the ASUN.

Your take completely disregards strength of schedule. The purpose of AQs is so that schools who play in weaker divisions get a shot at the big dance where they normally would not qualify based on merit alone. The ACC does not even have an AQ for crying out loud

He’s saying the conference championships would take care of the equity / merit piece, strength against strength - equivalent power teams would eliminate each other from the final actual NCAA tournament.

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:57 pm

10stone5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:06 pm

chosen1lax wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:30 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:18 pm Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

I mean this is just simply the wrong answer. In what world would the same amount of ACC or B10 teams get in as the MAAC or the ASUN.

Your take completely disregards strength of schedule. The purpose of AQs is so that schools who play in weaker divisions get a shot at the big dance where they normally would not qualify based on merit alone. The ACC does not even have an AQ for crying out loud

He’s saying the conference championships would take care of the equity / merit piece, strength against strength - equivalent power teams would eliminate each other from the final actual NCAA tournament.

Doesn’t make sense at all.

On the merits, probably half the conference champs wouldn’t deserve to be in the tournament.

We have seen over the years many teams with weak schedules and pretty records get trounced in the tournament.

The AQs serve their purpose. But let’s not get carried away here.

DocBarrister

molo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:20 pm The two teams that Maryland best on Christmas weekend acquitted themselves well, but Maryland was clearly the best team all season long.

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 3:12 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 12:50 pm there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

molo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:20 pm My sentiments, too. The AQ allows teams from certain conferences to play in the tournament. It’s a worthwhile objective. On the other hand, it’s important that the tournament include as many teams as possible that have a reasonable chance of winning it. Last year is over. I think there were three teams who might have been able to beat Maryland. Maryland trounced one of them twice and the other two did not play well enough to qualify for the tournament. The two teams that Maryland best on Christmas weekend acquitted themselves well, but Maryland was clearly the best team all season long.
This year is different. UVA beats ND, who beats Duke, who beats UVA , who loses to Maryland. There are four team who have been ranked number one, and a fifth, Cornell, seems to me to be in the running.
On the one hand, a weaker field might enhance my chances of seeing my preferred team win it. On the other hand, as I watch some games from home and travel to Annapolis and Philly, I want to see as many close games as possible. Welcome the AQs but load it up with ACC and Big 10.

MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:06 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:57 pm

10stone5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:06 pm

chosen1lax wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:30 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:18 pm Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

I mean this is just simply the wrong answer. In what world would the same amount of ACC or B10 teams get in as the MAAC or the ASUN.

Your take completely disregards strength of schedule. The purpose of AQs is so that schools who play in weaker divisions get a shot at the big dance where they normally would not qualify based on merit alone. The ACC does not even have an AQ for crying out loud

He’s saying the conference championships would take care of the equity / merit piece, strength against strength - equivalent power teams would eliminate each other from the final actual NCAA tournament.

Doesn’t make sense at all.

On the merits, probably half the conference champs wouldn’t deserve to be in the tournament.

We have seen over the years many teams with weak schedules and pretty records get trounced in the tournament.

The AQs serve their purpose. But let’s not get carried away here.

DocBarrister

This used to be how the basketball tournament teams were selected as well. Didn’t work very well. There was a great Maryland team in 1974 under Driesel, was number 2 in the nation, didn’t make it into the tournament because the ACC only got one bid. N.C. State beat them in the ACC tournament final, in overtime. They then went on to win the NCAA tournament as well, upsetting UCLA. This ultimately forced the field to expand to 32 teams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_ACC_ ... tournament

On the plus side, this construct would provide a perfectly legitimate reason to exclude Notre Dame every year.

joewillie78 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:13 pm

MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:06 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:57 pm

10stone5 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:06 pm

chosen1lax wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:30 pm

CU77 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:18 pm Simple cure: a 9-team tournament of conference champs only, with a conference tournament (of at least 4 teams) mandated for every conference to determine that champ.

Didn't win your conference tournament? Too bad so sad, but then you don't belong in the national tournament.

I'd like to see all sports do the same.

I mean this is just simply the wrong answer. In what world would the same amount of ACC or B10 teams get in as the MAAC or the ASUN.

Your take completely disregards strength of schedule. The purpose of AQs is so that schools who play in weaker divisions get a shot at the big dance where they normally would not qualify based on merit alone. The ACC does not even have an AQ for crying out loud

He’s saying the conference championships would take care of the equity / merit piece, strength against strength - equivalent power teams would eliminate each other from the final actual NCAA tournament.

Doesn’t make sense at all.

On the merits, probably half the conference champs wouldn’t deserve to be in the tournament.

We have seen over the years many teams with weak schedules and pretty records get trounced in the tournament.

The AQs serve their purpose. But let’s not get carried away here.

DocBarrister

This used to be how the basketball tournament teams were selected as well. Didn’t work very well. There was a great Maryland team in 1974 under Driesel, was number 2 in the nation, didn’t make it into the tournament because the ACC only got one bid. N.C. State beat them in the ACC tournament final, in overtime. They then went on to win the NCAA tournament as well, upsetting UCLA. This ultimately forced the field to expand to 32 teams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_ACC_ ... tournament

On the plus side, this construct would provide a perfectly legitimate reason to exclude Notre Dame every year.

The Len Elmore/John Lucas team that lost out to the Nate Burleson, David, Skywalker Thompson and Monte Towe NC STATE team that ended up stopping the Walton UCLA long winning streak In OT, I believe In the final? Not sure really if the MD. Team could have beaten UCLA like NC State did.
Gobigred
Joewillie78

bearlaxfan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:08 pm Last year 2 Ivies made the ncaa tourney that didn't even qualify for their league tourney. Has that happened much in the past? I imagine the ACC, as a 5 team league that had a no-AQ 4 team tourney has, but anyone else?

wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:42 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 3:12 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 12:50 pm there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

rolldodge wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:36 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:42 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 4:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 3:12 pm

rolldodge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:21 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 12:50 pm there is no defense for notre dame not being in last year via the criteria, other than it is now entirely the committee's ball. this is what we are now signed up for.

It has always been entirely the committee's ball. This is not something new. The criteria are guidelines. The committee is free to introduce any additional data into their decision making. For a period of time they stuck to a pretty tight script, to the point that LAF could closely model the expected results, and still there were some surprises. Last years "wins over tournament teams" datapoint suffered from a deep case of circular logic, but we are not in some brave new world.

we disagree. and that's fine.

I suppose we'll actually be able find out in about a month. What would count as evidence that things have fundamentally changed?

from my own view, what would count against that notion is evidence that we've ever had one team previously get selected with just one criterion beat over another. and all others (save one, a tie) going the other way. that's i think 6 or 8 depending on how you parse it.

if there's another example of that, versus "these teams are close, one has these, the other has these", i'd say this isn't some new free-for-all. i guess we'll also differ on criteria as being mere suggestions. by definition and wording. i'd concur the committee has berth to weigh stuff because it isn't defined. as well as being able to have their own thought to add. what you're suggesting is that the criteria is a "use all or some (fine) or one or none of it, wing it". i don't believe the latter has held true in the past at all.

admittedly with laxpower gone, finding an example (or many!) might be a chore.

This is LAFs selection ranking from 2022 (using the RPI method). 5 of the Ivies are higher than Notre Dame and Duke. 6 are higher than Duke. Notre Dame is one place higher than Harvard.

https://laxmath.com/archives/men/2022/rpi001x.php

This totals up RPI, SOS, and QWF to get a relative rating called "Selection Sum".

1 Maryland ( 18 - 0 ) 1 2 1 4
2 Princeton ( 10 - 6 ) 2 1 7 10
3 Cornell ( 14 - 5 ) 6 3 3 12
4 Penn ( 11 - 5 ) 3 6 5 14
5 Yale ( 13 - 4 ) 5 7 2 14
6 Rutgers ( 15 - 4 ) 7 4 6 17
7 Georgetown ( 15 - 2 )4 16 4 24
8 Virginia ( 12 - 4 ) 8 9 8 25
9 Brown ( 10 - 6 ) 11 11 11 33
10 OSU ( 10 - 6 ) 14 8 16 38
11 Notre Dame ( 8 - 4 ) 10 20 9 39
12 Harvard ( 8 - 5 ) 15 18 10 43
13 Duke ( 11 - 6 ) 9 17 18 44

Last four teams were close. They chose to introduce an additional data point. Are you suggesting they've never before diverged from this strict formula? LAF was very good, but still only 97% accurate. And that only counts for the time that he started tracking it, not before. In the past, the committee has generally not been so transparent about their thought process as they were last year.