D1 Men Rankings

[DU-fan]

I'm losing interest in the importance of the media poll as the USILA poll is the only one that matters this year.

The media love for the ACC gets is very interesting this year. Clearly, all of the ACC games are really close and fun to watch, but do they all deserve to be in top 8?

The yoyo ranking of Syracuse doesn't make sense to me. They match up really well to UVA and can beat them. Why does the Media (heavy SU graduates) go from hating them to thinking they are back again based on one game. I give Syracuse tons of credit for beating UVA in Charlottesville, but why did they jump ahead of a bunch of teams that also won? Why is Virginia ranked above Syracuse?

I think Villanova is under ranked. The Denver - Villanova game will be close on Wednesday. I think Villanova has a good chance of knocking off Lehigh next weekend.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/league/DI/polls

Rank Team Points Prev
1 Maryland (10 - 0) 427 (14) 1
2 Duke (12 - 1) 424 (7) 3
3 North Carolina (10 - 2) 401 (1) 4
4 Notre Dame (6 - 3) 368 2
5 Lehigh (9 - 0) 330 6
6 Georgetown (10 - 1) 303 7
7 Virginia (10 - 4) 294 5
8 Syracuse (6 - 4) 292 11
9 Rutgers (8 - 2) 291 8
10 Denver (10 - 3) 278 9
11 Army (6 - 3) 181 10
12 Navy (5 - 2) 177 19
13 Drexel (7 - 2) 172 12
14 Delaware (9 - 2) 152 13
15 Richmond (6 - 4) 123 15
16 Villanova (6 - 3) 90 18
17 UAlbany (7 - 3) 58 17
18 UMBC (7 - 2) 54 25
19 Stony Brook (8 - 4) 39 14
20 Saint Joseph's (7 - 3) 37 24
Receiving Votes:

Loyola, Penn State, Ohio State, Penn, Hofstra, Brown, Marist, Robert Morris, Vermont

[Farfromgeneva]

Are we sure 16-20 is better than RMU at this point?

[jrn19]

Are we sure 16-20 is better than RMU at this point?

16-20 hasn’t been better than [insert whatever team you want here] for the entire season. There’s a Top 10, and then a few teams after that who are solid, maybe pretty good and after that you’re just throwing it at the wall every week. 15-40 in D1 is probably all the same

[Farfromgeneva]

I know bc every week I look at the last handful and wonder who isn’t in there that probably is better than xyz. Rare that it happens for me every single week.

[DU-fan]

I think this is the only ranking that matters right now

[Matnum PI]

Makes zero sense to me. UMD's best wins are vs. #6 and #20 and they're #1?! That makes zero sense. SOS matters... a lot.

[Wheels]

Makes zero sense to me. UMD's best wins are vs. #6 and #20 and they're #1?! That makes zero sense. SOS matters... a lot.

And what's SOS based on? The polls?

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the first criterion used by the selection committee is wins and losses.

[Matnum PI]

And what's SOS based on? The polls?

And this poll says, UMD's SOS is weak...

[Wheels]

https://twitter.com/laxreference/status ... 91/photo/2

Less subjective data than human polls shows there are 4 teams with a well above average mix of both offense and defense. I still think UNC will be a Final 4 - if not Memorial Day - team, but it's interesting that UNC has a statistical profile that is mirror reflection of Army or Georgetown.

[DU-fan]

Makes zero sense to me. UMD's best wins are vs. #6 and #20 and they're #1?! That makes zero sense. SOS matters... a lot.

I ranked UNC #1, but I don't have an issue with coaches ranking Maryland #1. It is largely an eye test watching games, players, and their record.

UVA beat UNC and ND which helps UVA and hurts UNC from being #1. UNC and ND beat Duke which pushes Duke down.

Beyond people's disbelief that Rutgers is a top tier team and that fact that Maryland almost lost to JHU, there is not much to knock Maryland out of the #1 spot.

I don't agree with the coaches, but that is just my opinion.

[Matnum PI]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

[gunnerz]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

"Best team in the nation..." Seriously? They just lost to Notre Dame 22-8. 22-8. Two wins against the same team makes a season? Syracuse also lost to Notre Dame...twice, so that should cancel out the Virginia wins, a wash.

[wgdsr]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

it doesn't make sense to you because you look at it different than others.

every team has shown an ability to lose other than maryland. yes, sos matters, but losing to that sos also matters and shouldn't in a good way.

their competition have at least 2 losses. an ability to lose. maryland's ceiling is unknown. and that doesn't necessarily justify rutgers being highly ranked.

personally, all i care about for seeding purposes is separating conferences. that'll probably work better with maryland on the #1 line.

[DU-fan]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

I think there are many issues with the coaches poll. The biggest one that I have is that coaches don't have the time to watch games on Saturday. They coach their teams on the field. They are the most credible in my opinion to judge talent, but they are very prone to their subjective opinions of teams based on coach reputation, coach friendships, and past program history.

I point to it as the only poll that matters because the NCAA selection committee keeps referencing it a source for tournament selection input and seeding this year.

The process is flawed this year.

[tech37]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

it doesn't make sense to you because you look at it different than others.

every team has shown an ability to lose other than maryland. yes, sos matters, but losing to that sos also matters and shouldn't in a good way.

their competition have at least 2 losses. an ability to lose. maryland's ceiling is unknown. and that doesn't necessarily justify rutgers being highly ranked.

personally, all i care about for seeding purposes is separating conferences. that'll probably work better with maryland on the #1 line.

Well wgdsr, in a couple of days we'll find out if your take that it was a dumb mistake to schedule RoMo was correct

Will be interesting...

[wgdsr]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

it doesn't make sense to you because you look at it different than others.

every team has shown an ability to lose other than maryland. yes, sos matters, but losing to that sos also matters and shouldn't in a good way.

their competition have at least 2 losses. an ability to lose. maryland's ceiling is unknown. and that doesn't necessarily justify rutgers being highly ranked.

personally, all i care about for seeding purposes is separating conferences. that'll probably work better with maryland on the #1 line.

Well wgdsr, in a couple of days we'll find out if your take that it was a dumb mistake to schedule RoMo was correct

Will be interesting...

they can play.
will either be a needed confidence boost or... something else.

[wgdsr]

The process is flawed this year.

"this year". lmao.

[tech37]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

it doesn't make sense to you because you look at it different than others.

every team has shown an ability to lose other than maryland. yes, sos matters, but losing to that sos also matters and shouldn't in a good way.

their competition have at least 2 losses. an ability to lose. maryland's ceiling is unknown. and that doesn't necessarily justify rutgers being highly ranked.

personally, all i care about for seeding purposes is separating conferences. that'll probably work better with maryland on the #1 line.

Well wgdsr, in a couple of days we'll find out if your take that it was a dumb mistake to schedule RoMo was correct

Will be interesting...

they can play.
will either be a needed confidence boost or... something else.

Roger that.

[a fan]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

it doesn't make sense to you because you look at it different than others.

every team has shown an ability to lose other than maryland. yes, sos matters, but losing to that sos also matters and shouldn't in a good way.

You and I both know that for 20+ years, the NCAA Committee has been rewarding teams that lose to top teams. They think playing UVa and losing to them is better than not playing them at all.

This makes zero sense, but that's what you get when you value SOS as an independent value.

Teams have been losing their way to seeds and bids for 20 years. I see no reason why this won't happen again in 2021.

[rolldodge]

An "eye test" is a go-to phrase that one can use to justify literally any ranking. "Yes, SU lost a bunch of games but, based on what they did against UVA twice, I see them as the best team in the nation. They pass my eye test." And there's a place for this. It's not, so to speak, wrong. But I do think it's prone to be wrought with subjective prejudices. Subjective prejudices that, from where I'm sitting, should be removed from rankings. I prefer attempts at an objective truth. An objective truth based on games, wins and losses, and whom those wins and losses are against. With this in mind, Anyone who has UMD at #1 should have RU similarly well-ranked. If they have UMD at #2 or lower, then RU could be lower. But we can't have RU ranked in a relatively low position and then have UMD at #1. It just doesn't make sense...

it doesn't make sense to you because you look at it different than others.

every team has shown an ability to lose other than maryland. yes, sos matters, but losing to that sos also matters and shouldn't in a good way.

You and I both know that for 20+ years, the NCAA Committee has been rewarding teams that lose to top teams. They think playing UVa and losing to them is better than not playing them at all.

This makes zero sense, but that's what you get when you value SOS as an independent value.

Teams have been losing their way to seeds and bids for 20 years. I see no reason why this won't happen again in 2021.

They also have historically highly valued "big" wins (top 5 RPI), so I would not be surprised if Maryland does not get the #1 seed.