Polls for Mar 25: Media #3 / Coaches #3 / USALAX #5

[ClvrUsrnm]

Having top 20 rankings but a 16 team tournament just doesn't make any sense to me.

17-team. With automatic qualifiers. A sub .500 team can qualify if it wins its conference tournament.

 

[fieldystick]

Fieldystick is too modest, but here is their most recent bracketology. Good stuff, I always get way too engrossed in bracket prediction. I've long thought his predications are better than what the actual committee comes up with.

Last thing, but how much does the selection committee take into account RPI and SOS? I always think they go mostly with RPI, but maybe in recent years less so since it's not the best for sports with small sample sizes (Quint mentioned this in his column this week). Given that RPI seems so far off this season to what the polls are telling us (I think Yale, despite coming off a loss is still #1), I wonder if how much the committee will weigh it. I know they can shift priorities when they meet, but I thought there was some sort of agreed upon criteria they have before the season starts. Thanks,

Thank you for your kind words as always about my work. I put a lot of effort into what I do, and I hope that some others find it useful for getting a grasp for where we are/where we might be heading.

-

Bracketology is always done as a point in time projection (at least that is my understanding). Have you ever thought to do it as a predicative exercise? Say if "favored" teams win out the rest of the way? I've always wondered if that might be helpful, since the season still has so much more to go.

So this is my position on this: the stated selection criteria are well known by many who follow the sport religiously. I'll post them below for my reply to the next part of your post/question and also for those who don't know them.

The selection criteria themselves are largely objective. The data that "we" (the committee/those of us who make mock brackets: Stevens/Foy/Jastrzembski/myself) use to apply those selection criteria is objective. My personal application/weighting of those selection criteria to the data presented to me is (somewhat) subjective. I try to be as consistent, fair, and unbiased as I can be when I am making a bracket projection, but obviously I am human and I have biases/personal interests/etc.

Basically, what I am saying here is that I realize there is some degree of subjectivity to what I am doing already. That degree - which I hope is small - is all that I am willing to allow into my published work.

Do I have opinions about which teams are good? Of course. Do I have an opinion about where things might be heading? Certainly. I'll throw out a little bit of that here, even: I think it's more likely than not that the current ACC top 4 (i.e., not UNC) will claim 4 of the top 6 seeds come May.

But I do not claim to be a lacrosse savant when it comes to Xs and Os. I will readily admit that many of you on this forum know more about those aspects of the sport than I do. I have only been following lacrosse for 15 years now, which I know pales to how long many here have followed, and I have never played the sport (I never had the opportunity to - it was non-existent in my part of the world when I was younger). I would feel uncomfortable projecting even more of my subjectivity - even so far as picking the "favorites" to win their games - into my bracket. I feel more comfortable analyzing the data that is already in front of us; that's what I think I'm pretty good at. If someone takes my analysis as being grounded in some reality and therefore valuable, I think they can project their own opinions/projections of future games onto it from there.

Last thing, but how much does the selection committee take into account RPI and SOS? I always think they go mostly with RPI, but maybe in recent years less so since it's not the best for sports with small sample sizes (Quint mentioned this in his column this week). Given that RPI seems so far off this season to what the polls are telling us (I think Yale, despite coming off a loss is still #1), I wonder if how much the committee will weigh it. I know they can shift priorities when they meet, but I thought there was some sort of agreed upon criteria they have before the season starts. Thanks,

So here are the selection critiera for those who do not know them by heart:



I have had a long running discussion with the resident Virginia fan on this forum ( *wave* wgdsr ) regarding the role of "own" RPI in selection over the last few years. If anyone is really particularly interested in this, you can look back at bracketology threads from 22 and 23 and find some of our discussion.

So - my stance on this remains: selection of at larges and seeding is somewhat correlated and maybe you could argue it is highly correlated with own RPI, but I do not subscribe to that it is 1-to-1. It is my belief that the selection/seeding process is hollistic. Maybe the selection committee leans a little more on own RPI than I personally would like. Example: I am 100% sure that Duke was the #1 seed last season becuase of they were #1 in RPI. I believed and still believe that Virginia should have been the #1 overall seed last season, but the selection comittee shrugged and said we don't know what do with these three (Duke, UVA, UND).

Re: Yale as your example of a disconnect - don't worry about that; it will correct itself. The RPI is still relatively immature. Yale is #1 in RPI right now largely because they have played 6 games all against teams in the top 20 of RPI. As of today, the second part of their RPI - opponent record, which counts 50% - is .784 (78.4%) which is an insane number.

To give some reference, these are the 5 highest part 2 of RPIs currently:
Yale .784
Hopkins .722
Loyola .682
Cornell .663
Duke .660
10th is Maryland at .635
20th is Virginia at .537

Yale is a massive outlier in this metric right now. Yale should make the NCAA tournament this season if they perform as expected the rest of the way, but they likely will not be a super high seed unless they win out from here on.

Specifically regarding the ACC: the 4 highly regarded teams are all about to play each other (other than: Duke/SU which already happened) and in some cases more than once (ACCT). The ACC's collective RPI will rise relative to those of other conferences as conference play is going on.

^ And finally... on that point: I strongly suspect that it is in Syracuse's/the collective ACC's long-term interests this season that the committee does indeed operate as they typically have / in a way that is heavily based on the RPI. (Even though it may not seem that way based on what the RPI currently says.)

 

[FloridaCuse]

Thank you for your kind words as always about my work. I put a lot of effort into what I do, and I hope that some others find it useful for getting a grasp for where we are/where we might be heading.

-


So this is my position on this: the stated selection criteria are well known by many who follow the sport religiously. I'll post them below for my reply to the next part of your post/question and also for those who don't know them.

The selection criteria themselves are largely objective. The data that "we" (the committee/those of us who make mock brackets: Stevens/Foy/Jastrzembski/myself) use to apply those selection criteria is objective. My personal application/weighting of those selection criteria to the data presented to me is (somewhat) subjective. I try to be as consistent, fair, and unbiased as I can be when I am making a bracket projection, but obviously I am human and I have biases/personal interests/etc.

Basically, what I am saying here is that I realize there is some degree of subjectivity to what I am doing already. That degree - which I hope is small - is all that I am willing to allow into my published work.

Do I have opinions about which teams are good? Of course. Do I have an opinion about where things might be heading? Certainly. I'll throw out a little bit of that here, even: I think it's more likely than not that the current ACC top 4 (i.e., not UNC) will claim 4 of the top 6 seeds come May.

But I do not claim to be a lacrosse savant when it comes to Xs and Os. I will readily admit that many of you on this forum know more about those aspects of the sport than I do. I have only been following lacrosse for 15 years now, which I know pales to how long many here have followed, and I have never played the sport (I never had the opportunity to - it was non-existent in my part of the world when I was younger). I would feel uncomfortable projecting even more of my subjectivity - even so far as picking the "favorites" to win their games - into my bracket. I feel more comfortable analyzing the data that is already in front of us; that's what I think I'm pretty good at. If someone takes my analysis as being grounded in some reality and therefore valuable, I think they can project their own opinions/projections of future games onto it from there.




So here are the selection critiera for those who do not know them by heart:

View attachment 239126

I have had a long running discussion with the resident Virginia fan on this forum ( *wave* wgdsr ) regarding the role of "own" RPI in selection over the last few years. If anyone is really particularly interested in this, you can look back at bracketology threads from 22 and 23 and find some of our discussion.

So - my stance on this remains: selection of at larges and seeding is somewhat correlated and maybe you could argue it is highly correlated with own RPI, but I do not subscribe to that it is 1-to-1. It is my belief that the selection/seeding process is hollistic. Maybe the selection committee leans a little more on own RPI than I personally would like. Example: I am 100% sure that Duke was the #1 seed last season becuase of they were #1 in RPI. I believed and still believe that Virginia should have been the #1 overall seed last season, but the selection comittee shrugged and said we don't know what do with these three (Duke, UVA, UND).

Re: Yale as your example of a disconnect - don't worry about that; it will correct itself. The RPI is still relatively immature. Yale is #1 in RPI right now largely because they have played 6 games all against teams in the top 20 of RPI. As of today, the second part of their RPI - opponent record, which counts 50% - is .784 (78.4%) which is an insane number.

To give some reference, these are the 5 highest part 2 of RPIs currently:
Yale .784
Hopkins .722
Loyola .682
Cornell .663
Duke .660
10th is Maryland at .635
20th is Virginia at .537

Yale is a massive outlier in this metric right now. Yale should make the NCAA tournament this season if they perform as expected the rest of the way, but they likely will not be a super high seed unless they win out from here on.

Specifically regarding the ACC: the 4 highly regarded teams are all about to play each other (other than: Duke/SU which already happened) and in some cases more than once (ACCT). The ACC's collective RPI will rise relative to those of other conferences as conference play is going on.

^ And finally... on that point: I strongly suspect that it is in Syracuse's/the collective ACC's long-term interests this season that the committee does indeed operate as they typically have / in a way that is heavily based on the RPI. (Even though it may not seem that way based on what the RPI currently says.)

Excellent Excellent explanation. Thank you very much. I have long followed in particular two lax bracketologists: you and Patrick Stevens (who this year was 68 for 68 predicting the bracket for the NCAA Men’s D1 BB Tournament).

 

[nyclax]

you can play around with lacrosse reference's rpi predictor tool to project future RPI. yale is going to drop like a lead balloon. the second half of their schedule is brutal (in a bad way). i would be surprised if they finish in the top 8. more likely to be on the bubble than get a top 3 seed if you ask me...still prob will make the tournament but anyone looking at RPI right now and thinking yale is a lock isn't looking at the bigger picture

the 4 ACCs, penn state, hopkins, cornell are set up well right now. i would rather be any of those teams than yale

 

[ks orange]

Quint Kessenich’s Top 20: March 25th, 2024

My Top 20 presented by SPIRE Lacrosse, always a treacherous exercise. Quint Kessenich's Top 20 presented by Spire 1) Notre Dame Golden Domers took the | NCAA,

laxallstars.com

4) Syracuse​

Otto suffocated Duke 10-4 on Wednesday night to solidify their top ten status. This win, following a hard fought gritty victory over Hopkins, is one that resonates. Suddenly Syracuse has a competent defense. Billy Dwan III marked Brennan O’Neil and the rest of the group pushed Blue Devil shooters away from the slot area allowing goalie Will Mark to do his thing. Syracuse has grown up. They have continued to improve, adjust, evolve and move forward. They are more solid in the middle of the field, facing off, clearing and defensively.

#HHH showed maturity at Hobart on Saturday getting the job done while competing in unseasonably wintry weather with snow and cold. Defender Billy Dwan III scored twice on the ice. Trey Deere subbed in for Owen Hiltz and scored twice. SU was sloppy early and then acclimated. When the Orange believe the hype they are vulnerable. When they dig in an just play clean lacrosse, they can be quite good. SU has the strongest strength of record metric in D1.

Cuse at Notre Dame on March 30 in a game I will be covering (ESPN+). Notre Dame’s blowout win a week ago against Michigan is the best lacrosse I’ve seen this spring.

Kessenich is often criticized here for being a Syracuse-hater. I don't think so. What Q does is speak with far more candor (and insight) than most sports commentators. I, for one, find it refreshing. He doesn't sugar-coat or mealy-mouth the problems he sees on the teams he writes about (see his bitingcomments about Duke in this article). When he thought the 'Cuse offense showed immaturity, he said so. And, early in the season, I think few of us would disagree. In his current piece, he says the Orange are vulnerable when they believe their own hype. I think there's some truth there and I can't help wondering if the early losses to Army and Maryland may have helped this team grow up, something an undefeated record might not have done at this stage in the season (I also think the 5th year transfers: Stevens, English, Mule, and Mark were critical to the process). That was a grown-up team that curb-stomped Duke last Wednesday and we all hope that same grown-up team shows up at South Bend on Saturday. I agree with those who say that a #3 ranking at this stage in the season is just fine.

 

[Laxfanshutt]

Thought this was funny.. guess they can’t tell the difference between a Syracuse Uni and a Princeton one..Lmao

 

[Powellfan]

Hope they win a whole lot more games before the year is out, but this is still reassuring to read.

 

[MD Cuse Fan]

Hope they win a whole lot more games before the year is out, but this is still reassuring to read.

Yeah going into the tournament on a possible 4 game (or 5 if counting an ACC tour game) losing streak doesn't sound promising.

 

[FloridaCuse]

Hope they win a whole lot more games before the year is out, but this is still reassuring to read.

WOW! Great news. You mean I can stop worrying? [No]

 

[bjred]

Thought this was funny.. guess they can’t tell the difference between a Syracuse Uni and a Princeton one..Lmao

Also the BU picture is of Yale vs Denver earlier this year.

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

you can play around with lacrosse reference's rpi predictor tool to project future RPI. yale is going to drop like a lead balloon. the second half of their schedule is brutal (in a bad way). i would be surprised if they finish in the top 8. more likely to be on the bubble than get a top 3 seed if you ask me...still prob will make the tournament but anyone looking at RPI right now and thinking yale is a lock isn't looking at the bigger picture

the 4 ACCs, penn state, hopkins, cornell are set up well right now. i would rather be any of those teams than yale

Wait until they’re upset by Le Moyne tonight.

 

[cuselaxss26]

Think cuse needs to focus one game at time. But def think they take cornell and unc down their most def in now. Think they take down 1 of cornell or unc prob in also but may not be top seed. If they beat ND this week i think no doubt they are in after that win. I just hope they show up to play saturday and of course finally beat ND who they have struggled with lately n not close. But ultimately hope it is very close game not that want another overtime heartbreaker but be better then losing by 6 or more like before.

 

[Powellfan]

3. Syracuse

Feb. 6 Odds: +1000
Current Odds: +800
Terry’s Vote: 4

Are the Orange the hottest team in college lacrosse? Winners of five straight and coming off of a one-sided home win over Duke that featured what I called the best defensive performance of the season and winning the Kraus-Simmons Trophy at Hobart on Saturday, it seems like a pretty easy case to make. And that’s despite the fact that it doesn’t seem as though things have come easily for the offense in the last two games.

Syracuse heads to Notre Dame on Saturday for what’s shaping up to be another one of the games of the season so far.

 

[cuselaxss26]

Make sure read what he wrote bout notre dame. To paraphrase a bit he saids “don’t believe seen the best of Irish yet but always seem to be brought out by the orange.” something like that so saying they play their best whenever they play orange. Cuse better come ready to play.

 

[MD Cuse Fan]

Make sure read what he wrote bout notre dame. To paraphrase a bit he saids “don’t believe seen the best of Irish yet but always seem to be brought out by the orange.” something like that so saying they play their best whenever they play orange. Cuse better come ready to play.

Notre Dame has embarrassed Cuse the past few years like no opponent I can remember in all my years of being a fan, if they're not coming out completely dialed in that would be beyond concerning.

 

[fieldystick]

Hope they win a whole lot more games before the year is out, but this is still reassuring to read.

Oh come on now, you guys need to believe me from earlier about Syracuse's status as a near-lock.

I hope the Orange hurry up and lock in, so I can stop feeling like a closet Syracuse fan, which is how I've basically felt these last 2.5 seasons now. Once 'Cuse is officially back (in the tournament), I will officially depart from any and all support! I can go back to disliking/really wanting to beat Syracuse without feeling bad about it. It is not fun for me to watch a storied rival struggle in the way Syracuse did in 22/23 - it hit too close to home for the Hopkins fan.

 

[texascpa]

Quoting for follow up if you don't mind.

I expected there would be a ton of push back from people who only watch the games and not the nerdy/mathy stuff about the current evaluations of the ACC teams, with only Syracuse really being in a strong position.

Looking at these profiles, do you still feel that Notre Dame and Virginia rise above the rest?

View attachment 239106

Why is Duke listed as a Win and Notable Remaining Game? Is this assuming a rematch in the ACC Tourney?

 

[fieldystick]

Why is Duke listed as a Win and Notable Remaining Game? Is this assuming a rematch in the ACC Tourney?

Copy paste error/typo, I'll fix it for next week.

When I do my spreadsheets on Sunday night, I'm doing a lot of data stuff quickly. I try to get it all right/double check, but I inevitably tend to miss something somewhere.

-

So I looked at it again when I got back to my computer. What happened was that I deleted the wrong game (Cornell instead of Duke) from Syracuse's remaining games. I saw that Cuse had 3 notable remaining games left on their schedule when I pulled it from IL and scanned my spreadsheet and also saw 3 there so I went "yep that's correct" - issue was I had the wrong 3 listed as explained above.