Cuse Loses a Heartbreaker to Cornell
- Thread starter bigmatt718
- Start date
Selection Committee is so out of touch...it is an embarrassment.
Great job committee. UVA, ND, Cuse and Nova go down. ACC goes 1-3. Hopefully Duke goes down to JHU next week.
ACC 1-3 Big East 1-2 Big Ten 2-0. Yea but the ACC is the best conference and yea the Nig East deserves 3 bids over the Big Ten. Carrier dome looked empty but yea they should ha e gotten a home game
Hate to see it happen. Such a shame to see the ACC go 1-3.
Perfect weekend people. That was great!!
Perfect weekend people. That was great!!
The selection committee is Fi'n corrupt and need their heads beaten in. 3 of 4 ACC teams seeded no less.
The Big East and ACC go 2-5 in the first round. Oh, they only won 2 because they played each other and someone had to win. The other two will lose next weekend.
I guess the critics of the committee were right. Three seeds/home games for a conference full of ordinary teams (except for Duke). And everybody saw it but them...
The "selection committee" really just uses a mathematical model which is available to anyone. I knew Villanova would get a bid within an hour of the regular season ending.
The only thing the committee did was seed and determine home games. Cornell probably deserved a home game against Syracuse but it is only an hour drive to Syracuse from Ithaca and they probably got a bigger crowd to show up to the Carrier Dome than would have shown at Cornell.
The only thing the committee did was seed and determine home games. Cornell probably deserved a home game against Syracuse but it is only an hour drive to Syracuse from Ithaca and they probably got a bigger crowd to show up to the Carrier Dome than would have shown at Cornell.
It’s a long story. Basically it’s ALL about the RPI which is a completely screwy formula
BIG teams losing to teams with losing records in non-conference ruined the chances for more NCAA bids for the BIG....it's that simple.
OSU lost to Towson, Marquette
RU lost to Army
Michigan lost to Penn (Penn was actually a good team that finished 7-8)
If OSU had beaten Towson and RU had beaten Army I think the NCAA tournament field would look very different.
Not great with all the rules. Can someone explain the last 5-6 seconds of the cuse game? It looked like Cornell committed a penalty that the ref called...play kept going, clock ran out and refs called it final.
Was this a delayed penalty situation where it won’t go into effect until next stoppage of play (but since no stoppage til final buzzer they lost benefit of the penalty called)? Just curious how that final cornell penalty that was called didn’t actually get enacted?
Was this a delayed penalty situation where it won’t go into effect until next stoppage of play (but since no stoppage til final buzzer they lost benefit of the penalty called)? Just curious how that final cornell penalty that was called didn’t actually get enacted?
Penalties are delayed until the guilty team gains possession of the ball, much like ice hockey.
Game over. No different than hockey when a delayed cross-checking penalty is being called. There are penalties in hockey that can result in a penalty shot when in the last 2 minutes (e.g.delay of game-knocking the net loose to stop play).
Personally i would love it if the committee gives each league a certain number of bids and the league determines how they are allocated. I would think you would see the big east as a two bid league, acc as a three big league, big ten a three bid league, and patriot league as a two bid league. The conference tournaments screw everything up with upsets turning one bid leagues to two bids or two bid into three (big East). I think the committee should determine bids per league at the end of the season.
That's a great idea. Ivy would be a two team bid league, the rest would be one team bid leagues.
Georgetown had a great season winning 12 games....they would have been in without the auto-bid. If RU had beaten Army they would have gotten an at-large bid. If OSU had beaten Towson, they probably barely sneak in to the NCAA's too.
I think this is the 3rd year in a row they’ve lost early (Denver). Not taking anything away from Georgetown.
Knight Owl, we get it, you aren’t a Rutgers fan but stop with the BS. Nova didn’t belong over RU and Georgetown wasn’t getting in unless it won their tournament.
I know RPI, blah, blah, blah. Congrats you can read a website. Now go away.
I know RPI, blah, blah, blah. Congrats you can read a website. Now go away.
We dominated the ACC. OSU and RU also didn’t lose 22-6 to Denver. Please continue. Btw, Penn was counted as a good win for Nova so I don’t see how that can be considered a bad loss for Umich. Umich (last place in the B1G) beat the ACC tournament champ on the road. Stop. Anyone who doesn’t think the B1G was the best conference this year wasn’t watching.
The committee didn’t just invent the magic formula last week. They’ve used it without alteration for years. The ACC doesn’t get secret bonus points. Every game matters. Good luck convincing people that a media poll is better....the math models were created because polls haven’t done a perfect job.
Cuse getting a bid AND an 8 seed does not show ACC favoritism? come on.
Disclaimer: this post isn't about lacrosse, or Rutgers, or the model the selection committee uses. It's purely about RPI.
KnightOwl (and others who know about this metric), educate me about RPI. I've always just accepted it as a metric that I would summarize as "how many games a team wins vs. a tough schedule." Is that a fair assessment? Because the formulas I've seen in recent threads don't necessarily bear that out. I mean, if a team has a light schedule against weak teams who also have light schedules, that formula is going to lead to a high RPI. But it never turns out that way. What am I missing?
I have this vague memory of a mystery factor in the formula that somehow weighted the games against certain teams based on recent success, and also that wins and tough games on the road carried heavier weight. Is that all nonsense on my part?
More simply put: you did say that you are able to duplicate the RPI rankings with your own calculations based on the formula you've posted, right?
Thanks...
Well, given the results the RPI hasn't done a perfect job either. And Syracuse getting a home game against a Cornell team they lost to in the regular season by 5 goals is a travesty.
It was also, imho, the best game of the weekend. But unless Cornell finds a way to get Teat into the game their run will end next week. Ancient history, but Eamon McEneany never would have been stymied by a clamp.
The math model used begins with RPI and then adds to it ...quality win points and some other things...with conference affiliation not being one of those.
RPI is a simple calculation:
(Win % * .25) + (Average of opponents win % * .5) + (Average of opponents opponents win % *.25)
Didn't somebody say that the committee started the selection process by saying they didn't use "the eye test"?
I can't speak for everyone, but don't most of us form opinions by actually watching teams play? Records are what they are, but when you actually see a team on the field, you know what you've seen either good or bad.
I can't speak for everyone, but don't most of us form opinions by actually watching teams play? Records are what they are, but when you actually see a team on the field, you know what you've seen either good or bad.
Extremely flawed based on what you saw this weekend. You can write all the Bullshit you want but anyone with a brain can see it. Going in to this I thought ACC was a two bid team with Duke and Virginia. I was wrong. It should have been just Duke and even then I don't see them going to finals. The losses by Notre Lame and Sadexcuse were huge as they were unfairly seeded playing lower ranked teams at home, a huge advantage. Look at our record at home.
It’s a freaking formula that doesn’t take into account margin of victory/defeat. All a team like Cuse has to do is show up verse Albany or Hopkins and it helps their strength of schedule. It doesn’t matter if they lose by double digits. Losing by double digits isn’t a “bad loss.” How messed up is hat. If you really think the RPI is a good metric, then you have not been paying any attention at all.
B1G 6 ACC 2 PLUS 21 GOALS to the B1G. Stop picking Avi choosing your talking points to fit your narrative.
Giving people statistics who are not schooled in statistics is dangerous... I still don't understand if their is any definition of the criteria the selection committee is supposed to use?
The problem is that it the selection process is not supposed to be based off a formula, however it does appear, at least when selecting at large candidates, they are following a certain formula. But this is the problem — there is specific criteria committee is allowed to consider, however it is not supposed to be a static formula like RPI. The committee is supposed to weigh a variety of factors and draw conclusions as to the importance of each factor relative to this year’s results. In addition, they are also supposed to take into consideration the opinion of an expert advisory committee which consists of coaches from every AQ conference.
However it appears that none of this is being done. I suspect this is because 3/5ths of the selection committee knows next to nothing about the sport, let alone watch any actual games, so they are just relying on a formula to spit out results and not using any critical thinking to make it simple.
There is CLEARLY bias when looking at seedlings, however. According to the formula, Hopkins should have been a 3 seed and Duke a 5 yet the committee swapped them. Why? Neither ND or Cuse should have been top 8 seeds, while Denver and Cornell should both have had home games. Even when the chairman tried to justify there selection the said that Cuse’s 4-0 ACC record was a big factor even though they lost to Cornell h2h and had a lower RPI.
However it appears that none of this is being done. I suspect this is because 3/5ths of the selection committee knows next to nothing about the sport, let alone watch any actual games, so they are just relying on a formula to spit out results and not using any critical thinking to make it simple.
There is CLEARLY bias when looking at seedlings, however. According to the formula, Hopkins should have been a 3 seed and Duke a 5 yet the committee swapped them. Why? Neither ND or Cuse should have been top 8 seeds, while Denver and Cornell should both have had home games. Even when the chairman tried to justify there selection the said that Cuse’s 4-0 ACC record was a big factor even though they lost to Cornell h2h and had a lower RPI.
There is ACC bias, they use the formula to justify ACC when fits, ignore when it doesn't. It is not even arguable.
I checked the past three seasons and they have used the power ratings EVERY YEAR. Last year UNC was the last at large in because the formula said so. UNC then proceeded to lose to Albany in the first round. If they had gone against the power ratings this year they would have had some explaining to do. By sticking to the formula they maintain the appearance of fairness whether or not they picked the best at-large teams or not. OSU was playing as well as anyone down the stretch (including a win vs RU and a win vs Maryland) but having them leapfrog several teams in the power ranking based on being “hot” isn’t something the committee is willing to do.
