Div 1 All-America

The 2013 tournament returns to Greenville, SC this May.

Postby steveperry on Thu May 22, 2008 1:56 pm

Zamboni_Driver wrote:
Again, my point is to make people think about this favorite player outside of their biased viewpoint. This doesn't mean after a moment of thought their favorite player still doesn't make the list, he still may be very deserving- but maybe the arguments can be better than team winning percentage, or how tough a league is.


I can see your point that good players play on bad teams, HOWEVER, in this situation, the best teams (besides Chapman and ASU) had the majority of the players on the list. It is way too obvious by the picks that there is bias for more established programs and players. If the majority of players did not come from top 10 teams, then the "diamond in the rough" argument could be made, but that is not the case. Better teams do get more picks, because they play better teams, have more visibility, etc. Including playoffs, ASU played 10 top 25 teams, Chapman played 14. The argument that players that we have mentioned did not stand out in those games is very hard to make. I look at the list and I see past AA players that did not have great seasons, but are still on the list. No offense, but if you are Northeastern, and you got crushed against every top 25 team you played, not to mention non-top 25 teams, it is still a hard argument that you have more guys on the list than 2 of the top teams in the country. Since many coaches that vote do not see certain players play, they need to look at stats, honors, and what team and conference someone plays in to help weigh their talent. When a third team player from the LSA, from a team that went 0 and 4 against top 25 teams, makes the list over the players we have mentioned, there is a serious problem with this system.
User avatar
steveperry
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:16 pm


Postby onpoint on Thu May 22, 2008 2:12 pm

Everyone can see that Chapman and ASU may have deserved more players. You are missing the point that it is the coaches of the players' teams that have the responsibility of making sure their players are nominated and to lobby for them after they make their All-League selection. Your criticism may be better served for the coaches of the teams in question (I have no affilittion with the process, but that's my understanding).
Always on point . . .

Alex Smith
CSU Lacrosse '03
User avatar
onpoint
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:28 am
Location: Fort Collins, CO

Postby Chris Larson on Thu May 22, 2008 3:11 pm

Thank you Alex.

>90% of the WCLL nominees received All America Recognition
Chris Larson

District 7 Lacrosse Official
SFO - Upper Midwest Lacrosse Conference
Treasurer - Upper Midwest Lacrosse Officials Association
General Manager - Team MN Lacrosse
Boy's Coaching Coordinator - St Paul Youth Lacrosse
User avatar
Chris Larson
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: St Paul, MN

Postby Highheat on Thu May 22, 2008 4:48 pm

I think there has to be a look at the number of nominations teams get because of the leagues they play in. In the RMLC i'm quite sure that BYU had more than 10 players that made the top 2 All-Conference teams. That means they have 10 players eligible for All-America, and this year they got a bunch of those. In Michigan's position, they play in a very weak league where they are a vastly superior team, so they are going to have a disproportionate amount of players on their all-conference team. With the WCLL you have FAR MORE TEAMS, including far more competitive teams that are vying for spots on an All-Conference Team with the same amount of spots as the RMLC and CCLA, etc. have on their AC teams.

In this instance the WCLL gets screwed because they have too many good players, while the RMLC has too few players total, and the CCLA has one team that is vastly superior to the rest of the league.

Mathematically it makes sense... but maybe there ought to be provisions that prevent such lopsided results from coming about.

Oh and just to break the flaw in the argument... anyone that voted for 5 Sonoma AAs is smoking crack. They have at most 3 - more likely 2
Shoot high for glory
User avatar
Highheat
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 7:41 pm
Location: Hella Cal

Postby glennking on Sun May 25, 2008 11:50 pm

...Hopefully next year the players won't "pay" for somebody else's mistake. Whatever though, there has been enough internet space taken up by this discussion
glennking
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:02 pm

Postby Ballaholic on Mon May 26, 2008 11:16 am

seems like a lot of people think the WCLL got dismissed by not having more All-Americans. The truth is, there are great players across this country not just in the "best conference".
User avatar
Ballaholic
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Missoula

Postby steveperry on Mon May 26, 2008 3:55 pm

Ballaholic wrote:seems like a lot of people think the WCLL got dismissed by not having more All-Americans. The truth is, there are great players across this country not just in the "best conference".


If that is what it means to be an AA, then we should go all the way to 8th team or so. I am sure there are plenty of pretty good players on over 100 teams nation wide. However, there is a reason why the WCLL has 8 teams in the top 25. They didn't just get lucky. Top 10 teams play each other in the quarter finals of the WCLL tournament. There is no other league like that. I am sure a third team LSA player from TCU is probably a decent player, but to put that kind of player on the AA list before you would put 1st and 2nd teams WCLL players on top 6 teams that have proven them self time and time again against the best competition in the country, there is a major problem in the system. AA should not resemble a participation trophy like we got back in t ball. The better player will always be the guy that can perform against the best teams, and not just against average or below average competition.
User avatar
steveperry
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:16 pm

Postby NYBuilt on Tue May 27, 2008 12:47 pm

Wolf was 3rd team all conference in LSA. He was co-offensive player of the year. He plays attack, not middie. He was not an LSA nomination for AA. I dunno how it happened, but I wonder if it was a mix up with Phillip Johnson. Player from UNT, hands down the best offensive player in the conference. He was a middie and an AA nominee.
Real Men Bull Dodge
User avatar
NYBuilt
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:10 pm

Postby Danny Hogan on Tue May 27, 2008 1:48 pm

how is the co-offensive player of the year a 3rd team all conference player.....
Danny Hogan
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:50 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby swampthing on Tue May 27, 2008 2:51 pm

welcome to the LSA danny . . . don't adjust your set . . .

jk

Actually the rule (as someone posted one time) states that AA nominated players OR league mvp's are eligible so I think a better question is how is a 3rd team player the co-offensive player of the year? I wouldn't take this one too far in depth it's already been talked out in the LSA forum.
Scott Knepper
Florida Lacrosse #19

"Goose, Hollywood's ok....I WANT viper"
User avatar
swampthing
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: austin

Previous

Return to Championship Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests


cron