4th MDIA Div. A Poll (4/6/05). Thoughts, Predictions, etc.

[WaterBoy]

So Chuck, right after they beat you, did SFU just stop eating their Wheaties? Were they some Uberteam when you played them and then just trailed off?

On one hand, I think you have some valid points about Chico's rank. Not to the extent that you emphasize them, but I personally wouldn't be surprised if you climbed the rankings in the next two polls.

On the flip side- I think the choice of UCSD as a target for an overranked school was one of my few "wtf" moments of the day.

I would think that if I were a pollster, UCSD would be a breath of fresh air. Considering all of the game results this year that could make ranking difficult, UCSD is one of the few teams that isn't involved in a tangle. There is no one ranked below them that beat them, and there is no one ranked above them that they beat. The only two teams that they lost to were UCSB and Arizona (in double OT). Now if you want to make the argument that they should be 10th, fine. 12th? fine. But it seems fairly clear that they are in the right "area" of the rankings.

Long story short, polls are greatly affected by momentum. A loss can halt that momentum, and then a team needs to rekindle their impetus in order to start moving up again. A loss to SFU set you back, and now you're back on your way up the polls. Have some faith in the system- if you're underrated the pollsters will see.

[Rad44]

Waterboy is right when he says that it seems that momentum plays a role in the rankings. Given that, it would make sense that a 6-5, Chico is ranked correctly. The notion of momentum however, which it appears as though Chico is gaining, should help them climb as we get closer to MN. It also seems, and I tend to disagree with it, that reputation and games from previous seasons, generally has an effect on how people percieve a team. Although that is well deserved by the top five or so teams (CSU, BYU, Sonoma, UM, etc), it is often deceptive when analyzing teams (Oakland, Chico, Colorado, maybe BC now??). Outside of the top lets say 8 teams, rankings are up for grabs. Traditionally speaking, one would agree that Chico will get better in the ranks as the season progresses and make an aggressive move to MN. For now though, it seems as though teams are ranked appropriately.

[jessexy]

chico is a product of gameplanning. when you try and keep the ball away from the other team so they cant score, that doesnt mean your team is better. it just means you can catch & throw. why dont you being out the checkerboard for the goalie's to play with while you toss it around the retraining line.

[BClax16]

whats wrong with "gameplanning" - if you have the lead and the ball in a close game then "gameplanning" or offensive possesion is the ideal strategy - you have to force the trailing team to be agressive and take the ball away

[OAKS]

I would think that if I were a pollster, UCSD would be a breath of fresh air.

Agreed. Are pollsters voting on how good teams are supposed to be? Because teams like Oregon, Chico, and FSU have lost to teams fairly far below them, while teams like Lindenwood, GT, Utah, VT, etc. have only lost to teams ranked above them, or maybe one or two spots behind. I'd personally rank the more stable teams higher. But then again what do I know?

[cjwilhelmi]

while teams like Lindenwood, GT, Utah, VT, etc. have only lost to teams ranked above them, or maybe one or two spots behind. I'd personally rank the more stable teams higher. But then again what do I know?

Hey Will, Lindenwood hasn't lost yet so don't jinx them alright

[Chuck Norris]

jessexy, That is the most rediculous comment that I have ever heard.
POSSESION IS KING

[OAKS]

Hey Will, Lindenwood hasn't lost yet so don't jinx them alright

i knew that... forgot to clarify... I think jinxing them would be to say they'll go undefeated and win GRLC

[jessexy]

its not ridiculous. this is lacrosse, not curling. i think gameplanning is the admission that hte other team is better than you are and you have to resort to tactics outside of the spirit ofthe game to win. it sucks to see games the are 4-3 ( and there was a thread in the main discussion forum about the games being boring this season) or 6-5 because one teams holds the ball for 5 or 6 minutes at a time and only takes 2 shots. then they tout themselves as having a quality loss cuz they only lost by one goal.

if you want to show someone that you are better than they are, go beat them. it makes no difference if you lose by 1 after hoggin' the ball or you lose by 6 while playing lacrosse......you still lose. so chico lost to sonoma by 1 goal and held possession for 42 minutes (arbitrary numbers), they still lost. and it is more indicative of a fear of getting thrashed by Sonoma that the score was that low and they had to resort to tossing the ball around. It seems to me that Sonoma got the ball and put it in the back of the net like your supposed to when you trying to win the game.

holding the ball means youre trying not to lose as bad as other teams have. especially when its not your normal style of play.

AND POSSESSION IS NOT king. THEY ALWAYS ASK WHO HAD THE MOST GOALS AT THE END OF THE GAME, I THOUGHT!

[Kyle Berggren]

Everyone can use their own strategy, it's what makes the game interesting, especially if it fails. Ball control is a great part of the game, it gives your defense a break, and gives you a chance to wait for a great scoring opportunity. I don't fault teams that want to hold the ball, with no intention of going to the net, but I will encourage the officials to call stalling, and warn them to keep it in the box.

In a close game, if you have the lead, very often a team will try to hold the ball at the end, and not waste the possession, that's a good play. Why would controlling them tempo the entire time be any different?

All that said, I encourage a bit more run and gun. We've got to take our chances when we get them, and know when to give our defense a break. Controlling the tempo of the game is very important to me.

[jessexy]

controlling the pace of the game is one thing. stalling fromt he first whistle on purpose, just to keep the score down so you call trumpet that "we held the #3 team in the nation to a 4-3 ballgame" is different.

1. you still lost the game
2. you still lost the game
3. it just shows how much better that team is cuz they put their shots away in limited chances
4. you still lost the game

[TMcCourt]

Wow Jesssexy I think you are way off on this one. I have to go with the karate king chuck norris when he says gameplanning is important. Let's say you have two great lines of middies, and a third so so line, should you run and gun until your middies are dead and you lose in the third quarter? OF COURSE NOT. Just becuase you like to watch high scoring games and find them more exciting does not make them better played games. If Chico held the ball against Sonoma(I dont know if they did) and managed to keep it at one goal while still trying to win (I don't think they just layed down and lost) then they did an awesome job and even though it is a loss it was a better gameplan then a 7 goal loss, they tried to win by keeping the score low and close so they could put one extra one in and squeeze out the victory. ITS CALLED COACHING and strategy and it is part of the game.

And if on the other hand you think Chico went into the game with the intention of losing but to keep it close I think you are out of your mind. No one goes into a game like that. No one. Just a different style that apparently you dont like because it is less exciting

[CATLAX MAN]

Let's cut some slack to jessexy. After all, he comes from the program that uses the "no-slide" defense, so he's not accustomed to seeing tight defensive play.

[bste_lax]

They also run up the score so he is use to a lot of goals.

[slider]

From this discussion, it seems that you all believe "gameplanning" to be a tactic that only less talented teams employ. Do you think Hopkins and Syracuse don't have gameplans for beating one another? Do good teams win (to use a previous statement) by "just beating" the other team? What does that even mean?

If, as a coach, you believe that a lower scoring game gives you a better chance of winning, you should do whatever you can to make that happen. You do what you can to put your team in position to win. If, in the end, you lose by two or three to a good team, so be it. It's better than trying to "just beat" a more talented team and losing by ten. Welcome to competitive sports, guys.