FOURTH MDIA Div. A Top 25 Poll is out (4/5/06)!

[Laxbum]

GT also dismantled a Cal team that as many as 5 people had in their top 25 (or less people if they had them higher than 25)

And this is supposed to be a feather in GT's cap? Come on now, you're really stretching now. This is a team that Cal Poly beat 18-0 and also does not have one single quality win on their record.

Just thought I'd add that California did beat Chico State by 5 goals. I know that Chico is not in the top 25 but they are currently ranked 26th.

[steveperry]

It is interesting that NCAA Football uses the "BCS Formula" to determine rankings. One message on the second page of this forum referenced that numbers are flimsy, but I have to disagree. This is just an opinion, and in no way does it take away from what the pollsters do to contribute to this league. The rankings take the poll into consideration, so the pollsters do in fact contribute. New Hampshire and Northeastern are obviously exceptions due to their number of games played. After so many years in existence, the NCAA ultimately decided to make the move. Should we learn from them? Should a math formula determine who goes to the tourney? All pollsters have to make assumptions about teams they haven't seen play, and this becomes an "X" factor in the rankings. I simply like the formula because it takes the emotions, personal biases, and assumptions out of the equation. I am anxious to hear peoples thoughts on this.

I agree that this would be a great move. I think we do what football does and have two polls, a coaches poll and a "BCS" like poll. The question is how we would put it into practice. I think the auto bid system has to change. For an AQ to count, I think that team would have to be ranked at least 16 in either poll (if there were two). This is certainly something that everyone should put thought into, because maybe the system could adapt. I agree with the above that there are too many assumptions made in the polling. Teams that were maybe really good the year before, so pollsters may give them the benefit of the doubt, even if they have not proved it during the current season.

The more thoughts or ideas on this the better.

[CATLAX MAN]

I simply like the formula because it takes the emotions, personal biases, and assumptions out of the equation. I am anxious to hear peoples thoughts on this.

Laxpower rankings are based solely on mathematical formulas and they rarely get it right. The definitive proof of this is the final 2004 Laxpower ranking for the MDIA. This was the year that UCSB won their first championship and only losing one game along the way to Michigan. THey beat CSU & BYU twice that year. Even though the Laxpower rankings came out after the championship game was played and the results were already in, their final rankings had both CSU and BYU ranked ahead of UCSB. The problem with basing rankings solely on mathematical formulas is that you take the most important element in polling out of play, human judgement, the ability to look at a mathematical result and say, "that does not make sense."

[yourmom]

And to an unranked team Chico, and to Duluth. Now don't think I'm trying to take away thier wins over Cal Poly and Arizona, but saying they should be ahead of Lindenwood who has only lost 2 games to the #3 and #11 ranked teams by closer margins? Just my $.02

Closer margins to who? Lindenwood lost to Arizona. Utah beat Arizona. Oakland is not as good as they were supposed to be, although Lindenwood can't be blamed for that. In addition, Lindenwood only has once convincing win this year (Eastern Michigan). Every other game has been a close contest...even games against suspect teams.

Im talking about the point differences in the losses.

Lindenwood who has only lost 2 games to the #3 and #11 ranked teams by closer margins? Just my $.02

They have had some close losses, but they lost to Chapman by 7. Lindenwood lost to #3 Michigan by 4, and #11 Arizona by 3.

[John Paul]

A team should be ranked in the top 16 to get an AQ? So conference tournaments would mean nothing and teams from weaker conferences would never get in? Can't see that happening.

The BCS factors in human polls as well as mathematical polls. The actual formula has changed every year due to an incredible amount of criticism for inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I wouldn't use the BCS as an example of an improvement.

We have 30 voters. That eliminates (or at least greatly minimizes) any effect that personal biases may have. I think if you ask Sonny, who sees all the votes, the typical voter takes his responsibility to research and rank the top 20 or so very seriously, and then may stick a borderline team from his conference (if he's affiliated with a conference) in one of the final spots.

Last year the forum poll was started by some people who were skeptical of the real poll. Their results? Almost identical to the real poll.

This is one thing (the poll and bid system) I think we do very well. If it ain't broke...

[yourmom]

^^^^^ I agree

[wheelz33]

I simply like the formula because it takes the emotions, personal biases, and assumptions out of the equation. I am anxious to hear peoples thoughts on this.

Laxpower rankings are based solely on mathematical formulas and they rarely get it right. The definitive proof of this is the final 2004 Laxpower ranking for the MDIA. This was the year that UCSB won their first championship and only losing one game along the way to Michigan. THey beat CSU & BYU twice that year. Even though the Laxpower rankings came out after the championship game was played and the results were already in, their final rankings had both CSU and BYU ranked ahead of UCSB. The problem with basing rankings solely on mathematical formulas is that you take the most important element in polling out of play, human judgement, the ability to look at a mathematical result and say, "that does not make sense."

I think saying laxpower rarely getting it right is a strong statement. One could argue human polls arent much better. Laxpower isn't saying that everytime team A ranked 10th plays team B ranked 12th or whatever that they will win. But if they were to play say 10 times, theres a good chance team A would win one or two more then B. As TheJoker was saying, human pollsters have a lot of unintentional bias that comes into play. Its just human nature. Now obviously LaxPower has its flaws. One problem I see with it is it bases a lot on scores. Now, team A may blow a team out without digging into its bench too soon. Another, team B, may go into its bench sooner. So while the score may be a little closer, its not because team A was that much better, it just had a different coaching philosophy. I think LaxPower can be used as a valuable tool to make a pollster take a second look at a team ranked higher or lower in laxpower then compared to the polls and ask why. But I think it should just be used as a tool.

[CATLAX MAN]

This is one thing (the poll and bid system) I think we do very well. If it ain't broke...

Amen, JP. Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't always agree with the relative placement of the teams in the poll, but, by and large, the pollsters do a fine job and it is the best system we have. At the end of the season, the right teams usually go to the tourney. That's the bottom line.

[Sonny]

It is interesting that NCAA Football uses the "BCS Formula" to determine rankings.

The Bowl Championship Series uses the BCS Formula to determine bowl bids for the 4 or 5 (major) BCS bowl games including the national championship game. Really, it's all about determing the # 1 vs. # 2 game. The other BCS bowls are window dressing. Also remember the BCS has only been around for 6 - 7 years now and there have been plenty of discussion on the topic.

The rest of the BCS rankings & the regular season Top 25 polls (Coaches and USA Today/ESPN) really don't mean anything and they don't determine the other remaining (non-BCS) bowl bids. The other bowl bids are tied into the conference structures.

Furthermore, 1-A major college football is a unique system that really doesn't compare to any other college sport playoff system. I'm not sure it is applicable to other sports and it's definitely not applicable to MDIA lacrosse.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Personally, I want pollsters to base their ranks on wins/losses, statistics, and gut instinct. Now if you cut the numbers with the view of goals against average (GA), which is only one way of many, it may show why some teams are lower than what one would think and why others are higher.

I only did this for those teams ranked 11-18, because no one is disputing the Top 10.

Here is the latest poll:

11. Arizona
12. Lindenwood
13. Utah
14. Virginia Tech
15. Minn-Duluth
16. Georgia Tech
17. Oakland
18. ASU

Now if you look at GAA vs Ranked Teams just within this group and re-rank them this is what you get: (All have played atleast 3 ranked teams)


11 Utah 9.3
12 ASU 10.5
13 Arizona 10.6
14 Georgia Tech 10.7
15 Lindenwood 11
16 Minn-D 11.6
17 Oakland 12.3
18 Virginia Tech 14


GAA vs Non-Ranked Teams

11 Minn-D 3.5
12 GeorgiaTech 3.8
13 VirginiaTech 5.1
14 Oakland 5.2
15 ASU 6.6
16 Lindenwood 7.2
17 Utah 8.4
18 Arizona 8.6

Now some teams are in very easy conferences, so looking at their GAA vs Non-Ranked/Non-Conference teams: (Minn & Oakland only have 1 game)

11 Virginia Tech 3.3
12 Georgia Tech 4.6
13 Minn-D 5
14 Utah 7
15 Oakland 7
16 Lindenwood 7.2
17 ASU 9
18 Arizona 9.7

I am wondering what are some of the statistical comparison the pollsters and forum pollsters use for ranking in addition to win/loss comparison?

[x1dschm]

What's funny to me is that we give certain teams "passes" for their losses (BYU, Cal Poly) but other teams we hold onto their losses and drag them out every time a new poll comes out (Chapman, ASU, Utah). And let's be honest, the majority of people posting in here have an agenda including me. So I'm not gonna argue over whether or not some one should be ranked higher or lower than some one else.

Stop punishing teams for losses that occured weaks ago, and stop calling upsets or quality wins flukes. A win is a win is a win, plain and simple.

[AIRTERP]

Right on! I want to get in on this whole BCS/Human Vote debate!

I see a couple of interesting points here. First 'laxcd1' brought up the BCS formula system as an alternative to our voter system and invited a debate. Now in this argument laxcd1 points out the BCS includes a poll vote, actually it has 2 polls, (and as we know the polls account for 1/3 of the BCS formula) which brings in the human element and then uses statistical formulas to try and eliminate any biases from that human element. Now I see laxcd1's point as being: a hybrid voter/formula ranking system allows for checks and balances where the anomalies from one are erased by the other.

What I find interesting is that after laxcd1's post, people brought up Laxpower and its discrepancies as a rebuttal to illustrate the many flaws in a statistical system and therefore show the voter system as better. Correct me if I am wrong, but Laxpower is a totally different system. My understanding is that Laxpower's computer rankings combines "power ratings with game scores and homefield advantage." (taken directly from the Lax power website). This is completely different from how the BCS does it. So I really don't think the failures of the Laxpower system can used to discount a hybrid system like the BCS system. Apples and Oranges my friends.

With that being said...the BCS system is absolutely unusable in MDIA lacrosse for the exact reasons that Sonny stated. The BCS is used to determine #1 and #2 teams in the country. College football is a different animal than lacrosse. It doesn't have a national tournament, lacrosse does. And because of that tournament format all of the sudden things like AQ's come into play and completely screw up the whole formula.

But let's be honest with ourselves...to call the voter system in place now "sound" or to make comments like "if it ain't broke..." is overlooking the truth. Is our current system perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? No. But could it be better? Absolutely. Could it be a lot better? In my opinion YES, it could be improved quite a bit. As I said it will probably never be perfect but I think we should be trying to take steps forward and strive for that perfection. Aim for the stars and you'll shoot the moon.

This is a growing league with limited funds at the moment. The best of this league is yet to come. And because of this one of the biggest flaws of the voter poll is the fact that the majority of the voters do not have the opportunity to see all of the top teams play. I honestly can't imagine that more than one or two voters has seen the entire 1-25 ranked teams play (and I would even bet that 1-2 voters is a stretch). None of our games are televised (BYUTV excluded). There is virtually no press coverage on any of our games other then what is generated by those DIRECTLY affiliated with the MDIA (coaches, players, former coaches/players, parents etc.). And because of this I really don't think voters are able to do much more than make an educated guess at some of the teams that they are charged with ranking (and I think most voters would agree).

Now I think by that very definition the system can be described as flawed. Just to illustrate my point, as a casual college basketball fan, I was able to see the entire NCAA tourny field (1-64) play at least one regular season game because of television. Now I know D1 basketball or football or whatever is going to get television coverage and the MDIA isn't. I get that. D3 sports don't even get a whole lot of television coverage. But this is precisely my point. Our voters are never going to be able to see all of the these teams play unless they fork over the expense to travel to extra games and make a point to see out of conference teams.

So though the BCS formula would not work in MDIA, I think Laxcd1 is on to something when he proposes a hybrid system that uses both statistics as well as the voters. It would give a checks and balances system and I think it would be an improvement upon what we currently have. And I would bet that many of you out there who are a ton smarter than I could devise a pretty killer hybrid system that accomplished this.

Just my $.14.

[OAKS]

GT also dismantled a Cal team that as many as 5 people had in their top 25 (or less people if they had them higher than 25)

And this is supposed to be a feather in GT's cap? Come on now, you're really stretching now. This is a team that Cal Poly beat 18-0 and also does not have one single quality win on their record.

Well some people think they are good, or they wouldn't have voted for them. I was just adding in Tech's two most recent wins, which have been convincing ones against two teams who can be dangerous.

[CATLAX MAN]

But let's be honest with ourselves...to call the voter system in place now "sound" or to make comments like "if it ain't broke..." is overlooking the truth. Is our current system perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? No. But could it be better? Absolutely. Could it be a lot better? In my opinion YES, it could be improved quite a bit. As I said it will probably never be perfect but I think we should be trying to take steps forward and strive for that perfection. Aim for the stars and you'll shoot the moon.

I see a lot of criticism of the current polling system, but I have yet to see one concrete, viable proposal of a system to replace it. The fact is, that given the resources of this league, the current system of 30 regional, pretty well-informed pollsters is about as good as you're going to get.

Instead of criticizing, why not design something that will work better with the limited resources that this league has? Until that time, we have to assume that these complaints are probably emanating from the supporters of teams who are on the outside of the bubble looking in. . . . . . .trying to find a way in.

[AIRTERP]

CATLAX, I did suggest a new system, a hybrid model combining both polling and statistics as to eliminate error from both, which is both "concrete" and "viable". It is "Concrete" in that the logic behind it sound and versions of it have been put into action in other sports. And it is "viable" because it it would not require any additional funds. It would simply be an extension of the current polling system in place.

Now if your complaint is that I did not outline this system and it's logistics of implementation, then you are right...I did not do that. And if I thought a system such as the one I suggest would have any support then perhaps I would look into putting the system together. But unfortunately it seems that your opinion is the prevailing one; and that is "the voters are doing the best they can and that's all we can do."

And honestly I agree the voters are doing the best they can do, but as we can see on these boards, there is quite a bit of dissension over the placement of teams in these polls (whether people are lobbying their own teams or not). So why not give the pollsters a little help by implementing a hybrid system that balances against the polls. At the very least this would eliminate any argument about the pollsters "not getting it right." And then the argument becomes about improving the system each year, instead of people taking pot shots at the pollsters...much like that of the BCS which tries to improve the system after each season. And we have one great advantage over college football, we have season ending tournament so we don't have to worry about the #3 ranked team being left out of the championship like college football does.

And to say "...we have to assume that these complaints are probably emanating from the supporters of teams who are on the outside of the bubble looking in. . . . . . .trying to find a way in..." in my opinion is completely wrong. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but my only agenda is to see a more fair system that makes fewer mistakes and can be more widely accepted due to less influence from voter bias. being put in place. Be careful...you know what they say about when you assume...