2008 Lax World MCLA Division 1 Top 25 Poll (4/9/08) is out

[B2]

My advice to any serious player (and team) worrying about these rankings is to get back to practice and let other people worry about the soap opera that is the poll. Get to the tournament and let your play do the talking. The fact that Va Tech beat, FSU who lost to......, who lost to......, who beat...., means nothing right now. I know it's interesting, but you will be better served hitting the wall and working on your left hand.

[StrykerFSU]

My advice to any serious player (and team) worrying about these rankings is to get back to practice and let other people worry about the soap opera that is the poll. Get to the tournament and let your play do the talking. The fact that Va Tech beat, FSU who lost to......, who lost to......, who beat...., means nothing right now. I know it's interesting, but you will be better served hitting the wall and working on your left hand.

Good advice but I don't think any of us are players.

Nice post MoreCowbell. The thing that drives me nuts is the outright dismissal of newer teams from the debate, it's not even up for discussion with some people that the SELC teams might have earned a spot higher than UCSB, Noma, or UO.

I also agree with Matherly, Auburn 2002 keeps being brought up as an example of a team that made too much hay in a weak conference and then got "embarrassed" at Nationals. Now I don't know what happened at Nationals that year but I have had a front row seat to watch the development of the SELC since then and it's a whole new ball game down here. But what do I know, I'm only a state of Florida lacrosse player. That's all irrelevant anyway. UCSB is having a down year, UO is unremarkable, and Noma is not looking so good yet they sit comfortable in the Top 10 while hot teams from other regions who have beaten them have to hold their collective breaths for a tourney bid. And people just want to know why.

[Ben Clark]

That being said, Michigan consistently has underachieved in the nationals AND conference tournaments.

They've won 7 of the last 9 CCLA conference championships - I'd say that's a pretyt high level of achievement .

No offense to the CCLA meant at all ... but who (in-conference) has Michigan had to contend with? Not taking away from Michigan by any means ... they're undefeated and have done so playing great out-of-conference opponents.

All I'm saying is that the combined record for the CCLA this year (minus Michigan) is 38-46.

Fun fact: Including Michigan in the overall record puts the CCLA over .500 (48-46) thus making the Wolverines accountable for over 20% of CCLA wins.

But looking at the past nine years... You don't have to go too far back to when Oakland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Indiana were all pretty good teams. I agree that at this point in the year Michigan is clearly the best team in the CCLA, but to win 7 in the past 9 years IS impressive, considering some of the teams they've had to compete with.

Disclaimer: I am by no means a CCLA historian - if I'm way off on something, please correct me.

[Danny Hogan]

BYU has lost to Michigan (#1), Chapman (#2), UMD (#3), and Whittier. No bad losses there. CSU only has 1 bad loss (Utah) and a blowout loss to BYU and a tight loss to SSU but has a win over UMD, your precious BC, and Oregon. UCSB has 2 bad losses (FSU & Florida) but a close loss ASU and a quality win over SSU. SSU has a quality win over CSU and a close loss to SF (#5) and their worst loss is UCSB...Their resume's are solid.

Let's look at BC...your best MCLA wins are over FSU & Florida, which isn't saying a whole lot, and losses to Georgia, CSU, & UMD. The rest of the schedule is weak.

The big 4 make their case...that's why they are always there. Take a page from Duluth, Chapman, Simon Fraser, and go out and schedule and beat some of the big boys and you may earn that respect that you so desperately crave.

your post is pretty condescending and if you have read more than 1 of cowbell's posts he is not campaigning for any team.

i agree that the overall body of work is solid, but what does it take for one of the big 4 to drop in the polls (though byu, csu, ucsb, sonoma have shuffled around in the t10 this season) if not multiple losses to teams ranked below them in the last polling period doesn't do it?

[John Paul]

Blizzard here in Colorado today. Woke up to snow with more coming.

On the poll:
No poll is going to satisfy everyone. We use a large group of voters (40) spread across the country in order to even out any regional biases or voting philosophy differences that may exist. The same concerns, arguments and solutions that are coming up here show up on the forums every year. Several years ago a group of forum regulars were so up in arms over the poll that they decided to do one of their own. Their results? Almost exactly the same as the real poll.

I'm sure many of you have issues with where one or two teams are ranked (as do I), but remember that your logic is yours alone. As this thread shows, others have a different perspective. That's actually what makes the poll work.

(Nothing wrong with having this discussion though. The poll should generate discussion.)

As for a team perspective...
Teams like UMD and Oregon are going through what we went through 8 or 9 years ago. We quickly realized we had to play a national schedule against great teams to get better, and we had to win some of those games to earn respect. We found ways to bring them to us (the Michigan Invitational) and we traveled once or twice (three times this year) to play top 10 teams. It wasn't cheap, but it benefited us in a lot of ways, including the poll.

To address Wheelz question about why Michigan gets the poll respect we do (he's an MSU guy, by the way), we've had a couple of things going for us. Even in our off years (and we've had a few of them), we've never lost a conference game in the regular season - which generally keeps us moving in a positive direction in the polls in weeks that other teams around us may be falling. We have a losing record against only two MCLA teams (BYU and CSU). We usually do pretty well in the regular season - even against the other perrenial top teams. Our lack of success in the national tournament comes at the end of the year, after all but the post-season poll. (None of this is intended to brag, but only to explain our situation, which is somewhat unique. Personally, if I could choose, I'd rather the success come at the tournament.)

I agree, by the way, with those who said laxpower (or any mathematical formula) should not have a say in our poll.

[benji]

This may just be my opinion ... but the polls are supposed to reflect the level of play for a given team in recent play, correct?

Regardless of who you play, if you drop 3 out of your 4 most recent games, that's a pretty clear indication that you're not improving. In fact, I would go as far as saying that you would be doing just the opposite.

Then, to move up two spots? Really? I mean .... really?

SB started off slow this season: a 2 goal win over Cal (7-5), +5 on Stanford (9-2), +7 on LA (2-9), then a loss to BYU ... by no means a back-breaker. Picked up a little steam in the next four home games, +4 at SDSU (7-6), then 2 consecutive losses to these supposedly 'inferior' SELC teams sitting at (10-3) and (12-3).

Consider ANY other sport which uses a polling process. Would you ever, ever think that a team can drop 2 games to lower-ranked teams and move up in the polls?

I'm not outright suggesting a WCLL bias, but just look at the poll results:
- 8 teams in the Top 25
(Chapman, A-State, SB, Sonoma, SLO, Stanford, LMU, Claremont)
>Not too many issues here but still looking for a quality win out of Claremont, Stanford's winning, but who have they played?, LMU beat Florida and played CSU close, <

- 5 teams also receiving votes
(Santa Clara at 7-5, Zona at 5-8!, Chico at 8-6, SDSU at 7-6, and Cal at 7-5)

It appears that pollsters are getting trapped b/c all these WCLL teams (mostly) keep playing each other close. Wouldn't go as far (yet) to call it a bias, but there are 83 other teams to consider.

[StrykerFSU]

Yeah benji, but those were "good" losses.

[Zamboni_Driver]

(Nothing wrong with having this discussion though. The poll should generate discussion.)

As for a team perspective...
Teams like UMD and Oregon are going through what we went through 8 or 9 years ago. We quickly realized we had to play a national schedule against great teams to get better, and we had to win some of those games to earn respect. We found ways to bring them to us (the Michigan Invitational) and we traveled once or twice (three times this year) to play top 10 teams. It wasn't cheap, but it benefited us in a lot of ways, including the poll.

Since I like discussion - let me be a bit of a pain.

Coach Paul, your discussion of Michigan, Oregon, UMD all centers around programs that have lifted themselves up with consistent competition that has been maintained over the years. Each year's team is of good quality because the program has stability. But this doesn't address how to handle the unknown upstart team that is here one year and gone the next. Their road to the NC is almost impossible.

Thus the NC isn't the best teams, just the best teams of the most consistent programs.

The Hypothetical (for example): A lower program gets a coach and 2 stellar recruiting classes. They go from losing records to winning their conference AQ in 3 years on an upset, but get seeded 16th. They lose immediately to the #1 because they know they are not the #1. They win their consolation matches, which immediately everyone points out that the team they beat had hopes of a NC and didn't care (played everyone). Basically a lose-lose at their first NC. Without being about to show anything they still can't get too many teams to play them. The next year, they only rise to 14th because they started so low in the ranks, and there is alot of parity. At nationals they lose on the first day, and with it ends the run of a talented team. In this example this team is believing they are 9-7th and are just looking for that recognition.

[univduke21]

Why does it matter where you are ranked in the tournament? Everyone has to win 4 games. It is that easy. There is no way that any team that plays a schedule, like Colorado, BYU, UCSB, Michigan every year and has one to two loses doesn't get a very good seed in the national tournament. It matters who you play.

[Jolly Roger]

That team needs to schedule and win games against traditional powers. See Chapman 2008, Oregon 2007.

[StrykerFSU]

Why does it matter where you are ranked in the tournament? Everyone has to win 4 games. It is that easy. There is no way that any team that plays a schedule, like Colorado, BYU, UCSB, Michigan every year and has one to two loses doesn't get a very good seed in the national tournament. It matters who you play.

Like when UCSB played FSU and UF and lost? Or like when CSU played Utah and lost?

And of course it matters where you are seeded...that's why they seed the tournament!

Do we really want to trot out Colorado's schedule in this discussion?

[Danny Hogan]

Why does it matter where you are ranked in the tournament? Everyone has to win 4 games. It is that easy. There is no way that any team that plays a schedule, like Colorado, BYU, UCSB, Michigan every year and has one to two loses doesn't get a very good seed in the national tournament. It matters who you play.

2 points...some of the teams we are talking about may not get to go to the national tourney based on where they are ranked....and would you rather face a #1-4 seed on day 1 or day 2 after getting to watch them in person...both are definatley tall orders for anyone but i like my chances better on day 2

[Danny Hogan]

(Chapman, A-State, SB, Sonoma, SLO, Stanford, LMU, Claremont)
>Not too many issues here but still looking for a quality win out of Claremont, Stanford's winning, but who have they played?, LMU beat Florida and played CSU close, <

believe claremont waxed utah

[StickSideHigh]

This is the secret formula for being ranked outside of the top four.
Step 1: Travel out West and play 8 games in a week
Step 2: Lose 7 of them for qulaity losses and have one upset win
Step 3: Return to your conference and play mediocre teams and beat them because you are supposed to
Step 4: Wait until next poll, if it did not work return to step one and repeat
Let me know what happens

[Ravaging Beast]

If you are winning every year at Nationals, you are going to get the benefit of the doubt when you lose a game in the regular season. If the majority of your schedule is top 25 teams, your record will look better. If you can play more than one of the top 10 teams, you are going to look better. The SELC has not played that many top teams from other conferences. So I'm assuming many pollsters are skeptical. Why didn't any of the teams play BYU, Oregon, Michigan, UMD, Chapman, CSU, etc? Most of the SELC teams live in warm climates. Why not invite out teams like UMD, BYU, CSU, or Michigan who would probably love to get a little bronze in February? It is something you guys will have to think of next year to boost your conference status. See how much attention the UCSB trip has brought to the SELC. Imagine if some of the other teams came as well and you guys beat up on them too. This discussion wouldn't be taking place. Florida, FSU, and Va Tech might be ranked in the top ten. With the exception of FSU in 2005 and Florida in 2003, I haven't been impressed with any SELC teams at Nationals. And FSU beat #1 BYU as a #9 seed in 2005. And if we go way back, UCSB was actually in the same position as many of the SELC teams are in now. They started to beat top teams every year and work their way up in the rankings. They were low seeds in the National Tournament, but still were able to win and make the final four. And it will always be hard for non-power teams to get some respect. How many people picked Memphis to be in the National Championship game? Or who picked Davidson to make the final four? There are a couple more weeks left in the regular season. Lets see how they play out.