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

[Ravaging Beast]

Step 2: Lose 7 of them for qulaity losses and have one upset win

Only applies to UMD.

[Highheat]

(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.

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.

I hate to break the news to you, but it's a National Championship, not a National let's-play-for-7th-ship...

And you are just utterly wrong about the "NC isn't the best teams." If you can't break into the top 14-16 which is generally required for the tourney, you either A). Can't beat anyone in the 1-16 range more than say once or twice or B). You're not scheduling anyone in the 1-16 range and therefore will never be recognized...

[StrykerFSU]

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.

BYU and Michigan came to Tallahassee last year. And Colorado came this...oh wait, never mind. FSU and UF have also traveled west in recent years but those teams weren't as strong as this year's teams might be. So in order for a good SELC team to get the possibility of a benefit of doubt of perhaps getting a chance to be in the Top 10, the stars have to align perfectly in order that
a.) a WCLL team comes east and said SELC team beats them (UCSB)
b.) a RMLC team doesn't cancel a game at the last minute (CU)
c.) other traditional powers haven't made the trip the year before (see above)
d.) they aren't located in a place like say, Blacksburg or Boston where you can't get tan (VaTech, BC)
e.) no team from the SELC have ever been out matched at the Tourney in the last two decades (those darn 02 Auburn Tigers)

None of this addresses the real issue here, that UCSB comes to Florida and loses to two teams ranked below them and moves up. UO plays no one and gets to sit in the Top 10 because they were ranked #5 in the preseason, wasn't your post about teams not playing anyone? And Sonoma lives it up at #9 on the strength of a win over not as good as usual CSU on March 15 and a "good" loss to Simon Fraser (because we shouldn't talk about the thumping they took at the hands of UCSB - that team that didn't look so good in Florida).

No one is going to be completely happy with any poll but when the deck is stacked against some teams who might be relying on an at-large bid then every position counts and we as fans of the MCLA have every right to question why teams land where they do.

[Zamboni_Driver]

I hate to break the news to you, but it's a National Championship, not a National let's-play-for-7th-ship...

Then why are there At-Large Bids?? The conference championships decide who is best per region. Bring the AQ's together and let them play it out. The #1 is the #1 whether you bring at-Larges or not.

You bring them so that programs can establish themselves (which actually might mean winning the NC as an At-large). You bring them so they can compare themselves nationally, and not just regionally. You bring them so that the league can see teams play which allows people to predict how good they will be next (based on roster) and set competitive schedules. So it is about knowing who is 7th, because that helps set up the future.

(also you bring at-large's to make it a 16 game tourney which is easier from a numbers prospective, and with 16 teams you'll have a critical mass of ticket sales that will bring sponsors)

[CATLAX MAN]

Stryker,

The solution to the problem is easy. Schedule multiple teams that are going to be in the Top 10 every year and you won't have this "non-recognition" problem. The more exposure you get amongst the voters, the more likely you will get the recognition you crave.

[StrykerFSU]

Stryker,

The solution to the problem is easy. Schedule multiple teams that are going to be in the Top 10 every year and you won't have this "non-recognition" problem. The more exposure you get amongst the voters, the more likely you will get the recognition you crave.

Eureka! It's so simple! Actually, what I really crave is for Lehigh to get an offense and compete in the Patriot League again but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

I don't have the time to crosscheck the final rankings of these teams in their respective years but since 2005 FSU has played Sonoma 2x, LMU 2x, UCSB 2x, BYU 2x, Santa Clara 2x, Chapman, Michigan, BC, Utah, and Colo...wait, not them.

UF has played Oregon, Colorado 2x, Michigan 2x, BYU, Utah, Santa Clara 2x, Chapman 2x, BC, LMU, UCLA, USC, Cal, and UCSB.

So I guess because neither FSU nor UF played CSU in the past three years they don't get the respect that I crave for them. I hear you, they lost some of those games and that's true but for games that weren't played this season...wait...for it...it doesn't matter! Just like this whole argument doesn't matter. All that matters is what happens this season. Namely FSU and UF beating UCSB and FSU taking down Utah (who also lost to UGA).

[scooter]

Stryker,

The solution to the problem is easy. Schedule multiple teams that are going to be in the Top 10 every year and you won't have this "non-recognition" problem. The more exposure you get amongst the voters, the more likely you will get the recognition you crave.

I generally don't jump into D1 matters, simply because I don't really know what's going on that much. But with that said, I am inclined to side with Stryker on this issue.

Both the Florida teams beat UCSB, a traditional top 10 powerhouse. With the exception of the thumping by Chapman, there are no real huge losses by either team. With what looks like to be only the top 14 making the field this year, seeding in polls is everything.

In my opinion, no east coast team is getting the credit they are due for scheduling quality conference and non-conference opponents. All of them might not be Top-10 this year, but a majority of their schedules are all Top 20 teams. It's not for lack of effort they aren't getting recognized.

On the other hand, it seems that traditional powers are getting through on their good looks and pretty smiles. UCSB does not deserve to be ranked where they are with the losses they have. Sonoma State does not deserve to be ranked where they are with the losses they have.

I understand that not all voters get to see all the games, but in a year with so much parity, emphasis should be placed on record and wins, and not history.

[UkraineNotWeak]

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.

Once again, a blatant lie. Sonoma has lost twice. A blowout to UCSB and a one goal loss to SFU. Both teams are ranked higher than them.

Florida's win against UCSB is nice, but they also lost to LMU. Like it or not, pollsters are going to look at that and perhaps be hesitant to rank them above UCSB. LMU still has to play Claremont and UCSB. If LMU loses to UCSB, they will be out of the playoff picture, and Florida's loss to them looks even worse. Conversely, UCSB might be shut out of the playoffs if the lose to Chapman and LMU. Wait a couple weeks before you go crazy about polls.

As for Oregon, they play Sonoma and BYU in the next few weeks. If they lose to both and don't move down, then complain away.

[Ravaging Beast]

e.) no team from the SELC have ever been out matched at the Tourney in the last two decades (those darn 02 Auburn Tigers)

Every SELC team that I have seen at Nationals has been outmatched except for Florida in 2003 and FSU in 2005. I have been to every National Tournament since 2001, so I know. I have been both a spectator and a player. And even if you go into the tournament with a good record, the only thing that will prepare you for winning a National Championship (which is all that matters) is playing a very strong regular season. I have lost a National Championship and won two. Just bragging a little. The one I lost was the best team I have ever played for. We lost because of inexperience. We had some strong games that season, but weren't ready for such a big game. So experience matters. Strong schedules will not only get you to Nationals, but it will give you the experience you need to get to a National Championship.

[UkraineNotWeak]

There is an old saying in the SELC...I know it's in the UMLL, probably in the SELC...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again.

[StrykerFSU]

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.

Once again, a blatant lie. Sonoma has lost twice. A blowout to UCSB and a one goal loss to SFU. Both teams are ranked higher than them.

Hey man, I certainly don't lie. I interpret results of games. Such as UCSB losing to UF and FSU and then thumping Sonoma. My interpretation is that Sonoma isn't as good as their ranking would suggest and I have wanted to engage in reasonable debate with other fans of the league concerning that ranking and others in the recent poll. If you'd like to join in then keep it civil and back up your points with facts or reasonable/intelligent theories.

Or digress into silly pot shots if you like.

[westcoastlax]

Stryker,

The solution to the problem is easy. Schedule multiple teams that are going to be in the Top 10 every year and you won't have this "non-recognition" problem. The more exposure you get amongst the voters, the more likely you will get the recognition you crave.

Eureka! It's so simple! Actually, what I really crave is for Lehigh to get an offense and compete in the Patriot League again but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

I don't have the time to crosscheck the final rankings of these teams in their respective years but since 2005 FSU has played Sonoma 2x, LMU 2x, UCSB 2x, BYU 2x, Santa Clara 2x, Chapman, Michigan, BC, Utah, and Colo...wait, not them.

UF has played Oregon, Colorado 2x, Michigan 2x, BYU, Utah, Santa Clara 2x, Chapman 2x, BC, LMU, UCLA, USC, Cal, and UCSB.

So I guess because neither FSU nor UF played CSU in the past three years they don't get the respect that I crave for them. I hear you, they lost some of those games and that's true but for games that weren't played this season...wait...for it...it doesn't matter! Just like this whole argument doesn't matter. All that matters is what happens this season. Namely FSU and UF beating UCSB and FSU taking down Utah (who also lost to UGA).

Out of all these teams FSU has played, LMU has been terrible until this year, and now they are just alright. Santa Clara has been cosistently terrible every year except this year they are a little bit better. BC has had a couple of alright years and Utah is so inconsistent that no one is sure what to think of them.
For Florida you brought up UCLA and USC, two teams that haven't beaten anyone ever.
So left over we have BYU, Sonoma, UCSB, Michigan, Chapman. Aside from beating UCSB this year you are bragging about a bunch of losses.
Yeah FSU beat BYU in the 05 tourney but then they got waxed by Sonoma 21-6 in the semi-final.
The point everyone is trying to make is not that the WCLL should get more teams because of history, but because they play higher ranked teams with results. You have a valid arguement that beating SB should help your team in the polls. But teams like Sonoma and Oregon have not lost to anyone ranked below them, whereas the SELC teams have, so you cannot justify them being ranked higher.

[UkraineNotWeak]

Hey man, I certainly don't lie. I interpret results of games. Such as UCSB losing to UF and FSU and then thumping Sonoma. My interpretation is that Sonoma isn't as good as their ranking would suggest and I have wanted to engage in reasonable debate with other fans of the league concerning that ranking and others in the recent poll. If you'd like to join in then keep it civil and back up your points with facts or reasonable/intelligent theories.

Or digress into silly pot shots if you like.

I did back my posts up with facts. There were no pot shots. Sonoma has not lost to a team ranked below them. You said they were sitting pretty in the Top 10 while other teams who have beaten them were on the outside looking in. I don't know where Sonoma should be ranked, but it certainly wouldn't be far outside the top 10.

I also presented my question regarding Johns Hopkins' record, yet nobody wanted to touch it. If they were not Johns Hopkins (or Syracuse, Duke, etc.) they would not be ranked in the top 15 with a 3-5 record. Like it or not, this recent poll is not that ridiculous.

[westcoastlax]

Hey man, I certainly don't lie. I interpret results of games. Such as UCSB losing to UF and FSU and then thumping Sonoma. My interpretation is that Sonoma isn't as good as their ranking would suggest and I have wanted to engage in reasonable debate with other fans of the league concerning that ranking and others in the recent poll. If you'd like to join in then keep it civil and back up your points with facts or reasonable/intelligent theories.

Or digress into silly pot shots if you like.

Sonoma's loss to SB is not as much of a blowout as everyone thinks, in my very biased opinion. The game was very close until the last 7 minutes when SB went on a run Sonoma could not recover from. SB was coming off two embarresing losses in their mind and playing at home.
These teams have argueably one of the biggest rivalrys in league history, and SB was playing with a rediculous amount of fire and intensity (Not to mention Sonoma was without their second leading scorer due to injury).

I think pollsters were very aware of these facts when voting this week, and knew that SB bounced back after their losses with a big win. The fact still remains no matter how much you argue it that if you lose to teams ranked lower than you, it should hurt you and usually will. You have to play more teams in the top ten and win. I think the fact that your teams are ranked closely with UCSB and Sonoma means that pollsters believe these teams are pretty evenly matched, and if you want the same respect then win in the tournament this year.

[Ravaging Beast]

Sonoma's loss to SB is not as much of a blowout as everyone thinks, in my very biased opinion. The game was very close until the last 7 minutes when SB went on a run Sonoma could not recover from. SB was coming off two embarresing losses in their mind and playing at home.
These teams have argueably one of the biggest rivalrys in league history, and SB was playing with a rediculous amount of fire and intensity (Not to mention Sonoma was without their second leading scorer due to injury).

Not biased. That's how the game went, but Sonoma still got whooped. I think it had a lot to do with the tortillas that were thrown last time SSU was in SB.