2008 MCLA Division 1 Bracket

[CyLaxKeeper00]

Championship Chat...Lets get back on topic.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Ok, so someone said they loved the "prognasticators" -- which is honestly a pretty big word for a lacrosse player -- so I'll try to help help get this back to a lacrosse discussion.

Looking at the discussions here and in the players to watch thread, I noticed alot of attackman and goalies were being posted. I started to think about if I wanted to construct a winning team I'd have my top 2 scorers being attackman and my goalie have a save % over 66. I think the dual threat at the attack causes more havoc compared to an attack - midfield combination or a midfield-attack. However, I also believe a stellar goalie has a better chance of eliminating an attack threat more than a middie threat (as far as settle offense goes). So overall I'd want to make sure I had a great stud midfielder who can open up shots and the attack for inside or close looks.

So I looked up the top scorers of the teams and their goalie save %. The top 3 scorers' position is listed in order (only if they have atleast 20 goals), and then the save %. The question is, can we predict or re-affirm who will win or have a chance at an upset based on this analysis??

#1 Michigan : #16 Lindenwood :: #8 Sonoma State : #9 UGA
AA / 73%.......:.......MMA / 57%.....::.......A / 61%...........:..AMM / 66%

#2 Chapman : #15 Florida :: #7 Colorado State : #10 Virginia Tech
AAM / 56%.....:...AAM / 51%.::....AAA / 60%............:..AAM / 58%

#3 Minn-Duluth : #14 Texas A&M :: #6 Arizona State : #11 UCSB
AAM / 65%.........:......AAA / 61%.......::......AMA / 49%......:...AA / 59%

#4 BYU.....: #13 Boston College :: #5 Simon Fraser : #12 Florida State
AAA / 60%..:.......[aaa]* / 64%........::...AAA / 58%..........: ...AMA / 57%

*[] - Boston College has no players with more than 20 goals. Top 3 goal scores are all attackman.

[univduke21]

As much scoring that comes from the attack helping a team, it would be sure nice to get them the ball and control the tempo of the game. A good midfield doesn't show up in the stat sheets but can completely control a game.

[Highheat]

Ok, so someone said they loved the "prognasticators" -- which is honestly a pretty big word for a lacrosse player -- so I'll try to help help get this back to a lacrosse discussion.

Looking at the discussions here and in the players to watch thread, I noticed alot of attackman and goalies were being posted. I started to think about if I wanted to construct a winning team I'd have my top 2 scorers being attackman and my goalie have a save % over 66. I think the dual threat at the attack causes more havoc compared to an attack - midfield combination or a midfield-attack. However, I also believe a stellar goalie has a better chance of eliminating an attack threat more than a middie threat (as far as settle offense goes). So overall I'd want to make sure I had a great stud midfielder who can open up shots and the attack for inside or close looks.

So I looked up the top scorers of the teams and their goalie save %. The top 3 scorers' position is listed in order (only if they have atleast 20 goals), and then the save %. The question is, can we predict or re-affirm who will win or have a chance at an upset based on this analysis??

#1 Michigan : #16 Lindenwood :: #8 Sonoma State : #9 UGA
AA / 73%.......:.......MMA / 57%.....::.......A / 61%...........:..AMM / 66%

#2 Chapman : #15 Florida :: #7 Colorado State : #10 Virginia Tech
AAM / 56%.....:...AAM / 51%.::....AAA / 60%............:..AAM / 58%

#3 Minn-Duluth : #14 Texas A&M :: #6 Arizona State : #11 UCSB
AAM / 65%.........:......AAA / 61%.......::......AMA / 49%......:...AA / 59%

#4 BYU.....: #13 Boston College :: #5 Simon Fraser : #12 Florida State
AAA / 60%..:.......[aaa]* / 64%........::...AAA / 58%..........: ...AMA / 57%

*[] - Boston College has no players with more than 20 goals. Top 3 goal scores are all attackman.

I think that POINT scorers would be a better indicator for this, rather than goal scorers. Attackmen will inevitably end up with the most goals, but a lot of times it comes from middie feeds or from a feeding attackman that really creates the opportunity. I know that in my playing days we always focused on the feeder a little more than the shooter...

[Karl Lynch]

I started to think about if I wanted to construct a winning team I'd have my top 2 scorers being attackman and my goalie have a save % over 66. I think the dual threat at the attack causes more havoc compared to an attack - midfield combination or a midfield-attack. However, I also believe a stellar goalie has a better chance of eliminating an attack threat more than a middie threat (as far as settle offense goes). So overall I'd want to make sure I had a great stud midfielder who can open up shots and the attack for inside or close looks.

So I looked up the top scorers of the teams and their goalie save %. The top 3 scorers' position is listed in order (only if they have atleast 20 goals), and then the save %. The question is, can we predict or re-affirm who will win or have a chance at an upset based on this analysis??

No. My quick anecdotal evidence says the assumptions with regards to offensive players cannot be supported. (MMA combination) 1988, DI 15-0 National Champions Gait, Gait, Zulberti. 1989, DI 14-1 National Champions Gait, Gait, Zulberti. 1990, DI 13-0 National Champions (vacated) Gait, Gait, Marechek. 2005, DI 16-0 Harrison, Rabil, Byrne.

Turns out that Syracuse and Hopkins had good goalies, Matt Palumb who had a save percentage over 66% and Jesse 62%, but Matt's and Jesse's numbers beg the question: Is a goalie's save percentage his alone, especially when Pat McCabe is on your team?

[Zamboni_Driver]

Couple of thoughts -

1. Obviously superior teams will win no matter what the scoring combination is, simply because they are superior. What could be interesting is if during any of these games, they get close. I figured then the top scorers would become the go-to guys, and then the match ups become interesting. This is also the reason I didn't list assists or total number of scorers because in close situations, I would think teams would put the ball in the stick of their best finishers - and how those match up against the goalie could be interesting.

2. If UGA - Sonoma State is close and goes down to the wire, you might see UGA pull it out because they match up well in goal and UGA looks to have more go-to guys. Also here, and might be a stretch, but although they may lose to Sonoma State - UGA might match up better against Michigan for similar reasons.

3. I was really surprised to see ASU's goalie save %. I think this might give a large edge to Minn-Duluth if that match up becomes a reality.

4. FSU's AMA is misleading. Noonan is far and above the leading point scorer so really they are just a "Ama" combinaton. SFU will key on him in an attempt to eliminate the threat. If they are sucessful, the difference will be if the others can rise to the occasion.

5. CSU's goalie 60% save percentage makes the potential Chapman-CSU match up more interesting. CSU's schedule is T25 heavy, so it is impressive that they have such good numbers in cage. Here again, if the game is close it may come into play. But Chapman has to be confident with their AAM scoring combination - which if it comes to the end of the game all 3 of these guys will be on the field.

[lots of what if's --can't wait till tomorrow to see reality]

[Highheat]

Couple of thoughts -

1. Obviously superior teams will win no matter what the scoring combination is, simply because they are superior. What could be interesting is if during any of these games, they get close. I figured then the top scorers would become the go-to guys, and then the match ups become interesting. This is also the reason I didn't list assists or total number of scorers because in close situations, I would think teams would put the ball in the stick of their best finishers - and how those match up against the goalie could be interesting.

2. If UGA - Sonoma State is close and goes down to the wire, you might see UGA pull it out because they match up well in goal and UGA looks to have more go-to guys. Also here, and might be a stretch, but although they may lose to Sonoma State - UGA might match up better against Michigan for similar reasons.

3. I was really surprised to see ASU's goalie save %. I think this might give a large edge to Minn-Duluth if that match up becomes a reality.

4. FSU's AMA is misleading. Noonan is far and above the leading point scorer so really they are just a "Ama" combinaton. SFU will key on him in an attempt to eliminate the threat. If they are sucessful, the difference will be if the others can rise to the occasion.

5. CSU's goalie 60% save percentage makes the potential Chapman-CSU match up more interesting. CSU's schedule is T25 heavy, so it is impressive that they have such good numbers in cage. Here again, if the game is close it may come into play. But Chapman has to be confident with their AAM scoring combination - which if it comes to the end of the game all 3 of these guys will be on the field.

[lots of what if's --can't wait till tomorrow to see reality]

I really agree with both of these points.

For SSU the amount of pressure they lay on the shoulders of Cito could definitely backfire if Georgia is able to take him out of the game. They have some decent secondary players, but when Cito's effect is negated, those players become a lot more mediocre.

For ASU, Goalie is definitely their most vulnerable position. I understand their starter from the beginning of the season is not longer eligible for this season (unless something has changed). The offense is solid and the defense has gotten a lot better, but they lack a true leader in the cage. And i'm willing to say that for almost every National Champion in MCLA/USLIA history, there has been a very good Goalie in the cage (although i wasn't incredibly impressed with Kikumoto (sp?) last year).

[Kadillac]

Looks like ASU is going to have to give the Gauchos the business for the 3rd time this year.

Did someone say HAT TRICK.

If you speak to anyone from U.C. San Diego from 2 years ago they might tell you how hard it is to beat a team 3 times in a season. I'd be upset if I were you for getting such a motivated opponent with way more tournament experience than ASU has.

Apparently lightning can strike three times....


I was going to go into a long dissertation about fans, and playing at the pit, and if you can dish it you can take it, and blah blah blah...

but you know what ...


it doesn't matter.



Can everyone on these forums finally agree that ASU in 2008 is better than UCSB???? I think that is really all I am asking for...

beat ya to the punch ropenorope

[JJLAX]

No argument here. Maybe I missed it but if anyone did try to make the argument that UCSB was better than ASU even after losing the first two, they were delusional. I saw most of the game today and ASU was clearly the better team...and proved it for the third time. Although I do think its kind of sad to see these once powerhouse programs (UCSB and Noma) on a decline. Things were always more interesting when they were good.

[RopeNoRope]

I called it the first day. UCSB's SW.


Side note, I'm watching SportsCenter and just saw a Warrior commercial.

[cricketman]

Can everyone on these forums finally agree that ASU in 2008 is better than UCSB???? I think that is really all I am asking for...

I'm sure not everyone on the board will finally agree on anything, but as you were quoting me, and my prognostications proved to be delusional as someone else stated, I will grant you your wish:

I now believe that in 2008, ASU has a better team than UCSB!

This is the first time in 7 years that the Gauchos will not be in the final four. Sad but true. While every program goes through peaks and valleys, and SB peaked probably two or three years ago in their run, I think that it's a testament to club lacrosse across the country that the standards are getting higher and higher. The competition is fierce and everyone benefits from it. UCSB has a great program and it will be back again next year trying to win it all. Who would want it any other way!

I've been at the tourney for the last four years watching my kid play. I miss it tremendously and yet I'm glad not to be there to see a first round defeat. Despite drumming my fingernails waiting for the server to load a page it still excites me to think of all this great lacrosse being played this week.

Congratulations to the Sun Devils on their tremendous win and good luck in the rest of the tournament. I hope you win it all for the WCLL! It will be well deserved if you do!

So you had better get it done this year since you have dispatched the Gauchos in 2008. Next year we'll be getting the tortillas ready to send you packing!

Olé,Olé,Olé,Olé! Gauchos! Gauchos!

[bhsvideodad]

Just try not to throw them (tortillas) on the field during the games. Very irritating.

[Ballaholic]

I'd like to hear what some of the other conferences think about the likely reality of an all RMLC, WCLL final four this year. In fact I'm thinking three WCLL teams and one RMLC. The two best games of the tourney are going to be BYU vs. Noma and Chapman vs. UCSB at Texas Stadium. I cant wait for the web cast!

losing two final four teams in the first round must hurt your bracket.

I was impressed with Florida, obviously much improved since a 16-7 loss to Chapman in early March.

There is a chance only one RMLC/WCLL team makes the final four...not too likely but still possible.

[Ravaging Beast]

I think I'll go bury my head in the sand now. I can't believe it! I guess too much talking on the boards is bound to backfire on you. They are only losing 2 starters though. So I'm not too worried for next year. I guess it's time to talk about how the consolation games don't mean anything.

[bhsvideodad]

While SFU has some talent, BYU has more depth. BYU wins in the quarters.
bhsvideodad