Mock Post Season Div B Poll

[Kyle Berggren]

Do you think the injury to the starting SJU defenseman had anything to do with their defensive scheming?

I'm sure it did, but SD doesn't beat you with 1 player, and the zone is meant to work as a unit. Montana used the zone fairly successfully against SD, regardless of which players were on the field at any given time. What I thought was ineffective was the shots from up top. Thankfully, the SJU keeper was good, cut down a lot of angle, and helped make sure SD made tough shots. A lot of shots were shot through traffic and many a defender made some saves as well. I'm not trying to say that SJU is bad, they're obviously in the discussion & won their side of the bracket earning a birth to the championship game. I just don't think they showed that they were a better team than a total of 3 others in Plano.

Maybe it was just the matchup. I know what fits their style of offense would have given us over the last few years, this year especially, but SD was up to the task. Their zone protected the middle of the field well, but as usual, quick ball movement can really begin to hurt a zone. I did like the changes into different zones at different points in the game, but I didn't like the shots that came from up top. #15 from SD had a great shot, and was able to rip a few that got the defense's attention, leaving too many other good players open to shoot.... especially #7. The SD guys were savy enough to sit in different places in the zone, and able to get into scoring positions, stressing the zones. Bottom line, the zone worked more effectively for Montana than it did SJU. Bottom line #2, SD is really good.

[Jolly Roger]

My point is if SJU had all their defensive personnel, they may have been better able to utilize man defense. They're not primarily a zone team as evidenced in their earlier round games.

I think USD was the class of the B field and definitely proved it on Saturday.

A thought - would Montana have fared any better on Saturday against USD had they come through the other side of the bracket (through Eckerd)? I'm not sure....

[Kyle Berggren]

Meaning Eckerd would be a much more challenging task than Claremont? i'd say Montana matches up much better against Eckerd than Claremont, and may have been able to control the ball quite a bit more.

Both teams are the cream of our 'B' crop, doubt it would change much. I don't think its an excuse, nor do I think 1 defenseman hurts the offense which needs to score more than 3 to win.

[horn17]

Both teams are the cream of our 'B' crop, doubt it would change much. I don't think its an excuse, nor do I think 1 defenseman hurts the offense which needs to score more than 3 to win.

I would have to disagree slightly here Kyle.....SJU zone was devised to force the outside shots, which they hit in the second half...it was close until after the half as SD made the adjustments.... SD also did play offense for roughly the entire second half (gosh it was boring to watch), and having the ability to having one more defenseman ( espically an extremely solid one) to press out, force turnovers, clear the ball, and help lead to possesions makes a great difference. I know SJU wouldnt have played a zone (the entire game) if it wasnt for the injury, they ran it maybe once or twice all tourney.... That zone isnt a take away zone, its a "our goalie is better than your shooters zone" ....the SJU goalie did make some great saves, but when you see that many shots, you feel like a fish in a barrell (?)..look at the shots in the second half, that tells the story of this zone....

SD played a good game and won because they capitalized and made adjustments, however, still scratching my head on the UCSD win this year......

[peterwho]

First of all, I'm new - new to this board, new to lacrosse (my 10-year old is in his first season) and new to team ranking.

I admit that I'm an Augustana alumna and spent most of my formative years on campus.

This topic intrigues me (as a mathematician). I've looked at the laxpower.com ratings and understand them for what they are. This poll is different.

So, I assumed that the ratings were "correct" coming into the tournament AND that the future state is determined by play at the tournament (except where noted).

I come up with the following (tournament record in parenthesis):

1. San Diego (3 - 0)
2. St. Johns (3 - 1)
3. Montana (2 - 1)
4. Eckerd (2 - 1)
5. Claremount (1 - 1) (this is the tough call based solely on the tourney)
6. Augustana (2 - 1) (as noted above, Augustana beat Harding coming in)
7. Harding (2 - 1)
8. Northern Colorado (1 - 2)
9. Southwestern (1 - 2)
10. St. Thomas (0 - 2)
11. UVSC (0 - 2)
12. Calvin College (0-3)

Other factors considered: Exit Round and Seeding of Opponent in Win/Loss.

As I am typing, one "suggestion" might be that my result is not an end of year poll, rather, an extrapolated tournament result. That may be the case - I'll accept that criticism.

Let me know what you think - thanks.

[Sonny]

As I am typing, one "suggestion" might be that my result is not an end of year poll, rather, an extrapolated tournament result. That may be the case - I'll accept that criticism.

Consolation games mean different things to different teams. I don't think they should be considered as "valid" results for polling purposes.

[mrbxstr]

Montana should be #2 and St. John's should be #3. I say this because Montana gave San Diego a much better game than the one sided victory we saw in the championship game.

Having seen USD play mult. times through the season, I agree with da Grizz's rankings- Montana was the best B team we faced this year. Therefore- they get a #2 ranking from me. I would put Claremont third, based upon how they played us in the season, their one goal loss to Montana in Plano. SJU and Eckerd would round out my top 5.

[norway]

just remember southwestern beat calvin 10-6 on fri. don't worry augustana, harding is eager to play you again. enjoy the summer fellas.

[Johnnielax13]

we took bets on the plane home as to how long it would take for the message board to produce the thread "St. John's really wasn't all that good, and the only reason they made it to the finals was because of the seeding."

Awesome

[peterwho]

As I am typing, one "suggestion" might be that my result is not an end of year poll, rather, an extrapolated tournament result. That may be the case - I'll accept that criticism.

Consolation games mean different things to different teams. I don't think they should be considered as "valid" results for polling purposes.

Alright. Then my results reflect my bias that assumes you play a consolation game out of an "old school" love of the game and desire - a match is always an opportunity to show what you're made of.

So, hats off to Augustana and Harding for coming back strong after their first round losses to, what appears to be, excellent teams.

[Kyle Berggren]

As I am typing, one "suggestion" might be that my result is not an end of year poll, rather, an extrapolated tournament result. That may be the case - I'll accept that criticism.

Consolation games mean different things to different teams. I don't think they should be considered as "valid" results for polling purposes.

Alright. Then my results reflect my bias that assumes you play a consolation game out of an "old school" love of the game and desire - a match is always an opportunity to show what you're made of.

So, hats off to Augustana and Harding for coming back strong after their first round losses to, what appears to be, excellent teams.

Consolation games are great and they should be played, but they aren't a playoff game, their a scrimmage. Teams with smaller benches play them differently than a team with a 40 person bench. Intensity is different in most of them, but your best players typically aren't on the field as much as possible. The last thing I'd want to do as a coach, is give a guy that came to every practice, was terrible, flew to Plano, ran with the team, abided by the rules, 1 run in a game that didn't matter.

I have an issue, which Corbin brought up earlier, but I do believe the games mean more for B division teams. The OOC schedules are not as complete as many in the A, and very few teams are travelling to play. This tournament is going to effect pollsters votes come 2007. Regardless of whether or not a pre-season poll is posted, voters have to make their own in order to adjust it. I personally struggled greatly with the SELC, but after seeing Eckerd, I have a bench mark, and the SELC teams will be much higher ranked to start the season than they ended in my poll this year. The same is true of WWU in the PNCLL, and several PCLL teams (different reasons). In that regard, if you want an at large bid, or to be in the top 10, losing to a team badly doesn't exactly look great to many. . . Does that mean that Calvin (a top 10 team) is hosed for losing to SouthWestern (a 15-20 team) ? I don't know, many may not realize they played freshman start to finish. Many may not realize it's a consolation game, I don't know. I'm sure my poll will more accurately reflect the teams strengths if I leave out the consolation games. . . but then I could have Calvin ranked above SouthWestern. . . How much sense does that make? If my team were to make it in '07, we'd play to win every consolation game in the first half, and control that lead for the second with players that don't get as much time.

[Kyle Berggren]

we took bets on the plane home as to how long it would take for the message board to produce the thread "St. John's really wasn't all that good, and the only reason they made it to the finals was because of the seeding."

Awesome

Did I miss the post(er) that said that? deleted? I don't think the 6 seed (top of my head) was a real advantage in getting to the championship. What we did find out was that the pollsters (myself included) didn't do a phenominal job seeding the teams.

[peterwho]

In all my years, I have never participated in a "consolation" game. The tournaments were either single-elimination or double-elimination.

So, I didn't understand that the greater opportunity might be for the journeymen to get their time on the field.

Thanks for the insight.

[Sonny]

In all my years, I have never participated in a "consolation" game. The tournaments were either single-elimination or double-elimination.

So, I didn't understand that the greater opportunity might be for the journeymen to get their time on the field.

Thanks for the insight.

The tournament is single elimination. Once you are eliminated, you play additional consolation games to fill in your week at the tournament site.

The effectiveness of those additional consolation games is somewhat debatable now. At one time, there was very little regular season, out of conference (OOC) travel - so the consolation bracket was useful.

Now, virtually the entire top 20 on the Div. A side are traveling to play each other. (Top ranked Div. B travel is starting to pick up their OOC travel too.).

Personally, I think we should minimize them to one final consolation bracket game after you lose in the single elimination bracket. If you lose in the semifinals, you are finished.

[mrbxstr]

In all my years, I have never participated in a "consolation" game. The tournaments were either single-elimination or double-elimination.

So, I didn't understand that the greater opportunity might be for the journeymen to get their time on the field.

Thanks for the insight.

The tournament is single elimination. Once you are eliminated, you play additional consolation games to fill in your week at the tournament site.

The effectiveness of those additional consolation games is somewhat debatable now. At one time, there was very little regular season, out of conference (OOC) travel - so the consolation bracket was useful.

Now, virtually the entire top 20 on the Div. A side are traveling to play each other. (Top ranked Div. B travel is starting to pick up their OOC travel too.).

Personally, I think we should minimize them to one final consolation bracket game after you lose in the single elimination bracket. If you lose in the semifinals, you are finished.

Another approach is to make the playoffs double elimination, and have teams in the consolation bracket play for something tangible (i.e. 3rd place). OOC games are especially tough on B program budgets, and it is expensive for these teams to make the trip to Nationals. Why not enhance every team's experience by guaranteeing at least 2 games for everyone, and take advantage of the opportunity to see how teams from different regions/conferences stack up vs each other.