MCLA-A Top 25 Results: March 12-18th

[wingman3227]

The whole situation with Utah, U of A, UCSB, and ASU is pretty interesting....as much as UCSB has put a couple of convincing wins together of late, their resume is worse then three of the teams ranked below them. If they did not start out ranked so high, would they be in the top ten right now? Who is to say that they would have fared better against Northeastern then U of A did in the third game of a five day road trip? The biggest win that UCSB has this season is against a Cal Poly team, that is ranked high because of a win over a Lindenwood team that got handled pretty easily by U of A....Although Utah's trip to Arizona was early in the season, I don't think it can be discounted that they lost both games, (both were very tight, but losses none the less) however, they have shown that they have the ability to knock off a top ten team...so where does that leave us, exactly where we started...with U of A and ASU left to prove themselves against a couple of top rated opponents....question how high do they get ranked if they beat Colorado? Oregon?...either way it could be a great weekend in Arizona, and the biggest beneficiary could be Utah...jumping both teams if they don't score at least one upset....I guess what I am saying is that Head to Head games should count the most, because it is the only way to ensure the same conditions played by both teams...I feel the polls right now should read....U of Arizona ( most top 25 wins), ASU (beat Utah), Utah (beat UCSB, UMD, lost two in Zona), UCSB(have not won any big games yet this season)...that is just my opinion, I could be wrong...

[JerzWB]

I feel the polls right now should read....U of Arizona ( most top 25 wins), ASU (beat Utah), Utah (beat UCSB, UMD, lost two in Zona), UCSB(have not won any big games yet this season)...that is just my opinion, I could be wrong...

I absolutely agree. I'm not convinced that FSU and Colorado don't belong back there, either mixed in there even behind! But those four (UA, ASU, Utah, UCSB) are in the correct order in my opinion.

[TMcCourt]

Who is to say that they would have fared better against Northeastern then U of A did in the third game of a five day road trip?

I am not trying to knock U of A but a another observation is that BC lost to UCSB 8-5 on the third game of a three day cross country road trip after not being together for a week due to spring break. BC also had extemely limited practice time because of snow and weather limitations. I am not commending BC for scheduling this way but who is to say UCSB wouldn't have lost to BC if it hadn't been the third game of a three day road trip and the third game of BC's season with limited practice?

The problem is that BC and U of A did schedule this way and all teams must continue to prove themselves the rest of the season in order to prove themselves to voters.

[coach]

Wow...lets change this section to the Why we did not get it done on the field section. The excuses seem to be flying around a lot lately. Lots of teams lose the 3rd game in a three day run...so what. Lots of teams have players miss games because of academics...so what. Play a little harder and you won\'t need to come on here and make excuses. Good luck to evryone this weekend. Don\'t worry, if you lose or have a close game to a team ranked lower than you, you can always come on here and let us know that you forgot to wear your lucky socks. If you need to make excuses then you probably are ranked to high. You made the schedule so live with it. How about you accept that you were outplayed or overlooked a team. I would respect your team more.

[Beta]

Wow...lets change this section to the Why we did not get it done on the field section. The excuses seem to be flying around a lot lately. Lots of teams lose the 3rd game in a three day run...so what. Lots of teams have players miss games because of academics...so what. Play a little harder and you won\'t need to come on here and make excuses. Good luck to evryone this weekend. Don\'t worry, if you lose or have a close game to a team ranked lower than you, you can always come on here and let us know that you forgot to wear your lucky socks. If you need to make excuses then you probably are ranked to high. You made the schedule so live with it. How about you accept that you were outplayed or overlooked a team. I would respect your team more.

Amen.

[bullhighutewoozgriffclam]

yeah but, i like the waaambulence

[bullhighutewoozgriffclam]

plain old, illinois was good and utah only barely better. they dodged one. there.

i certainly feel set free.

they'll come up with another big win or two. believe me.

[echo 600]

Wambulance?

Did somebody dial 9-wa-wa?

[umdlax7]

plain old, illinois was good and utah only barely better. they dodged one. there.

i certainly feel set free.

they'll come up with another big win or two. believe me.

Utah is still a top 12 team.

[ME]

So far as of this week and weekend all the scores have gone to show that on any given day, any team is a threat (the whole season has actually been like this). It is no longer the league of 5 top teams always blowing all other teams away but it has evolved into a league where I believe every team is a threat within the Top 30 (dare I say?) and I love it. Some examples:

1.) #12 Cal Poly loses to unranked CAL who then loses to unranked SDSU,
but then Cal Poly after losing to CAL takes on a powerhouse, #6 Sonoma to a one point game (3/24)....

2.) #14 Utah takes a talented #5 UMD team on a beats them by one while turning around a few days later and edging by a unranked Illinois team....

3.) #7 Colorado lost to at the time unranked Texas A&M, goes to OT with unranked Texas and this weekend beats #11 Arizona by two, the same Arizona team who the next day (today, 3/24) took the #1 team, Oregon, into a dog fight and only lost by one....

These are only a few examples, but I find it interesting and very exciting, knowing that every team in the Top 25 (plus others) are all threats to each other. This is all boiling down to a very fun nationals this year and I for one can't wait to see what becomes of the 2007 tournament. Unfourtantly, for pollsters they are left with the insanely tough task of deciding which 16 teams get to go and I wish them luck.

[bullhighutewoozgriffclam]

actually the pollsters will choose the top 12 or 13 teams that go. or will the aq's change now that a few of those "lesser" conferences are busting into those top spots. very interesting. it's late and i'm going to bed. i am enthused about the level of play from all corners of the states. it will be very hard for pollsters but from what i've gathered intentions are good in all areas.

i just wish i could be on the player side for one more year. (that's why i'm hanging around at westmini and it's aspirations for going ncaa. all are welcome in two or three years. wink wink.)

[x1dschm]

Just so we are clear on the Tournament selection process;

1) AQ's are given to conference winners and get invited first. (I think the RMLC is the only conference without an AQ - correct me if I am wrong please.)

2) Then the highest ranked teams who didn't win AQ's fill the remaining at-large bids.

So in reality 8 teams are chosen by AQ's and the pollsters only "choose" the remaining 8 teams... not 12 or 13. As the talent level rises around the country, it's becoming more and more important to be in the top 12 or even 10 to ensure an invite to the National tournament.

[bullhighutewoozgriffclam]

touche danno. toooo.....shay. the problem part is the aq's that are ranked behind non aq teams that should be in to the tourney. we all know this i just hope it won't be as big of a deal this year, with every conference well represented in the polls. ideally all the aq's will be ranked high. so those bubble teams won't have anyone to blame but themselves.

[Danny Hogan]

not a new phenomenon and has actually gotten better with more talent everywhere in the last few seasons.

most conferences have their front-runner in the top 16, there was a time when it was routine to have 2-3 conferences with AQ coming from lower than 16.

The AQ vs. higher ranked AL arguement has been run through a thousand times.

[ritzy]

the problem part is the aq's that are ranked behind non aq teams that should be in to the tourney.

I'm not sure how this is a problem.

For example, consider Utah last year. One could argue that they were one of the top 10 (overall) teams in the nation, so they deserved a to be competing at the national championship tournament. Another could argue that they already had a chance to beat BYU, Colorado and CSU (twice)...and they didn't.

If winning your conference gives you an AQ, then win your conference.

If your conference has no AQ, but the winner of your conference (always) gets an at-large bid (RMLC, for example), then win your conference.