MCLA D1 Pre-Season

[Zamboni_Driver]

Are you guys trying to get a final poll together for 2007? Because all you are doing is debating how good last year's teams were....not very effective for setting up the 2008 season.

That is why I put together those team outlooks, so people could get a better idea about the teams in 2008, and debate their rank based on information about the current teams, not last year's teams wins/loses....

[Rob Graff]

And I, ZD, as a voter, are UNBELIEVABLY THANKFUL of your efforts in doing so.

Rob

[John Paul]

That's a great point Zamboni. I think a lot of voters have a habit of voting in preseason polls based on the previous year's results, without looking at this year's potential strengths and weaknesses. It's one of the reasons that preseason polls are often so far from final results at the end of the year. For example, there are some who say a team that finishes number 1 should be number 1 in the preseason and until somebody knocks them off - even though they are potentially a completely different team due to graduation, coaching changes, attrition, injuries, etc. By the same token, a team that was weak the year before may have added a group of outstanding players, new highly qualified coaches, a far easier schedule, gotten much healthier, etc.

There is always a lot of noise about getting rid of a preseason poll altogether, partly for the reasons outlined above. There are those who call for the first poll to come out several weeks into the season in order to let teams establish themselves before being cast in one position or another. I think there's value in a preseason poll since it generates a lot of interest and discussion, but I definitely see the downside as well. That's part of the reason that a couple of board members have been pushing for a committee to determine at-large tournament bids and seedings, rather than depending on an outside poll (remember that the MCLA does not control the current poll - collegelax does). Ultimately, anyone can do a poll and publish it. How we (the MCLA) use it, or if we use it at all, is up to us.

[Woda]

I agree these polls are tough, because there is many factors to look at, and many that are nearly impossible to predict how they will pan out (new players, coaches, or injuries), but I think we should keep the pre-season poll.

Are we going to do anything to address the issue of voters not voting this year?

[Troy Hood]

Not that this needs another comment, but, I'll echo the sentiments of Coach Graff and Coach Paul. It's true that not everyone considers gains/losses due to graduation, transfers, etc. ZD's work has led me to a few conclusions I wouldn't have reached otherwise.

Thanks again.

[norway]

with all of that said...I think everyone should keep Lindenwood in mind. This team basically only loses Lange. All the other play-makers are returning including all the D-poles and an awesome LSM. Diplock is also back, and you can expect a better presence in goal this year. The team also looks to be better on faceoffs this year. I would put LU in the top ten.

[Dulax31]

with all of that said...I think everyone should keep Lindenwood in mind. This team basically only loses Lange. All the other play-makers are returning including all the D-poles and an awesome LSM. Diplock is also back, and you can expect a better presence in goal this year. The team also looks to be better on faceoffs this year. I would put LU in the top ten.

Not to mention they return Midfielder Coursault from a knee inury, I believe he was 3rd team AA in 2006.

[Zamboni_Driver]

I just want to point out, I didn't post that earlier to get more "thanks." I've heard great appreciation, and I'm glad it helps.

What I'm hoping for is more discussion about teams - more inside information from coaches and players about their teams -- more debates about how teams match up with respect to offense, defense, goal. Now obviously these comparisons will be someone based in last year's team (ex. Team A beat Team B by 5 last year, and team A returns all of their offense and Team B loses their MCLA AA goalie, who was replace by a freshman thus we rank Team A over team B), but they focus on the new face of each team.

I'm still holding out hope that after fall ball some coaches will send me their outlook on the team with a little more information than just statistical losses and gains in terms of pts. But I've heard that some think this is viewed as an early scouting report for the opposition - which I can't believe.

[Frank Clark]

I assume most coaches will keep anything of substance and not already known to themselves.

[Ravaging Beast]

Something I see that will be unique about this season is the loss of so many coaches from top programs. Off of the top of my head, Oregon, ASU, Arizona, Sonoma, Chapman... Teams that might have been good in the past are going to look a lot different. In my opinion, the best thing a new coach can do is not change things too much.

As I say every year, the teams that are consistently good have a solid coaching staff that has been around the program for a long time. They have great players as well, but at the club level, constancy in the coaching position is crucial. Flip has been at CSU forever. Lamb at BYU. JP at Michigan. Allan/Miller at UCSB. Doug Carl was at Sonoma forever (John Hughes before him).

The point of this post is that I believe that coaching is going to play a major role this year. Teams with a new coach and a lot of talent will probably start out very slow, but pick it up at going into playoffs. So here is my top 10. (maybe not a pre-season top 10, just how I see thing shaping out this season)

1. BYU
2. UCSB
3. CSU
4. UMD
5. Michigan
6. Northeastern
7. Chapman
8. ASU
9. BC
10. Colorado

[TheLionTamer]

Why is ASU ranked so low? They are returning practically everyone on their team. Why is no one looking at UA? Lindenwood I feel is also going to be a powerful threat this year. Chapman is going to have a great year because they are playing with a chip on their shoulder. CSU is always consistent. BYU is just nasty. Here's how the poll should look.

1. BYU
2. CSU
3. UCSB
4. ASU
5. Chapman
6. Lindenwood
7. Northeastern
8. Colorado
9. Michigan
10. Arizona

[Ravaging Beast]

Why is ASU ranked so low? They are returning practically everyone on their team. Why is no one looking at UA?

ASU is ranks so low because their defense is TERRIBLE. That is all I have to say, but if you want me to add more, their offense that is so "amazing" didn't seem to look that good in Dallas. If they picked up a few super star poles, then I might reconsider my predictions. Definitely top ten though.

Arizona lost a lot of players, not to mention a very good coach.

[TheLionTamer]

ASU offense is amazing they averaged at least 12 points a game and you say there defense is horrible then how did they beat Michigan, Oregon, Utah, Chapman, and Colorado. I mean they must have been doing something right.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Why is ASU ranked so low? They are returning practically everyone on their team. Why is no one looking at UA? Lindenwood I feel is also going to be a powerful threat this year. Chapman is going to have a great year because they are playing with a chip on their shoulder. CSU is always consistent. BYU is just nasty. Here's how the poll should look.

1. BYU
2. CSU
3. UCSB
4. ASU
5. Chapman
6. Lindenwood
7. Northeastern
8. Colorado
9. Michigan
10. Arizona

Hmmmm... you omitted Oregon, who handed BYU the Cougars only loss in '07 before losing the title game rematch. The Ducks went 17-2 in the regular season, beat your #2 (CSU) twice during the year including a 19-6 rout early. I realize that '08 is a new season, but what is your rationale for not even putting UO in the Top 10? They also beat Chapman soundly and beat Arizona. Like you I also believe Chapman will be a good team in '08, but they were picked to finish FIFTH in their own conference by the coaches in the WCLL, who presumably know their own teams pretty well. Ranking them #5 in the national pre-season poll might be a bit of a stretch.

[More Cowbell]

ASU offense is amazing they averaged at least 12 points a game and you say there defense is horrible then how did they beat Michigan, Oregon, Utah, Chapman, and Colorado. I mean they must have been doing something right.

ASU at 4? seriously?

I agree that they were doing something right...but to have them at 4 is ridiculous. They do not deserve to be just 2 spots behind a CSU team that beat them 14-0. And how can Oregon not even be in your top 10? ...they were in the national championship game...a game they advanced to by beating the team that had just run all over ASU. You also have ASU ranked 6 spots higher than a UofA team that stomped them late in the season

Oh, and you have 5 teams in there that didnt make it out of the first round (or werent in the tournament at all...Chapman, Lindenwood, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona) over 3 teams that did make it to the 2nd round (Duluth, Oregon, BC).

All in all i just don't see where you're coming from here.