Conference Standings

by **Beta** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:08 am

So Division 1 seems accurate:

http://mcla.us/standings.cfm?conference ... seasonid=4

But Division 2 seems off:

http://mcla.us/standings.cfm?conference ... seasonid=4

Division losses are only with the North, Central and South...and since Alabama has 4 losses (to the other 4 Central teams) and those 4 teams have zero losses...then it would be that the other teams have 1 win each in conference. I think it is countining TWC's win over Southern Virginia (North) as a division win, and it's loss to SCAD (South) as a division loss.

**Sponsor**

by **Chris Larson** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:31 am

It has been my observation that a number of teams (inside and outside the SELC) need to better clarify which games are within their division when submitting their schedules.

This designation should be reserved for games within your conference that directly impact your standings. They do not include out of conference games or early season matchups within the conference that do not impact the standings even if those games are against a division (1 or 2 foe).

by **Beta** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:39 am

I meant to say (I guess) region/area? Grammatically I say "North, Central, South Division" as a part of the Division 1 or 2. I should say (perhaps) "regional"?

The games within the Division (1 or 2) of the SELC that affect standing are determined between the (area, region, whatever) games in the North, South, Central. Meaning games between a North team and a South team will not affect either said North or South team's playoff standings for that conference playoff.

Just looking for clarification on the standings on mcla.us being incorrect.

by **Danny Hogan** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:46 pm

so there aren't any cross-divisional mandatory games in the selc?

do the top 2 from each regional division make the playoffs still?

would mean UCF, UF or FSU is not going to make the playoffs when each of them could probably win any of the other divisions and would have a decent shot at winning the conference.

by **Beta** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:49 pm

There may be 2 mandatory...I believe there is for the 1/A/Eh Division but I am not sure for the 2/B/Bee division.

UCF looks fantastic this year...and they will most likely not get a playoff bid because of their region's strength.

(It's like SEC football!)

by **Ken Lovic** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:46 pm

DII Rep Mike Cummings is working on the DII standings. I will get posted to the SELC site soon.
As for DI play offs...

Yes, top 2 in each division go the championships meaning UCF, UF or FSU will not make it.

by **Danny Hogan** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:33 pm

Beta wrote:UCF looks fantastic this year...and they will most likely not get a playoff bid because of their region's strength.

i have only seen UF and FSU in the fall (have seen UCF twice this spring) but i wouldn't be surprised if the 3-way tie breaker comes into play between UCF, UF, FSU for the playoff spots in the south division.

still think, (suggested it in 2005 i think) that there should be mandatory cross-divisional games and it should be the 3 division champs and then 3 wild-cards.

by **Kevin OBrien** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:30 pm

Different years bring about different strengths. Wake and ECU have fallen off from last year, USC is on the rise as is UCF, with UCF being very good this year it seems. I think the top two from each region is the correct thing to do in the long term. I got kind of tired of a reorganization every year (or every other year). There is also one more team in the north then in the central and south, which gives all the teams in the north one more mandatory game. I believe the reason for dropping the out of region games to begin with was that so teams were better able to schedule more OOC games. More pariety is coming to the SELC (not just in 1 but in 2 as well) but I don't think a reorganization is necessary based on a couple of game scores....teams tend to get better and worse on a yearly basis, especially in club lacrosse outside of the top 15 nationally.

by **Danny Hogan** on Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:50 pm

i didn't notice the imbalance in number of teams, that being the case, this is the only way to do it.

the north has been weak for quite a while now though...

by **EvanFSU** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:00 am

We're seeing this situation in the NBA this year. The fact that the number 9 team in the west would be a 3 or 4 in the east is absurd. To crown a true champion, the best teams should make the playoffs, and if one year they happen to moslty come from the same division, so be it.

by **Danny Hogan** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:24 am

it's the only way to do it with the imbalance in number of teams,

UCF beat wake head to head in 06, wake got into the playoffs that year with a worse overall conference record.

this year though it looks like a team that will likely be ranked in the top 25 will not be going to atlanta though....hurting the conference's chance at AL bids....overall bad for the conference, but it really is the only way to do it with 5 teams in the north...

by **IceBerg4586** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:36 pm

Every major sport formats their playoffs with the top team getting a bid and then the other teams get in based on overall record? Although you cannot base whether or not a team makes the playoffs by their overall record, you could do it based on conference record. Why did the SELC go back to a playoff format where the top 2 teams in each conference make the playoffs after trying out a 3 team wildcard system 2 years ago?

by **Danny Hogan** on Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:04 am

IceBerg4586 wrote:Every major sport formats their playoffs with the top team getting a bid and then the other teams get in based on overall record? Although you cannot base whether or not a team makes the playoffs by their overall record, you could do it based on conference record. Why did the SELC go back to a playoff format where the top 2 teams in each conference make the playoffs after trying out a 3 team wildcard system 2 years ago?

uneven number of teams in the divisions....there is no mathematical way to work it out the "wild card way" without having everyone play everyone....