BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2018-2019 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season

A question for the Windbag (not my creation but whoever named you that could not have done a better job!) ... Instead of never actually having an opinion and just bloviating (look it up), how about you put forth something useful, or stop posting. There are a lot of insightful posts on here, none of which happen to be yours. The fact that you are somehow personally offended when a poster (btw there have been many different ones on here) points out that certain teams (Stanford, ND, Penn St.) are not up to their usually level (in Stanford's case it is more that they have reverted back to what they used to be after having a couple of year's above their norm) is kinda sad. I know you are all for participation trophies, good for you. This is D1 lacrosse we're talking about. Grow up, Big Guy.

Now, as to some teams that are playing well this year ...

Stony Brook - offense amazing, need to figure out draw and get more consistent midfield play. Will need goalie to come up big in NCAAs if they r going to win it all.
Florida - Just need to prove they have the consistency to win 3 big games in a row.
JMU (big surprise and way to go)
Maryland, despite their loss to UNC, will be right in at the end again
If Syracuse could figure out their draw issues, they would have a shot
Penn looks to be playing very well
UNC needs to get better goalie play and solve their overall defensive issues if they want to win it all, but of course they've got a lot of talent
UVA has taken a step forward this year
Northwestern is an improved team from the last few years
And others

As to the teams that have taken a step, or in some cases two, backwards:

Penn St (You tell me, should they have been pre-season #4?)
ND (Where to begin? Aldave is great, but she can't do it alone.)
Stanford (Mediocre coaching and depth issues)
USC (The loss of MM to graduation was big)
Princeton (Despite your nonsense, the loss of Hompe 76 G 110 pts has been very big. They r having trouble scoring.)
Cornell (Senior heavy team last year)

So now, if you can bring something useful to the table, do so. Otherwise, STFU, Big Guy.

Oy vey... Not only do you give new meaning to the term windbag you are an --- as will.

3/12/18

No Nonsense Rankings

1 - JMU
2 - Stony Brook
3 - Boston College
4 - Maryland
5 - North Carolina
6 - Penn
7 - Virginia
8 - Syracuse
9 - Florida
10 - Navy
11 - Loyola
12 - Northwestern
13 - Towson
14 - Colorado
15 - Princeton
16 - USC
17 - Virginia Tech
18 - Stanford
19 - Duke
20 - Georgetown

3/12/18

No Nonsense Rankings

1 - JMU
2 - Stony Brook
3 - Boston College
4 - Maryland
5 - North Carolina
6 - Penn
7 - Virginia
8 - Syracuse
9 - Florida
10 - Navy
11 - Loyola
12 - Northwestern
13 - Towson
14 - Colorado
15 - Princeton
16 - USC
17 - Virginia Tech
18 - Stanford
19 - Duke
20 - Georgetown

Zero percent chance JMU makes the final 4. They will lose by 10 against Maryland , nice team but no way should they be ranked above SB .BC has not beaten anyone and until they do they should be lower otherwise not bad.

This is not just a numbers game. These are real people playing a live game, not machines!
When the NCAA rounds begin there WILL be upsets and the better team may go home early. It happens every year in every sport.
As each round advances any team can win or lose on any given day.
We wouldn't bother with playoffs if it was just about who finished in first place at the end of the regular season.

Some on this site do not understand that. There is one lunatic who is obsessed with his own predictions.

Rankings should be based on actual results and a teams year to date body of work. Strength of schedule should be considered and most recent performance and trend should be given more consideration.

Didn't Notre Dame get the #1 recruit in the freshman class. They seem to get their fair share of talent.

Will history replete itself? Will Stony Brook once again bring a gaudy record into the tournament only to be knocked out before the Final Four?

2014: 16-3 going in. Lost to Syracuse in round of 16.

2015: 18-1 going in. Lost to Princeton in round of 16.

2016: 15-3 going in. Lost to Syracuse in round of 16.

2017: 18-2 going in. Lost to Maryland in round of 8.

2018: ???

So says the Windbag who proclaims what rankings "should be." Computers are good for what you suggest, not humans. Too much bias, as indicated by your own statements on here. The only computer ranking that really matters is the final one, once the computers have all the necessary data. Your methodology has too few data points to be very accurate this early in the season. It is therefore a poor way to try to understand which teams are stronger than others. And therefore renders your ranking system as, at best, very flawed for now. I know you are afraid to stick your neck out and make any kind of forward-looking statement for fear of being wrong, but try. I'm not obsessed with my own predictions, I'm trying to get some discussion going with people who have actual knowledge of the teams and their strengths and weaknesses. If you have any knowledge, as you profess to have (see your statement that Hompe was not a key loss for Princeton) please engage in the conversation with your opinions. I would love to hear from informed individuals about their views of the teams. I welcome yours.

So in your opinion, which teams are better than you thought they would be this year? Which are underperforming your expectations? What have been the reasons for each? Do you think they will remain over/under achieving teams throughout the season? Which teams do you think, based on your deep knowledge, will be there in the end? Who will win it all?

Take the leap, it'll feel good. You are allowed to be wrong. It's ok. But put something out there that furthers the discussion, rather than just posing questions you don't answer and saying all you can rely on is what has already happened. It's not true. People have to make educated decisions about an uncertain future all the time.

So says the Windbag who proclaims what rankings "should be." Computers are good for what you suggest, not humans. Too much bias, as indicated by your own statements on here. The only computer ranking that really matters is the final one, once the computers have all the necessary data. Your methodology has too few data points to be very accurate this early in the season. It is therefore a poor way to try to understand which teams are stronger than others. And therefore renders your ranking system as, at best, very flawed for now. I know you are afraid to stick your neck out and make any kind of forward-looking statement for fear of being wrong, but try. I'm not obsessed with my own predictions, I'm trying to get some discussion going with people who have actual knowledge of the teams and their strengths and weaknesses. If you have any knowledge, as you profess to have (see your statement that Hompe was not a key loss for Princeton) please engage in the conversation with your opinions. I would love to hear from informed individuals about their views of the teams. I welcome yours.

So in your opinion, which teams are better than you thought they would be this year? Which are underperforming your expectations? What have been the reasons for each? Do you think they will remain over/under achieving teams throughout the season? Which teams do you think, based on your deep knowledge, will be there in the end? Who will win it all?

Take the leap, it'll feel good. You are allowed to be wrong. It's ok. But put something out there that furthers the discussion, rather than just posing questions you don't answer and saying all you can rely on is what has already happened. It's not true. People have to make educated decisions about an uncertain future all the time.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

So says the Windbag who proclaims what rankings "should be." Computers are good for what you suggest, not humans. Too much bias, as indicated by your own statements on here. The only computer ranking that really matters is the final one, once the computers have all the necessary data. Your methodology has too few data points to be very accurate this early in the season. It is therefore a poor way to try to understand which teams are stronger than others. And therefore renders your ranking system as, at best, very flawed for now. I know you are afraid to stick your neck out and make any kind of forward-looking statement for fear of being wrong, but try. I'm not obsessed with my own predictions, I'm trying to get some discussion going with people who have actual knowledge of the teams and their strengths and weaknesses. If you have any knowledge, as you profess to have (see your statement that Hompe was not a key loss for Princeton) please engage in the conversation with your opinions. I would love to hear from informed individuals about their views of the teams. I welcome yours.

So in your opinion, which teams are better than you thought they would be this year? Which are underperforming your expectations? What have been the reasons for each? Do you think they will remain over/under achieving teams throughout the season? Which teams do you think, based on your deep knowledge, will be there in the end? Who will win it all?

Take the leap, it'll feel good. You are allowed to be wrong. It's ok. But put something out there that furthers the discussion, rather than just posing questions you don't answer and saying all you can rely on is what has already happened. It's not true. People have to make educated decisions about an uncertain future all the time.

So says the Windbag who proclaims what rankings "should be." Computers are good for what you suggest, not humans. Too much bias, as indicated by your own statements on here. The only computer ranking that really matters is the final one, once the computers have all the necessary data. Your methodology has too few data points to be very accurate this early in the season. It is therefore a poor way to try to understand which teams are stronger than others. And therefore renders your ranking system as, at best, very flawed for now. I know you are afraid to stick your neck out and make any kind of forward-looking statement for fear of being wrong, but try. I'm not obsessed with my own predictions, I'm trying to get some discussion going with people who have actual knowledge of the teams and their strengths and weaknesses. If you have any knowledge, as you profess to have (see your statement that Hompe was not a key loss for Princeton) please engage in the conversation with your opinions. I would love to hear from informed individuals about their views of the teams. I welcome yours.

So in your opinion, which teams are better than you thought they would be this year? Which are underperforming your expectations? What have been the reasons for each? Do you think they will remain over/under achieving teams throughout the season? Which teams do you think, based on your deep knowledge, will be there in the end? Who will win it all?

Take the leap, it'll feel good. You are allowed to be wrong. It's ok. But put something out there that furthers the discussion, rather than just posing questions you don't answer and saying all you can rely on is what has already happened. It's not true. People have to make educated decisions about an uncertain future all the time.

You do realize that you have been responding to multiple people. Also, you should not be calling anyone a windbag.

BTW, here is a hint regarding Princeton. The Goalie was their biggest loss and the most difficult to replace.

Ok Mr. Don't Tear Down The Girls ... way to call out Princeton's goalie. Nice. You're despicable.

Pretty entertaining so let's get this straight
Coaches poll - coaches have no clue
Inside lacrosse - media has no clue
Nike us lacrosse - also clueless
Just wondering besides yourself who really knows what happening? Time will tell sit back and enjoy the season

College coach has somebody fill out the form for them every week, they don't even look at it, and the assistant that does it spends about 5 minutes on it - great analytical work
How much real hard core analysis do you think really goes into women's college lacrosse? Girls HS lacrosse? Nobody knows is the real answer and nobody other than players and their parents cares. How was PSU #4 to start the season, some great analytical research placed them there? The brilliant lacrosse minds at IL? U-19 team cut Apuzzo and Pirecca, how was that for quality analysis? It's all BS and something fun to talk about, but it is really meaningless

True, They also pushed weisse, who not only got pulled during the U19 event, but has since been benched, so much for the top recruits/ lacrosse experts

#1 recruit stuff is all nonsense, just like team polls and rankings - especially the HS rankings of teams and players. some kid piling up gawdy numbers against a bunch of over matched teams might not be quite the same player when put on a level playing field where everyone can play

The results do not speak for the level of talent that is there at all

#1 recruit stuff is all nonsense, just like team polls and rankings - especially the HS rankings of teams and players. some kid piling up gawdy numbers against a bunch of over matched teams might not be quite the same player when put on a level playing field where everyone can play

nonsense. when you watch their games, the team looks slow and less talented than the top teams in the country.

Not sure that I totally agree.

- As the season wears on, the "team polls and rankings" do tent to shake out and become more accurate and credible. (preseason and early season do not have a lot of credibility).

- At the end of the season HS Rankings up to about #15 to 20 are pretty good. Not perfect but most of the teams listed at that point are deserving.

- HS player rankings are pretty good (maybe not the exact order) but most of the players that have been listed on the IL top 30 - 40 young gun list have gone on to do well in college. Those rankings have nothing to do with the HS season, it's all based on Summer where the kids on the top club teams do compete against each other. I do think however that where the player goes to college has an impact on how they perform in college. Coaching is a major factor and all coaches are definitely not created equal.

Lets talk about that. Which college coaches are the best at developing talent? Which ones recruit best? Which ones underperform with good talent? Which ones should not continue on in their jobs?

Best at developing talent? JS, Amonte-Hiller, Timchal

Best at recruiting? Levy, Walker

Underperformers? Halfpenny, O'leary (has a chance this year to get out of this category, again)

Where does Reese fall? Has the natural advantage of the Maryland feeder w in-state tuition.

A more appropriate term than "developing" could be utilizing. I think the best coaches can:
• Identity talent / potential
• Recruit / Sell / Land (convince to attend school)
• Teach / Coach
• Effectively Utilize Talent
• Prepare / adjust
• keep team and individuals focused
• Inspire

IMHO, The best coaches are at the following Schools: in no particular order.

Maryland
Northwestern
Boston College
Navy
Princeton
North Carolina
Stony Brook
Penn
Colorado
Penn State

(Duke & USC) pretty good as well.


List is pretty good. Acacia Walker, however, should not be on that list. She checks the first box, very good (to the point of unethical) recruiter. Poor coach. Assistants do all the real coaching there. Ask the girls. And before all the "your daughter got snubbed there" comments start flying, that is not the case. She had an offer from BC. Turned it down. Saw first hand what she was all about with some other recruits and said no thank you.

So you definitely know more lololol what a hammerhead

A more appropriate term than "developing" could be utilizing. I think the best coaches can:
• Identity talent / potential
• Recruit / Sell / Land (convince to attend school)
• Teach / Coach
• Effectively Utilize Talent
• Prepare / adjust
• keep team and individuals focused
• Inspire

IMHO, The best coaches are at the following Schools: in no particular order.

Maryland
Northwestern
Boston College
Navy
Princeton
North Carolina
Stony Brook
Penn
Colorado
Penn State

(Duke & USC) pretty good as well.


List is pretty good. Acacia Walker, however, should not be on that list. She checks the first box, very good (to the point of unethical) recruiter. Poor coach. Assistants do all the real coaching there. Ask the girls. And before all the "your daughter got snubbed there" comments start flying, that is not the case. She had an offer from BC. Turned it down. Saw first hand what she was all about with some other recruits and said no thank you.

Pretty entertaining so let's get this straight
Coaches poll - coaches have no clue
Inside lacrosse - media has no clue
Nike us lacrosse - also clueless
Just wondering besides yourself who really knows what happening? Time will tell sit back and enjoy the season

Navy vs. Gators, if you're done with snow removal and have the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy44fAlJYfg&feature=youtu.be

Was 10-1 Navy in first half. Not a two goal game 15-13 in 2nd half. Florida has such a tough time being consistent throughout the season and even within games.