Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

US Lacrosse Women's Collegiate Lacrosse Associates

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby FLLaxer5478 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:27 am

How are leagues that get AQs determined? Seems absolutely insane that the a league that represents only 4-6 teams some with no or one ranked team (NEWLL, NWWLL, TWLL, RMLL) get one and then there are leagues like the WCLL with 21 teams/3 ranked, SWLL 16 teams/2 ranked. Seems like the leagues need to be redistributed/balanced better--I know the at-large picks help to alleviate this, but it seems a bit off when four teams get to compete for an AQ when 20 have to compete elsewhere.
FLLaxer5478
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby windenglax on Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:10 am

Keep in mind the effort to grow the sport. WCLL is a region that lacrosse is very developed. TWLL is much less of a developed area. You have hot spots in Texas such as Dallas, Austin and Houston but the growth of the sport is still a curiosity in many instances. Support from schools, distance traveled and money all plays into under leagues with lower number of teams. There has been a push in TWLL to move a few teams at the D2 (currently at 12) up to the the D1 level but the criteria isn't defined well. Some will argue that SMU beats up on all the D2 opponents and plays TWLL D1 solidly but doesn't move up. They do not play outside the league unless they are the AQ though so funding may be limited to travel. Why teams like SMU and possibly a few others in D2 haven't moved up is unknown, but currently TWLL D1 has 3 solid teams while Tulane is hanging on.

Bottom line is these are student run clubs. Some have the illusion of unlimited funding and budgets while some struggle to scratch enough people together to play a game on a weekend. The cost associated with a team like Texas Tech to host a game is ridiculous. The closest available officials would be Dallas...a mere 5 hours away. They are on the hook to not only cover the official fees but their travel as well which gets expensive. As the game grows and the region develops more teams, the next step would to get certified officials out in those areas-but that will take years and dedication on some individuals. Youth lacrosse to help develop officials exists out in Midland/Odessa but no where else in West Texas. This will change in time though.
windenglax
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:58 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby wsalzman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:44 pm

Here's a thought for some of the girls on the more established teams that don't have huge budgets for travel. If several girls on the team would go through the certification process to become referee's then they could defray part of the cost of travel by offering their services as referee to games that they are not playing in. (of course that would need to be sanctioned by the league so that they would be certified to referee in any area they were travelling to and would have to be coordinated by the regional referee scheduling board) but it might help get more play into areas that have a cost prohibition to pay for referee's. Maybe the cost of travel portion of the fee could be reduced for athlete/referee's that are already going to be in the area for a game day. So where a ref from Dallas (5 hours away in your example) would cost $115/130 per game + travel at 0.54 per mile or actual airfare cost + hotel if overnight stay is required then maybe the cost would be just the per game cost if the athlete/ref were going to be attending the game day anyway. Then the ref pay could be pushed back into travel expenses for the athlete/ref's team. .... Anyway just a suggestion to help grow the game in less developed areas ....
wsalzman
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:28 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby power_lax17 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:02 pm

Though in theory this is a good idea it would be highly improbable. As a current official and from my knowledge of how the process of becoming an official goes the girls you are suggesting to officiate the games will probably be graduated by the time they get a high enough ranking that they could be assigned these games. A new ref is automatically given an apprentice rating then each year depending on your ranking you must get reranked. The ranking goes apprentice, local 1, local 2, district 1, district 2, district 3 and so on. The numbers following each is how many years the ranking is good for until you need to be reranked again. To officiate a WCLA game you must be district ranked, which in reality takes a while to get that ranking. Typically new refs will be local ranked, and its not uncommon for a Local 1 ref to get rerated as local 1 again the following year. Unless these girls are getting a lot of games and putting in a lot of time to officiating, I doubt they will get a district rating by their senior year.
power_lax17
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby dominator on Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:19 pm

Anyone care to take a shot at the seedings? Interested to see where UCLA will land after losing in their regional.

There are more good teams than spots this year.
dominator
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:56 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby FLLaxer5478 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:05 pm

That all makes sense, but travel is just as much a struggle for some WCLL/SWLL teams. The WCLL covers from West Virginia to Minneapolis. I think someone said once the WCLL west alone (in which, of course, all teams have to play each other) is 8 hours from end to end. Why not split up the WCLL/SWLL and get two AQs to increase competitive balance. There are definitely enough teams/skill in both. Even the split leagues would be better than some of the other AQ leagues.

windenglax wrote:Keep in mind the effort to grow the sport. WCLL is a region that lacrosse is very developed. TWLL is much less of a developed area. You have hot spots in Texas such as Dallas, Austin and Houston but the growth of the sport is still a curiosity in many instances. Support from schools, distance traveled and money all plays into under leagues with lower number of teams. There has been a push in TWLL to move a few teams at the D2 (currently at 12) up to the the D1 level but the criteria isn't defined well. Some will argue that SMU beats up on all the D2 opponents and plays TWLL D1 solidly but doesn't move up. They do not play outside the league unless they are the AQ though so funding may be limited to travel. Why teams like SMU and possibly a few others in D2 haven't moved up is unknown, but currently TWLL D1 has 3 solid teams while Tulane is hanging on.

Bottom line is these are student run clubs. Some have the illusion of unlimited funding and budgets while some struggle to scratch enough people together to play a game on a weekend. The cost associated with a team like Texas Tech to host a game is ridiculous. The closest available officials would be Dallas...a mere 5 hours away. They are on the hook to not only cover the official fees but their travel as well which gets expensive. As the game grows and the region develops more teams, the next step would to get certified officials out in those areas-but that will take years and dedication on some individuals. Youth lacrosse to help develop officials exists out in Midland/Odessa but no where else in West Texas. This will change in time though.
FLLaxer5478
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby wsalzman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:11 pm

power_lax17 wrote:Though in theory this is a good idea it would be highly improbable. As a current official and from my knowledge of how the process of becoming an official goes the girls you are suggesting to officiate the games will probably be graduated by the time they get a high enough ranking that they could be assigned these games. A new ref is automatically given an apprentice rating then each year depending on your ranking you must get reranked. The ranking goes apprentice, local 1, local 2, district 1, district 2, district 3 and so on. The numbers following each is how many years the ranking is good for until you need to be reranked again. To officiate a WCLA game you must be district ranked, which in reality takes a while to get that ranking. Typically new refs will be local ranked, and its not uncommon for a Local 1 ref to get rerated as local 1 again the following year. Unless these girls are getting a lot of games and putting in a lot of time to officiating, I doubt they will get a district rating by their senior year.


Good point, obviously I'm not an official and wasn't aware of the timeline to be rated for wcla play. Oh well, just a thought anyway.
wsalzman
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:28 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby windenglax on Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:52 am

power_lax17 wrote:Though in theory this is a good idea it would be highly improbable. As a current official and from my knowledge of how the process of becoming an official goes the girls you are suggesting to officiate the games will probably be graduated by the time they get a high enough ranking that they could be assigned these games. A new ref is automatically given an apprentice rating then each year depending on your ranking you must get reranked. The ranking goes apprentice, local 1, local 2, district 1, district 2, district 3 and so on. The numbers following each is how many years the ranking is good for until you need to be reranked again. To officiate a WCLA game you must be district ranked, which in reality takes a while to get that ranking. Typically new refs will be local ranked, and its not uncommon for a Local 1 ref to get rerated as local 1 again the following year. Unless these girls are getting a lot of games and putting in a lot of time to officiating, I doubt they will get a district rating by their senior year.


This is exactly the point.

In lieu of hijacking the thread even more...I'm more interested in the at large bids and seedings.
windenglax
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:58 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby wsalzman on Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:52 am

I'd guess as far as seedings/at large bids, my original list in this thread stands with the seedings (since the selection committee is the same as the poll contributors as far as I can tell) following the poll rankings where the teams are in the last poll results with automatic qualifiers being slightly higher than at-larges in the same region (i.e. VT if given an at large would be ranked below UNC and Virgina and Delaware if UNC and Virginia get at large bids as well) - yes you can tell my daughter plays in the mawll as I always use them for my example.

So my picks for seeding are here:
Code: Select all
1  WCLL     Pittsburgh                      16 NWWLL    Western Washington
2  WWLL     Santa Clara                     15 TWLL     Texas A&M
3  RMWLL    Colorado State                  14 At Large Cal Poly Slo
4  SWLL     Georgia                         13 At Large Michigan
5  NEWLL    Boston College                  12 At Large UNC
6  MAWLL    Delaware Club                   11 At Large Colorado
7  At Large UCLA                            10 At Large Brigham Young
8  At Large Virginia                        9  At Large San Diego State

*** apologies if I picked the wrong teams for AQ's I'm not sure that the ones I picked are actually the AQ's but I think that's what I see from what I can decipher from the games/scores posted...

*** I also may have seeded MAWLL higher as I have a natural bias towards that region

*** adjustments made to prevent same region first round match-ups..
wsalzman
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:28 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby dominator on Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:15 pm

I think you've done a great job prognosticating!

A couple thoughts on seeds 9-14:

1) I say BYU 9, SDSU 10, and UNC 11

2) VT is clearly more worthy of a bid than Colorado who:
a) has 4 wins against D2 teams (CU is 5-5 against D1 teams)
b) has a 4 goal loss, a 5 goal loss, a 6 goal loss, and two 8 goal losses

Consider:
VT played the tougher schedule, beat BC, UGA, and PSU and lost to excellent teams in UVA (twice) and UNC
CU only has two quality wins. They beat UCLA and Michigan by one. But they also only beat UConn by one where Laxpower predicted a 6 goal win for CU. CU started strong and faded out of contention in my opinion.

3) Thus I would think seeds 12-14 would be: Michigan, Poly, VT

4) Agree with 15-16

Good teams on the outside looking in: UCF, Ohio State, JMU, Texas, PSU (by choice?)
dominator
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:56 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby wsalzman on Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:27 pm

I moved UNC to 12 to keep the first round match-up from being Delaware/UNC and SDSU to 9 to avoid the SDSU/UCLA. i.e. I tried to keep the first round from being regional rematches. And even though I am partial to MAWLL, I think 3 teams from MAWLL Chesapeake would be a bit excessive (even though they were almost all in the top 20 all season, including JMU who is sitting in 18th in polling with a losing season while playing the third* toughest season in the league with only four teams that they played not in the top 20 - Duke, Alabama, Towson, and Notre Dame) although as I recall Notre Dame was ranked in the top 20 for a couple of weeks after their JMU game as was Duke) *West Chester and Air Force were #2 and #1 in Strength of Schedule
wsalzman
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:28 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby windenglax on Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:20 pm

Here are the D1 selections...

No. 1 University of Pittsburgh (14-1)
No. 2 Santa Clara University (11-2)
No. 3 University of California, Los Angeles (12-2)
No. 4 University of Georgia (13-3)
No. 5 Colorado State University (12-4)
No. 6 Boston College Club (13-1)
No. 7 University of Delaware Club (9-2)
No. 8 Brigham Young University (9-1)
No. 9 University of Virginia Club (11-3)
No. 10 Virginia Tech University Club (8-3)
No. 11 University of Michigan Club (9-4)
No. 12 California Polytechnic State University (7-7)
No. 13 San Diego State University (11-4)
No. 14 University of North Carolina Club (8-3)
No. 15 Texas A&M University (7-3)
No. 16 Western Washington University (13-1)

Nice job wsalzman!
windenglax
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 4:58 pm

Re: Speculative National Tournament Picks ?

New postby wsalzman on Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:40 pm

Are those official picks? Dominator, you got VT over Colorado right.

Just got confirmation from my daughter that those picks were what was communicated to the teams as well. Good luck to all the teams going to nationals.
wsalzman
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:28 pm

Sponsor
 

Previous

Return to Women's WCLA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest