From time to time, we will be highlighting comments from you folks here in our new “Reader’s perspective” feature.

On today’s agenda, a look at the new formula for playoff seedings in Section 1 (Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties) as a result of the new geographically aligned league structure and elimination of the so-called “Power League.”

Reader SWLax weighs in with his thoughts and analysis on the “Scoreboard Central: Friday/4.23.10 thread.”

Comment by SWLAX:

“Now I know that it will all straighten itself out come sectional time, regardless or seedings, but has anyone else looked at the seeding criteria for playoffs in Section 1 this year?

First of all, you need to win 25% of your games to get in, either within your league, class, or overall. That is going to leave Greeley out, a team that loses to JJ by 3, Somers by 1, and smoked South. South will make it, will probably get a home game and Greeley won’t. How can you punish a team for playing in the toughest league in the section? Put them in any other league in the section and they’re atleast 6-2 right now.

Here is the point system that the seedings are based on:

– Four points for every win, regardless of class
– Two points for every tie, regardless of class
– No deduction of points for losses
– Two bonus points will be awarded for playing a team that has a winning percentage of .750, or above – teams receive this if they win or lose, determined at seeding day
– One bonus point for playing a team who has a winning percentage between .500 and .749- teams receive this if they win or lose, determined at seeding day
– Bonus points will only be awarded for NYS Federation games, as seeding will only come from these games (these are teams in NYSPHSAA and its affiliates- CHSAA, PSAL, NYIS)

Now that means that teams that played CT teams, NJ teams, WA teams, or even NE 2 FAA teams (Rye Country Day), those games don’t count towards earning any points towards sectional seeding.

Currently, that leaves Rye with a 2-4 Record to be used towards seedings. At a glance, it looks like the best they’ll have heading into seedings is a 6-7 record. That puts the likes of Nanuet and Pelham ahead of them come seeding time. From what I see, that would put Rye at #7 in Class C if everything plays out without any major upsets. That would mean whoever is ranked #2 going in, would face Rye in the second round after they smoke the #10 team; not exactly a lucky draw.

Yorktown also plays out of state and ‘non-sanctioned’ teams, so they will also be at a seeding disadvantage. It may pan out for them as their NYS schedule is strong and they will get points for playing those tough teams, but win or lose against the CT teams, they get nothing for it. I know, I know, they play better competition and it prepares them for the playoffs better, and I agree with that 100%, but what if it turns out that they do not have a home playoff game? What a sham that would be. Arlington may be ranked ahead of them, even after ‘Town presumably beats them by a large margin.

The kids will play it out and it will work itself out in the end (the best teams will be playing each other on June 2) but it’s a shame that some seniors may not have a home playoff game when their team deserves it, or even make the playoffs in Greeley’s case!

Section 1 may want to fix this mess. The old system of the power league worked, so of course we had to go and change it. Schools save an estimated $13,000/year on transportation, not season, YEAR on this geographic league alignment change across all sports (except for football) and I for one do not think it is worth the cost.”

MSG Varsity coverage

(Only on Optimum)

* Lombardi on Lacrosse segment from 4.22 “Sports Desk”

* Lombardi: Let’s play three

* Latest Hudson Valley/Connecticut Top 20 rankings

* Latest weekly game predictions

* Top 75 Long Island players

* Interlicchio closes in on Yorktown’s all-time goal-scoring record

* A look at the latest Bocklet to star at John Jay

* Bronxville’s Colavita overcomes neck injury

* Shawna Ryan on Manhasset-Chaminade

* Jared Greenberg looks at regional teams under the radar

Lacrosse for Dummies

* Order a copy of the newly released 330-page brand-new edition of the book by Joe Lombardi here.

* Click here to get a $5 rebate

Connect with us recruiting coverage

• Recruiting review and commitment rundown

• Recruit profile archive

Player perspectives

* Archive

Posted In: Reader's perspective

If you liked this article, please take this time to share it with your Facebook friends using the Facebook button (see Facebook post button to the left) or retweet it using Twitter (see retweet button to the left). You may also want to follow us or subscribe to the site to stay up-to-date with this article. If you'd rather follow us from your Facebook account, join our Facebook fan page.

25 Responses to “Reader’s perspective: SWLAX analyzes new Section 1 playoff seeding formula”

  1. mike bean says:

    Just like last year john jay had to play at Greeley because jj lost to ST Anthonys and Manhasset but you saw what happend when jj played them on grass over there is was i think 18-6

  2. HV Lax says:

    25% of your games? Why would that leave Greeley out?
    Greeley has two Rye games, another Byram game (yesterday was quite the fluke…), another Somers game, Harrison, Fox Lane, and Guilderland (although im not sure if that game would count, i think it does).

    Greeley can easily win at least 3 more games, putting them at or over 25%.

  3. SWLAX says:

    Was going by laxpower’s schedule, no Fox lane on that one. For their sake I hope they do, but it won’t be easy by any means. Wouldn’t that be something if they made it as the last seed and knocked off JJ first round!

  4. HV Lax says:

    They will make it. If it means being ranked last, well then so be it, but they will make it. And I agree with you, it will be quite the trill if they knock off JJ (although JJ will probably have a by…)

  5. Doid23 says:

    I don’t think Greeley “easily” wins 3 of those games. They certainly could, but I’d favor Somers and Rye in their games, favor Greeley over Fox Lane and Harrison, and Byram Hills (how come every BH win is a “fluke”?) and Guilderland are tossups.

  6. SirLaxalot says:

    I guess you have to play the best teams at some point so the seedings may not be hugely important but for lax a formula like this really doesn’t work, as it didn’t with hockey.

  7. funsky says:

    Please — think about what you all are saying — let the coaches should go out and teach the kids how to play the game — and then go out and win. Anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Let’s make it about the kids and the coaches that are hired to do the job they are hired for. Tim Schurr said it best in his last interview — “IT IS A GAME”!! Very well put Coach Schurrr.

  8. i_dontno says:

    This only proves that lacrosse is different from the other sports and requires special consideration. It is unlike any of the other sports.

    Teams like Yorktown, JJ and some others go outside the section in order to take on premiere competition. And I think they will happily “pay the penalty” and play a playoff game on the road in order to protect their out of section schedule, which is more compelling for them, than scheduling an extra in sectional game that is not compelling, but does give them playoff points.

    As far as Greeley is concerned, hey, tough luck. What else can be said? They cannot be rewarded for losing no matter how good their competition. In every league their will be winners and losers. That’s sports folks.

    The thing that is penalizing Greeley is not the league they’re in, but the fact that the entire section is split up into leagues at all.

    Why is it important for teams to be split into leagues, when everybody plays across league lines to begin with? Rye C plays more games against B schools than C schools. L/P (A) plays more B&C games combined than they do A. Ossining (B) plays more A&C games than B…
    and on and on.

    Schedule geographically, do away with all the leagues and seed from top to bottom.

    That way everybody has their own destiny in their hands all year long, coaches understand the penalty for out of section games and nobody gets bumped out because of the geo-nightmare.

    Does any of this make sense or am I way off base?

  9. mid_kowntee_madman says:

    The article is right. Forget about the posts about who Greeley would beat and by how much – it’s all off point. Greely would be 55-0.

    This point system is the only thing more ridiculous than the geographic realignment. It’s a farce.

    The intent was never to geographically realign, it was to geographically realign with competitive balance.

    Get rid of A, B, C distinctions and do what you said you would – geographically realign.

    The mid county teams are the best examples. Compare Ossining’s schedule last year to this year and tell me where the geographic realignment took place. Their current schedule is almost identical to last year’s. But last year they played Briarcliff and Ardsley and this year dropped them for Brewster and North Rockland. How is that geographically correct?

    If geography would matter at all your mid westchester league would be Croton, Ossining, Briarcliff, Pleasantville and Greeley.

    Hen Hud, Peekskill, Yorktown, Lakeland, Somers

    John Jay, Fox Lane, Byram, North Salem and Brewster

    Rockland; We”l see you come playoff time.

    I may not know much about lacrosse, but I know how to read a map.

  10. im-in says:

    I agree.

    This year Croton added Arlington and Wappingers – not only further, but better teams.

  11. funsky says:

    It is what it is and we have to deal with it. Let the games begin — whoever wants it more will win.

  12. Cards Lax says:

    I think you’re all missing the point here. SWLAX is just bringing up the possibility of unfair advantage brought about in a new unproven, untested, heavily flawed system.

    HG could end up out of the playoofs, it’s not that far off to see them lose a lot of those remaining games. They’re a quality team and it would be a shame for them to not compete in the playoffs. It appears that the bonus points will help them a great deal.

    Section I is a mess…

  13. BigBadBear says:

    add Sleepy and Westlake to the “mid-westchester” league”…probably drop Croton, (just on geography, it is a bit further)…I think pretty good mix of teams, and would be decently competitive, and they are all within a few minutes of each other…

  14. LaxFan says:

    When are the Section One Finals being played? Is it White Plains again?

  15. Old Rugger says:

    It is WP on June 5th then the out Bracket games with Section 2 are at YorkTown

  16. reLAX says:

    Interesting info. Thanks

  17. LaxFan says:

    Section One Triple-Header is Wednesday Night June 2nd at WPHS correct? What happens after that for Section One teams leading to State Finals?

  18. Old Rugger says:

    Just for Fun Sect 1 B Seedings prior to games played today 4/27
    Just a snap shot as some teams have played 9 games and some only 7.
    1. EastChester (Pts 36)
    2. JJ (34)
    3. TZ (30)
    4. Mamo (28)
    5. Somers (27)
    6. Brewster (26)
    7. Ossining (23) Beat FL in head to head
    8. Fox Lane (23)
    9.&10 Scarsdale and HenHud don’t know Tie breaker when no head to head or same opponent.
    11 Nyack(17)
    12. Harrison (15)

    Only 3 team elimanted at this point looking more like Hockey and Basketball
    HG (could beat many of above)
    Houston we have a problem, and I thought JJ playing away at HG was a problem last year. It would still work out to a JJ Somers final but a #5 vs #2 seed. I don’t pretend to be smart but something here ain’t right.

  19. BigBadBear says:

    Old Rugger do that for C too, will look even stranger I bet

  20. SWLAX says:

    The problem with B is that Ossining and Fox Lane are going to finish ahead of Somers because their remaining schedules are not what Somers’ is (including two out of state games that won’t count for Somers). When JJ finishes 2 and Somers drops to 6 (or even 7), now you have them facing each other in the quarterfinals or the semifinals, not the finals. Chances are that JJ will finish 1 and Somers 6 or 7, so then they would be in the finals together, but it’s not supposed to work out that way!

    Looking at C, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Rye too could be left out.

    Their win against Dulaney does not count, their game agaisnt RCD will not count one way or another, which means that they need to win 1 out of their remaining NY games to make it.

    JJ (lost first contest)
    Byram (lost first contest)
    Suffern (tough team)
    Somers (lost first contest)
    Iona (tough team that beat Somers)
    Greeley (won first contest)

    No walks in the park there…

    Class C, if the playoffs started today, before game played on 4/28:

    1. Pelham (35)
    2. Bronxville (34)
    3. Pearl River (33)
    4. Byram (29)
    5. Nanuet (28)
    6. Hastings (27)
    7. Pleasantville (23)
    8. Sleepy Hollow (22)
    9. North Salem (21)
    10. Haldane (21)
    11. Putnam Valley (20)
    12. Rye (19)
    13. Briarcliff (19)
    14. Ardsley (16)
    15. Croton (15)
    16. Irvington (14)
    17. Kennedy (13)

    You could have an 11 v. 12 final!




  21. SWLAX says:

    Hastings and Pleasantville tied with 23 points a piece, sorry.

  22. Kharas says:

    You know what? I wouldn’t mind seeing that 11 v 12 final. Instead of Rye and PV beating down Irvington or Kennedy they would face Hastings and Nanuet first round, which is a far more interesting scenario. In the end, you have to beat the best to be the best. While the system seems stupid, we at least have to let them play out. What if we get the wildest, most exciting playoffs in a long time? Let’s give it a fair shake before rebooting.

  23. laxx7 says:

    isnt mamo class a?

  24. Just sayin says:

    Atleast now u can figure out the seeds beforehand…

  25. reLAX says:

    I understand they’re locked into it for this year but they need to change this system in the future.l

Leave a Reply