Thursday, June 14th, 2012.
"The Ontario Lacrosse Association (OLA) is pleased to announce a new partnership with MYLax to create an official statistical ranking system for all rep box teams across Ontario."
However it seems they did not use any of the info "MyLaxRanking.com" Provided for Proper Ranking.
Should We (OLA MINOR LACROSSE) use this new "MyLaxRanking.com" system? or just scrap it for next season ?
How do you figure that they "did not use any of the info"? The OLA rankings were released a week and a half ago. Here is a comparison to Peewee MyLax ratings from that time.
A (1-13) - 13 teams in "A". 11 were ranked in the top 13 for MyLax. The two exceptions were Orangeville (18) and Guelph (16) who were ranked 12 & 13 by the OLA.
B (14-29) - Halton Hills and Windsor were ranked 12 & 13 by Mylax, but 14 & 15 by the OLA. That doesn't seem like a particularly controversial or bad decision. The only team ranked by MyLax to be below this group was Newmarket (31 MyLax, #29 OLA). Again, not a stretch or anything to get worked up about.
C (30-53) - Milton was ranked 27 by MyLax, but 31 by the OLA. Three teams (Newmarket 2, Oakville 3, and Orangeville 2) were put near the bottom of C by the OLA (or themselves), while their MyLax ratings would have placed them in high D.
D (54-77) - The top four teams (Toronto Stars, Barrie 2, West Durham, Simcoe) would have been low C teams based on MyLax.
E (78-87) - Halton Hills 2 would have been low D based on MyLax.
So, out of 87 Peewee teams, 15 would up with slightly different OLA rankings than MyLax stats would place them. Most of those were low C / high D teams. Some of those rankings were no doubt requested by teams wishing to play up.
That suggests to me that the OLA used MyLax quite extensively, but considered other factors when evaluating marginal teams in each group, particularly in the lower divisions. The vast majority of teams (at least in Peewee) are exactly where MyLax predicted that they should be.