Top 25 rankings

[theoriginalupstate]

No Wesley WOW!!!

that's a misprrint right?

Lindy's has Wesley in the top 5, for what reason I dont know, but thats a different matter.

[Pat Coleman]

It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?

I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.

Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants

All had better records on the road than at home this past season.   

So yeah I think it is possible.

Hi -- leave your oranges out of the discussion while we're talking about apples. You can't possibly compare NFL teams, who train year round and have access to multiple surfaces within their own facilities, to Division III schools.

Seriously -- stick to the topic at hand and stay out of non-Division III.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat,

I'll take partial blame for the apples and oranges, having made the Wimbledon-Roland Garros analogy early in the discussion.  It was (no doubt correctly) pointed out that the action of the ball on differing surfaces was the main factor, something with only very slight parallels in fball; teams may gain a relative advantage due to familiarity on such things as fumbles and onside kicks, but ball-turf interaction is a pretty trivial concern.

While weather is undoubtedly a larger factor than turf style for each of the following, I can't help thinking that type of turf (and familiarity with it) has differing effects for offensive vs. defensive minded teams, passing vs. running teams, power vs. speed teams, etc.

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

It's not possible that a team that plays on grass eight or so times a year and practices on it all the time is going to be more accustomed to the surface?

I think it is possible for a team who plays on turf 8 times a year might not be accustomed to the surface.

Dallas Cowboys
New Orlean Saints
Atlanta Falcons
New England
New York Giants

All had better records on the road than at home this past season.   

So yeah I think it is possible.

Hi -- leave your oranges out of the discussion while we're talking about apples. You can't possibly compare NFL teams, who train year round and have access to multiple surfaces within their own facilities, to Division III schools.

Seriously -- stick to the topic at hand and stay out of non-Division III.

Maybe so.  I am not quite sure where it says d3 players can't train year round on multiple surfaces.  Nothing should stop these kids when they are at home or even at school. They don't need coaches to train.  It wasn't a debate of NFL vs d3.  I said that.  I even said there is more than just a surface. I just anwsered your question.  Look I said the pollsters put Springfield at number 10 at the end of the season, clearly because they were better than 15 in the poll and even more in the country, not because of the  surface on which they played.  I don't think any other team in D3 can say they are bringing back 90.9% of thier offense.

I support my claims with evidence, as you suggested and my claims are still refuted.  Its all football and they all played on grass at some point in thier lives.  When these d3kids are at home I am sure not all of them have a turf field to practice on.  There is more to football than the surface of the field.  It really comes down to how a team prepares for game.  I am sure if you ask a football player, "Wanna play some ball"  their next response won't be "Is it on turf or grass because I really don't like playing on grass."  The anwser will be "Let's go play."

Some schools might have a better playing surface than practice surface.  Those schools are probably the schools that play on grass.

[K-Mack]

Question with all of those types of pronouncements is, who goes ahead of them? I often find myself starting out the preseason Top 25 process with the same preconceived notions, but when push comes to shove, I have a hard time moving someone like Wilkes ahead of Springfield, or Occidental ahead of Capital, etc.

Yes,
Pat and I often discuss this phenomenon.

Say you feel like there are six really good top 10 teams and 15 teams you think should go around 18-25, and a few in between. Well, somebody's gotta be No. 7. Somebody's gotta be No. 11, even if you as a poll voter would feel more comfortable with them at 15.

I would venture to say that happens virtually every week, that there are these very distinct tiers within the poll that one ranking really can't reflect.

The hope is, with an actual poll and point system, that those will be reflected, when you see No. 6 with 454 points, No. 7 with 451 and No. 8 with 373, it gives you some added context. For those who pay close attention.

[K-Mack]

Why don't we wait until the games are played?

And talk about what all summer - baseball?!

We'll probably do both -- we'll let the games play out but talk about them before they do.

People who aren't interested aren't obligated to participate.

In my opinion, because of the title: "Pre-Season Poll".  Prognostication!!

Wait?

Yeah, I don't really see that happening.

As long as we all accept that polls and rankings are an inexact science, and great for conversation, which usually leads to us all being a little more knowledgeable (although in some cases, reading the board makes you far stupider) ... I don't see the problem with them.

[K-Mack]

Im gonna say Springfield is not the 5th best team in the country.

St. John Fisher had a legitimate claim at top 5 last season, so I don't see why another Empire 8 team that beat Fisher last season (3 SJF defenders injured and didn't play, duly noted) would be a stretch at top 5 this season.

I wouldn't be stunned if they won the east.

That said, Springfield is one of those teams that is consistently overranked. Washington & Jefferson is the team we (meaning all who do D3 rankings) do this to most often, but I don't know who else gets that kind of respect each season without many long playoff runs to back it up. Even Trinity has a Stagg Bowl appearance (although I thought No. 4 overall in Lindy's was absurd)

As far as Capital not being top 15 ... I agree. I kept them in the top 25 but moved them behind Baldwin-Wallace.

I think for D3 teams who make signficant playoffs runs in more than one season, even when they lose a lot of talent, their young players have benefitted from the extra weeks of practice, the big-game experience and it has to help a ton on the recruiting trail.

In other words, teams like Capital and UWW could fall back this year, but how far really remains to be seen.

Linfield last year lost a lot from its '05 semifinalist ... fell to 6-3, but if they'd pulled out that 17-13 game vs. Whitworth, they'd have been back in the playoffs with a very young team.

So it can happen.

[K-Mack]

Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?

Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.

Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end.  It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.

Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.

Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.

I can see where you're coming from, but the teams aren't equally affected if they're not wearing the same shoes.

(see: Whitewater vs. Wesley '05)

Also, experience on grass/turf or psyching self out about the differences can be factors.

In the end, it's much like home field advantage. It matters some, but generally when a player gets between the white lines, he isn't really thinking about any of that ... preparedness, toughness, speed, etc. are all much more important factors.

[Pat Coleman]

Maybe so.  I am not quite sure where it says d3 players can't train year round on multiple surfaces.  Nothing should stop these kids when they are at home or even at school. They don't need coaches to train.  It wasn't a debate of NFL vs d3.  I said that.  I even said there is more than just a surface. I just anwsered your question. 

You didn't really. You tried to compare a team that plays 8 of 10 games on hard, flat astroturf to teams that play 8 of 16 games on a field turf-type surface.

Percentages, those you can understand, right?

[Ron Boerger]

That said, Springfield is one of those teams that is consistently overranked. Washington & Jefferson is the team we (meaning all who do D3 rankings) do this to most often, but I don't know who else gets that kind of respect each season without many long playoff runs to back it up. Even Trinity has a Stagg Bowl appearance (although I thought No. 4 overall in Lindy's was absurd)

Perhaps the Lindy's "brain trust" had a couple too many drinks on the River Walk.   

[pg04]

Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?

Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.

Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end.  It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.

Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.

Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.

I have seen Springfield play. It absolutely DOES have an effect...no doubt about it at all. 

[theoriginalupstate]

Did you know that Springfield is only good on turf and not on grass?

Gotta know the teams. Can't just number everything.

Is that Colman sarcasm or do you really believe that? Will the "this team plays better on turf" argument please end.  It's one thing to compare turf to a beat up grass field, but a good grass field and turf field are pretty much the same.

Either way, you could be playing on a sheet of ice and it wouldn't matter since both teams are equally affected by the playing surface.

Grass vs. Turf: personal pet peeve of mine since 1997.

I have seen Springfield play. It absolutely DOES have an effect...no doubt about it at all. 

Agreed, their offense is not as explosive and effective on grass as it is on an artificial surface.  It may not apply to all teams, but it does with the Pride....

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

I just don't think anybody can base thier entire arguement on playing surface.  That totally overlooks the team.  That is like saying drinking a glass of water without the glass.  It is absurd. That arguement has clearly been a one sided arguement.  I threw out numbers and when that was argued with "playing surface"  I began to point out why I playing surface doesn't matter.  I haven't heard anyone argue against numbers. Why does 90.9% offense returning not matter at all, when teams like capital are losing a big number. I guess it has to be that thier turf must be better than Springfield's turf. (In my case thier turf isn't as good based on my ranking.)  That is what that entire arguement showing me, players not matter but playing surface does. 

Playing surface not an issue.  Every team plays outside.  Springfield plays on turf they went 10-2 last year (9-1 in regular season).  They play on turf every year and will continue to play on turf until they don't.  Why is this year any different?  They return 90.9% of thier offensive yards.  So what if they play on turf. Even if everyone argues they are better on turf then on grass.  They aren't playing on grass this year and are still on turf.  How should that reflect where they stand?

Sidenote:  I have never played on turf, but what happens when it gets wet?  Does it get slick?  What happens when it gets cold outside?  Does the surface become even harder?  If yes to any of those, well grass does the same thing in a different way.  I am sure Springfield has played it when it was cold and when it was wet.

[union89]

Aside fom the turf/grass debate, Springfield plays a very unique, but very quirky brand of football.  Running the grind it out, control the clock and keep the opponents offense off the field is a sound plan.  The Pride's glaring downfall is that nearly every athlete on the team is relegated to the offensive side of the ball.  As many others have previouly said, many head coaches employ this play on either side of the ball and simply attempt to outscore you or totally shut you down....ie take one side of the ball away from you.

My question is, how can any publication rank a team with Springfield's mentality in their Top 10??  There are too many external factors for a triple option offense with NO defense to go wrong.  Rain...turnovers...field conditions....injuries to 1 of 3 guys....getting out scored early....any of these factors against a decent team will completely take the Pride out of their game....they can not throw the ball, nor can they stop you.

The above points have been brought up many times on various boards with PP.  Again, with all these negative intangables....how can a team with this many obvious nagative possiblilities be ranked in anyones top 10?

[union89]

Is anyone else arguing that playing surface is NOT that big a factor besides Gro?  He is an engineer you know....questionable institution....but still an engineer.