Top 25 rankings

[redswarm81]

Good Lord, at that rate your karma will be up to negative 40 by the end of the week.

Not everyone around here has your sense of humor, though.
To quote the Boss (for whom I have tickets in Albany and Washington, DC):
I'm the same old story, same old act;
One step up and two steps back.

Is your avatar from Romancing The Stone?

You bet!

Michael Douglas:  Marijuana--you ever smoke this stuff?
Kathleen Turner:  I went to college.

I'll be able to die happy if I ever hear a Supreme Court nominee give that answer.

[redswarm81]

I suggest that you work with your university president, and encourage him¹ that access to the playoffs is a high priority with you.  Furthermore your active participation in alumni and fundraising activities for the Athletic Department at a "sacrificial" level² will convey the importance of the issue for you.   

¹ Her.  Shirley Ann Jackson  href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Ann_Jackson Mind your manners Doc.   

² I participate in withholding taxation at the "sacrificial" level already, Ralph.

[redswarm81]

Maybe I should just wave the white flag, but I feel like stirring a bit more. I'm not sure that having certain historical biases is necessarily a bad thing. Certain teams should have to show that they belong before they are regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong.

So, you support the idea of say, an 8 - 2 Ithaca being invited to the tournament based on what they did in the 80s, versus a 10 - 0 Curry team being invited based on what they did in 2007?

How are you going to phrase that in the handbook that you send to all the schools, informing them of what they need to do to get invited to the tournament?

I have some real discomfort with your implication.  First and foremost, this is college football.  The rosters change significantly every year, so the historical significance is not based primarily on roster, as would be the case in professional sports.   Second, these are non scholarship DIII schools.  Even those students who are more interested in the athletics than the academics clearly aren't world class athletes, or else they'd be playing on a scholarship somewhere.  My third concern is who defines the following:

• who are the "certain" teams who must "show they belong?"
• what constitutes "show[ing] they belong?"
• who are the teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong?
• how long is "a longer period?"

I'm sure you mean well, but put yourself in the shoes of the incoming Utica head coach, at a team meeting.  How do you explain to your players what they have to do to "show that they belong," in order to be regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong?

[redswarm81]

The portrayal of the committee as a bunch of Montgomery Burns-looking guys sitting in a room figuring out how they can screw poor little Cortland State is just silly.

Excellent, Smithers!

[pg04]

So, you support the idea of say, an 8 - 2 Ithaca being invited to the tournament based on what they did in the 80s, versus a 10 - 0 Curry team being invited based on what they did in 2007?

This isn't really a comparison since Curry will get the AQ regardless.   

As for the topic on a whole, I have a rather low opinion of human nature most of the time, so you probably wouldn't want to hear it.   

[K-Mack]

Maybe I should just wave the white flag, but I feel like stirring a bit more. I'm not sure that having certain historical biases is necessarily a bad thing. Certain teams should have to show that they belong before they are regarded as well as teams who have shown over a longer period that they do belong.

Well, I agree that you need humans on the committee to interpret the data. You wouldn't want to take a one-loss OAC team and a one-loss NEFC team and try to say they're the same, even if a statistical model says they are.

But I wouldn't call that "bias."

Maybe semantics is half the battle.

[HScoach]

...... You wouldn't want to take a one-loss OAC team and a one-loss NEFC team and try to say they're the same, even if a statistical model says they are.

But I wouldn't call that "bias."

I agree.  I'd call that "logic".

[repete]

Off topic alert:

Not meaning to offend, Keith, but I can understand any person's reluctance to believe that an establishment media journalist will put aside his or her bias.

Of course, why even have '"establishment media journalist(s)" when the
FEMA folks can play them on TV ...

At least the established media called BS on that.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Time to resurrect this thread from page two!

While there's still a week to go before the final poll, all but two teams have now turned in their uniforms for the year, so nothing much can change.  Barring an unprecedented 'triple' monkey-stomp in the Stagg (and perhaps even then!) #1 and #2 will be the Stagg participants.  IMO, UMHB is pretty obvious for #3 (except, perhaps, if UWW lays an egg in Salem).  But after that it gets mighty cloudy in my crystal ball.

Thoughts?

[PA_wesleyfan]

 In the overall grand scheme of things does it matter where the next 6 or 7 teams end up ranked?  I think that Bethel should get the No. 4 just like Welsey should have gotten it last year. They made the final four although their region was the 4th seed. It's all subjective after the Stagg Bowl. We have a playoff to determine a champion but the domino's don't fall equally because somewhere someone feels  a no. 3 seed in one region is better than a no. 1 of another.

When a coach is recruiting does he say we were no. 3 or no. 5 or does he say we are a top ten team?

[old ends]

  When a coach is recruiting does he say we were no. 3 or no. 5 or does he say we are a top ten team?

Your right. Recruit's and parents will always hear the first number. Top 10 vs 4th, 5th, etc.

As far as where the rest will fall, I wonder if strenght of schedule again comes into play?

[Jonny Utah]

I think you tell people that you were the 5th ranked team in the country.  If you were 9th or 10th, then maybe you might tell people that you were a top 10 team.

[smedindy]

You know, the final poll means nothing to me, since D3 does it the right way and crowns a champion on the field. From there, its how far you advanced in the playoffs, etc.

[K-Mack]

True, the final poll determines nothing, but it appears to mean something. In other words, I'm not sure how much it matters, but it seems to interest people.

It also seems to be a worthwhile pursuit, to determine the final rank of teams now that all the data is in, since we spend so much time trying to do it with only limited data (i.e. four weeks of games in Week 4, etc.)

PA Wesley Dad, of course the chips don't fall equally because teams haven't played the same strength of schedule (although that should benefit the Wolverines this year, esp. since The South went to UWW and did not get smacked), and of course it is subjective.

UMHB is 3 no matter what UW-W does because UW-W beat them head-to-head.

After that, Bethel is still in pretty good shape as the champion of the West, esp. if Mount finishes the year with all blowouts.

Wesley, Central probably next.

After that I'd really have to put some thought into it.

Whitworth would be in my final 25, I believe