FB: Presidents' Athletic Conference

[ExTartanPlayer]

I basically got told, "We own this site, therofre the ranking and we say so." 

Nobody said that in any way, shape or form, Mike.

Pat may be charmless, rigid, and a bore, but he definitely never said this nor gave any of this vibe.  Heck, the rankings (by 25 voters) are mostly done by people who do not "own" this site at all.

If the voters want to be wrong about ranking teams like HSU too high because they occasionally rub elbows with UMHB, that's not Pat's fault.  And it's great he provides this forum so I can rant about them being wrong.

[mikefln]

I basically got told, "We own this site, therofre the ranking and we say so." 

Nobody said that in any way, shape or form, Mike.

Pat may be charmless, rigid, and a bore, but he definitely never said this nor gave any of this vibe.  Heck, the rankings (by 25 voters) are mostly done by people who do not "own" this site at all.

If the voters want to be wrong about ranking teams like HSU too high because they occasionally rub elbows with UMHB, that's not Pat's fault.  And it's great he provides this forum so I can rant about them being wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion, but when I asked about A, I was told about B.  When I mentioned B, then I was told about A & C.  When I brought A & C up, I was told about B again with a little of A.  So Pat and you are correct that no one said, "Because we said so!".  But the run around on finding the basic logic and the lack of consistency, certainly leaves the impression to me that "It's my ball, and I am going home" kind of vibe. 

With that said I can certainly appreciate the difficulty of ranking a Top 25 with so many teams, many you don't physically see play. Hell, I make a Power Ranking of the PAC for my own amusement, and it is tough because I don't get to see all the games.   I do agree, and I also appreciate that he provides this forum.  He does seem to handle criticism well, and not hold it against us visitators.  I also appreciate how much work it must be running these sites. 

[Pat Coleman]

I basically got told, "We own this site, therofre the ranking and we say so." 

Nobody said that in any way, shape or form, Mike.

Pat may be charmless, rigid, and a bore, but he definitely never said this nor gave any of this vibe.  Heck, the rankings (by 25 voters) are mostly done by people who do not "own" this site at all.

If the voters want to be wrong about ranking teams like HSU too high because they occasionally rub elbows with UMHB, that's not Pat's fault.  And it's great he provides this forum so I can rant about them being wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion, but when I asked about A, I was told about B.  When I mentioned B, then I was told about A & C.  When I brought A & C up, I was told about B again with a little of A.  So Pat and you are correct that no one said, "Because we said so!".  But the run around on finding the basic logic and the lack of consistency, certainly leaves the impression to me that "It's my ball, and I am going home" kind of vibe. 

With that said I can certainly appreciate the difficulty of ranking a Top 25 with so many teams, many you don't physically see play. Hell, I make a Power Ranking of the PAC for my own amusement, and it is tough because I don't get to see all the games.   I do agree, and I also appreciate that he provides this forum.  He does seem to handle criticism well, and not hold it against us visitators.  I also appreciate how much work it must be running these sites.

I think where you lost me was when you insisted on applying only A, B, or C (whichever one is historical trend) to one of your cases in point. When you do that, and then do what you did earlier today, it is hard to have a real discussion because I can't even be sure you are reading what I'm saying.

[D3fanboy]

I basically got told, "We own this site, therofre the ranking and we say so." 

Nobody said that in any way, shape or form, Mike.

Pat may be charmless, rigid, and a bore, but he definitely never said this nor gave any of this vibe.  Heck, the rankings (by 25 voters) are mostly done by people who do not "own" this site at all.

If the voters want to be wrong about ranking teams like HSU too high because they occasionally rub elbows with UMHB, that's not Pat's fault.  And it's great he provides this forum so I can rant about them being wrong.

100%.  HSU is comically overrated year after year due to an annual big win by losing close to UMHB, but that isn't Pat's fault. 

[mikefln]

I think where you lost me was when you insisted on applying only A, B, or C (whichever one is historical trend) to one of your cases in point. When you do that, and then do what you did earlier today, it is hard to have a real discussion because I can't even be sure you are reading what I'm saying.

It works both ways, I can't be sure you are reading what I am saying either.

I will try and lay it out and I hope I can explain it clearly.  Not going to lie, writing is not a strength of mine.  I am more of a numbers' guy.

This all started because in week 3 CMU was ranked #14 (277 votes) and lost to unranked and not even receiving votes GCC.  W&J for all intents and purposes was ranked 27th (29 votes).  Week 4 CMU dropped to #24 (58 votes) and GCC was basically ranked 27th (44 votes) and W&J 28th (43 votes).  I said nothing about this, but the voters should have been smart enough to vote GCC into the top 25 and CMU out of Top 25 and into others the receiving votes.  If GCC won against W&J no harm no foul, and if they lost then they drop and W&J is in Top 25. Yet they were not savvy enough to do so. Which brought this mess in week 5 on. 

Week 5 action saw GCC beating W&J by a TD, just as they did to CMU the week before, and CMU won their game that week 5.  At that point the Week 5 poll moved GCC to #23 (70 Votes), CMU dropping out of the Top 25 after a win, to #28 (27 votes) and W&J no longer receiving votes. That is the PAC losing 48 votes.   I questioned the logic of dropping W&J out for the same resume that CMU had, in fact you could make the argument that they had a better resume since they beat Westminster already.  I found it shameful that the PAC had just 1 team (GCC) ranked #23 and only 1 team (CMU) receiving votes with the same resume as another team (W&J) who was no longer receiving votes.  You mentioned that the PAC votes just got condensed.  Losing 48 votes is not condensing the PAC vote.  CMU was previously #14 when GCC beat them and the new ranked PAC team (GCC) had 4 credible wins that is as good if not better than anyone else in the country, which you corrected me about UW-Whitewater which I conceded too.  There is no denying at that point in the season UW Whitewater was the only team who was unbeaten who played as difficult of a schedule.  The other teams who played harder schedules had at least 1 lose.  Let's call this point A

So, Question 1- Do you see where there is a lack of logic with the above information?

Now at this point the conference rank came up.  I discussed how the PAC is still viewed like it is still 2013 as a middle of the pack conference (#12).  I argued that they are a top 1/3 conference, like #7 or 8.  That's my opinion, no harm no foul having differing opinions from each other here. Then there was banter between you and ExTartan, and this is when you first suggested history, which we will call point B.  I then called out the lack applying the rules to all teams and you doubled down on history to which I argued why does the results of 2 + years ago matter today.  I got what I call a nonsense answer of "history repeats itself" to justify the rules not applying to all.   

This is when I wanted more clarification and brought up Endicott and their and the CCCs lack of good history.  I brought up 2 teams who are ranked below Endicott who are undefeated, and both have better history than Endicott and I brought up GCC who reps the PAC who has better history than the CCC.  You then stated history is not everything and people are impressed by their win of HS and their close lose to # 15 Ithaca.  I have never seen, not 1 time, a close lost carry more weight than actually winning against good teams. With all the BS that is D1 rankings, even they never pulled a stunt like that with Boise St, Utah (before they were Pac12), UCF, etc.  Once a nontraditional power loses, they were out of the top 25 and that is with ¼ of the teams than D3 has?  This is where you stated I was only looking at history, instead of what I am assuming was strength of schedule since you kept mentioning the win against HS and the close lose to #15 Ithaca like GCC's win against #14 CMU meant nothing.  We will call SOS Point C. 

The way SOS is supposed to work in relationship to ranking is if you win the game, it makes you look better. Losing close games only matter when you play a top 5 team and you yourself are already highly ranked and therefore don't drop as bad.  GCC is winning games against a rather strong SOS, Endicott lost 1 of their 2 games so their SOS does not mean as much when you lose.  But you still argued otherwise. This was the point you merged point A and B and even part C, come to think of it, altogether again.

Question 2- Do you now see, where I believe the goal post keep moving and it has a feel of "Because I said so, if you don't like it, I will take my ball and go home?

Listen, it is your site and therefore your rules.  You can rank teams however you want.  But if you put it out there, others and I are going to question the logic/consistency.  I did not see consistent logic, nor do I expect too.   

[ExTartanPlayer]

Pat is not personally ranking the teams, Mike. The fact that it's "his" site is kind of irrelevant when it's an aggregation of 25 people's opinions. And FTR, I do think the PAC is a little underrated as a conference, but I'm not terribly surprised how the polls have shaken out. CMU got a boost from last year with a strong playoff performance, but that's usually not going to be automatically transferred to the next team that beats them.

I do think voters are a little slow to move teams down from preseason rankings which is why we often see silly things like Grove City still getting fewer votes than CMU a week after beating CMU, but again, that's not happening on a single ballot but across aggregation of 25 ballots.  Also worth noting, Endicott was still ranked behind HSU the week after beating HSU 37-10, which I found particularly silly (how are you still ranking a team ahead of one they just lost to 37-10?)

Not Pat's fault though

[WRMUalum13]

Pat is not personally ranking the teams, Mike. The fact that it's "his" site is kind of irrelevant when it's an aggregation of 25 people's opinions. And FTR, I do think the PAC is a little underrated as a conference, but I'm not terribly surprised how the polls have shaken out. CMU got a boost from last year with a strong playoff performance, but that's usually not going to be automatically transferred to the next team that beats them.

I do think voters are a little slow to move teams down from preseason rankings which is why we often see silly things like Grove City still getting fewer votes than CMU a week after beating CMU, but again, that's not happening on a single ballot but across aggregation of 25 ballots.  Also worth noting, Endicott was still ranked behind HSU the week after beating HSU 37-10, which I found particularly silly (how are you still ranking a team ahead of one they just lost to 37-10?)

Not Pat's fault though

Excellent Point! There's 25 different voters with 25 different perspectives and logic for how they rank teams. Pat has provided some explanation for why the polls may have shifted certain ways but it's not something he controls.

Some voters think it's appropriate to rank the defending champs #1 until they get beat, some
don't, there's all sorts of variability.

[CNU85]

"The D3football.com Top 25 is voted on by a panel of 25 coaches, Sports Information Directors and media members from across the country, and is published weekly. Points are awarded on a 25-24-23-22-etc. basis."


LIES! We all know Pat ranks the teams all by his lonesome! And that's the ABC's about that! (for those who need a little direction...this is sarcastic!)

[ADL70]

Another post-season data point for the PAC, in 2017 PAC champ CWRU beat CCIW (a top ranked conference) co-champ Illinois Wesleyan 28-0 in first round then lost to eventual champ Mt Union in the second round.

[mikefln]

I realize Pat does not rank them all on his own.  But his arguments for why the rankings are the way they are are not logical in my mind.  If they are logical to yinz, then so be it.  When I was talking about it being his site, I was referring to what I consider his weak and contradictory reasoning  for the rankings "working .  Apparently I am the moron, as everyone else  seems fine with his explanation.  To me, it is contradictory.

[Pat Coleman]

I think everyone's point is that there are 24 other voters. I can't give you the deep insight into the mind of all 24 other voters. And yes, sometimes head-to-head results don't line up. Often, not all head-to-head results can line up. And sometimes human beings who vote don't give Grove City the benefit of the doubt that they might give W&J and Carnegie Mellon or other non-PAC teams who have been to the playoffs before, or other teams who have had quality non-conference results this season.

[jam40jeff]

Although I do think the PAC doesn't get enough credit around here, I can't argue with the line of reasoning behind Grove City's current ranking.  It's hard to know if the CMU and W&J wins indicate that the PAC as a whole is down this year, or if GCC is that much better than they historically have been, especially since there are no OOC games.  I believe CWRU is down from previous years, but took them to OT, so, again, I don't know if this means CWRU played up, if they are better than I expected, if GCC played down, or if the conference as a whole is a little weak this year.  The best way for GCC to build a reputation and prove the naysayers wrong is to get a good playoff win or even two.

[mikefln]

Honestly, it is whatever for me at this point.  I am done talking about this for now as I expect GCC to win out the regular season finish in the high teens. I expect the winner of the CMU/CWRU/W&J triangle to be receiving votes (hopefully in close to being ranked).  I just fail to see logic behind it, but it is what it is at this point.  Maybe next year I will jump on the soap box again, but for right now I am done with this topic.  More than likely GCC is carrying the PAC Banner this year in the playoffs and hopefully they make a nice deep run, and the other 3 teams can get Bowl bids and win those games. 

[ADL70]

CWRU isn't a member of ECAC, so, it can't go to an ECAC bowl.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Just watched the CWRU v. Westminster game over the internet.

DOMINATING win for CWRU on homecoming.

If the Spartans keep improving at this rate..........a 9-1 finish won't be out of reach.

We'll see!