Top 25 talk

[HOPEful]

There's your problem. You need to close the quote after the quoted statement and before your text; otherwise, your new text gets included within a quote box.

Mr Sager, to be fair you need to scold Dave now too! 

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

1. I think there is some regional bias built in. Northeastern or Eastern basketball is better than Great Lakes, Central or Western basketball, or vice versa.
[/quote/
I completely disagree with this. I think many of our voters, and I know myself, don't think this way at all. In fact, I think most would argue and agree the proof has been that GL, Central, and some of the West is better than the East - especially deeper. However, I would say individual teams will prove that otherwise - Lancaster Bible is a great example of that especially after playing a weak schedule. But no, I don't think the voters think this way at all.

2. Familiarity. How well does a voter in Mass really know teams in Ohio, Illinois, or Wisconsin?

Thus the reason there are three voters from each of the eight regions in the country. To outweigh any familiarity. Sure, there is going to be this... but that is why, by design, there are three voters in each region. It serves two purposes: to make sure the voting is "weighted" geographically/regionally as fairly as possible; to allow teams who may be ignored by some voters to get some attention that they may very well deserve. Sure, it is hard to know teams around the country, but I think the D3hoops (along with football) polls may be the best at achieving this knowledge as any I have seen in Division III. Webstreaming has also been invaluable along with the increase of cross-country, cross-regional play especially early on in a season.

3. Habit. Team X is always good. They must be better than their not so current record would seem to indicate. I almost always vote for them. They have to be at least the 20th or so best teams in the country.

I have even admitted this can sometimes be a challenge. Voters become familiar with teams like Wooster, Amherst, Whitewater, Stevens Point, name a CCIW, St. Thomas, etc. because they are always good. F&M remains highly considered because Robinson always wins. I think this is the hardest habit to break because these teams also prove year in and year out to be in the conversation. Two years ago I didn't vote for UWSP until the last half or third of the season - I thought the luster was gone. I was one of a few or the only one; they went on to win the national championship. Last year, I down played Wooster a lot and didn't include them in my rankings for many weeks, they looked good and finished in the second weekend of the tournament (had a legit chance of making it again to Salem. Those examples are times when I as a voter try and buck the trend and it comes back to remind me that they are good - which makes it even harder to ignore them later.

So, if you're not one of the truly best teams, you will be well served, poll-wise, by playing weak non-conf teams and in a weaker conference. Both circumstances will help you rack up lots of WINS which makes you very attractive even though you're really just pretty. 

This, along with your first part I didn't quote, doesn't always hold water. There are plenty of teams right now who have lots of wins early in the season who aren't getting votes or at least not in the Top 25. If that was the case, every undefeated team (there are 24) would be nationally ranked. Also, Lancaster Bible would have jumped up in our poll last year faster and higher. Same with Benedictine (though, they had some games that allowed voters to realize their quality faster than LBC). Yes, wins certainly help, but you can gain a lot of information in losses as well. There also just isn't a system voters agree on. I talk to up to ten voters a week to get their take on things or they to get my take... none of us have the same read on things and none of us have the same "forumula."

IMPROPER FORMATTING KLAXON

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

There's your problem. You need to close the quote after the quoted statement and before your text; otherwise, your new text gets included within a quote box.

Mr Sager, to be fair you need to scold Dave now too! 

Actually, Dave is the common denominator here.

I don't expect I'll be getting an apology.

[Gregory Sager]

There's your problem. You need to close the quote after the quoted statement and before your text; otherwise, your new text gets included within a quote box.

Mr Sager, to be fair you need to scold Dave now too! 

Duly noted. Come take your punishment, D-Mac:

1. I think there is some regional bias built in. Northeastern or Eastern basketball is better than Great Lakes, Central or Western basketball, or vice versa.
[/quote/
I completely disagree with this. I think many of our voters, and I know myself, don't think this way at all. In fact, I think most would argue and agree the proof has been that GL, Central, and some of the West is better than the East - especially deeper. However, I would say individual teams will prove that otherwise - Lancaster Bible is a great example of that especially after playing a weak schedule. But no, I don't think the voters think this way at all.

2. Familiarity. How well does a voter in Mass really know teams in Ohio, Illinois, or Wisconsin?

Thus the reason there are three voters from each of the eight regions in the country. To outweigh any familiarity. Sure, there is going to be this... but that is why, by design, there are three voters in each region. It serves two purposes: to make sure the voting is "weighted" geographically/regionally as fairly as possible; to allow teams who may be ignored by some voters to get some attention that they may very well deserve. Sure, it is hard to know teams around the country, but I think the D3hoops (along with football) polls may be the best at achieving this knowledge as any I have seen in Division III. Webstreaming has also been invaluable along with the increase of cross-country, cross-regional play especially early on in a season.

3. Habit. Team X is always good. They must be better than their not so current record would seem to indicate. I almost always vote for them. They have to be at least the 20th or so best teams in the country.

I have even admitted this can sometimes be a challenge. Voters become familiar with teams like Wooster, Amherst, Whitewater, Stevens Point, name a CCIW, St. Thomas, etc. because they are always good. F&M remains highly considered because Robinson always wins. I think this is the hardest habit to break because these teams also prove year in and year out to be in the conversation. Two years ago I didn't vote for UWSP until the last half or third of the season - I thought the luster was gone. I was one of a few or the only one; they went on to win the national championship. Last year, I down played Wooster a lot and didn't include them in my rankings for many weeks, they looked good and finished in the second weekend of the tournament (had a legit chance of making it again to Salem. Those examples are times when I as a voter try and buck the trend and it comes back to remind me that they are good - which makes it even harder to ignore them later.

So, if you're not one of the truly best teams, you will be well served, poll-wise, by playing weak non-conf teams and in a weaker conference. Both circumstances will help you rack up lots of WINS which makes you very attractive even though you're really just pretty. 

This, along with your first part I didn't quote, doesn't always hold water. There are plenty of teams right now who have lots of wins early in the season who aren't getting votes or at least not in the Top 25. If that was the case, every undefeated team (there are 24) would be nationally ranked. Also, Lancaster Bible would have jumped up in our poll last year faster and higher. Same with Benedictine (though, they had some games that allowed voters to realize their quality faster than LBC). Yes, wins certainly help, but you can gain a lot of information in losses as well. There also just isn't a system voters agree on. I talk to up to ten voters a week to get their take on things or they to get my take... none of us have the same read on things and none of us have the same "forumula."

IMPROPER FORMATTING KLAXON

I have to admit that I laughed out loud at that.

[Pat Coleman]

I actually would like to see IMPROPER FORMATTING KLAXON join the dead horse beating as one of the memes of the board. Not lying.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Does it need to be formatting-related? Or just IMPROPER ------- KLAXON?

[Gregory Sager]

Oh, I think it should definitely be IMPROPER FORMATTING KLAXON. If you make it generic, it loses its punch. Trust me, it'll get plenty of use if it's kept specific to formatting bollixes ... and it won't just be used by me, either.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I suppose you know your business as the resident formatting pedant.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

In all seriousness, I'm not sure that the problem is related to either me or Dave excepting that we both have edited in-text and snipped parts of comments.

I think the board might be doing something wonky with that. He said there was text he snipped in the message that earned the use of the klaxon.

Speaking of which...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SJjFcnsGs

[smedindy]

Mr Sager, to be fair you need to scold Dave now too! 

Duly noted. Come take your punishment, D-Mac:

"Steiner, come out and get your whipping...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxL3ZNTnCY4

[mailsy]

I actually would like to see IMPROPER FORMATTING KLAXON join the dead horse beating as one of the memes of the board. Not lying.

Did you say Klaxon??? 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

To be honest... not sure where my improper quoting techique has occured... I know how to find the extra "[/quote]" options or find when there aren't enough. The only thing I did to shorten the process was grab quotes from previous posts by coping and pasting and putting the necessary "quote" needs around them... looked pretty good actually. LOL

Any way... to business:

The season has started fast and for some teams they still haven't lost. Not unexpected for some, maybe completely unexpected for others.

And there is a big battle between #1 and #2 in Division III men's basketball on tap!

On Thursday's edition of Hoopsville, Dave is back in studio and talking to some of the teams who find themselves without a loss, but probably still with plenty of questions that remain unanswered. Many of the teams are nationally ranked, but one of the teams tonight finds itself undefeated and receiving narry a point in any of the Division III polls.

Also on Thursday's edition, Dave will talk LIVE with either #1 Amherst or #2 Babson. The two men's programs face off in a rare #1 v #2 regular season battle. We chat with the winning coach after the game.

You can watch Hoopsville below staring at 7:00 pm ET. We are also experimenting with simulcasting the show on Facebook Live! More info here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/dec8

Guests included (in order):
- Bob Amsberry, No. 8 Wartburg women's coach
- Amy Reed, Rochester Tech women's coach
- Landry Kosmalski, No. 22 Swarthmore men's coach
- Jon VanderWal, No. 3 Marietta men's coach
- Either Dave Hixon (No. 1 Amherst) or Stephen Brennan (No. 2 Banson) men's coach

This is most likley the last Thursday edition of Hoopsville before the holiday break (due to D3football.com coverage of Gagliardi Trophy and Stagg Bowl next week and proximity of Christmas the following week). The Thursday edition of the show will return January 5, 2017 - but stay tuned if we change our minds in two weeks.

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

[Gregory Sager]

I suppose you know your business as the resident formatting pedant.

Actually, I said this as the resident meme pedant.

[KnightSlappy]

I suppose you know your business as the resident formatting pedant.

Actually, I said this as the resident meme pedant.

I didn't know your pedantry needed any qualifiers. 

[sac]

First for me tonight, watching Amherst and Babson with an Australian doing the play-by-play.

Amherst ties it with a 3 at 81 for overtime.