Top 25 talk

[deiscanton]

^^^ Thanks for the insights. Even with a low opponents' winning percentage it's hard to ignore Juniata's margins of victory in their games.

I guess you could make an argument for Scranton being that signature win for top 25 votes, but Scranton seems so far down at this point that it would be hard to see the Royals regionally ranked on February 21, 2018.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Juniata is on voters' minds, trust me. Discussed them with several voters so far. I think they currently fall into two categories:
- A lot of wins, even significant, over teams that don't have great records (for whatever reason)
- Squad that has come out of nowhere and thus, what are they really about?

I know people hate when those kind of factors, especially the second, are talked about... but they are real. Juanita's OPP% isn't great especially thanks to a head-scratching Scranton team. They also have been in the middle of the Landmark for sometime with no signs they could break into the top of the conference. They are good and well coached. Seen them every season. However, they just didn't seem like a squad who was going to be at the top this season.

That all adds up to voters trying to better understand the team and thus, personally speaking, waiting to see a little more data to see if this is all real.

That and coupled with a LOT of teams who have gaudy records and the pool is very deep while the poll is very shallow.

I would be surprised if they aren't getting votes next week.

[y_jack_lok]

^^^ Thanks, Dave. Especially appreciate the insight into how voters evaluate teams when considering them for a ballot spot.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

It is the time of the season when managing practices and games around finals and soon-to-be holiday breaks can be difficult, especially as most conferences have begun in-conference games while there are still non-conference battles on tap.

On Thursday's edition of Hoopsville, Dave chats with a number of coaches who have had significant starts to the season, but are now managing their seasons. How are the highs and lows massaged and how to keep student-athletes focused not only on their studies (and finals), but also the game.

Results at this time of the year will be a factor come the end of the season.

Dave will also discuss, and update if able, the breaking news out of St. Norbert where the women's basketball team has been suspended ten games due to a number of players' actions.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show starting at 7:00 pm ET here: http://bit.ly/2ADCaC3.

After the show is over, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcast (info below).

You can also send your questions to the show and have them featured on the Hoopsville Mailbag segment. Email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com.

Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Dan Lukes, St. Norbert Assistant Athletics Director/Athletics Communications
- David Doino, Averett men's coach
- Ken Davis, Lake Forest men's coach
- Klay Knueppel, Wisconsin Lutheran women's coach
- Michelle Filander, Austin women's coach

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

[me]

Whitewater goes down by 13 to Adrian on a neutral court.

Wait, what?

Should be interesting to see how far they fall. Poll near the top has been pretty sticky for one loss teams except for one team that dropped like 8 spots on a buzzer beater. Hanover lost to a meh team and somehow ended up higher for it a couple of weeks later. Augustana and Williams barely moved after losing.

Whitewater had played a weak schedule and was probably pretty overrated, but would think this result is still a surprise. But it seems the closer your loss is the more you drop so maybe they won't drop at all? Having a tough time figuring out poll voter logic.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I wouldn't say Transylvania is a "meh" team. Pretty good start from them and we know they can produce some decent squads.

Admittedly, I think Whitewater was too high, but I also had them in the Top 10 - nervously.

Something I think you need to consider: not everything is in a vacuum of one team. There are lots of things happening at the same time. As I wrote in my blog, there are so many teams losing and so many I don't think should be any higher, that a lot of times I left teams who loss alone and didn't move them. I certainly couldn't move them up, but if I chose to move them down ... who in the world was I going to put above them? Those below them have lost or also have what seems like light schedules so far.

I would not say the close your loss the more you drop. You selected one team it happened to for whatever reason (though, it didn't happen with me). There are 25 voters. There are other teams moving around besides that single team you are looking at.

Best way to really gauge what voters are thinking isn't to look at where the teams are slotted, but what is going on with their points AND what other teams are moving. Case in point, I moved Oshkosh up significantly with their win over Augustana - that affected something like seven other schools and their ranking.

[me]

Hanover's first loss that they didn't drop from was to Wooster. There hasn't been a poll after their second loss yet. I'd say Transy is probably better than Wooster this year, tbh. Winning at More by 10+ is a good win. If not for the Hanover win, Wooster's season would be looking really rough.

I would think Whitewater would drop precipitously after this game, regardless of what else happens. Not all losses are equal is my point and the how the voters seem value losses seems highly inconsistent both within a poll week and from week to week.

About this time of year is when i start looking at computer rankings and thinking they're probably more accurate than the polls. Less than 5 games and it's not really enough.

[Greek Tragedy]

Whitewater was definitely overrated, IMO. They always seem to play a generally weak NC schedule. There has been a "problem" (not physical) with last year's leading scorer, Chris Jones, who hasn't played yet and may not at all. One of last year's starters, Demetrius Woodley, decided not to return, part-time starter, Zach Knobloch, transferred and another starter from last year, 2nd leading scorer and top rebounder Scotty Tyler, from a year ago, has been hurt half the time.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hanover's first loss that they didn't drop from was to Wooster. There hasn't been a poll after their second loss yet. I'd say Transy is probably better than Wooster this year, tbh. Winning at More by 10+ is a good win. If not for the Hanover win, Wooster's season would be looking really rough.

Hanover's first loss was in the first week and half of the season. The first poll came out on the second Monday of this season. There was a LOT of results to work through. Voters had a lot of moving parts. I personally had 26 losses from 16 teams on my ballot from the preseason. Hanover's loss was basically absorbed by their other results and results from around the rest of the country.

I would think Whitewater would drop precipitously after this game, regardless of what else happens. Not all losses are equal is my point and the how the voters seem value losses seems highly inconsistent both within a poll week and from week to week.

Agreed... not all losses are equal. There are 25 voters. Thus there are 25 different opinions on any team's loss. However, I say again, look at the points and how they shake out more than where teams are ranked. It gives you better insight. Secondly, remember that one team's loss isn't happening on it's own. There are other teams losing, winning, etc. There are a lot of things to consider besides one single loss. You think it is inconsistent, but each week is different and all the results are different. One week a team's loss may have a different affect than if it happened the next week. Who they lost to and what that team's season is like changes things. For example, a loss to a team may look horrible one week, but a month later that winning team suddenly looks like one of the best in the country... that loss now no longer looks as bad.

You are looking for consistency in something that is no where near consistent.

About this time of year is when i start looking at computer rankings and thinking they're probably more accurate than the polls. Less than 5 games and it's not really enough.

I would argue computer rankings can be just as flawed depending on how they are designed and tested. Not enough data, data included that is pointless or irrelevant, etc. We have shown that numerous times in the old BCS. Not saying there aren't computer models that do make sense, but there was a reason the BCS didn't come out with its rankings until October. The Heal Point system in Maine athletics didn't come out early in the seasons, either.

The poll is literally a breathing system. 25 voters, different opinions, constantly changing based the constantly changing results week to week.

[me]

Whitewater was definitely overrated, IMO. They always seem to play a generally weak NC schedule. There has been a "problem" (not physical) with last year's leading scorer, Chris Jones, who hasn't played yet and may not at all. One of last year's starters, Demetrius Woodley, decided not to return, part-time starter, Zach Knobloch, transferred and another starter from last year, 2nd leading scorer and top rebounder Scotty Tyler, from a year ago, has been hurt half the time.

Didn't know all this but I thought their performance in CA was a canary in the coal mine. They won but not in a way you would expect a real top 5 team to play. Still definitely didn't expect them to get blown out by Adrian.

[me]

I don't know really how to delete parts of quotes and leave others without janking the whole thing up.

When you have good teams being dropped for losses to other good teams (good enough to actually move into the poll), and other good teams not being dropped for losses to less good teams (as defined by the voters), it's just very strange. So not sure if the voters write off a loss like with Whitewater or not, it's impossible to tell because there's no consistency. And there should be, because programs use this stuff to promote their teams, to recruit, etc.

As far as the BCS, October in football is not that many more games than we've had in basketball. There are just fewer games in a football season.

I don't have much else to say about it. Just something I noticed in the last few weeks that this unexpected result and the poll implications got me thinking more about. Ironically, if Whitewater was dropped significantly it would actually be inconsistent with the norm, yet more correct.

I don't pay much attention to polls in D1, maybe I shouldn't in D3 either but since the schools aren't on TV or anything, being ranked is a pretty big flag to say you're a good program aside from an actual championship which only comes at the end of the year.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I don't know really how to delete parts of quotes and leave others without janking the whole thing up.

It really isn't that hard to do. Takes some trial and error, but "[/quote]" is your friend.

When you have good teams being dropped for losses to other good teams (good enough to actually move into the poll), and other good teams not being dropped for losses to less good teams (as defined by the voters), it's just very strange. So not sure if the voters write off a loss like with Whitewater or not, it's impossible to tell because there's no consistency. And there should be, because programs use this stuff to promote their teams, to recruit, etc.

All of this is your opinion. Like I said, there are 25 different opinions from around the country seeing it from their perspective. I am not sure what exactly you are looking for in terms of consistency. Are teams supposed to rise or fall a certain number of ranking positions or gain or lose a certain number of points based on the type of wins or losses? You are asking for something absolute in something that is no where close to absolute. There are a ton of variables, scenarios, and results and you seem to want consistency. I don't quite get it to be honest.

You also have to consider what we have been talking about for a long time: parity. There are a LOT of good teams in Division III. Maybe not so many great ones, but a lot of good ones. That means more losses are to be expected especially from the Top 10 and such.

Something to also think about, you will find more movement near the bottom of a poll than you will at the top. The top tends to be where more points are and more voters have those teams high on their ballots. Any shift will not be as noticed (again, look at the point totals). Towards the bottom is where fewer voters are involved. Depending on a poll, but as little as ten voters could put a team in their bottom five and they could get ranked. If they lose and half of them remove them form their poll and the other half only move them down slightly, they will jump out of the poll. Again... points.

As far as the BCS, October in football is not that many more games than we've had in basketball. There are just fewer games in a football season.

My point has nothing to do with how many games... it has to do with waiting until there is at least some data that is worth compiling and crunching before releasing the poll. There was no reason to release a BCS computer poll the first five or so weeks of the season because there weren't enough games played by any team to have enough data to truly have a ranking. They waited until about half the season was played in football to do it.

Basketball actually has more games because there are more teams playing the sport and far more diversity. The football poll released about halfway through the season; that is about the time I look at computer polls with at least one eye just to see if I am missing something.

I don't have much else to say about it. Just something I noticed in the last few weeks that this unexpected result and the poll implications got me thinking more about. Ironically, if Whitewater was dropped significantly it would actually be inconsistent with the norm, yet more correct.

I just feel you have a premonition of how teams should move based on results and all in a vacuum. One team's loss is not the only factor and I think I have said that a few times LOL. It just feels you are being too absolute and not understanding 440 or so other teams had results in the same week that actually affects one team's results.

I don't pay much attention to polls in D1, maybe I shouldn't in D3 either but since the schools aren't on TV or anything, being ranked is a pretty big flag to say you're a good program aside from an actual championship which only comes at the end of the year.

There is always web streaming and now OTTs that offer games. You can watch a lot of games around the country rather easily now-a-days.

[me]

You're eager to make your points without really processing mine. So I'm done here.

Realistically not that many people are watching streams. It's not like D1 where TV is a big part of the prestige and promotion of a program.

That said I'm about to watch a bit of Whitman to see if they might get a competitive game. If not it could be a while before they do.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I am absolutely processing your points. I have read them over and over to make sure I get what you are saying. I just don't understand why you want to see consistency in something that isn't consistent.

And more people watch streaming than many realize. I certainly don't turn on games non-stop, but I know games are being watched via streaming FAR more in the last few years than even five years ago. The technology has been able to make Division III far more interesting and exciting.

Per the Whitman game, I want to see the Colorado College sophomore who played Rezball. He fascinates me, but I am bias after interviewing him. LOL

[me]

Answer: no. This team doesn't look very good and also doesn't look like they've ever played against a press before. Refs being slanted doesn't help but is only widening the margin. Whitman is in 2nd gear and cruising.