Top 25 talk

[Smitty Oom]

I'm a data and metrics guy, but Massey is just a tool, much like the tools some of our posters have put together. But it offers an unbiased ranking.

I agree it is just a tool. My main point was use Massey (or any other tool) to show that "raw win total" doesn't matter because Middlebury has a good chance (80ish%) at catching up to that win total over time as the schedule plays out. Given they play a middle-of-the-road remaining schedule, which most teams will face.

[Mr. Ypsi]

This is nonsensical jibberish. A poll is supposed to recognize how teams compare to each other on that date. If a team has 11 wins and another has only 7 against teams with comparable overall records, are you really going to say 7 wins carry more weight than 11? Remedial math teachers would like to have a talk with you. And, if you insist on making that mistake what about that in head to head competition, the team with 11 wins beat the team with only 7. Or are you now going to try to diminish York's head to head win because it was only by 3 points and game at home? 🤦‍♂️

It's like you want these to be standings, where there would be a difference between 11 wins and 7.

They're not. They're rankings.

Frankly, the only jibberish is you continuing to belabor this point. You seem to be kind of alone on this.

I AM kind of alone on this, Pat.
But maybe that's because more people haven't read about the subject and considered the point. 

* And even if I am alone on this, am I not entitled to my opinion? I thought an open exchange of ideas about D3 was one of the primary reasons for these boards. Am I mistaken?

Yes

Disagree.  He IS entitled to his opinion, and an open exchange of ideas IS the primary reason for these boards.  He just can't stop beating a dead horse.

It will all be moot this week, when York goes ahead of Middlebury.

[Pat Coleman]

Indeed, open exchange of ideas. Even open forum to say the same thing over and over again ... but also open forum for someone else to say, yes, we hear you and you don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over again.

[me]

I'm a data and metrics guy, but Massey is just a tool, much like the tools some of our posters have put together. But it offers an unbiased ranking.

It's not just a tool. It's the best tool that we have for D3, with no close second.

What's worse is that I don't think the voters use it much at all. At the very least it ought to be a sanity check, which would lead to asking some serious questions about Middlebury (#42 in Massey even before this weekend) and Lycoming (#44) among others -- aforementioned St. John's, Wartburg, Williams, Ramapo, River Falls, Hanover effectively at 26th (#115!), and on the other side...pretty much the top half of the OAC minus Marietta (who is probably not too far from where they should be, maybe got punished a bit too much for a buzzer beater loss to BW), and several teams that aren't even getting votes that might be top 25 (like Augsburg). Probably some others. It's a mess, and there's no reason it should be.

I think the best thing in Massey this year is pegging Ohio Northern as a good team while no one else has given them any credit, including in their own conference's preseason coaches' poll!

The biggest weakness (only?) of Massey is dealing with weak schedules, because it just means there's not as much useful data for differentiating between good teams. Is Nebraska Wesleyan really borderline top 10? Based on what Buena Vista did to them, probably not.

[Pat Coleman]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

[me]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

What makes you think that about MN/WI teams? Since you don't get much out of region play until the national semifinals (maybe a bit during sectionals depending), how would you disprove it? It's not like D1 where everyone gets spread out among the brackets intentionally. I think there were definitely midwestern first-round matchups that could have been sectional finals, like Augustana-St. Thomas, and Hope-Oshkosh.

One reason that Massey logically gives those teams credit is because most of them play strong schedules, including non D3 regular season games. Like St. John's this year, or Wartburg beating a credible NAIA program. And Massey isn't going to punish them for losing to Northern Iowa. It's also not going to punish them for playing home and home in the league,in contrast to the NESCAC artificially boosting their records by only playing each other once.

6 of the last 8 years, a team from Wisconsin or Minnesota has won the national championship. So I really don't know how you could credibly say that they don't deserve the credit Massey gives them.

[Pat Coleman]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

What makes you think that about MN/WI teams? Since you don't get much out of region play until the national semifinals (maybe a bit during sectionals depending), how would you disprove it? It's not like D1 where everyone gets spread out among the brackets intentionally. I think there were definitely midwestern first-round matchups that could have been sectional finals, like Augustana-St. Thomas, and Hope-Oshkosh.

One reason that Massey logically gives those teams credit is because most of them play strong schedules, including non D3 regular season games. Like St. John's this year, or Wartburg beating a credible NAIA program. And Massey isn't going to punish them for losing to Northern Iowa. It's also not going to punish them for playing home and home in the league,in contrast to the NESCAC artificially boosting their records by only playing each other once.

6 of the last 8 years, a team from Wisconsin or Minnesota has won the national championship. So I really don't know how you could credibly say that they don't deserve the credit Massey gives them.

Yes, but *a* team -- whereas often there are 5-7 MIAC teams highly ranked in Massey. I just don't think it makes sense.

[me]

I think generally the weakness for Massey is that it tends to highly rate Minnesota/Wisconsin teams, more so than they deserve. Not really sure why, but it's enough for me to not really pay much attention to Massey.

Like all of the computer ratings that rate across all of college basketball/football, Massey is fine-tuned so it makes sense at the Division I level. That doesn't mean it's going to continue to be well tuned at the other end of the spectrum.

What makes you think that about MN/WI teams? Since you don't get much out of region play until the national semifinals (maybe a bit during sectionals depending), how would you disprove it? It's not like D1 where everyone gets spread out among the brackets intentionally. I think there were definitely midwestern first-round matchups that could have been sectional finals, like Augustana-St. Thomas, and Hope-Oshkosh.

One reason that Massey logically gives those teams credit is because most of them play strong schedules, including non D3 regular season games. Like St. John's this year, or Wartburg beating a credible NAIA program. And Massey isn't going to punish them for losing to Northern Iowa. It's also not going to punish them for playing home and home in the league,in contrast to the NESCAC artificially boosting their records by only playing each other once.

6 of the last 8 years, a team from Wisconsin or Minnesota has won the national championship. So I really don't know how you could credibly say that they don't deserve the credit Massey gives them.

Yes, but *a* team -- whereas often there are 5-7 MIAC teams highly ranked in Massey. I just don't think it makes sense.

But it's pretty hard to get more than that. You don't get half a conference or more worth of teams in the tournament like you can in D1 and they aren't spread out where several of them can make the Final Four. So that's not really a valid consideration.

You seem to have a preconception that there is balance among the conferences in D3 such that it's inherently ridiculous that there could be 5-7 good teams from one conference. But why can't there be? And how do you know that's a logical assumption?

Minnesota and Wisconsin schools play each other enough to get a good number of network connections for an algorithm to evaluate. Obviously, Massey's algo sees MN schools winning enough games to be considered not at but near the level of the WIAC, which is obviously the best conference in the country (as it is for football and baseball as well, if we have an argument here I don't know what to say). WI and MI teams also play outside the area, establishing data points to compare regions. Apparently they do pretty well there also.

I tend to think that Massey is more right than the D3 conventional wisdom, which unduly punishes losses to good teams, which is why the NESCAC gambit has worked.

Massey's algo is no different for D1 or several separate leagues of European soccer than it is for D3. Data analysis's primary purpose is to contradict human bias. But if we simply dismiss what it tells us, it can't really do that.

[Darryl Nester]

How They Fared (Complete)

Top 25

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#1	625	Whitman	13-0	def. Pacific, 116-86; def. Lewis and Clark, 79-72
#2	599	Augustana	11-2	LOST at Illinois Wesleyan, 53-72; def. Millikin, 66-49
#3	516	UW-River Falls	10-2	LOST to UW-Stevens Point, 48-73; won at #5 UW-Whitewater, 81-80
#4	514	Middlebury	8-3	LOST to #12 Swarthmore, 75-91; won at Connecticut College, 82-60; LOST at #14 Wesleyan, 70-80
#5	500	UW-Whitewater	11-2	won at #7 UW-Oshkosh, 83-57; LOST to #3 UW-River Falls, 80-81
#6	493	Lycoming	14-1	LOST at Lebanon Valley, 71-81; def. Stevenson, 83-71
#7	447	UW-Oshkosh	11-2	LOST to #5 UW-Whitewater, 57-83; won at UW-La Crosse, 72-65
#8	392	Whitworth	12-1	def. Lewis and Clark, 98-91; def. Pacific, 83-71
#9	379	Ohio Wesleyan	10-3	def. Denison, 89-70; LOST to Wooster, 70-73
#10	370	Washington U.	10-2	def. (n) Chicago, 79-78
#11	362	Williams	11-2	won at #14 Wesleyan, 76-68 OT; won at Connecticut College, 91-57
#12	326	Swarthmore	11-1	won at #4 Middlebury, 91-75; def. Gettysburg, 69-61
#13	320	York (Pa.)	13-0	won at Salisbury, 84-81; won at Southern Virginia, 85-69
#14	310	Wesleyan	10-2	LOST to #11 Williams, 68-76 OT; def. #4 Middlebury, 80-70
#15	259	MIT	12-1	won at WPI, 94-58; def. Coast Guard, 74-65
#16	206	St. John's	10-1	won at Concordia-Moorhead, 72-55; def. St. Mary's (Minn.), 82-52
#17	203	Wittenberg	13-0	won at Kenyon, 87-67; def. Hiram, 81-61
#18	200	Wartburg	10-3	def. Central, 80-65; LOST at Coe, 65-69
#19	143	Ramapo	10-4	def. Rutgers-Camden, 93-74; LOST at TCNJ, 64-66
#20	125	New Jersey City	11-2	LOST to Montclair State, 66-76; won at Rowan, 79-76
#21	114	Nichols	9-2	def. Southern Maine, 86-71; LOST to Western New England, 94-100 OT
#22	111	Rochester	9-3	def. Rochester Tech, 69-49; LOST at #37 Emory, 62-80
#23	83	Juniata	12-1	won at Lancaster Bible, 57-54; LOST at Catholic, 70-82
#24	80	Hamilton	12-0	def. Wells, 97-61; won at Trinity (Conn.), 78-55
#25	67	Marietta	10-3	def. Muskingum, 104-86; def. Ohio Northern, 90-86

Others receiving votes

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#26	65	Hanover	9-4	LOST to Rose-Hulman, 69-71; won at Manchester, 77-69
#27	46	Albright	11-2	won at Hood, 106-93; LOST to Lebanon Valley, 70-78
#28	39	Christopher Newport	10-3	def. Penn State-Harrisburg, 73-63; LOST at Marymount, 58-60
#29	35	Amherst	7-4	LOST to T#33 Eastern Connecticut, 92-95; LOST at Trinity (Conn.), 63-69
#30	34	Nebraska Wesleyan	12-1	LOST to Buena Vista, 75-91; def. Luther, 117-66
#31	32	Baldwin Wallace	11-2	def. Mount Union, 96-93; won at Wilmington, 87-69
#32	29	Skidmore	8-2	def. RPI, 76-56; def. Union, 94-83 OT
T#33	19	Eastern Connecticut	11-2	won at #29 Amherst, 95-92; won at Mass-Boston, 80-54
T#33	19	Franklin and Marshall	11-1	def. McDaniel, 70-50
T#33	19	John Carroll	11-2	won at Heidelberg, 100-94; def. Capital, 95-74
#36	16	St. Norbert	11-2	def. Beloit, 73-57; def. Grinnell, 97-85
#37	10	Emory	10-2	won at Oglethorpe, 88-82; def. #22 Rochester, 80-62
#38	8	UW-Platteville	12-1	won at UW-Stout, 73-54; def. UW-Eau Claire, 74-64
T#39	3	Bethel	8-3	LOST to St. Olaf, 82-83
T#39	3	North Central (Ill.)	9-4	def. Carthage, 77-67; won at Carroll, 73-54
#41	2	Westminster (Pa.)	10-2	LOST at Thomas More, 65-72; def. Waynesburg, 91-73
T#42	1	Gwynedd Mercy	9-2	LOST at Immaculata, 70-71
T#42	1	Salem State	10-3	won at Worcester State, 104-92

[me]

MN and WI teams in Massey top 100 before this weekend:
1 St. John's
7 Whitewater
9 Platteville
17 River Falls
23 Augsburg
25 La Crosse
26 Oshkosh
27 Bethel
30 St. Olaf
32 Stevens Point
35 Carleton
41 St. Norbert
45 Eau Claire
52 St. Thomas
75 Hamline
86 Gustavus

None of that seems really wrong to me, and we're only a dozen games into the season.

[me]

Looking at the above top 25 and votes, I think I've cracked what the issue is.

The voters overemphasize the loss column, and don't scrutinize the win column enough.

That helps explain why teams like Baldwin-Wallace and John Carroll aren't close to being ranked, and teams like Lycoming and Middlebury are (and probably still will be now that they've become a beneficiary of anchoring bias).

[iwumichigander]

Indeed, open exchange of ideas. Even open forum to say the same thing over and over again ... but also open forum for someone else to say, yes, we hear you and you don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over again.

can you repeat that pleez 

[AndOne]

Indeed, open exchange of ideas. Even open forum to say the same thing over and over again ... but also open forum for someone else to say, yes, we hear you and you don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over again.

can you repeat that pleez 

Consider that perhaps the problem with what seems like a lot of over and over stems from the fact that it often takes a pretty large dose of repetition for the majority to admit the minority does indeed have a (at least one) point. 🤔  😏

[AndOne]

With so many of the highly ranked teams taking a recent loss, or losses, the next poll should be highly interesting!   

[me]

With so many of the highly ranked teams taking a recent loss, or losses, the next poll should be highly interesting!   

Should blow it up and start over, with a bigger emphasis on quality wins and not getting so hung up about who took a random loss to another good team by a couple of points.