Top 25 talk

[Gregory Sager]

Usually I think I have fairly good insight for psyching out how poll voters will go, but occasionally they make me go WTF??!!

Wabash beat #15 Wooster by two at home and jumped from zero votes to 110, and #22.  Wheaton beat #8 IWU by two on the road and rose 15 points (16 to 31) to remain FAR short of #25.  Wabash and Wheaton each had one other win against respectable by unranked opponents by 9 or 11 points.  Anyone want to attempt an explanation?

Not sure what other voters are thinking ... and I have Wheaton ahead of Wabash on my ballot ... but Wheaton's resume includes a loss to North Park(!)

Wheaton did not make my ballot and were probably in the next 5 (26-30) that I was considering. Wheaton has some good wins as you pointed out but also a couple head scratchers (North Park?) I think I just need to see a little consistency from them for a couple weeks before I feel comfortable knowing what they are at this point. Are they the team that beat IWU last week or the one who got blown out by Chicago and lost to North Park (for reference I had Wabash at 24).

Are we officially in Let's Attach Punctuation & Brackets To North Park Week now? My bank calendar omitted it on the 2018 edition they gave me last winter.

Nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing North Park(!) to Nebraska Wesleyan, but I hasten to point out that (North Park?) convincingly beat then-undefeated-and-#20 North Central in the latter's gym on Saturday night.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Sager - I realize that ... we are talking two of three victories in ten games, though.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Well according to one of the voters they said exactly what you said about using Massey rating dont read to much into it.So what is it use it to fit the narrative  or not ?

I have no idea what you are trying to say or argue here.

[Gregory Sager]

As I said, Dave, nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing the Vikings to Nebraska Wesleyan. But we are talking about two games that have occurred within the past ten days.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Usually I think I have fairly good insight for psyching out how poll voters will go, but occasionally they make me go WTF??!!

Wabash beat #15 Wooster by two at home and jumped from zero votes to 110, and #22.  Wheaton beat #8 IWU by two on the road and rose 15 points (16 to 31) to remain FAR short of #25.  Wabash and Wheaton each had one other win against respectable by unranked opponents by 9 or 11 points.  Anyone want to attempt an explanation?

Not sure what other voters are thinking ... and I have Wheaton ahead of Wabash on my ballot ... but Wheaton's resume includes a loss to North Park(!) and a 30-point drubbing by Chicago. Wabash is undefeated.

Sure, your single examples are interesting ... but there is a bigger resume out there as well.

Sure, Wabash is still undefeated (as they were last week), while Wheaton has 2 losses (as they did last week), but that doesn't explain THIS week's moves.  (And I've corrected my post above - I had mixed up Wheaton's men's and women's votes - they only rose FIVE points for beating the #8 ranked team on the road!.)

I sure hope this won't continue to happen - I feel dirty defending Wheaton!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As I said, Dave, nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing the Vikings to Nebraska Wesleyan. But we are talking about two games that have occurred within the past ten days.

Ok... but what is the argument? That because North Park put a couple of games together that suddenly we should be elevating others?

Sure, Wabash is still undefeated (as they were last week), while Wheaton has 2 losses (as they did last week), but that doesn't explain THIS week's moves.  (And I've corrected my post above - I had mixed up Wheaton's men's and women's votes - they only rose FIVE points for beating the #8 ranked team on the road!.)

I sure hope this won't continue to happen - I feel dirty defending Wheaton!

I am confused why people are dead set this MUST be a vote on this week's results only. That isn't how it works. Voters are weighing, differently for each, this week's results with the larger picture. I'm not going to ignore other results this season and only focus on this week's.

For example if I followed this week's results only, then I probably should have taken IWU from my Top 10 and removed them altogether... I mean ... they lost both games this week, right?

[Mr. Ypsi]

As I said, Dave, nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing the Vikings to Nebraska Wesleyan. But we are talking about two games that have occurred within the past ten days.

Ok... but what is the argument? That because North Park put a couple of games together that suddenly we should be elevating others?

Sure, Wabash is still undefeated (as they were last week), while Wheaton has 2 losses (as they did last week), but that doesn't explain THIS week's moves.  (And I've corrected my post above - I had mixed up Wheaton's men's and women's votes - they only rose FIVE points for beating the #8 ranked team on the road!.)

I sure hope this won't continue to happen - I feel dirty defending Wheaton!

I am confused why people are dead set this MUST be a vote on this week's results only. That isn't how it works. Voters are weighing, differently for each, this week's results with the larger picture. I'm not going to ignore other results this season and only focus on this week's.

For example if I followed this week's results only, then I probably should have taken IWU from my Top 10 and removed them altogether... I mean ... they lost both games this week, right?

C'mon Dave.  You know I'm not arguing for evaluating ONLY this week's results.  But CHANGES this week should reflect MAINLY this week (with some re-evaluation of things not noticed before, or placed in a new context). 

I just can't see how Wabash beating #8 Wooster at home by two (and beating OWU on the road by 9) jumps them 110 points, while Wheaton beating #8 IWU on the road (and Olivet by 11 at home) adds FIVE points to their total - it just makes no sense to me.

[Pat Coleman]

As I said, Dave, nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing the Vikings to Nebraska Wesleyan. But we are talking about two games that have occurred within the past ten days.

Ok... but what is the argument? That because North Park put a couple of games together that suddenly we should be elevating others?

Sure, Wabash is still undefeated (as they were last week), while Wheaton has 2 losses (as they did last week), but that doesn't explain THIS week's moves.  (And I've corrected my post above - I had mixed up Wheaton's men's and women's votes - they only rose FIVE points for beating the #8 ranked team on the road!.)

I sure hope this won't continue to happen - I feel dirty defending Wheaton!

I am confused why people are dead set this MUST be a vote on this week's results only. That isn't how it works. Voters are weighing, differently for each, this week's results with the larger picture. I'm not going to ignore other results this season and only focus on this week's.

For example if I followed this week's results only, then I probably should have taken IWU from my Top 10 and removed them altogether... I mean ... they lost both games this week, right?

C'mon Dave.  You know I'm not arguing for evaluating ONLY this week's results.  But CHANGES this week should reflect MAINLY this week (with some re-evaluation of things not noticed before, or placed in a new context). 

I just can't see how Wabash beating #8 Wooster at home by two (and beating OWU on the road by 9) jumps them 110 points, while Wheaton beating #8 IWU on the road (and Olivet by 11 at home) adds FIVE points to their total - it just makes no sense to me.

The lack of losses by Wheaton in this week doesn't erase either of the previous losses, right?

[Greek Tragedy]

No horse in this race, but weren't they already punished for last week's losses? They did drop 158 points from Week 1 to Week 2.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

No horse in this race, but weren't they already punished for last week's losses? They did drop 158 points from Week 1 to Week 2.

Why is there a thinking they are being "punished." Voters moved them down... voters aren't ready to just forget and move them right back up. I just don't understand the beef here. Yeah. Wheaton got a bit win over IWU... which was also tempered by the fact that IWU lost to Augustana. Voters now have to decide, is that about IWU or is that about Wheaton? They also have 24 other teams they are looking at on their ballots and making decisions about them which impacts many other things.

Once again.. the thinking in these arguments is as if the only conversation voters were having was Wheaton and Wabash and that somehow they are related.

[Gregory Sager]

As I said, Dave, nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing the Vikings to Nebraska Wesleyan. But we are talking about two games that have occurred within the past ten days.

Ok... but what is the argument? That because North Park put a couple of games together that suddenly we should be elevating others?

No, the argument is that NPU shouldn't be treated by posters as though nobody on the team is competent enough to tie his own shoelaces, and that beating Wheaton was therefore some sort of miraculous fluke. One victory over a Top 25 team? Sure, we can call that a miraculous fluke. But two of them, and both within the past ten days? I'm biased, of course, but two recent victories over Top 25 teams tells me that the Vikings (who have just one senior and one junior in the rotation) are rounding into a team that's capable of playing well against good opponents.

[Pat Coleman]

No horse in this race, but weren't they already punished for last week's losses? They did drop 158 points from Week 1 to Week 2.

Sure. But none of us knows where Wheaton is on those ballots. Are they 26? 36? 40? Not every voter will bring Wheaton back at the same rate.

[Greek Tragedy]

No beef here, Dave. I'm a little surprised they didn't gain more points than they did, but I honestly don't care, it was just a thought.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As I said, Dave, nobody at the corner of Foster & Kedzie is comparing the Vikings to Nebraska Wesleyan. But we are talking about two games that have occurred within the past ten days.

Ok... but what is the argument? That because North Park put a couple of games together that suddenly we should be elevating others?

No, the argument is that NPU shouldn't be treated by posters as though nobody on the team is competent enough to tie his own shoelaces, and that beating Wheaton was therefore some sort of miraculous fluke. One victory over a Top 25 team? Sure, we can call that a miraculous fluke. But two of them, and both within the past ten days? I'm biased, of course, but two recent victories over Top 25 teams tells me that the Vikings (who have just one senior and one junior in the rotation) are rounding into a team that's capable of playing well against good opponents.

Sager - did I say NPU was incompetent to tie it's own shoes? Did I say it was a miraculous fluke? I did not. Let's not put words in my mouth, thank you.

I indicated that Wheaton losing to NPU wasn't good. I am fully aware of NPU's resume and what they have and have not done (you are the one who conveniently eliminated the reference to losing to Chicago by 30 when you quoted my comment). My "!" was simply a reference that the loss to NPU was surprising considering who they had beaten as well. I am quite confident most of the voting panel and most DIII fans in general would agree that the NPU loss stands out considering who Wheaton has beaten. I didn't say anything more than that. You are assuming I have some other opinion, but never asked what that opinion was.

Yeah - you are bias ... NPU beat two solid teams. Congrats, but that isn't going to suddenly make voters do a 180 and change everything around because of it. They are still 3-7. They still have a 30-point drubbing by Chicago.

And let's not get the cart ahead of the horse here. Great, they beat two Top 25 teams ... but indicating that means they are rounding into something else takes more time. I was texted recently when a Top 25 team, which had been struggling, put the hammer down on a somewhat quality opponent. "We have woken up." The next game that wek they lost to a tough conference opponent and the following game, still that week, they watched a 17-point lead in the second half disappear and they barely won against someone from the middle to bottom of their conference (not talking CCIW here).

Maybe NPU is going to become better over time this season ... but you are expecting voters to take that leap of faith, which then means changing their opinions on Wheaton, and thus throw them higher up the poll ... because you think NPU is turning the corner?

[Gregory Sager]

Sager - did I say NPU was incompetent to tie it's own shoes? Did I say it was a miraculous fluke? I did not. Let's not put words in my mouth, thank you.

It's called "hyperbole", Dave. Exaggeration for effect. Surely you've come in contact with it at some point or another?

I indicated that Wheaton losing to NPU wasn't good. I am fully aware of NPU's resume and what they have and have not done (you are the one who conveniently eliminated the reference to losing to Chicago by 30 when you quoted my comment).

"Conveniently eliminated"? How do I "conveniently eliminate" a reference that was never relevant in the first place? I cut it out because it had nothing to do with the topic I was discussing, which is the CCIW team that wears royal blue and gold -- not the CCIW team that wears navy blue and orange.

My "!" was simply a reference that the loss to NPU was surprising considering who they had beaten as well. I am quite confident most of the voting panel and most DIII fans in general would agree that the NPU loss stands out considering who Wheaton has beaten.

It was surprising ... a week ago. That's the whole thrust of my statement. Since then, NPU has beaten #20 and previously-undefeated North Central, and in the airplane hangar, no less. That's a pretty important data point to overlook if you're going to state something that's "simply a reference that the loss [by Wheaton] to NPU was surprising" -- because it's a lot less surprising now than it was a week ago.

I didn't say anything more than that. You are assuming I have some other opinion, but never asked what that opinion was.

C'mon, Dave. An exclamation point inside a pair of brackets is a pretty obvious indicator that the team that beat Wheaton had no business doing so, and that the loss is therefore a shocker. Your context for making such a declaration became obsolete two days ago.

Yeah - you are bias ...

Biased, Dave, not "bias". The proper form of the adjective resembles a past-tense verb form, but it isn't a past-tense verb. It's an adjective.

NPU beat two solid teams. Congrats, but that isn't going to suddenly make voters do a 180 and change everything around because of it.

Who's asking them to? What the voters do or don't do with regard to Wheaton doesn't matter a whit to me. It may matter to Chuck, but I'm not Chuck. What matters to me is how NPU is perceived. You continue to labor under the misconception that this discussion is about Wheaton from my perspective. It isn't. I don't give a rat's tuchus about Wheaton. This discussion, from my point of view, is about how North Park is perceived, with or without full data.

They are still 3-7. They still have a 30-point drubbing by Chicago.

You're mixing up your facts, Dave. Wheaton lost by 30 to Chicago in an epic blowout that was 47-12 at one point late in the first half. North Park lost by 19 to Chicago in a game in which the Maroons' second-half lead ranged between 12 and 22 points.

Look, I'll make it simple. North Park was picked ninth in the CCIW preseason poll for a reason. To all observers, including myself, this looked like it was going to be a reprise of last year's crappy performance. (And, for all I know, it still could be -- I don't claim to have a crystal ball.) A very young team with no identity and no proven scorers got off to a very rough start. I never denied that. In fact, I referenced that (sarcastically, which you don't seem to have picked up on) not once, but twice, with the NebWes reference.

But you know as well as anybody, because I've heard you say this countless times on your show and in your blog, that teams do not remain static throughout the course of a season. Some teams improve. Some teams decline. Circumstances change. For an awful lot of teams, the course of a season is one of flux rather than consistent excellence or consistent stinkitude. And it's often the case with younger teams that they fall into the "improving as the season goes on" category, especially if they can come up with a signature win that rallies them and gives them heightened confidence as a unit.

I'm not saying that NPU is going to run the table in the CCIW. Heck, I don't know if NPU is even going to win on Saturday at Elmhurst. What I do know is this: The Vikings are playing much, much better now than they were a couple of weeks ago. The course of their improvement is uneven -- they laid an egg in Kenosha last Wednesday as well -- but two wins over Top 25 teams in the space of a week is one too many to be a fluke. That's all I'm saying.

And let's not get the cart ahead of the horse here. Great, they beat two Top 25 teams ... but indicating that means they are rounding into something else takes more time. I was texted recently when a Top 25 team, which had been struggling, put the hammer down on a somewhat quality opponent. "We have woken up." The next game that wek they lost to a tough conference opponent and the following game, still that week, they watched a 17-point lead in the second half disappear and they barely won against someone from the middle to bottom of their conference (not talking CCIW here).

Dave, every case and every team is different. You can't extrapolate from that example you just gave me that every team that announces "we have woken up" has in fact failed to do so. Just because this anonymous team that you've mentioned then proceeded to blow a 17-point second-half lead against somebody doesn't mean that NPU is going to need to "take more time" to round into something else. Anecdotal evidence doesn't work across teams that way.

Maybe NPU is going to become better over time this season ... but you are expecting voters to take that leap of faith, which then means changing their opinions on Wheaton, and thus throw them higher up the poll ... because you think NPU is turning the corner?

Again, you think that I'm discussing Wheaton and the poll. I'm not. You'd need a microscope to measure how little I care about Wheaton's status in the current Top 25 poll. I care about my alma mater's team.