Top 25 talk

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, the Chicago comment was before they beat Wash U. But one thing to consider is that voters still also look at a team's potential. If we were only ranking based on their actual wins and losses so far, we would just have an RPI. But was Chicago potentially better than what they had shown? Sure. And was Amherst worse? Yep.

Rinsing and repeating the previous line: It all comes out in the wash. Sometimes the polls are right, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes something that was right in the preseason looks wrong in February and looks right again in March.

It's meant to be a snapshot of 25 independent, geographically dispersed voters' collective opinion. They won't always agree with your personal opinion, but generally, everyone who is on this board regularly is in a conference/region/state that is represented by someone.

Once again, this is being made out to be a "MY TEAMS NOT RANKED, *cry*!" argument when it's not.

Except when it is.

[sac]

Once again, this is being made out to be a "MY TEAMS NOT RANKED, *cry*!" argument when it's not.

Except when it is.

Except it never was.  That proof lies in the pages previously which this website archives, no one ever advocated for Hope getting votes in the poll.

Teams that we allegedly underrated a few weeks ago -- Middlebury, Albion, Hope ... who did I miss? Teams we allegedly overrated -- University of Chicago, Illinois Wesleyan (what is the value of IWU's win over Chicago now?) ...

Easy to point out when it works in your favor. Amherst started the season #2 and stayed ranked way too long while Marietta was getting no love. Neither were Chapman, St. Olaf, or Elmhurst.

I don't think that the argument was ever that those teams were or were not better/worse, but that their resume, at that point in the season, did not merit being ranked where they were. Once again, this is being made out to be a "MY TEAMS NOT RANKED, *cry*!" argument when it's not. It's simply a "the voters need to adjust their preseason rankings quicker and give less credit to previous season performances" argument. If someone said Chicago was overrated BEFORE beating Washington and Emory, I might agree. But their resume has changed. So should their perception.

I would just not worry about, you cannot win even attempt to make an argument against the masters of this universe, every argument you make will be spun into whining about your team not getting votes.  Then you'll be negged to death.

2 weeks ago IWU didn't have the resume to be ranked, you know it, I know it.   Leave it at that.

[HOPEful]

It's meant to be a snapshot of 25 independent, geographically dispersed voters' collective opinion. They won't always agree with your personal opinion, but generally, everyone who is on this board regularly is in a conference/region/state that is represented by someone.

Once again, this statement refuses to accept that this isn't about "my" team vs. "your" team. I simply believe that the Amhursts, Wisconsin WW and SPs, IWUs, Washingtons, Woosters, and even Hope/Calvins of the D3 universe get the upper hand/benefit of the doubt in the polls where others are asked to prove themselves first.

Once again, this is being made out to be a "MY TEAMS NOT RANKED, *cry*!" argument when it's not.

Except when it is.

It's not. And I don't understand your desire to respond condescendingly.

[KnightSlappy]

It's meant to be a snapshot of 25 independent, geographically dispersed voters' collective opinion. They won't always agree with your personal opinion, but generally, everyone who is on this board regularly is in a conference/region/state that is represented by someone.

Once again, this statement refuses to accept that this isn't about "my" team vs. "your" team. I simply believe that the Amhursts, Wisconsin WW and SPs, IWUs, Washingtons, Woosters, and even Hope/Calvins of the D3 universe get the upper hand/benefit of the doubt in the polls where others are asked to prove themselves first.

Shouldn't they, though? These schools all have built up a history of winning their leagues, making the tournament, and having success once there. And we're not just talking  ancient history. We're talking about last year and the year before that.

Isn't it more intellectually rigorous to assign a Bayesian prior to each team before assessing their wins and losses? I mean, we do this all the time without thinking about it. If Olivet loses to Calvin by 24 we say "well Olivet is not a very good team", but if Hope loses to Calvin by 24 we say "well Hope must have had a poor game". We instantly recognize the results as being more indicative of Olivet's relative quality than Hope's.

[y_jack_lok]

^^ Think D1 and Wichita State, Butler, etc. that don't have the same long-term resumes as Kentucky, Louisville, Kansas, North Carolina, the top Big 10 schools. In their first year of being strong teams they start the season in obscurity then work their way up over the course of the season. Then maybe the next year they get some attention at the bottom of the pre-season polls and if they do well again they move up more quickly.

[Pat Coleman]

It's meant to be a snapshot of 25 independent, geographically dispersed voters' collective opinion. They won't always agree with your personal opinion, but generally, everyone who is on this board regularly is in a conference/region/state that is represented by someone.

Once again, this statement refuses to accept that this isn't about "my" team vs. "your" team. I simply believe that the Amhursts, Wisconsin WW and SPs, IWUs, Washingtons, Woosters, and even Hope/Calvins of the D3 universe get the upper hand/benefit of the doubt in the polls where others are asked to prove themselves first.

Once again, this is being made out to be a "MY TEAMS NOT RANKED, *cry*!" argument when it's not.

Except when it is.

It's not. And I don't understand your desire to respond condescendingly.

I didn't say Hope fans were arguing for Hope to be ranked. I see multiple people have read it that way but what I was actually saying was that sometimes it is indeed fans arguing for their own team to be ranked.

If I had said "Except this time it is," then I would expect your outrage. But that wasn't what I was getting at. I wasn't even just talking about Hope -- I specifically (and intentionally) mentioned multiple schools.

[smedindy]

MOST of the time, by my eyes, it's fans of a so-called 'disrespected' team being all whiny and TGHIJGSTO!!! about it. It's annoying.

My feeling is as of the turn of the calendar and conference play kicks in the past should not be prologue. Before Dec. 31 yeah sure, but those polls are basically muffins. Now, consider this year's resume ONLY.

[Pat Coleman]

^^ Think D1 and Wichita State, Butler, etc. that don't have the same long-term resumes as Kentucky, Louisville, Kansas, North Carolina, the top Big 10 schools. In their first year of being strong teams they start the season in obscurity then work their way up over the course of the season. Then maybe the next year they get some attention at the bottom of the pre-season polls and if they do well again they move up more quickly.

Yeah -- I think it's fair to believe that if a program does it more than once ... or more than 10 times ... that it's easier to believe they might do it again, even if they take a couple of losses early in the season. That's why a team like Amherst sticks around in the poll until it's painfully obvious they aren't reloading.

MOST of the time, by my eyes, it's fans of a particular team being all whiny and THIGSTO about it. It's annoying.

It sure is! But it's great when people are willing and able to engage on the topic without it turning into ax-grinding.

[sac]

What if people were just aloud to vent without having to be characterized as whining or having an axe to grind.

[smedindy]

Believe me, plenty of people are aloud around here! 

[Gregory Sager]

I don't mind the whining or the axe-grinding, because I can remember a time when I wasn't allowed to speak aloud.

[northb]

Oh, Crap!  I got dead horse all over me   

[Pat Coleman]

Just found out that TGHIJGSTO has taken up sending his email screeds to Stockton's SID. Poor guy. 

[Gregory Sager]

Is he still using the ALL THUMBS feature on his cell phone to compose them?

[Pat Coleman]

It's fair to say neither the style nor content has changed.