Top 25 talk

[nescac1]

I think the bigger issue with the pre-season rankings is the ordering of some teams within various conferences.  Tufts I think will finish behind Midd and likely Williams and Trinity as well in the NESCAC.  They didn't seem to have much on the bench last year and relied inordinately on their five starters, two of whom graduated and one of whom suffered an ACL tear in March.  I am also always wary of teams which have very good injury luck and until Pace hurt his ACL in the tourney, Tufts' entire rotation (top eight guys) missed only THREE total games combined.  That's incredibly difficult to repeat. 

And the CCIW folks have already piped in about the relative ordering of teams from that conference ...

[gordonmann]

I put together the information request for the voters and didn't include Illinois Wesleyan for men (I did for women). That may have been an oversight on my part, but it wasn't intentional. The Titans can put my name on the message board and use me as a rallying point throughout the season if that will make people feel better. 

Of course voters are free to vote for whom they want. Fifty-five teams got votes and that's more than we had on our information request. Some teams on our information request garnered no votes.

Augustana and Elmhurst were clear about the number and caliber of players they lost. We put statistical measures to that, too, so it's not just a list of names. Some voters chose to stick with those teams (mostly Augustana -- the Elmhurst and Carroll votes are outliers and not significant numerically) and I respect that, even if I don't agree with it.

[WUPHF]

You know we are all desperately in need of a basketball fix when we are arguing (yet again) about the preseason rankings...

[Greek Tragedy]

You know we are all desperately in need of a basketball fix when we are arguing (yet again) about the preseason rankings...

But that's part of the fun!

[Gregory Sager]

My point is all because they are the defending champion doesn't mean they should be ranked. Look at who St. Thomas has lost and look who they are returning. They should be in the 20s, if raned at all. Last preseason Point was ranked #9, which was a joke considering they lost 4 senior starters.

I agree that some people have them too high, but I think there's also the issue of "who else do I put in?"  Yes, there are certain teams bringing everybody back who need to be added, but there aren't a lot of those teams, especially not a lot on a national radar.  Unless we've literally got voters pulling "maybe" teams out of thin air, we're going to end up with some usual suspects simply because they're usual suspects and they're that way for a reason.

It's just pre-season.  The games will work themselves out, and very quickly given the schedule we've got in Nov-Dec this year.

Totally agree that preseason rankings are pretty much a joke (but fun to talk about).

There is one 'usual suspect' that got ZERO votes.  IWU has the same coach who went to Salem in both 2012 and 2014, and a guy who I suspect will be some level of All-American at season's end - Trevor Seibring.  They were picked to finish second in the CCIW, yet THREE teams picked below them are in the top 25 or receiving votes.  My team has been 'Rodney Dangerfield-ed'.

It's true that the Titans have a very good center in Seibring, and it's also true that they were picked #2 in the (ever-dubious) CCIW coaches preseason poll. But the Titans also went 13-13 last season and had some considerable shortcomings.

i don't think it's as much a matter of the Titans being underrated by the Top 25 pollsters as it is a matter of some of the other CCIW teams (notably Augie and Elmhurst, although Carroll's going to be in the position now of proving that it can beat somebody besides the MWC's lineup of tomato cans) being overrated.

I think that the CCIW will produce its fair share of Top-25-caliber teams this year -- it always does -- but I also think that right now we don't know which teams will achieve that status, with the singular exception of North Central.

[Mr. Ypsi]

gordonmann, I hope my  at the end of my post made you understand that I wasn't REALLY complaining - though I did find it odd that the team picked by the coaches preseason to finish second in what D3hoops.com ranked the best conference in the country recently would receive ZERO votes!  I have no idea whether or not they currently deserve to be in the Top 25 (my brain is still in football mode for a couple more weeks ), but that NO ONE had them on their ballot seemed curious.

I don't know whether Coach Rose would think this makes good bulletin-board material, but thanks for the suggestion!

[Gregory Sager]

You put too much stock in that annual exercise in gamesmanship known as the CCIW coaches poll, Chuck.

[Mr. Ypsi]

My point is all because they are the defending champion doesn't mean they should be ranked. Look at who St. Thomas has lost and look who they are returning. They should be in the 20s, if raned at all. Last preseason Point was ranked #9, which was a joke considering they lost 4 senior starters.

I agree that some people have them too high, but I think there's also the issue of "who else do I put in?"  Yes, there are certain teams bringing everybody back who need to be added, but there aren't a lot of those teams, especially not a lot on a national radar.  Unless we've literally got voters pulling "maybe" teams out of thin air, we're going to end up with some usual suspects simply because they're usual suspects and they're that way for a reason.

It's just pre-season.  The games will work themselves out, and very quickly given the schedule we've got in Nov-Dec this year.

Totally agree that preseason rankings are pretty much a joke (but fun to talk about).

There is one 'usual suspect' that got ZERO votes.  IWU has the same coach who went to Salem in both 2012 and 2014, and a guy who I suspect will be some level of All-American at season's end - Trevor Seibring.  They were picked to finish second in the CCIW, yet THREE teams picked below them are in the top 25 or receiving votes.  My team has been 'Rodney Dangerfield-ed'.

It's true that the Titans have a very good center in Seibring, and it's also true that they were picked #2 in the (ever-dubious) CCIW coaches preseason poll. But the Titans also went 13-13 last season and had some considerable shortcomings.

i don't think it's as much a matter of the Titans being underrated by the Top 25 pollsters as it is a matter of some of the other CCIW teams (notably Augie and Elmhurst, although Carroll's going to be in the position now of proving that it can beat somebody besides the MWC's lineup of tomato cans) being overrated.

I think that the CCIW will produce its fair share of Top-25-caliber teams this year -- it always does -- but I also think that right now we don't know which teams will achieve that status, with the singular exception of North Central.

While I don't think it totally explains 13-13, I'm convinced that a fair share (perhaps 4-6 losses) of that was the loss for most of the season of Brady Rose.  From what I saw (alas, only on the screen), he was a nearly irreplaceable quarterback for the team (despite the scandalous carping by one supposed Titan supporter that the only reason he played at all was nepotism - a libel on both Rose pere and Rose fils).

[Gregory Sager]

I strongly disagree. Rose showed signs as a freshman that he could become a really solid CCIW player eventually, but he wasn't going to be worth anywhere close to four-to-six games last season.

[AndOne]

4-6 losses due to Brady Rose being lost after 6 six games? 
Looks like IWU will have a player capable of walking on water this year.

In Rose's absence, the guard spots were primarily maned by Bryce Dolan and Joel Pennington who both did a much more than adequate job.

Dolan shot .457 overall, .440 from three, and .862 from the line. He scored 13.3 ppg.
Pennington shot .494 overall, .449 from three, and .789 from the line. He scored 9.8 ppg.
Rose shot .412 overall, .419 from three, and .667 from the line, and scored 10.5 ppg in his 6 games.
It wasn't his shooting that was missed. His quarterbacking abilities were the biggest part of what IWU lost by his absence.

I think what, in large part, accounted for those losses was Rose playing Freshmen Colin Bonnett and Mark Falotico as much as they played. They would have been better served by giving those minutes to Derrick Streety or Nick Coleman, especially in place of the minutes that went to Falotico who shot only .348 overall, .423 from the line, and was a distinct liability on defense, committing more fouls than C/F Ryan Coyle in only slightly more than half the minutes Coyle played.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I will be doing my usual ballot article soon enough, but just a heads up I will not be going through each team. I am going to post my ballot and share some preseason thoughts to try something different (just for preseason).

So with that in mind, here are a few thoughts:

The parity we now have in Division III men (and continually growing) has made the Top 25, especially in the preseason, far more difficult. I had 50+ teams I started with and wasn't able to whittle down many. That parity has made the seasons and the tournament awesome. It has made voting in the poll painful (in a good way). I actually tried to make it easier on myself this year and not over think it... not sure if that worked or not.

- I actually changed my first place vote three times over the summer and in the last few days before I voted. Wasn't cut and dry, though I disagree with the overall number one. But I'll save that for the blog. LOL
- I voted for UST #11. Some of the reasons have already been stated, but it came down to the fact that John Tauer (and others) have shown that they can still have a team competing on a national level even after losing a lot. I have dismissed them in the past before eventually having to put them back on my ballot with my tail between my legs. History does play a role when you consider how a team recovers or grows... I went with what history has told me about UST.
- I didn't vote for IWU, nor Augustana, WashU, or some other stalwarts (no WIAC schools, for example). IWU was 13-13 last year. I get they have good players, but that doesn't mean without seeing any games this year I am ready to just throw them on my ballot. I don't understand why because they are IWU and finished second in the coaches poll (more on that in a second), its curious that they aren't on anyone's ballot. Augustana lost a ton and I have seen them usually have to take a year or two to recover. Wash U was 15-10 and didn't look like themselves last year. There wasn't anything I saw that told me that suddenly they are a Top 25 team. And no WIAC schools because... well why? Let me see how they come back before I jump there.
- Not sure why people reference preseason coaches polls as to how or why Top 25 voters should vote a certain way. There is far too much going on politically in those things along with rules. I don't even think voters should vote according to conference standings. There is more information on a national poll to position teams different than coaches polls and conference standings. Teams could face each other and the losing team still be ahead of the winning team in the standings, but voters put the winning team ahead of the losing team. Let's not use conference polls and standings as the barometer or the measuring stick.
- Remember this is also a national poll. So many people will make arguments for why a team should be ranked based on rather narrow or regional reasons. Not national reasons. Have a larger focus and field of view and see the entire scope to appreciate where teams truly fit. That is why there are 25 voters, 3 from each of the 8 regions, to give us as much of a national scope as possible.
- I agree there seems to always be some interesting voters. I don't know enough of how people vote (nor should I) to understand those types of votes. I am sure those people have their reasons, but I also agree that some of them seem too extreme. If I am not voting for Augustana, then someone probably has them in their Top 10 to compensate. I know voters who swear they will vote for last year's #1/defending champs as #1 until they lose - one voter clearly is sticking to that. To some extent I say, let them vote. But at the same time, it can be interesting. That all said, this year's preseason vote says one thing to me: voters are all over the place trying to figure out the national landscape this year. Heck, when people see my ballot they may think the same thing of me.

And I will finish with this, can we stop calling the preseason poll a joke. There are 25 voters who dedicate quite a lot of time to the process of voting. Even if they take only an hour, they are still volunteering their time to vote. We appreciate their efforts and the time they take. To call the preseason poll (or early season polls) as a joke, even in jest, is disrespectful of those efforts and time. And while I understand some people say they are kidding around, when it is repeated a lot and often, it stops becoming just kidding around to the voters. You are welcome to disagree and voice those disagreements. You are welcome to produce your own Top 25 ballot to the masses for consideration. You are welcome to call the preseason poll not something to be taken too seriously, but please stop calling the final product a joke. It is not appreciated at least from this long-time voter.

[AndOne]

Dave,

I will argue with NONE of what you say.
If I may, I will instead pose a few questions for your consideration.

1. Are the people who vote in the pre-season and weekly polls throughout the season like Supreme Court judges? Once appointed, do they serve for life or until they resign?
2. Has increasing the size of the panel ever been considered like perhaps 4 or 5 voters per region?
3. Has it ever been considered that bringing some new blood might increase the objectivity of the panel in that perhaps people on the panel over the long term have fallen into a certain pattern such as always voting for teams in a certain region or regions, always voting for a favorite team(s), always voting for last season's champ as #1 in the next pre-season poll.
4. I think to call the entire poll a joke is misguided as you suggest. However, can you understand that "joke" might seem applicable to portions of the poll such as someone voting Elmhurst, even as their #25 team, given EC lost 9 of their first 10 players, especially considering that all 9 were seniors and EC will likely finish near the bottom of their conference in this, a rebuilding season?

Again, just some questions to help understand how things work, and whether any considerations have been given to possible changes that might hopefully improve the product?
Thank you.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Dave, I apologize for calling the preseason poll a joke.  I certainly did not mean to offend.  Let me spin it much more positively:

The preseason poll is an almost surely futile (though well-meaning) attempt to make order out of chaos.  The results ARE statistically significantly above zero in reflecting eventual reality, but reflect reality somewhat like a funhouse mirror.

Better?   I really do admire you guys willing to stick your necks out (at least the one's who DO identify themselves and stick their necks out! ) - there's a reason why when I ran the Posters' Poll it didn't begin until January!

As a wise man once said, at this point nobody knows nothing.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Dave,

I will argue with NONE of what you say.
If I may, I will instead pose a few questions for your consideration.

1. Are the people who vote in the pre-season and weekly polls throughout the season like Supreme Court judges? Once appointed, do they serve for life or until they resign?
2. Has increasing the size of the panel ever been considered like perhaps 4 or 5 voters per region?
3. Has it ever been considered that bringing some new blood might increase the objectivity of the panel in that perhaps people on the panel over the long term have fallen into a certain pattern such as always voting for teams in a certain region or regions, always voting for a favorite team(s), always voting for last season's champ as #1 in the next pre-season poll.
4. I think to call the entire poll a joke is misguided as you suggest. However, can you understand that "joke" might seem applicable to portions of the poll such as someone voting Elmhurst, even as their #25 team, given EC lost 9 of their first 10 players, especially considering that all 9 were seniors and EC will likely finish near the bottom of their conference in this, a rebuilding season?

Again, just some questions to help understand how things work, and whether any considerations have been given to possible changes that might hopefully improve the product?
Thank you.

Happy to try and answer these. No promises I have the answers you are looking for.

1. Are the people who vote in the pre-season and weekly polls throughout the season like Supreme Court judges? Once appointed, do they serve for life or until they resign?

Not necessarily. We have turnover I would say every year. Heck, Pat is no longer voting this season (I am now considered the "25th voter" on the men's poll). We also have voters who move on in their careers, leave the division, are no longer able to give us the time, or plenty of other personal or career factors we all know can play a roll. I also know that behind the scenes we sometimes have voters who either start missing deadlines or whatnot that have to be addressed or even replaced. I also think that if we see a voter who's voting habits aren't lining up for whatever reason (I can probably name a dozen "what ifs") there is a discussion about what to do with that voter. I have no examples I would share about any of those... but we do have turnover every year. That isn't to say there aren't voters who have been voting longer than I have been voting, but they tend to be the ones who are very solid. I will also say that no, there is not a set time term limit to their voting. I don't think their needs to be. We would lose voters I don't think we would want to lose.

2. Has increasing the size of the panel ever been considered like perhaps 4 or 5 voters per region?

The voting size has remained the same for as long as I know - probably exactly the same since the first poll. 25 voters. 3 from each of the 8 regions with a "25th voter" who tends to have a more national scope (though, all voters do to some degree). Pat has been that 25th voter since the beginning and I have represented the Mid-Atlantic since I started voting (forget how long I have done this, but I did not vote in the early years). Now that Pat has left, I am the "25th voter" and we found someone new to replace me as a representative of the Mid-Atlantic.

I will also add, the voters are made up of basketball coaches, Sports Information Directors, and media members around the country. We try and find a nice balance of that group, but that doesn't necessarily mean a coach leaves the group we replace them with a coach. Or an SID leave and we replace them with an SID. We try and look for the best option when we replace voters.

3. Has it ever been considered that bringing some new blood might increase the objectivity of the panel in that perhaps people on the panel over the long term have fallen into a certain pattern such as always voting for teams in a certain region or regions, always voting for a favorite team(s), always voting for last season's champ as #1 in the next pre-season poll.

As I have already indicated, we bring in new blood probably on a yearly basis. How much is new depends on the year and other circumstances. I think some of the ones that are new this year are outstanding choices who know not only their region but also the national landscape incredibly well. However, I do not know how they are voting nor do I search that information out.

I would agree there probably are some who may have fallen into some patterns. I know it is something I have considered looking at, but since Gordon is officially "running" the poll, I don't want to get in his way on that. It is also the first year since Pat ran the poll(s), so there is some time needed for Gordon or even myself to get more acquainted with how people are voting.

As for some of your examples, we purposely have voters from each region because we don't want to miss people in those regions. Certainly, that might mean some get votes that make no sense to you, but they may be a very reasonable vote for that voter or because they are being overlooked by those in other regions doing the same. I think that is a completely fair thing to have. If we didn't spread it out, I think some voters would unfairly pick teams that maybe don't deserve Top 25 attention over those being completely ignored. I find the "extra votes" to sometimes be very helpful. It forces those teams into our weekly data email and forces me to maybe look at a team I am missing as well.

Voting for last season's champ in the next pre-season poll is a personal taste kind of thing to me. It happens in nearly all polls I am aware of (especially reputable polls). I understand the argument and while having argued against the idea understand the premises. Once in awhile, like this year, it might look strange. But overall, I don't think it is the end of the world. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it adjust the overall poll that much. If they vote them #1 and I happen to leave them off the poll, the team slots in 12th or 13th. One voter voting for UST #1 isn't the reason they are 11th, for example.

4. I think to call the entire poll a joke is misguided as you suggest. However, can you understand that "joke" might seem applicable to portions of the poll such as someone voting Elmhurst, even as their #25 team, given EC lost 9 of their first 10 players, especially considering that all 9 were seniors and EC will likely finish near the bottom of their conference in this, a rebuilding season?

I understand your point and I didn't consider Elmhurst because of that. Elmhurst was not part of the data set of 50-some-odd teams sent to us, so that voter took it upon themselves to vote for Elmhurst. If we were to ask them, I am sure they would have a very valid reason in their minds for the vote. Just as I did to include Hardin-Simmons, also not in the data set, as a team I wanted to vote for. I don't think it is the end of the world unless they keep voting for Elmhurst despite the fact they lost, say, the first five games of the season.

We try not to tell voters what to do. That could be confused as guiding the vote and "rigging" (since it is a popular term these days) the Top 25. We present information on the teams the voters are interested in (in the preseason, a mass email is sent looking for teams outside of the list Gordon created to add; during the season the list is comprised of all the teams - for the most part - being voted on the previous week). If a voter finds a team not in the list they want to vote on, they are welcome to do that. That team's information will then be added to the list for the next week (knock on wood; sometimes teams slip through by accident). But too much hand-holding or guiding will only result in a bias Top 25 that isn't really a free vote, but adjusting to the wishes of those running the poll and that isn't fair to anyone.

In my opinion, I can find many votes I don't understand and question, but I can't necessarily say they are wrong votes. We can argue about them, I have voiced my opinion on my blog, but to say they are flat out wrong is a dangerous place to go. I can say with confidence, I have not seen voting habits necessarily change because I voice my opinion on a blog. I can also say that I chat with a good number of voters on any given week (I have not known the entire 25-person block until recently; just those who reached out to me or I already knew) and none of us have the same read. It is great to go back and forth with one another to see if our "reads" are similar or why they are different. I may make a change up or down or feel more comfortable with my decision based on those conversations, but I don't think anyone feels pressured to change their vote. If a voter is clearly off on their own for no good reason, I am sure that is handled behind the scenes. However, I have never been part of that conversation if it has ever happened, so I can't even say it has happened.

...and whether any considerations have been given to possible changes that might hopefully improve the product?
Thank you.

I know I have debated on my own the idea of changes, but not sure what changes would really work. We could obviously expand the panel from 25 to say 30, 35, or 50. I don't like many of those numbers because they could give particular regions a bit too much influence. And a number like 33 (4 per region = 32 plus one more voter) doesn't make much sense let alone 42. That means going to 50 and trying to find 25 more voters who are able to not only give their time to this (it is a lot of time) along with being good enough to understand the entire landscape of Division III is tough. Not to mention the fact, we can point to a lot of voting panels that are just too large and honestly need to be trimmed (the Baseball Hall of Fame, the D1 basketball poll(s), etc.). I think 25 is good for now, but I would say we are always looking for improvement. Who knows, maybe Gordon and I will come up with a plan after handling this (Gordon primarily) for the first time.

I hope some of that helps.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

You also have to realize that there's no direction as to what Top 25 people are voting for.  Someone could be voting for the 25 teams they think will be the best at the end of the season.  Another voter could be voting for the 25 teams they think are best at the moment of the vote.  You could have someone voting UST #1 right now simply because they're just repeating their final vote from last year (with no games played yet, only the ones from last year should count).  I would agree with that last approach, but I understand it.

You get the same kind of disparity in the final vote.  Some people are picking the 25 best teams of March, others are putting more emphasis on the whole season.  That's why its good to have a diversity of voters.

And yes, if a voter doesn't vote for a team that everyone else does, they'll get an email asking if they made a mistake.  I am consistently amazed with how seriously voters take the poll, especially the coaches who have better things to do with their time than watch film of teams on the opposite coast they have little chance of every playing - but a lot of them do.  They want to be as well informed as anyone.