Top 25 talk

[John Gleich]

I guarantee many WIAC teams will now think they can beat SP more than they did 5 days ago.  This loss changes alot of things in that conference, I am sure. 

This is flat out not true.  Just because a team loses a conference game doesn't mean their season is over, especially in the WIAC.

Let's look at a little history at WIAC conference champions...:

00-01	Whitewater and Stevens Point	10-6
01-02	Whitewater Stevens Point and Oshkosh	11-5
02-03	Stevens Point	14-2
03-04	River Falls	12-4
04-05	Platteville and Stevens Point	13-3
05-06	Whitewater	13-3
06-07	Stevens Point	15-1
07-08	Whitewater	13-3
08-09	Stevens Point	14-2
09-10	Whitewater	13-3

Nobody has gone undefeated in the last decade.  Only 3 teams have had fewer than 3 losses and each time, that was by UW Stevens Point.

And just so you know, River Falls has 4 seniors and 5 juniors, one of which is Shane Manor, who is an all-conference transfer from UW Superior.  Their one loss was on the road to #9 St. Thomas.  They're not a D-I team... but nobody in D-III is a D-I team.

It should also change the poll (it did) in ALL voters minds as well.   

Each voter will vote as they see fit.  This poll has been going on a long time and they've gotten very, very good at what they do.  But there isn't a defined rule about how they should vote.  There is a definite human element that makes the poll even better.  Dave McHugh came right out and said why SP retained his #1 vote and that's his prerogative as a voter.  19 other voters did change, and apparently they felt there was a reason to change their vote.  Two others did not, as well.

The ironic thing is that I'm not really sure that SP is playing like the #1 team right now.  They didn't on Saturday.  But this team absolutely will get better and that's what's scary. 

This isnt about SP or a power conference.

...

I think early on it is better to have variety in top 10.  If 8 conferences are represented in top 10 spots, I think all of D3 gains.

These two statements contradict themselves.  In one breathe, you say that it isn't about Point or the WIAC (or power conferences, in general), but in another, you say that there should be more conferences represented in the top 10.

What that basically says is you would rather have a weaker, less accurate poll than one that is more true to reality.  As recent as last year, the ODAC had 3 teams in the top 10 and two years ago, the WIAC had 3 in the top 10.  When there are teams that are that good, they should be ranked high, no matter what conference they're from.

And, furthermore, we're two+ weeks into the season.  Certain teams have exceeded the initial expectations that were placed upon them and certain teams haven't played to the level that they were expected to.  The poll has the most movement in the first few weeks because the teams actually get out on the hardcourt and match up with their opponents on the floor rather than on paper.

[Pat Coleman]

Wins and losses matter more than what we believe or feel.

Honestly, no, not in a Top 25 poll.

Unless we expected UW-Stevens Point to run the table, or they lost to a crappy team, it's not unheard of for them to retain a few votes. River Falls, on the other hand, has just one loss (to a Top 10 team at that), so it's not like they suck right now.

Especially in a week where all of the top three lost.

[nwhoops1903]

Delicious stuff.  Point, I guess I worded something poorly cause in no way do I think their season is over.  My point was other teams might have a greater hope of beating them in a game than they once did.  UWSP is the odds on favorite to win the WIAC, correct?  A perfect conference season, obviously and historically (thanks for chart) tough to do.  I still do expect SP to win that conference and would be surprised if they don't.  They are a really nice team IMO.

As far as voters minds being changed, again I am referring to their thoughts...not their actual votes.  I agree, voters have earned the right to vote as they see fit, doesn't mean I have to like their votes.  I do think the poll is doing a great job of moving teams around appropriately even this early and with a big weekend of top losses.

"Wins and losses matter more than what we believe or feel."  I suppose this statement is more true in March than December.  Anyone loses a game in March they are expected to win doesn't get #'1 votes, in fact, they get a trip home.

PS:

This isnt about SP or a power conference.

...

I think early on it is better to have variety in top 10.  If 8 conferences are represented in top 10 spots, I think all of D3 gains.

Connecting these two statements is your doing.  Certainly not what I was inferring or suggesting or even thinking.   I would be asking the question had it been ANYONE being a number 1 and losing and still getting #1's.   

[Greek Tragedy]

I guarantee many WIAC teams will now think they can beat SP more than they did 5 days ago. 

I really think you're giving Stevens Point too much credit here.  Sure, they are defending National Champs and a WIAC power, but I don't think any team in our conference "fears" Point or doesn't feel they have a shot at beating them.  Everyone on the WIAC board knows that River Falls was going to be pretty good this year.  We have no idea why the SIDS voted them 8th!  Last year, Point had a lot of tough games against lesser foes in the WIAC and I think that proves no one is going to just lie down for us.  Superior was 7-9 last year and we only beat them by 3 at their place.  Oshkosh was only 5-11 and we held them off by only 6 at Quandt.  We lost to Stout and they were 9-7.  Trust me, no one in the WIAC thinks Point is this immovable object. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Had UWSP lost to a D1 or something big, then no.  They could very well remain in a legitimate position to collect #1 votes.  Wasn't what happened.  Wins and losses matter more than what we believe or feel.  I guarantee many WIAC teams will now think they can beat SP more than they did 5 days ago.  This loss changes alot of things in that conference, I am sure.  It should also change the poll (it did) in ALL voters minds as well.   Btw, I am not anti UWSP.  This isnt about SP or a power conference.

Not being high on anyone else or impressed with their results this early in season is one way to stick with a dog.  Hope it hunts in March.

On another thought, I think early on it is better to have variety in top 10.  If 8 conferences are represented in top 10 spots, I think all of D3 gains.

I just don't understand your point... just because a team losses doesn't warrant removing them from a #1 position especially when so many other teams lost, including all three in the Top 3.

You also have to remember that every pollsters ballot is different. So who I had in line behind UWSP that maybe would have garnered a first-place position should UWSP slip may not be someone that now deserves that nod (maybe they lost as well - and maybe their losses were more significant in a pollsters mind).

And you have to look at more then just one game this week. On a week-by-week basis there are many games to look at and consider. Team A's loss to Team B will also be impacted by Team C's win over Team B. (We are not talking UWSP, here.) As a result, pollsters are moving many teams around on their poll to find the right fit, especially in the first few weeks of the season.

So, while UWSP loss, in my case those I had in position and felt comfortable moving up didn't warrant that movement up and in some cases did deserve to move down. Team I had lower in the poll also moved up, but as I pointed out with Wooster and VWC (among others), while they moved up in my poll, I did not feel comfortable moving them in to the #1 spot.

Also, when I voted for UWSP in the pre-season to be the #1 team in the country... I had no illusions they were going to go undefeated. I also had no illusions any team would go undefeated. I don't vote #1 for a team because they are undefeated and should stay that way to keep a #1 vote.

By January, a lot of this will be a moot point because we will at least start seeing how these teams are faring in more conference action and after holiday tournaments. Who knows who will be #1 at that point...

[Dark Knight]

Especially early in the season it may be useful to see what teams computer ratings systems think are underrated or overrated in the poll. Here's a list of the most underrated and overrated teams according to Massey:

Most Overrated
1. Wooster (#1, should be #9)
2. MIT (#21, should be #91)
3. Williams (#2, should be #11)
4. Virginia Wesleyan (#3, should be #26)
5. Brandeis (#16, should be #52)
6. Franklin & Marshall (#15, should be #43)

Most Underrated
1. Whitworth (#7, should be #1 by a long shot)
2. Wheaton (unranked, should be #14)
3. River Falls (#18, should be #5)
4. Stevens Point (#4, should be #2)
5. Lewis and Clark (unranked, should be #8)
6. Hope (unranked, should be #15)

Whitworth and Stevens Point are head and shoulders above the other teams, and Whitworth is considerably stronger than Stevens Point, according to Massey. In fact, the difference between Whitworth and Stevens point is is 4.5 points, about like the difference between #3 and #16. The difference between Stevens Point and Massey #3 St Thomas is even larger.

Let's compare Wooster's record with that of Whitworth.

Whitworth has defeated these top-50 teams: Carthage (#15), Lewis and Clark (#8), Linfield (#48).

Wooster has defeated these top-25 teams:
These top 50 teams: <none here either>
These top 100 teams: <crickets chirping>
These top 200 teams: Bethany WV (#115), Denison (#159)

Lewis and Clark has one loss, to #1 Whitworth. They have defeated #74 Colorado Col., #101 Whitman, and Warner Pacific, who would be around #50 in D3.

[John Gleich]

Interesting points, DK, but for as illuminating as that appears, I think it just shows the inaccuracy of computer models (especially early in the season).

Don't get me wrong... I think that Whitworth and Stevens Point are both good this year.  But the model is only as good as the data that it draws from, and the data pool is limited at this point.  It will be better next week than this week and better next month than this month. 

The three factors that go into the Massey Ratings are score, venue, and date.  So a game with an inflated score can affect the ratings significantly when there are very few games played.  It also doesn't take into account who actually plays in the game (i.e. if someone is injured, sick, etc).  That can be a huge factor with wins and losses and though it affected what happened in the past, it may not be a good predicter of what will happen in the future (the Power rating).

[Dark Knight]

Interesting points, DK, but for as illuminating as that appears, I think it just shows the inaccuracy of computer models (especially early in the season).

Don't get me wrong... I think that Whitworth and Stevens Point are both good this year.  But the model is only as good as the data that it draws from, and the data pool is limited at this point.  It will be better next week than this week and better next month than this month.  

The three factors that go into the Massey Ratings are score, venue, and date.  So a game with an inflated score can affect the ratings significantly when there are very few games played.  It also doesn't take into account who actually plays in the game (i.e. if someone is injured, sick, etc).  That can be a huge factor with wins and losses and though it affected what happened in the past, it may not be a good predicter of what will happen in the future (the Power rating).

It doesn't take into account missing players, but should the poll really bump a team up because it has players missing and might have done better if they had played?

The number of games played -- 6 to 9 for most teams -- is enough for the poll and the ratings to start settling down. The Massey rating is roughly half as accurate (twice the standard deviation) now as it will be at the end of the season.

But the best way to use these ratings is to check them by hand. Do you not agree that Whitworth's resume makes a far better case for #1 than Wooster's?

[Mr. Ypsi]

I like Massey, but will mostly agree with PS on this one.  I don't put a whole lot of stock in either Massey or the poll this early in the season, but this early I would certainly put MORE stock in the poll than in Massey.

As to injuries, it depends, but yes, sometimes voters definitely should make allowances.  A couple of years ago all-world Kent Raymond (Wheaton) went down for what was known to be a short-term injury (twisted ankle, if I remember correctly).  Wheaton dropped two of the three games he missed (plus his first game back, when he was among the better players on the court, but clearly not Kent Raymond yet).  As I recall (I don't think past records or polls have yet been added to the new site) they dropped only 4-5 slots, and quickly went back up after he was 100%.  I wonder how much three losses would have semi-permanently hurt them in Massey?

[Dark Knight]

I'm not suggesting anyone use Massey in any way other than to suggest teams to look at. The way to answer this is not "I like Massey" or "I don't like Massey" but "Massey is wrong about team X for the following reason" or "Massey is right; team Y should be a little higher or lower in the poll."

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'm not suggesting anyone use Massey in any way other than to suggest teams to look at. The way to answer this is not "I like Massey" or "I don't like Massey" but "Massey is wrong about team X for the following reason" or "Massey is right; team Y should be a little higher or lower in the poll."

This post I certainly agree with.  But that is not what you said (or at least strongly implied) in your original post.  You called the teams flat-out overrated or underrated, and said team x "should be" ....  To me, at least, you were directly asserting that Massey was right and the poll was wrong.

[ScotsFan]

I like Massey, but will mostly agree with PS on this one.  I don't put a whole lot of stock in either Massey or the poll this early in the season, but this early I would certainly put MORE stock in the poll than in Massey.

As to injuries, it depends, but yes, sometimes voters definitely should make allowances.  A couple of years ago all-world Kent Raymond (Wheaton) went down for what was known to be a short-term injury (twisted ankle, if I remember correctly).  Wheaton dropped two of the three games he missed (plus his first game back, when he was among the better players on the court, but clearly not Kent Raymond yet).  As I recall (I don't think past records or polls have yet been added to the new site) they dropped only 4-5 slots, and quickly went back up after he was 100%.  I wonder how much three losses would have semi-permanently hurt them in Massey?

I tend to agree with Mr. Y on this one.  Am I going to complain that Wooster is the #1 ranked team in the country according to D3hoops.com?  No.  Do I think Wooster is truly the best team in the country?  Again, my answer would be no.  They are clearly an example of attaining their ranking by default.  But as Mr. Y said, that's why we shouldn't put too much stock into the polls this early in the season, and that includes Massey's poll as well.  

As for an example of why we shouldn't put too much stock into the polls?  DK, you mentioned Denison as one of Wooster's less than stellar opponents to date this season.  The same Dension that beat Chicago at Chicago.  That same Chicago that just beat previous #2 IWU in Bloomington.  Oh, and Wooster beat just Denison by 31...  

Personally, I don't see one team that stands out to me as far and away the best team in the country this season.  Last weekends upheaval among the top 3 teams is a perfect example.  Furthermore, when was the last time the top 5 teams in the pre-season poll all sufferred losses this early in the season?  Wooster was ranked 6th just a month ago (which I think was still maybe a tad over-rated for the Scots) in the pre-season poll and because they haven't lost, now find themselves atop the poll after 3 weeks of play.  I will say, looking ahead, if Wooster can run the table over their next 8 games, I think their #1 ranking would then be legit.

[Hugenerd]

I'm not suggesting anyone use Massey in any way other than to suggest teams to look at. The way to answer this is not "I like Massey" or "I don't like Massey" but "Massey is wrong about team X for the following reason" or "Massey is right; team Y should be a little higher or lower in the poll."

This post I certainly agree with.  But that is not what you said (or at least strongly implied) in your original post.  You called the teams flat-out overrated or underrated, and said team x "should be" ....  To me, at least, you were directly asserting that Massey was right and the poll was wrong.

He did more than strongly imply, saying "(#X should be #Y)."  "Should be," in my opinion, means that ranking Y is correct (Massey) and ranking X (D3 poll) is wrong.  I am not sure what the intent of this wording was, but it came off very strong.

[Dark Knight]

I'm not suggesting anyone use Massey in any way other than to suggest teams to look at. The way to answer this is not "I like Massey" or "I don't like Massey" but "Massey is wrong about team X for the following reason" or "Massey is right; team Y should be a little higher or lower in the poll."

This post I certainly agree with.  But that is not what you said (or at least strongly implied) in your original post.  You called the teams flat-out overrated or underrated, and said team x "should be" ....  To me, at least, you were directly asserting that Massey was right and the poll was wrong.

He did more than strongly imply, saying "(#X should be #Y)."  "Should be," in my opinion, means that ranking Y is correct (Massey) and ranking X (D3 poll) is wrong.  I am not sure what the intent of this wording was, but it came off very strong.

All that came after was subject to the end of the first paragraph, "according to Massey." My apologies if it wasn't clear enough that I was giving Massey's rating and not my own.

[David Collinge]

One thing that Massey, rightly or wrongly, does not take into consideration is projections for success as the year goes forward.  These computer models are based strictly on what has happened so far this season.  Wooster is not ranked #1 at this moment because of who they have beaten.  They are #1 because they finished last season with a very strong showing in the national tournament and returned almost everybody from that team, placing them in position to move up when the teams above them were knocked off.  This subjectivity is not something that computers can handle.  Whether they should or not, I leave to you to decide.  But a team like Wooster, toiling in a relatively weak conference, will generally suffer in computer polls when compared to a school like UW-SP with a strong conference, and there's not a whole heck of a lot they can do about it.