Top 25 talk

[magicman]

magicman, I won't presume to speak for Greg, but I (like Q, apparently) read "outer margins of the Top 25" akin to "outer margins of the bubble" (i.e., you ain't likely to get in).

Greg?

Well, that's an entirely different argument isnt it? I didn't think we were discussing Pool C bids.

I said 'akin', not the same thing!  If read as 'akin', it would mean "you ain't likely to be IN the Top 25".

OK,  so now you're saying that you believe what Greg said, really meant "Wheaton and IWU ain't likely to get into the Top 25". I didn't get that impression from his statement. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. That, and which team one roots for.
 

[Ralph Turner]

New Top 25 is out.  One of Middlebury's #1 votes has evidently switched to MIT.  Interesting.

The computerized tabulation list probably has MID adjacent to MIT and the voter's finger just slipped too far down the list.

I don't think so. Millikin, Millsaps, Mississippi College are all in between alphabetically and that's just off the top of my head.

Thanks.  It probably was not a mistake then.   

[Titan Q]

Titan Q,
Maybe I'm missing something but I think both of Greg's statements say pretty much the same thing. Wheaton and IWU being in the 20-25 range or Wheaton and IWU being on the outer margins of the Top 25 (which I took to being in the 20-25 range) seems rather similar to me. Maybe you're interpreting "the outer margins" to be something different than what I am. (or Greg is) Now if Mr. Sager means by the "outer margins of the Top 25", well into the  "others receiving votes" category, I'd have to agree with you. But he did say the Top 25 and not the ORV.

I'm referring to these two comments:

The long and short of it is that the CCIW is really down this year, and I'd hate to see any of its teams get promoted on the basis of a league reputation that really isn't deserved this season.

From this point on, Augie, Wheaton, and IWU will all be playing CCIW teams exclusively. The pollsters will start moving those three teams up or down based upon how they do against their league brethren, so pointing out that the CCIW is down seems to me to be a fair caveat in terms of gauging those three teams.

The first statement was made in response to a conversation about IWU and Wheaton's potential placement in next week's poll....at which point the body of work being evaluated would be 11 non-conference games, a game vs each other (IWU vs Wheaton), and just one other CCIW game (tomorrow).  Greg seemed to be suggesting that Top 25 voters should consider that the CCIW is down while evaluating IWU and Wheaton this coming Monday, as they fill out their Week 6 ballots.  (Again, I think it is pretty clear that the original conversation was around IWU and Wheaton's potential fit in the Top 25 right now.)  As I posted in response, I disagree with this.  I don't think how North Central, Carthage, Elmhurst, North Park, and Elmhurst have performed this year to date should have anything to do how IWU and Wheaton (and Augustana for that matter) are evaluated at the present time.

His follow-up statement seems to be to saying something different -- that since CCIW teams 4-8 are down, the voters should factor that in as the conference season plays out.  I'm fine with that.  I think it is pretty obvious that voters look at the quality of opponents when evaluating a given team, so yes, if your league provides less quality opponents it will impact your standing in voters' eyes.  I just don't think that is what he said, or meant, in the first statement.

[Gregory Sager]

Titan Q,
Maybe I'm missing something but I think both of Greg's statements say pretty much the same thing. Wheaton and IWU being in the 20-25 range or Wheaton and IWU being on the outer margins of the Top 25 (which I took to being in the 20-25 range) seems rather similar to me. Maybe you're interpreting "the outer margins" to be something different than what I am. (or Greg is) Now if Mr. Sager means by the "outer margins of the Top 25", well into the  "others receiving votes" category, I'd have to agree with you. But he did say the Top 25 and not the ORV.

I'm referring to these two comments:

The long and short of it is that the CCIW is really down this year, and I'd hate to see any of its teams get promoted on the basis of a league reputation that really isn't deserved this season.

From this point on, Augie, Wheaton, and IWU will all be playing CCIW teams exclusively. The pollsters will start moving those three teams up or down based upon how they do against their league brethren, so pointing out that the CCIW is down seems to me to be a fair caveat in terms of gauging those three teams.

The first statement was made in response to a conversation about IWU and Wheaton's potential placement in next week's poll

Ah, now I see what's got you vexed.

The long and short of it is that what you just said is not true, Bob.

This is what precipitated the conversation:

#23 Wheaton falls 87-77 in OT at ORV IWU.  My guess would be that this will drop Wheaton to ORV status, but not be quite enough to get IWU into the top 25, leaving Augie as the CCIW's sole rep in the top 25.

I'm pretty confident IWU and Wheaton are both Top 25 teams...maybe somewhere in the 18-24 range.

and

I don't think these are Top 15 teams, but pretty sure they're Top 25.

You've never demonstrated a penchant, as a Top 25 pollster, for speaking in the moment. When talking about teams in the context of the Top 25, you always speak of them based upon whether they look like what you've come to know over the years as Top 25 material in the long view, rather than speaking of what they happen to look like in a right-this-moment snapshot. That's a valid way to approach the poll, and it's one that I happen to agree with.

At first, D-Mac appeared to be much more concerned than you with what's going on in the moment, specifically with how he's going to fill out his next ballot:

I don't know... there are a TON of teams that could slot into 15-25... if not 10-25... makes it hard to put two from the same conference (CCIW) along with Augustana in there.

I am going to have to seriously reassess my poll this week... too many teams to consider.

But then -- and this is key, because this has been a multiple-person conversation -- augie_superfan responded to D-Mac with a post that, like you, indicated that he's looking at the three CCIW teams in question in terms of ongoing status, rather than where they simply happen to be at this moment in time, just one game deep into the CCIW slate:

I don't know... there are a TON of teams that could slot into 15-25... if not 10-25... makes it hard to put two from the same conference (CCIW) along with Augustana in there.

I am going to have to seriously reassess my poll this week... too many teams to consider.

As hard as it is for me to say, I'm not sure that Augustana is the best of the bunch.  Their win tonight at Millikin left a lot to be desired.  With their starting center leaving the team, it's hard to say how they'll play once they get some tougher games.

(Emphasis mine)

Then followed the D-Mac post that I quoted, and in parsing it I think I can see the source of your confusion:

Titan - I hear ya... you know I take this seriously... but there are so many teams that could fit into the 15-25 slot right now. I saw a few pretty good teams in Vegas... I have been watching a few online (I will watch yours tomorrow - have to get to bed - Hoopsville tomorrow night!)... it is just so difficult... I think I am considering up to 35 teams a week for 25 slots.

The words "right now" in the first sentence initially seem to be a giveaway that D-Mac is still fixated upon this week's ballot, and I'm guessing that, by my quoting his post, this is why you came away with the impression that my response post was speaking in the moment as well. But I wasn't, because D-Mac really wasn't, either. To get grammatically technical here, D-Mac was speaking in the present perfect progressive tense rather than the present perfect tense. In other words, he was using a present participle ("considering") to describe actions that began at some point in the past and continue through the present. The words "a week" indicate this, because they imply that D-Mac's ballot muddle is not simply restricted to this week's ballot. Furthermore, there are two past tense sentences right before this one ("I saw a few pretty good teams in Vegas" and "I have been watching a few online") that indicate that D-Mac's concerns are of an ongoing nature and are not simply restricted to this present ballot. This is also in keeping with what I know of D-Mac; like you, he is a careful, long-view pollster who isn't likely to take the easy way out by making week-to-week judgments on a snapshot basis.

Now we come to my response post:

It's your call, D-Mac, but if you don't want to put either Wheaton or Illinois Wesleyan in your Top 25, this is one CCIW fan who's got your back. For that matter, if you'd like to mark Augie down a bit as well, I'll support that, too.

Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan are pretty good teams, but they're on the outer margins of the Top 25, at best. The long and short of it is that the CCIW is really down this year, and I'd hate to see any of its teams get promoted on the basis of a league reputation that really isn't deserved this season.

First of all, I bring Augie back into the conversation. That hearkens back to augie_superfan's post, which, as has been established, is long-view commentary rather than snapshot commentary. Second, what you're stating -- that I said that Wheaton and IWU are marginally Top 25 at best right now based upon the fact that the CCIW is down this year -- isn't logical. I'm not always the most coherent person in the world, but I'm not that incoherent. It's pretty clear to me, upon reading this post for about the hundredth time, that I was using the present tense in a sort of future-indicative style that's a pretty common way of speaking about continuous action: I have lunch every Wednesday at 12:30 pm. I take my final exam tomorrow afternoon. If you don't want to put either Wheaton or IWU in your Top 25, I've got your back. See what I mean? I've never viewed this as a snapshot conversation. The context and the examples that I've used indicate that I've regarded it as a long-term conversation.

I hope that the grammar lesson didn't clear the room.

[Titan Q]

You've never demonstrated a penchant, as a Top 25 pollster, for speaking in the moment. When talking about teams in the context of the Top 25, you always speak of them based upon whether they look like what you've come to know over the years as Top 25 material in the long view, rather than speaking of what they happen to look like in a right-this-moment snapshot. That's a valid way to approach the poll, and it's one that I happen to agree with.

Just FYI, I respectfully turned in my Top 25 voter privileges to Mr. Coleman this past October.  I didn't think it was right to continue voting when I no longer fall into the categories of D3 S.I.D. or media member.   

The words "right now" in the first sentence initially seem to be a giveaway that D-Mac is still fixated upon this week's ballot, and I'm guessing that, by my quoting his post, this is why you came away with the impression that my response post was speaking in the moment as well.

Correct.  That is exactly why I assumed you were speaking in the moment.

[Gregory Sager]

Just FYI, I respectfully turned in my Top 25 voter privileges to Mr. Coleman this past October.  I didn't think it was right to continue voting when I no longer fall into the categories of D3 S.I.D. or media member.

Hmm, didn't know that. Can I ask if you're actually seeing more D3 games now via the Internet than you were in the past when you were able to see D3 games live? I realize that streaming video is only a partial substitute for actually parking one's butt in a gymnasium's bleachers, but your comment about turning in your pollster card has piqued my curiosity.

[Titan Q]

Just FYI, I respectfully turned in my Top 25 voter privileges to Mr. Coleman this past October.  I didn't think it was right to continue voting when I no longer fall into the categories of D3 S.I.D. or media member.

Hmm, didn't know that. Can I ask if you're actually seeing more D3 games now via the Internet than you were in the past when you were able to see D3 games live? I realize that streaming video is only a partial substitute for actually parking one's butt in a gymnasium's bleachers, but your comment about turning in your pollster card has piqued my curiosity.

Without question.  With the prevalence if live video streaming, I'm "watching" a lot more games than when I was in Bloomington, IL following IWU and the CCIW in-person.     

Time was also a concern when I asked Pat to find a Midwest voter to replace me.  I travel a lot with my current job and was concerned that there would be weeks I would not have the time to do the necessary research to turn in a good ballot.  It takes a lot of time to do that job the right way, and it deserves to be done the right way.

I was just realizing the other day that this would be a really tough year to be a voter...so much parity.  Honestly, I'm not sure there is much separation at all from about #11 down the deep end of ORV.  Heck, I might be able to go even higher with that statement, into the Top 10...who knows.

[magicman]

To get grammatically technical here, D-Mac was speaking in the present perfect progressive tense rather than the present perfect tense. In other words, he was using a present participle ("considering") to describe actions that began at some point in the past and continue through the present.

I hope that the grammar lesson didn't clear the room.

I don't ever remember the nuns teaching me that one in grade school! Or high school either for that matter.

And the grammar lesson didn't clear the room, but it sure cleared up a lot of the confusion.

[augie_superfan]

I would say the human poll almost never mirrors the computer rankings. Massey in particular seems to suffer from WIAC-centric problems, where anyone who plays anyone from the WIAC, or plays someone who plays someone in the WIAC, is inflated. That happens to the point of multiple MIAC teams being highly ranked most years, even though the conference hadn't won a title.

Pat, this is one of the reasons why I started looking into ranking systems becaue I always thought this to be true.  Actually, it isn't neccesarily true.  The basis of Massey's system is that a game score is given for each game that basically equals the opponent's rating(or strength) plus or minus the scoring margin (depending on if you won or lost).

So, half of that equation relies on your opponent which is why I think people thin the WIAC can bring team's rankings up, however, the other part of the equation is the scoring margin.  So, even if they are lsing a lot of games but not getting blown out, they deserve to be ranked close to their opponent.  (Now, if you don't believe this premise then you should just ignore margin-of-victory ranking systems all together instead of just mentally penalizing the MIAC.)

I went and looked at this year's MIAC-WIAC matchups using my ranking system.  Unless I missed one somewhere, I have the WIAC winning 12 of 13 games against the MIAC.  So, I wanted to see if it held true that just by playing the WIAC in these 13 games, the MIAC was getting an undeserved inflation of their rankings.  To do this, I compared the current rankings which should show what the average margin of victory would be if the teams played today.  I then compared what the actual game scores were.  For example, if the rankings showed the WIAC would win a matchup today by 5 points but in reality the actual game score had the WIAC win by 15 points, then I would conclude that the rankings were skewed by 10 points and inflating the MIAC rankings by that much.

When I did this for all 13 games, there is obviously a distribution of overranking and underranking the MIAC team, however the average was -0.4 points per game.  The negative number actually shows that there is a slight underranking of the MIAC in those games.  Another way this can be seen is by taking the average rankings of the WIAC vs. the MIAC teams with weighting for each game so that UW-SP is counted each time for their 3 games vs. the MAIC, etc.

Avg. WIAC ranking = 15.1
Avg. MIAC ranking = 4.7

Avg. Margin = + 10.4
Actual margin = + 10.1

Difference is the MIAC avg ranking being 0.3 points too low....rounding errors lead to the 0.4 or 0.3 numbers.

Now, it is possible for any given season to have inflation/deflation with regards to different opponents.  If you only look at a subset of a team's games (like vs. one conference), it is possible for the overrankings to pile up but so far in this year, there seems to be no MIAC inflation due to their games against WIAC opponents.

[wooscotsfan]

Final: #15 Wooster 70  Oberlin 58

Wooster was led tonight by Josh Claytor with 22 points (10 boards), freshman Xavier Brown with 18 points and freshman Evan Pannell with 16 points.  Wooster is now 11-2 and next plays on 1/11 vs. Hiram.

[Wabash2011]

Wabash over Allegheny 61-47.  Derek Bailey with 32 points for Wabash.  Defense a key for Wabash in the second half.  Also allegheny shot 15- 18 free throws, Wabash 1-3. Hummmmmmm

[nwhoops1903]

#11 Whitworth defeats #16 Puget Sound AT UPS 80-67 in NWC action.  WW remains undeafeated in NWC at 4-0, UPS now 3-1. 

[sac]

#11 Whitworth defeats #16 Puget Sound AT UPS 80-67 in NWC action.  WW remains undeafeated in NWC at 4-0, UPS now 3-1.

The voting masses should know this was one night after a double OT thriller at Pacific Lutheran.

http://www.whitworthpirates.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/stats/m12-plu.htm

[nwhoops1903]

#11 Whitworth defeats #16 Puget Sound AT UPS 80-67 in NWC action.  WW remains undeafeated in NWC at 4-0, UPS now 3-1.

The voting masses should know this was one night after a double OT thriller at Pacific Lutheran.

http://www.whitworthpirates.com/sports/mbkb/2011-12/stats/m12-plu.htm

True,  WW "let" PLU come back late and force the 1st and then missed FT's to "let" PLU force a 2nd.  The 2nd OT was not as tense and WW won.  Pirates show some resilience in Seattle.  Go Bucs!

[littleeastguy]

#24 RIC beats Umass Boston 88-51.
The Anchormen had 14 players score in the game. They play again Tuesday at home vs Southern Maine