Top 25 talk

[smedindy]

Massey used to exclude the NESCAC. I think they're rated that way due to their offense / defense algorithms. Just ignore them.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Massey used to exclude the NESCAC. I think they're rated that way due to their offense / defense algorithms. Just ignore them.

Even if that were true about offense/defense algorithms, how could they compare them to d3 schools when there is ZERO data for comparison purposes.  (That's like saying your intramural team is undefeated with unbelievable stats; therefore they would win the d3 tourney!)  I already ignore him for football (in general, not just NESCAC); if he makes that huge an error for football, should I have any trust in him in basketball?  What other non-data biases does he have?

[smedindy]

I think he's quite accurate actually. It's a rating system, and it's fairly unbiased. I do some comparisons with his D-1 hoops ratings and it's pretty much a decent system comparable to Pomeroy and Sagarin.

Every rating system has its quirks - the NESCAC thing aside - it's a decent system. Football's ALWAYS going to be a bit hard to fairly rate because of the limited data sets - especially with some conferences only having one non-conference game.

Before denigrating, look up the theory:

http://masseyratings.com/theory/index.htm

[smedindy]

BTW, I don't think it's an error, per se. Sagarin does ratings for Indiana HS football and there's one conference that doesn't play anyone else until the state tournament and he slots those teams in as well.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I've studied the theory.  Ranking the NESCAC in football totally violates his theory (appealing to Sagarin doing the same error for Indiana hs teams doesn't change anything).  I have trouble trusting someone who is 'data-driven', yet does rankings when there is ZERO data.  If even one NESCAC team played even one non-con team, that would be data, however tenuous.  But ZERO data?!

[smedindy]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

[Mr. Ypsi]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

Agreed, and when I do check Massey, that is what I do.

But if he can do such a blatant violation of his own theory, can I trust his computations?  (I know he's not, but I can't help thinking of him as an Amherst sophomore! )

[iwumichigander]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

Agreed, and when I do check Massey, that is what I do.

But if he can do such a blatant violation of his own theory, can I trust his computations?  (I know he's not, but I can't help thinking of him as an Amherst sophomore! )

Hum, maybe you can't trust his computations and you obviously don't or should not ... or are u just ticked that you have to remove the NESCAC because Massey doesn't do it for you 

[Mr. Ypsi]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

Agreed, and when I do check Massey, that is what I do.

But if he can do such a blatant violation of his own theory, can I trust his computations?  (I know he's not, but I can't help thinking of him as an Amherst sophomore! )

Hum, maybe you can't trust his computations and you obviously don't or should not ... or are u just ticked that you have to remove the NESCAC because Massey doesn't do it for you 

No, that is a trivial task I can easily do in my head.  But if he can 'rank' teams that provide ZERO data for his supposedly 100% data-driven computations, I can't help but wonder what other shenanigans he may be up to.  I don't necessarily think he is dishonest, but there certainly seems to be some glitch in his algorithm/thinking - does it spill over into other rankings?

[magicman]

I'm kind of confused why some people seem to think the CCIW is "down" or "not up to past standards".  This years .648 win % puts it #7 on that 21 year list, making it in the top 1/3 and frankly above avg.

Are we simply comparing the CCIW to its very best seasons, and isn't that always going to be futile?

I think only Greg is in that camp.  I don't recall seeing anyone else suggest that.  I think the CCIW "is who we thought it was" (shout out to Dennis Green).  Typical year really.

I didn't realize that we had established "camps" here, Bob. If there's any camps involved here, they consist of these two: Your opinion and mine.

There is selection bias here at work, which I freely admit. In terms of the post-Carroll CCIW, the '90s were markedly down by comparison, the '00s were markedly up, and this decade seems to be in the middle, more or less. So the selection bias really comes down to how many previous seasons you want to lump in with the current one (or the past two or three) in order to make an evaluation.

The CCIW's current problem - in terms of overall strength - is what's happening at North Park and Elmhurst.  The programs at NPU and EC are not in great shape right now...althouth NPU has a new coach with a strong track record at Anderson, and Elmhurst's Mark Scherer has had a lot of good CCIW seasons in the past.

I painfully agree about NPU and Elmhurst. Can't deny it, as the 'jays have gone 4-7, 6-5, 5-6, and 5-6 in non-con play over the past four years, while NPU's gone 4-7, 5-6, 7-4, and 6-5 over that span.

In North Central, Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Augustana, the CCIW really has four extremely strong "anchor" programs at the present time - each of these programs is poised to be good year after year.  Carthage is a good, solid 5th program.  Millikin plays 10 freshman this year and seems to have brighter days ahead under Matt Nadelhoffer, who is working his tail off to build the Big Blue.

Carthage has had its struggles over the past couple of years, going 11-11 in non-con play over that time. Since the Red Men will return zero bigs next season, the jury's out as to whether they will be "good, solid" next season, too. And let's not overplay Millikin's success just yet. It's true that the Big Blue are markedly better than they've been (which isn't saying much), and they definitely have a talented freshman class. But it's still a long ways away from being a healthy program, recordwise, and the jury has to remain out until we see just how many of those frosh return to campus in Decatur next fall.

I'm really surprised at you Greg. Aren't you putting quite a few words in Pat's mouth here. The funny thing is, where you end up, if you click on the quotes attributed to Mr. Coleman.   Time to use your super powers and make some corrections.  

[Greek Tragedy]

Can we even consider the MIAC a top 10 conference?

Oh, I would probably say so but I have fastidiously avoided thinking about how we would rank conferences subjectively because it's such a massive undertaking to rank 80-some leagues.

I guess I can't poo-poo too much on the MIAC.  Taking a quick look, I might have missed a game, they were 7-7 against the WIAC.

You may now return to your NESCAC football talk. 

[Darryl Nester]

How They Fared (So Far)

Top 25

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#1	623	Rochester	18-0	02/01 at New York University; 02/03 at #25 Brandeis
#2	566	St. Thomas	19-1	won at Carleton, 74-52; 02/02 at Augsburg
#3	560	Whitworth	18-1	02/01 vs. Lewis and Clark; 02/02 vs. Pacific
#4	551	WPI	20-0	won at Babson, 66-43; 02/02 vs. Coast Guard
#5	528	UW-Stevens Point	18-3	LOST at UW-Platteville, 46-54; 02/02 at UW-La Crosse
#6	464	Middlebury	17-1	def. Keene State, 81-53; 02/01 at Bowdoin; 02/02 at Colby
#7	439	North Central (Ill.)	17-3	def. Carthage, 60-52; 02/02 vs. Elmhurst
#8	436	Wooster	18-2	def. Denison, 94-64; 02/02 at Wabash
#9	394	Williams	18-2	won at Southern Vermont, 93-45; 02/01 at Colby; 02/02 at Bowdoin
#10	378	Amherst	18-2	won at #18 Rhode Island College, 74-65; 02/01 vs. Bates; 02/02 vs. Tufts
#11	353	Catholic	18-2	def. Juniata, 62-53; 02/02 vs. Drew
#12	351	Illinois Wesleyan	17-3	won at #26 Augustana, 71-65; 02/02 vs. #20 Wheaton (Ill.)
#13	320	Ramapo	19-2	def. Montclair State, 75-58; 02/02 vs. Rowan
#14	299	St. Mary's (Md.)	19-2	def. #24 Wesley, 74-63
#15	285	UW-Whitewater	16-4	def. UW-La Crosse, 71-63; 02/02 vs. #29 St. Norbert
#16	247	Christopher Newport	15-2	02/02 vs. Greensboro
#17	230	Calvin	18-2	def. Albion, 83-63; 02/02 vs. Kalamazoo
#18	206	Rhode Island College	16-3	LOST to #10 Amherst, 65-74; 01/31 at Clark; 02/02 at Mass-Boston
#19	186	Hampden-Sydney	18-2	def. T#45 Lynchburg, 81-70; 02/02 at Washington and Lee
#20	128	Wheaton (Ill.)	16-4	won at North Park, 82-70; 02/02 at #12 Illinois Wesleyan
#21	114	Washington U.	14-4	02/01 vs. Carnegie Mellon; 02/03 vs. Case Western Reserve
#22	108	Transylvania	16-4	won at Earlham, 82-45; 02/02 vs. #23 Rose-Hulman
#23	100	Rose-Hulman	18-2	won at Anderson, 71-40; 02/02 at #22 Transylvania
#24	45	Wesley	16-5	LOST at #14 St. Mary's (Md.), 63-74; 02/02 vs. Frostburg State
#25	37	Brandeis	14-4	02/01 vs. #30 Emory; 02/03 vs. #1 Rochester

Others receiving votes

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
#26	24	Augustana	15-5	LOST to #12 Illinois Wesleyan, 65-71; 02/02 vs. Carthage
T#27	22	Albertus Magnus	18-2	def. Emmanuel, 93-82; 01/31 at Suffolk; 02/02 at Rivier
T#27	22	MIT	15-4	def. Wheaton (Mass.), 70-57; 02/02 vs. Springfield
#29	21	St. Norbert	15-3	def. Lawrence, 68-54; 02/02 at #15 UW-Whitewater
#30	13	Emory	13-4	02/01 at #25 Brandeis; 02/03 at New York University
#31	11	Stevens	16-3	def. Hartwick, 62-55; 02/01 vs. Utica
T#32	9	Albright	17-3	won at T#45 Alvernia, 57-54; 02/02 vs. Lebanon Valley
T#32	9	Ohio Wesleyan	15-4	def. Wittenberg, 63-51; 02/02 vs. Oberlin
#34	7	UW-Stout	16-4	def. UW-Superior, 92-78; 02/02 vs. UW-Platteville
#35	6	Carroll	13-5	LOST at Ripon, 62-65; 02/02 vs. Cornell
T#36	5	DeSales	16-4	LOST at Delaware Valley, 71-74; 02/02 at Misericordia
T#36	5	Randolph	17-3	won at Emory and Henry, 71-44; 02/02 vs. Eastern Mennonite
T#38	4	Richard Stockton	15-5	LOST at New Jersey City, 50-60; 02/02 at Montclair State
T#38	4	Mary Hardin-Baylor	17-3	won at Concordia (Texas), 94-81; 01/31 at Hardin-Simmons
T#38	4	Adrian	15-5	LOST at Hope, 53-67; 02/02 at Trine
T#41	2	Centre	14-3	02/01 at Oglethorpe; 02/03 at Berry
T#41	2	Lycoming	14-6	won at Messiah, 67-66; 02/02 vs. Stevenson
T#41	2	Cortland State	15-3	def. Brockport State, 85-75; 02/01 at Fredonia State; 02/02 at Buffalo State
T#41	2	Virginia Wesleyan	13-6	LOST to Randolph-Macon, 65-68; 02/02 vs. Emory and Henry
T#45	1	Alvernia	15-4	LOST to T#32 Albright, 54-57; 02/02 vs. Elizabethtown
T#45	1	SUNY-Old Westbury	17-3	def. Mount St. Vincent, 72-71; 01/31 vs. Mount St. Mary; 02/02 vs. Yeshiva
T#45	1	Lynchburg	16-4	LOST at #19 Hampden-Sydney, 70-81; 02/02 vs. Randolph-Macon

Other teams to watch (as suggested by posters on this board)

Rank	Pts	Team	W-L	Results
---	---	Concordia (Texas)	15-5	LOST to T#38 Mary Hardin-Baylor, 81-94; 02/02 at Hardin-Simmons

[KnightSlappy]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

Agreed, and when I do check Massey, that is what I do.

But if he can do such a blatant violation of his own theory, can I trust his computations?  (I know he's not, but I can't help thinking of him as an Amherst sophomore! )

Hum, maybe you can't trust his computations and you obviously don't or should not ... or are u just ticked that you have to remove the NESCAC because Massey doesn't do it for you 

No, that is a trivial task I can easily do in my head.  But if he can 'rank' teams that provide ZERO data for his supposedly 100% data-driven computations, I can't help but wonder what other shenanigans he may be up to.  I don't necessarily think he is dishonest, but there certainly seems to be some glitch in his algorithm/thinking - does it spill over into other rankings?

I'm obviously not a D3 football guy (didn't know it existed until this thread ), but he does include weighted historical results as part of his preseason ratings (they get damped out as the season progresses). I'm assuming that a NESCAC team plays in the playoffs, so there's at least one data point to go off of. That's probably how his system ties them in.

Does the NESCAC champ fare well in the playoffs usually?

[AO]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

Agreed, and when I do check Massey, that is what I do.

But if he can do such a blatant violation of his own theory, can I trust his computations?  (I know he's not, but I can't help thinking of him as an Amherst sophomore! )

Hum, maybe you can't trust his computations and you obviously don't or should not ... or are u just ticked that you have to remove the NESCAC because Massey doesn't do it for you 

No, that is a trivial task I can easily do in my head.  But if he can 'rank' teams that provide ZERO data for his supposedly 100% data-driven computations, I can't help but wonder what other shenanigans he may be up to.  I don't necessarily think he is dishonest, but there certainly seems to be some glitch in his algorithm/thinking - does it spill over into other rankings?

I'm obviously not a D3 football guy (didn't know it existed until this thread ), but he does include weighted historical results as part of his ratings (they get damped out as the season progresses). I'm assuming that a NESCAC team plays in the playoffs, so there's at least one data point to go off of. That's probably how his system ties them in.

Does the NESCAC champ fare well in the playoffs usually?

fun fact:  The NESCAC and UMAC have the same number of playoff football wins.

[KnightSlappy]

I don't understand why just removing the NESCAC from the rankings changes anything. Since they're not connected, just remove them and adjust the rankings upward? Not so hard at all!

Agreed, and when I do check Massey, that is what I do.

But if he can do such a blatant violation of his own theory, can I trust his computations?  (I know he's not, but I can't help thinking of him as an Amherst sophomore! )

Hum, maybe you can't trust his computations and you obviously don't or should not ... or are u just ticked that you have to remove the NESCAC because Massey doesn't do it for you 

No, that is a trivial task I can easily do in my head.  But if he can 'rank' teams that provide ZERO data for his supposedly 100% data-driven computations, I can't help but wonder what other shenanigans he may be up to.  I don't necessarily think he is dishonest, but there certainly seems to be some glitch in his algorithm/thinking - does it spill over into other rankings?

I'm obviously not a D3 football guy (didn't know it existed until this thread ), but he does include weighted historical results as part of his ratings (they get damped out as the season progresses). I'm assuming that a NESCAC team plays in the playoffs, so there's at least one data point to go off of. That's probably how his system ties them in.

Does the NESCAC champ fare well in the playoffs usually?

fun fact:  The NESCAC and UMAC have the same number of playoff football wins.

Do they not play in the playoffs, or are they just bad when they get there? Again, I'm not even convinced D3 football really exists.