Top 25 talk

[WUPHF]

One plus I did notice for Wash U is what looks to be a pretty solid recruiting class.. Hopefully some of those kids can fill some minutes...

Have you ever seen David Schmelter from SLUH play? 

[stag44]

Would love to hear any thoughts on where Claremont-Mudd-Scripps fell on ballots and how people are thinking about the SCIAC Teams (CMS and Chapman) - great to see them getting some love from the voters in the preseason!

[Gregory Sager]

I don't like that method of filling out a ballot, but I can certainly understand it. What I would hope, however, is that the pollsters would be quick to throw out that preseason ballot and start over again from scratch every week for the first few weeks of the season. Pat and I have had an argument off and on for the past fifteen years about the wisdom of having early-season polls at all. While I agree that a preseason poll is a good public relations device, and that having one has probably helped to cement d3hoops.com's reputation as the definitive and most authoritative source of information about NCAA Division III basketball, the truth of the matter is that the preseason poll often ends up becoming a template upon which pollsters base their first in-season poll, rather than sticking to actual results (because, of course, the database of actual results is so limited at that point). Then, of course, the pollsters base the second in-season poll upon the first, which means that it, too, is tainted by the now-thoroughly-obsolete preseason poll. We're generally deep into the season by the time that the preseason-poll effect is finally nullified.

A year like this, in which the preseason poll invites so much skepticism, is a recipe for disaster for the usefulness of the first few in-season polls -- unless, as I said, the pollsters do the smart thing by throwing out the preseason poll entirely and starting all over once the regular season begins.

I don't necessarily throw my preseason ballot out and start fresh early in the season for this reason: I need a base to work from. Doing the pre-season poll is a very, very time consuming process - even more this year with so much out there that makes no sense. I can't do that kind of work each and every week for the first few weeks. If I were to throw out my ballot and introduce 50-75 teams to consider... I would rather watch paint dry.

That being said, I am more than willing to gut parts of it that I was clearly not right or had the right information. I don't hold fast to the ballot and hold fast to pre-season thoughts if what on the court is proving otherwise. I also don't hold fast each and ever week. I have pointed out that I tend to blow up my ballot at least three times a year (sometimes as few as two - or semi-blow it up on several occasions) because I am trapped in a situation where my ballot is ditacting things I am no longer seeing in reality.

Now... I will say this... I know about 10 to 15 of the voters (never ask, just happen to find out on most occasions)... and I have very interesting conversations with each of them throughout the year, but not every week. I know there are differing opinions on a lot of teams and this preseason ballot is a very interesting one compared to other ballots I have seen. What gets me is sometimes I think voters are stuck in their ways and not willing to look outside the box. I have no proof, but I think some of the teams on the pre-season ballot are FAR too high and others too low and others not even being considered... because voters won't change off a strange mindset. However, I am one voter - one voice - and I am in no way saying voters have to think more like me or others... I just wish some would think in a more grand scale.

Your third paragraph pretty much gets at what I've suspected, and the specific concern that I voiced yesterday, D-Mac.

[sac]

Someone (or someone's) voted for a 20-8 Wittenberg team that loses 3 of it top 4 scorers and were given a swift first round NCAA exit to Calvin, by 15.


I think that's thinking outside the box.

[John Gleich]

John,

I don't understand your logic. Those examples were from last year. From what Point lost and what Whitewater lost, along with the 2 recruits Point brought in, compared to what Whitewater added, Point's going to have a big drop off this year. I haven't looked closely to see what other teams in the WIAC are doing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone other than Point in 2nd place come February.

Now to contradict my pessimistic feelings this year...

Point is the two-time defending WIAC champ and the WIAC tournament champ and has had Whitewater's number (to the tune of 8 in a row dating back to the WIAC tournament in 2010, the last time UWSP hoisted the Walnut and Bronze) and 9 of the last 10 (SP won 2/3 match-ups last season).

I get that Whitewater has lots back, but it isn't everybody. They lost 61% of their "starts," 49% of their minutes, 44% of their points, 38% of their rebounds, 46% of their steals, and 47% of their assists.

(No, I'm not willing do do these calculations for UWSP)

WW does return 2 starters, who were major contributors (#1 and #4 scorer) but lost scorer's 2, 3, and 5. It isn't simply automatic that the remaining pieces will be able to slot in and fill those voids... and even WITH the voids, WW hasn't had success against Point.
/Pointer Spin

In terms of places in the conference... look at history. The future isn't determined by past results, but SP has finished outside of the top two in the WIAC just once since 1999-2000. That season (05-06) they were just two games out of first. Every other season, UW Stevens Point has either tied for the conference title or ended the regular season one game back.

Let me repeat that. With the exception of one year in the last 14, UWSP has never been further than 1 game back at the end of the regular season and they boast 10 conference titles (3 2nd, 1 3rd). Add 3 National Titles and 12 NCAA appearances during the span.

Whitewater hasn't been quite as dominant, but they've been darn close.

WW has 5 conference titles (5 2nd, 2 3rd, 1 4th, 1 8th). Add 2 National Titles and 7 NCAA appearances.

The rest of the conference has combined for 3 conference titles (one outright and 2 shared). Depending how you define second place, (first team after the champions/co-champs), there are more "second place," especially because ties happen a lot in a 16 game conference schedule, with 9 combined NCAA tournament appearances.

Do I think Point is going to go undefeated? By no means. This team will have some growing pains. They're ranked too high right now. I wouldn't rank them higher than 15 or 20. But I can't rationalize too many teams to put in front of them and I think they'll be in the mix for an NCAA tournament bid when the selection comes around.

I'm also not 100% sold on Whitewater. The pieces that they lost may not have had the scoring ability of K. J. Evans or the speed of Quardell Young, but they were solid players who defended hard and took care of the ball. This isn't to say that I think the cabinet is bare for Whitewater, not by any stretch of the imagination. But there's a reason why Merg and Bryson started for several years. They brought a lot to the table.

Dave,

To call Point young and rebuilding may be inaccurate. Point returns two senior starters in Ritchay and Ryf, along with senior Alex Richard (14+ min a game) and junior Stephen Pelkofer (20 mpg). Lastly both senior Jordan Lutz and junior Sean McCann averaged over 11 minutes a game. So Point could potentially start 4 seniors and 1 junior. You usually don't rebuild with 4 senior starters and a junior.

So whether or not Point is a Top 25 team at the end of the year remains to be seen, but I agree with you now, they aren't in October.

Point doesn't have a lot of apparent firepower. If you look at two years ago when Tillema went down, there weren't too many players who stepped up, and it was often a 3-man show last year.

But this is a new year and players are going to HAVE to step up. I guess there's a chance that they won't... but that would be atypical for 1) seniors and 2) players at UWSP in general when they're called upon.

[Pat Coleman]

UWSP lost 62% of its points, 45% of its rebounds, 49% of its assists. Six players back who averaged 10 or more minutes, although only two starters back.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

There's just not a single team this year where you know what you're gonna get.  Augustana is the best bet because they're the same team, but that team wasn't exactly consistent last year.

Even when you find a team bringing lots of guys back, the one they lose turns out to be an All-American or something.

You see all these seemingly big transfers coming in, but you never really know how they'll play.

Should be a fun season.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Someone (or someone's) voted for a 20-8 Wittenberg team that loses 3 of it top 4 scorers and were given a swift first round NCAA exit to Calvin, by 15.


I think that's thinking outside the box.

Actually... I would say that is not thinking outside the box. They voted for a team that always gets votes... they aren't giving that spot on the ballot to a team that maybe deserves it, but because they don't have the pedigree of Witt... the voter doesn't think they deserve it. That's not looking at the grand scale. (Watch, it will end up being voters I respect and I will have egg on my face...)

I have seen it often... and while this isn't a fair comparison, I keep an eye on all rankings in most Division III sports... in field hockey, Messiah has been getting votes despite now being 9-6 overall and 3-2 in the conference... but for some reason, some Top 20 coaches insist on giving them votes... they don't deserve them... but they get them anyway.

[AndOne]

The facts that Dave points out in the 1st paragraph of the above post is the strongest possible evidence of the folly of pre-season polls.
"They voted for a team that always gets votes." Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
"The pedigree of___________." Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

This seems both stupid as well as wrong. It begs the question of why someone who votes for a team that "always gets votes," or has "a pedigree" is included on the panel?

Someone even voted Illinois Wesleyan as the #1 team. 
Because they always got votes? Because they have a pedigree?

[KnightSlappy]

The facts that Dave points out in the 1st paragraph of the above post is the strongest possible evidence of the folly of pre-season polls.
"They voted for a team that always gets votes." Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
"The pedigree of___________." Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

This seems both stupid as well as wrong.

Voting for a team with a pedigree of success is probably a good use of bayesian reasoning.

Everyone has question marks and everyone has holes to fill. Who's more likely to fill those holes with quality players? The ones that do it year after year. Is that always the case? No. But voters have very little to go on right now.

Some argue that this is reason to not have preseason poll, but if the point is nothing more than entertainment value, then why not have it?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Just as long as one is not wedded to the concept once contrary evidence accumulates, I see absolutely nothing wrong with voting (partially) on reputation in the pre-season and early season polls.  Some teams are consistenty high up at the end, regardless of what they look like on paper in the early going.  Such teams as Williams, Wooster, UWSP, IWU, etc. are simply good bets to high spots when there simply is no other concrete information.

[AndOne]

But you can't vote for a team partially. its a whole vote or nothing. You can give 1/2 a vote. And as far as IWU, you would think people would know they lost Ziemnik and Davis, each of whom is a big loss and together a HUGE loss. A team with great guard play, a vast unknown at the forward(s) and a marginal center is not the #4 team in the country-at least not going in. As far as the person who voted them #1, not only out to lunch, but out to dinner too.

[smedindy]

No one really knows anything about any team until we get through December....

[sac]

I will try to be better at noting my sarcasm.

(Witt kept getting ranked last year when they probably shouldn't have and lost much from that team)

[Gregory Sager]

The facts that Dave points out in the 1st paragraph of the above post is the strongest possible evidence of the folly of pre-season polls.
"They voted for a team that always gets votes." Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
"The pedigree of___________." Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

This seems both stupid as well as wrong.

Voting for a team with a pedigree of success is probably a good use of bayesian reasoning.

Over the past 24 hours there's been a reference to Simpson's paradox and a reference to Bayesian probability here on d3boards.com, from two different posters.

Tell me that there's a chatroom for D1 fans anywhere in this fair land of ours in which something like that will ever happen.

Bicipites hominum matrum terra grata.