Top 25 talk

[sac]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

[Pat Coleman]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

[sac]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

except its not 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

IWU fell 11 spots in my poll... I hit the cushion with them because I didn't feel comfortable with others above them. I have said they would have fallen out if I had teams I would have put ahead of them. I indeed put NCC ahead of them. That is me having the same argument that they should have beaten NCC as I have with Hope needing to be Wooster. However, I also ranked NCC for the first time this week based on that win over IWU - probably cushioning IWU from falling any further as well (if NCC wasn't ranked at all, I would have had a hard time justifying IWU staying in my poll).

The difference is this: IWU was in my poll and fell the most of all the teams in it (without falling out)... but they landed on a cushion. Hope wasn't in my poll and needed to make a stronger argument (as a result) to get into the poll. Yes, it benefits the team already in the poll, but they were there for a reason and Hope wasn't prior to this week's poll.

[Pat Coleman]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

except its not 

In your opinion.

[sac]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

except its not 

In your opinion.

You guys are a trip sometimes, your own words says its not.

[Pat Coleman]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

except its not 

In your opinion.

You guys are a trip sometimes, your own words says its not.

I don't know why you are arguing with me, seeing that I agree with you on IWU. Is there a point, sac, or are you just here to argue with everyone?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

except its not 

In your opinion.

You guys are a trip sometimes, your own words says its not.

I don't know why you are arguing with me, seeing that I agree with you on IWU. Is there a point, sac, or are you just here to argue with everyone?

He didn't argue with me (or maybe he just missed my post in the midst of the morass).

[Pat Coleman]

Going to boil it down for you here: Oshkosh didn't beat a playoff team and lost to four good teams so the principle "proved you can lose" aka "not who you lost to, it's who you beat" is valid to use when debating Oshkosh's playoff candidacy.

Illinois Wesleyan hasn't beaten a Top 25 team and has lost to a bunch of good teams so the principle "proved you can lose" aka "not who you lost to, it's who you beat" is valid to use when debating IWU's Top 25 candidacy.

I see a parallel.

[sac]

I didn't vote for IWU based on that fact, but I can see why people might.

As someone pointed out when talking about UW-Oshkosh in football: They've proven to us they can lose to a good team. Now we need to see them win.

But they did win, over one of your ranked teams and the other team hasn't.

So its not like Oshkosh.

Well, except sac, we were talking about the playoffs for Oshkosh and not the Top 25. After all, Oshkosh was in the Top 25. The principle is exactly the same.

except its not 

In your opinion.

You guys are a trip sometimes, your own words says its not.

I don't know why you are arguing with me, seeing that I agree with you on IWU. Is there a point, sac, or are you just here to argue with everyone?

He didn't argue with me (or maybe he just missed my post in the midst of the morass).

Keep telling me Wittenberg is good.

Going to boil it down for you here: Oshkosh didn't beat a playoff team and lost to four good teams so the principle "proved you can lose" aka "not who you lost to, it's who you beat" is valid to use when debating Oshkosh's playoff candidacy.

Illinois Wesleyan hasn't beaten a Top 25 team and has lost to a bunch of good teams so the principle "proved you can lose" aka "not who you lost to, it's who you beat" is valid to use when debating IWU's Top 25 candidacy.

I see a parallel.

Well then the problem here is I thought you were talking about Hope.

.......but your words still say its not like Oshkosh.

[sac]

IWU fell 11 spots in my poll... I hit the cushion with them because I didn't feel comfortable with others above them. I have said they would have fallen out if I had teams I would have put ahead of them. I indeed put NCC ahead of them. That is me having the same argument that they should have beaten NCC as I have with Hope needing to be Wooster. However, I also ranked NCC for the first time this week based on that win over IWU - probably cushioning IWU from falling any further as well (if NCC wasn't ranked at all, I would have had a hard time justifying IWU staying in my poll).

The difference is this: IWU was in my poll and fell the most of all the teams in it (without falling out)... but they landed on a cushion. Hope wasn't in my poll and needed to make a stronger argument (as a result) to get into the poll. Yes, it benefits the team already in the poll, but they were there for a reason and Hope wasn't prior to this week's poll.

Here's the problem I have with this Dave.

You say you looked at Hope's record and dismissed them because they have 4 losses.  Why not the same dismissal of 4 loss IWU?  If you continue to rank them then you are in fact continuing a pre-season bias, yet you stated you have none.

I would think at this point in the voting year you would place two 4 loss teams side by side, in which case I don't see how you (or anyone) can justify IWU in the poll or above Hope.  It doesn't mesh.

[Pat Coleman]

Well then the problem here is I thought you were talking about Hope.

Well, perhaps you should be careful about who you lump in together. That would be like saying all Hope fans are argumentative about minor points.

.......but your words still say its not like Oshkosh.

It's not like Oshkosh? Explain to me how, rather than just stating the negative over and over.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

IWU fell 11 spots in my poll... I hit the cushion with them because I didn't feel comfortable with others above them. I have said they would have fallen out if I had teams I would have put ahead of them. I indeed put NCC ahead of them. That is me having the same argument that they should have beaten NCC as I have with Hope needing to be Wooster. However, I also ranked NCC for the first time this week based on that win over IWU - probably cushioning IWU from falling any further as well (if NCC wasn't ranked at all, I would have had a hard time justifying IWU staying in my poll).

The difference is this: IWU was in my poll and fell the most of all the teams in it (without falling out)... but they landed on a cushion. Hope wasn't in my poll and needed to make a stronger argument (as a result) to get into the poll. Yes, it benefits the team already in the poll, but they were there for a reason and Hope wasn't prior to this week's poll.

Here's the problem I have with this Dave.

You say you looked at Hope's record and dismissed them because they have 4 losses.  Why not the same dismissal of 4 loss IWU?  If you continue to rank them then you are in fact continuing a pre-season bias, yet you stated you have none.

I would think at this point in the voting year you would place two 4 loss teams side by side, in which case I don't see how you (or anyone) can justify IWU in the poll or above Hope.  It doesn't mesh.

I've answered this three times, at least. Please go back and read my answers before trying to dig for more. I did compare... and I told you why IWU was left in the poll and Hope was left off the poll.

[sac]

Well then the problem here is I thought you were talking about Hope.

Well, perhaps you should be careful about who you lump in together. That would be like saying all Hope fans are argumentative about minor points.

.......but your words still say its not like Oshkosh.

It's not like Oshkosh? Explain to me how, rather than just stating the negative over and over.

its underlined and bolded

[Pat Coleman]

In both cases, I am talking about a team's candidacy for a group by comparing them to the members of the group.

If the fact that one group is "football playoff teams" and the other is "basketball Top 25 teams" is exclusionary for you, then I guess I can't help you there. Seems like a fair comparison.