Top 25 talk

[Titan Q]

I'll preface this by saying, usually it doesn't matter what I write in response. I have found with many people on these boards they rather just tell me I am wrong than listen to my point of view - the view of one single voter. I do these blogs because they provide me a chance to do my homework in even more detail and really think through my decisions as a voter. I appreciate that you don't have to agree with me just as I don't have to agree with you (being generic here), but I find it rather surprising how many people would rather tell me I am wrong and tell me how to vote than anything else. Just needed to get that off my chest, please don't take it personally.

Dave, when you publish a public blog, tweet it out, and post it here, I think it's fair to say you are inviting reactions and opinions.  I can only speak for myself, but I'm certainly not trying to attack you...I'm just posting my opinions to things you have said publicly.  Just debating the Top 25...on the "Top 25 talk" board.

That may seem like a great political-style one-liner, but if that was truly the case and I was voting on simply traditional perceptions... you could argue Benedictine would not be in my Top 25 let alone knocking on the door of the Top 5. That statement borders on hyperbole that may sound great, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

I wasn't trying to make a political-style one-liner at all.  I was just posting what I thought was happening in saying, "It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16."

First, there is a 14-0 team with a win over #2 that you say you probably can't move them higher than #6...which I guess I don't understand.  Second, you've recently made a some comments (on the CCIW board I think) about still factoring in your preseason thoughts about Benedictine in making your ballot.  I think my comment was at least fair speculation.

[sac]

masseyratings.com seems to have done ok with last years Final Four teams.

#1  Stevens Point
#2  Augustana
#3  Va Wesleyan
#9  Babson

If anyone is interested in my Top 25 blog for this week, here it is: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/01/12/daves-top-25-ballot-week-5-4/

We have had some technical issues the last few weeks that we at least found a temporary solution to.

Thanks for posting, Dave.  I do have some questions on your Benedictine comments...


"Benedictine is clearly a good team, but in a sub-par conference. They clearly have gotten it done out of conference (five games, five opponents from the CCIW)."

* With wins at #2 Elmhurst and at #25 North Central - probably a better 2-win combo than any of the 5 teams you ranked ahead of Benedictine have - why does the strength of BU's conference matter? 
-----

Hope has some good wins especially if I look outside of Division III which in the past posters have felt I should do more often. Furthermore, you say they have a win over #25 NCC based on the overall poll, but I haven't ranked NCC as of yet (I want to see how they do this week) and thus that win doesn't hold as much weight. It holds weight, but not as much. I appreciate that Benedictine may have "more" in those two wins than Whitworth (who beat Calvin in a game I called and now Whitman who is also ranked), but feel Whitworth is a deeper team with more weapons on the floor at any given time. I have also seen St. Thomas (called one of their games as well) and feel the Tommies wins over Emory (while not as strong as in the past), UWSP, and Bethel (now - not before I voted last time) are more significant.

Hope's best 4 wins using massey
Aquinas       #548
UWSP          #720
LaCrosse     #747
Albion          #787

Benedictine's best 4 wins
Elmhurst           #336
North Central   #464
Aurora              #643
Ill. Wesleyan    #774

[Greek Tragedy]

Hopefully last thought on the whole high school suspension. 5 games is a complete overreaction to a tweet. The school said that the WIAA basically said, "do something about it," while the WIAA denies that.

The argument isn't that the regulations aren't new, the amended additions of what can and can't be said is new, I believe. It's ridiculous that you can't yell things such as "scoreboard," "we can't hear you," "your season's over"...those chants aren't even directed at one person. And even chants like, "airball," "fundamentals, " and "sieve" are hardly mean-spirited.

Yes, it's probably the parents and adults that we need to focus on, not a bunch of students having fun.

My point of posting the controversy wasn't even about the girl getting suspended, it was what was being banned.

[KnightSlappy]

Dave, Thank you for taking the time to share your ballot and your thought process. I think everyone appreciates that!

[HOPEful]

Dave, Thank you for taking the time to share your ballot and your thought process. I think everyone appreciates that!

Seconded! Although i have disagreed many a time with said thought process, I have always respected being able to question, banter, and even debate your votes.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I'll preface this by saying, usually it doesn't matter what I write in response. I have found with many people on these boards they rather just tell me I am wrong than listen to my point of view - the view of one single voter. I do these blogs because they provide me a chance to do my homework in even more detail and really think through my decisions as a voter. I appreciate that you don't have to agree with me just as I don't have to agree with you (being generic here), but I find it rather surprising how many people would rather tell me I am wrong and tell me how to vote than anything else. Just needed to get that off my chest, please don't take it personally.

Dave, when you publish a public blog, tweet it out, and post it here, I think it's fair to say you are inviting reactions and opinions.  I can only speak for myself, but I'm certainly not trying to attack you...I'm just posting my opinions to things you have said publicly.  Just debating the Top 25...on the "Top 25 talk" board.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate debate and I take the thoughts of others, like yourselves, very much into consideration when I consider my ballot each week. However, there are some - and I am certainly not pointing my finger at you - that will just yell and scream at me because I am not voting how they feel and won't actually listen to my point of view... just blast me for it. The comment was per those who are in that camp that no matter what I was about to write I was wrong.

I understand that by blogging and tweeting I am inviting reactions and opinions, that is fine. However, I am not inviting people to tell me I am wrong and don't know what I am doing. That is a completely different tract.

That may seem like a great political-style one-liner, but if that was truly the case and I was voting on simply traditional perceptions... you could argue Benedictine would not be in my Top 25 let alone knocking on the door of the Top 5. That statement borders on hyperbole that may sound great, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

I wasn't trying to make a political-style one-liner at all.  I was just posting what I thought was happening in saying, "It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16."

First, there is a 14-0 team with a win over #2 that you say you probably can't move them higher than #6...which I guess I don't understand.  Second, you've recently made a some comments (on the CCIW board I think) about still factoring in your preseason thoughts about Benedictine in making your ballot.  I think my comment was at least fair speculation.

My comments about the preseason were not that I was factoring them in and those comments were made several weeks ago, if memory serves. My comments were that in the preseason I wasn't even considering them and didn't think they would have a stand out year. Per the fact I was coming from a completely blind area with them, it took me a little longer to understand what they were doing and buy in. I had done research on 50 or more teams in the preseason. I had gotten to know, to the best of my abilities, a lot of teams. Benedictine was not one of them. As a result of that, I had to get up to speed on them and that took some time considering I was a little surprised. I am not voting based on the fact that they were not in my preseason poll or on my radar. I highly suspect three-quarters of my current Top 25 was not on my preseason poll and probably at least a third (though, I might be off) were not part of the group I researched at the beginning of the season.

Again, that isn't saying I am voting for or against them per my preseason expectations or information. It is just to explain where I was coming from when starting to look at them more seriously.

There are two other undefeated squads I don't have on my ballot, yet the one I have sixth in the country - which, let's be honest is pretty damn good no matter who the team is - is getting a ton of attention because I don't have them fifth, fourth, maybe first? There is only one voter who has them first and I suspect there is someone who has them tenth while everyone else has them in the 4-6 range (based on their points and average points). It seems I am right there on the median for them, so I don't get why everyone would be upset.

It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16.

That may seem like a great political-style one-liner, but if that was truly the case and I was voting on simply traditional perceptions... you could argue Benedictine would not be in my Top 25 let alone knocking on the door of the Top 5. That statement borders on hyperbole that may sound great, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

I have quibbles with several other of your replies to Q, but this one burned me up.  As you know (since you posted supporting me) I also believe that 'tradition' (especially continuity in great coaching, institutional support, etc.) is and should be a factor in voting, I'm shocked that you would accuse Q of being the one to use hyperbole and 'a great political-style one-liner' in this exchange.  Anyone who would even mention Benedictine not being in the top 25 is not engaging in 'history'; they are down Alice's 'rabbit-hole'.  Talk about hyperbole!

And it is rather silly to talk about their weak conference when conference games have barely begun (and they went 5-0 against the CCIW, which is rarely called a 'weak conference').  Personally, I suspect they will sweep and go 25-0 entering the tourney (or 26, or 27, or whatever), but since nearly every team stumbles at some point, so what?

I am NOT a Benedictine fan (in fact, since they've beaten IWU two years in a row, I'm becoming a 'hater'! ), but based on THIS year's evidence, I think it is incontrovertible that you ARE thinking on traditional grounds.

A) If you think I was being serious that I wouldn't be voting for them because they are in the NACC, you are nuts. I was using an extreme point of view, a bit of hyperbole, to point out why I thought the comment was ridiculous. I am not in anyway, shape, or form voting in such a manner. Clearly. I have them sixth. Yes, I do consider tradition, historic team consistency, etc. is at play and maybe that is why Bob and others don't like the fact I have them sixth. I am comfortable with them with ALL the information I have including how they have done traditionally to have them sixth. My comment about the fact a loss in conference will raise more questions is per the fact that traditionally they don't dominate the NACC. I used a hyperbole type comment to point out why I thought the comment to me was on the same par. I am not making the comment because that is how I am actually voting or would ever vote.

B) I don't think there is ANY evidence that I am thinking on traditional grounds. They are SIXTH on my ballot. That is right about where they are averaging on EVERYONE'S ballots. I know for a FACT there are those voting in the same general area as me with the exact same thinking. It isn't incorrect thinking. But you are all up in arms about this, but you aren't up in arms about other teams this year or in the past. I don't understand why you think this needs to be your bailiwick.

C) I agree that it might not matter if they stumble, but I was just stating what is going on in my mind. I am looking for more information about them and a loss would make it more challenging to understand them. I expected Augustana, and to be honest pretty much everyone, to lose this season. That doesn't mean a bad loss isn't something to be concerned about. That doesn't mean a loss to one team rather than another won't be confusing. That's all I am saying.

masseyratings.com seems to have done ok with last years Final Four teams.

#1  Stevens Point
#2  Augustana
#3  Va Wesleyan
#9  Babson

I'd be more interested in where Massey had those four teams prior to the tournament starting. I can't seem to find that archival data (his website went sideways trying to get there for me), but I did find this piece of information at the top rather interesting: "Note: historical ratings have been re-computed, and may differ slightly from original postings due to updated data or algorithm modification." Leaves a lot to be interrupted.

I will also say by the end of the season, the ratings seem to be more true or give a better scope of things. But anywhere between the beginning of the season and about three-quarters through, I take no stock in them.

[smedindy]

I really loathe 'perception carryover' this late in the season. Not picking on anyone - this happens everywhere. But when you look at this season more closely, the better it looks. There are pretty solid data points happening now.

Also, conference losses happen. I take a random road conferences losses with a shrug - "That'll happen." Happens in every league.

Right now, it's about the time to take the Massey ratings seriously. Teams have been connected to each other...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The reason conferences losses happen is why Augustana is still my number one pick. I think people are confusing my "my concern is someone in their conference is going to beat them and that will raise more questions than it answers." All I am saying is they beat North Central and Elmhurst, so a loss to Wisconsin Lutheran would confuse me; raise more questions. It certainly won't answer the questions if they are good or overrated. That's all I am saying. Nothing more. I am not going to pull them out of the poll should they lose.

[smedindy]

See, I guess I don't think a conference road loss is 'confusing'. Also, many teams have conference nemesis that for some reason always give them issues for no darn good reason. (For Wabash, that's Oberlin - for some reason the Yeomen tend to give the LG's fits more often than not....)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I guess it depends on the conference loss, then.

[sac]

masseyratings.com seems to have done ok with last years Final Four teams.

#1  Stevens Point
#2  Augustana
#3  Va Wesleyan
#9  Babson

I'd be more interested in where Massey had those four teams prior to the tournament starting. I can't seem to find that archival data (his website went sideways trying to get there for me), but I did find this piece of information at the top rather interesting: "Note: historical ratings have been re-computed, and may differ slightly from original postings due to updated data or algorithm modification." Leaves a lot to be interrupted.

I will also say by the end of the season, the ratings seem to be more true or give a better scope of things. But anywhere between the beginning of the season and about three-quarters through, I take no stock in them.

Only Va Wesleyan was outside the top 10 at the beginning of the tournament.

[iwumichigander]

The reason conferences losses happen is why Augustana is still my number one pick. I think people are confusing my "my concern is someone in their conference is going to beat them and that will raise more questions than it answers." All I am saying is they beat North Central and Elmhurst, so a loss to Wisconsin Lutheran would confuse me; raise more questions. It certainly won't answer the questions if they are good or overrated. That's all I am saying. Nothing more. I am not going to pull them out of the poll should they lose.

I understand your thinking regarding Benedictine.  And, yes, a loss in the NACC to other than Aurora or Rockford, might have me rethinking them.  However, it over the continuum of time, I think most CCIW followers would say both Benedictine and Aurora would be solidly in the middle tier of the CCIW (higher in some seasons).

So, if we were to put Benedictine in the CCIW -today:
Benedictine would be tied for first place and have the best overall record with wins over NCC and Elmhurst with Elmhurst having defeated Augustana.
The above is what I think the CCIW posters are saying voters should take into consideration. 

And, what maybe different about Benedictine this season - the player "who shall not be named" , who returned from last year's squad, so far does not seem to be spelling team with an "I".  Does that make Benedictine a top 5 team?  Like you, I do not think so. 

Because - I do not think Benedictine could repeat wins over all 3 CCIW teams again.  And, that would be the level of competition it would face in the NCAA tournament.

[Gregory Sager]

* Benedictine traveled to Elmhurst and led 47-19 at halftime, and beat them in a game that was never close...

I'm basically on your side in this debate, Bob, but I need to point out that the Benedictine @ Elmhurst game actually was close towards the end. Elmhurst whittled away at that 28-point halftime lead and had it down to five (87-82) with forty seconds left and four (88-84) with seventeen seconds left. I'm sure that you've seen more than your share of games in which a five-point lead has evaporated in the final minute.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

At this point, to me, Benedictine has undoubtedly the best resume in the country, but after watching Elmhurst and Augustana, I'm having a hard time thinking Benedictine should be favored over either, even if they're perfectly capable of beating both.

[Gregory Sager]

"Benedictine is clearly a good team, but in a sub-par conference. They clearly have gotten it done out of conference (five games, five opponents from the CCIW)."

While the NCAA Tournament results from previous seasons are obviously not there, how true is that this year? In addition to Benedictine, the Massey ratings have five other NACC teams ranked #104 or higher (so basically in the top quarter of D3), and the conference as a whole is over .500 in non-conference play.

(For that matter, our current second place Aurora also beat the aforementioned North Central; Benedictine demolished the Spartans by 28 in their first meeting.)

This is a good point, and it's worth a response. League rankings can be just as fluid as team rankings from season to season. F'rinstance, does anybody really think that the MIAA is still the same middling circuit it's usually been, even though it's no longer just the two Dutch-American powers and their own private collection of tomato cans?

Furthermore, you say they have a win over #25 NCC based on the overall poll, but I haven't ranked NCC as of yet (I want to see how they do this week) and thus that win doesn't hold as much weight. It holds weight, but not as much. I appreciate that Benedictine may have "more" in those two wins than Whitworth (who beat Calvin in a game I called and now Whitman who is also ranked), but feel Whitworth is a deeper team with more weapons on the floor at any given time. I have also seen St. Thomas (called one of their games as well) and feel the Tommies wins over Emory (while not as strong as in the past), UWSP, and Bethel (now - not before I voted last time) are more significant.

You're putting weight behind St. Thomas's win over UWSP as being "more significant"? D-Mac, UWSP is 7-6, 0-2. And the Pointers have a 14-point loss to -- wait for it -- North Central.

Because the information I have in front of me plus what I have been able to see online, I don't feel Benedictine is better than the teams ahead of them despite beating one of them (and that team beating another). Trust me when I say, I am not the only voter who feels this way though as I have talked to several who have the same opinion, though out of respect for them and to not give away information, I won't name them or what regions they represent.

Using the opinions of others as an endorsement of one's own opinion is an argument that has limited substance. Groupthink doesn't wash with me. If you've got pertinent data on hand that causes you to be the outlier, then be the outlier.

For what it's worth, Massey has Benedictine #1.

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cb2016&sub=11620

It actually means nothing to me to be honest. I check out Massey to make sure there isn't a team slipping through the radar, but considering five of Benedictine's 14 games are against CCIW opponents and thus their schedules, I am not making much of it. We can go around and around about Massey, but I feel the system has it's flaws and one of those flaws is it tends to add value somehow to WIAC and CCIW teams and those those who play them. I have said in the past I don't put much stock in the rankings other than to help me make sure there isn't someone I'm missing. I am certainly not going to rank based on them, either - though I am sure some voters do.

Careful, Dave. Some of the other voters whose opinions you cite as an endorsement of your own may be secretly poisoning their ballots by using Massey.

Dave, Thank you for taking the time to share your ballot and your thought process. I think everyone appreciates that!

Seconded! Although i have disagreed many a time with said thought process, I have always respected being able to question, banter, and even debate your votes.

Thirded! Although I don't agree with your reasoning about Benedictine, D-Mac, I do appreciate both your transparency via the blog and your willingness to publicly debate your ballot.

As you know (since you posted supporting me) I also believe that 'tradition' (especially continuity in great coaching, institutional support, etc.) is and should be a factor in voting

Chuck, I'm going to start calling you "Tevye".

I wasn't trying to make a political-style one-liner at all.  I was just posting what I thought was happening in saying, "It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16."

First, there is a 14-0 team with a win over #2 that you say you probably can't move them higher than #6...which I guess I don't understand.  Second, you've recently made a some comments (on the CCIW board I think) about still factoring in your preseason thoughts about Benedictine in making your ballot.  I think my comment was at least fair speculation.

Agreed.

B) I don't think there is ANY evidence that I am thinking on traditional grounds. They are SIXTH on my ballot. That is right about where they are averaging on EVERYONE'S ballots. I know for a FACT there are those voting in the same general area as me with the exact same thinking. It isn't incorrect thinking. But you are all up in arms about this, but you aren't up in arms about other teams this year or in the past. I don't understand why you think this needs to be your bailiwick.

Why in the world should it matter? Why are our motivations relevant to this conversation? I can guarantee that nobody's jonesing to see Benedictine move up just for the sake of Benedictine moving up. There aren't any BU fans in here pushing on behalf of "their" team. In fact, kiko pointed out in CCIW Chat that it's mostly a bunch of CCIW fans who're taking up the argument on behalf of the Bennies, in opposition to two of our league's own (Augustana and Elmhurst). There are no ulterior motives here, I'm pretty sure.

masseyratings.com seems to have done ok with last years Final Four teams.

#1  Stevens Point
#2  Augustana
#3  Va Wesleyan
#9  Babson

I'd be more interested in where Massey had those four teams prior to the tournament starting. I can't seem to find that archival data (his website went sideways trying to get there for me), but I did find this piece of information at the top rather interesting: "Note: historical ratings have been re-computed, and may differ slightly from original postings due to updated data or algorithm modification." Leaves a lot to be interrupted.

I will also say by the end of the season, the ratings seem to be more true or give a better scope of things. But anywhere between the beginning of the season and about three-quarters through, I take no stock in them.

So you don't take stock in Massey in mid-January, but you do take stock in Benedictine's (and the NACC's) history, in spite of the fact that, by your own admission, you didn't research the Bennies at all this past preseason and thus didn't realize that they were returning four starters (and three of the four top bench guys) from an 18-9 team and had added a 6'9 D2 transfer as well? OK.

I really loathe 'perception carryover' this late in the season. Not picking on anyone - this happens everywhere. But when you look at this season more closely, the better it looks. There are pretty solid data points happening now.

Also, conference losses happen. I take a random road conferences losses with a shrug - "That'll happen." Happens in every league.

Right now, it's about the time to take the Massey ratings seriously. Teams have been connected to each other...

Yes, yes, and yes.