Top 25 talk

[smedindy]

I'm more shocked there was an Earlham poster than just about anything else I've encountered here.

Pix or it didn't happen.

Wait, I remember -- did he talk an inordinate amount about 3-pointers?

Yep, that's the guy. And smeds quoted his catchphrase.

He was all about boosting Travis Brett for his skills. I think he may have been Travis Brett himself, or a relative.

And now, he's an insurance agent down in his home county.

[Darryl Nester]

How They Fared (So Far)

As a public service, I've highlighted a result that deserves extra attention, in case anyone had not yet heard the news.
...

I have finally answered the question, "What can I do that would make someone smite me?"

[HOPEful]

How They Fared (So Far)

As a public service, I've highlighted a result that deserves extra attention, in case anyone had not yet heard the news.
...

I have finally answered the question, "What can I do that would make someone smite me?"

You should be flattered. A smite just means he's smitten.

                         

[Flying Dutch Fan]

How They Fared (So Far)

As a public service, I've highlighted a result that deserves extra attention, in case anyone had not yet heard the news.
...

I have finally answered the question, "What can I do that would make someone smite me?"

Consider it a badge of honor!!

[Pat Coleman]

For you people negging me for stating a case and enumerating facts, you know I don't care, right? I don't neg people for disagreeing with me because it's stupid and I generally don't care enough.

"If everybody likes you, you're doing it wrong."

Darryl,

Guess you should disagree with him. Then he won't smite.

[Darryl Nester]

For you people negging me for stating a case and enumerating facts, you know I don't care, right? I don't neg people for disagreeing with me because it's stupid and I generally don't care enough.

"If everybody likes you, you're doing it wrong."

Darryl,

Guess you should disagree with him. Then he won't smite.

To be fair, I don't actually know who it was that dinged me ...

In any case, it's sort of a relief to finally get that first smiting out of the way.

[HOPEful]

If your team has been the best team, why would you not want them to be ranked as such?"

It's one thing to want, and another to demand. If human ranks were solely based on metrics and algorithms, they would cease to exist. Humans have watched Joey Flannery, Johnny McCarthy, and A.J. Edwards play and dispite what you may think, it is concievable that at this point in the season, the "eye test" gives a slight nod to the reigning All American or the Lord Jeffs.

And again, it's not just the ranking, it's the rating. MC is 1.07, Whitman is .91, Hope is .80 (which the polls also are underrating them). So that's basically like 15% above Whitman and more than 25% above Hope, which is the #3 team in the division! Do you really think Massey is off by that much?

It's not that Massey is "off" but that the sample size is still too small. Too compensate for a lack of data, at this point in the season Massey has to in part go off of last year's data. I will use Hope as my example, because I am most familiar with them... I am very happy with their play so far this season, but I will be the first to admit that they are NOT a top 5 team yet. But Massey gives them quality wins for beating Stout, River Falls, John Carroll, and La Crosse. I watched all of these games and can tell you that the only team that looked truly impressive was La Crosse, and they lost to Luther. The numbers don't lie, but without enough data, they can decieve.

Add in the fact that the 3 primary teams being overrated just happen to be from the same region of the country, and it really starts to look like something is going on here.

What's going on here is that the whole region is being elivated by last years results. St. Thomas (4-3), St. Olaf (2-3), Wooster (4-3), John Carroll (2-4), Alma (1-6), Dubuque (2-3), Wheaton (4-3), etc. all appear as better wins currently than they acually should/will be when the data normalizes. Yes, Marietta beat Wooster by 29. But that win is not nearly as sexy after the Scots lost to Hiram (2-5). There just isn't enough data yet to trust the computer rankings!

Sure, other teams are looking good, but no one has looked as good against as good a schedule as Marietta. I don't think many people are even disputing that -- just contending that for some reason it's acceptable to vote on some other basis.

Because it is acceptable. No one ever defined the rankings to be "the teams that looked the best against the best". That's one way to vote (and a very good way to vote as well). But there are perfectly acceptable other ways.

Like, "if the playoffs started today, who would I put the best odds on to win it all?" or "Head-to-head who would I pick to win?"... And if a voter told me they thought head-to-head Joey Flannery would carry Babson past Marietta or that Amherst's defense would test Edwards and Richardson in ways they haven't been tested so far this season, I could disagree with them, but I could also see and respect their opinion.

[Pat Coleman]

For you people negging me for stating a case and enumerating facts, you know I don't care, right? I don't neg people for disagreeing with me because it's stupid and I generally don't care enough.

"If everybody likes you, you're doing it wrong."

Darryl,

Guess you should disagree with him. Then he won't smite.

To be fair, I don't actually know who it was that dinged me ...

In any case, it's sort of a relief to finally get that first smiting out of the way.

Since you'd gone 11 years without a smite, I am pretty sure it's not on you.

[augie77]

I yanked on his chain and walked away smite-free. Pretty sure it wasn't Spencer.  +1 Darryl!

[Darryl Nester]

Since you'd gone 11 years without a smite, I am pretty sure it's not on you.

I'm like the Forty-Year-Old Virgin of D3Boards posters.

[AndOne]

That's what she said! 

[Gregory Sager]

How They Fared (So Far)

As a public service, I've highlighted a result that deserves extra attention, in case anyone had not yet heard the news.
...

I have finally answered the question, "What can I do that would make someone smite me?"

I'd like to know who smote Darryl, so that I can give him a piece of my mind. That's like yanking the ladder out from under the lineman who has just spent all night restoring your electricity after a storm.

Since you'd gone 11 years without a smite, I am pretty sure it's not on you.

I'm like the Forty-Year-Old Virgin of D3Boards posters.

Looks like someone has just pulled a piece of tape off of your bare chest, Darryl.

[AndOne]

As far as polls go, MHO has always been that, more than anything, voters like WINS. The teams that are good enough to truly be among the nation's elite, and that are able to beat just about any team from any region, are naturally going to chalk up those wins.
However, there are always going to be some teams that consistently appear in the Top 25 that really aren't that good. This is due primarily due to the fact that they play a weak non-conference schedule or play in a weak conference where they dominate either all the other teams or all but one of them or, in some cases, are teams that both play a weak non-con schedule and play in a generally weak conference. Teams that play in stronger conferences and beat each other up will often suffer in a poll.

Also, and I know the powers that be will probably dispute this, but two, possibly three, things also seem pretty natural:
1. I think there is some regional bias built in. Northeastern or Eastern basketball is better than Great Lakes, Central or Western basketball, or vice versa.
2. Familiarity. How well does a voter in Mass really know teams in Ohio, Illinois, or Wisconsin?
3. Habit. Team X is always good. They must be better than their not so current record would seem to indicate. I almost always vote for them. They have to be at least the 20th or so best teams in the country. 

So, if you're not one of the truly best teams, you will be well served, poll-wise, by playing weak non-conf teams and in a weaker conference. Both circumstances will help you rack up lots of WINS which makes you very attractive even though you're really just pretty. 

[Darryl Nester]

I'm like the Forty-Year-Old Virgin of D3Boards posters.

Looks like someone has just pulled a piece of tape off of your bare chest, Darryl.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

1. I think there is some regional bias built in. Northeastern or Eastern basketball is better than Great Lakes, Central or Western basketball, or vice versa.

I completely disagree with this. I think many of our voters, and I know myself, don't think this way at all. In fact, I think most would argue and agree the proof has been that GL, Central, and some of the West is better than the East - especially deeper. However, I would say individual teams will prove that otherwise - Lancaster Bible is a great example of that especially after playing a weak schedule. But no, I don't think the voters think this way at all.

2. Familiarity. How well does a voter in Mass really know teams in Ohio, Illinois, or Wisconsin?

Thus the reason there are three voters from each of the eight regions in the country. To outweigh any familiarity. Sure, there is going to be this... but that is why, by design, there are three voters in each region. It serves two purposes: to make sure the voting is "weighted" geographically/regionally as fairly as possible; to allow teams who may be ignored by some voters to get some attention that they may very well deserve. Sure, it is hard to know teams around the country, but I think the D3hoops (along with football) polls may be the best at achieving this knowledge as any I have seen in Division III. Webstreaming has also been invaluable along with the increase of cross-country, cross-regional play especially early on in a season.

3. Habit. Team X is always good. They must be better than their not so current record would seem to indicate. I almost always vote for them. They have to be at least the 20th or so best teams in the country.

I have even admitted this can sometimes be a challenge. Voters become familiar with teams like Wooster, Amherst, Whitewater, Stevens Point, name a CCIW, St. Thomas, etc. because they are always good. F&M remains highly considered because Robinson always wins. I think this is the hardest habit to break because these teams also prove year in and year out to be in the conversation. Two years ago I didn't vote for UWSP until the last half or third of the season - I thought the luster was gone. I was one of a few or the only one; they went on to win the national championship. Last year, I down played Wooster a lot and didn't include them in my rankings for many weeks, they looked good and finished in the second weekend of the tournament (had a legit chance of making it again to Salem. Those examples are times when I as a voter try and buck the trend and it comes back to remind me that they are good - which makes it even harder to ignore them later.

So, if you're not one of the truly best teams, you will be well served, poll-wise, by playing weak non-conf teams and in a weaker conference. Both circumstances will help you rack up lots of WINS which makes you very attractive even though you're really just pretty. 

This, along with your first part I didn't quote, doesn't always hold water. There are plenty of teams right now who have lots of wins early in the season who aren't getting votes or at least not in the Top 25. If that was the case, every undefeated team (there are 24) would be nationally ranked. Also, Lancaster Bible would have jumped up in our poll last year faster and higher. Same with Benedictine (though, they had some games that allowed voters to realize their quality faster than LBC). Yes, wins certainly help, but you can gain a lot of information in losses as well. There also just isn't a system voters agree on. I talk to up to ten voters a week to get their take on things or they to get my take... none of us have the same read on things and none of us have the same "forumula."

(modified by GS for formatting)