Top 25 talk

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How does Babson get 3 first place votes after losing to Amherst?!

I watched all 50 minutes of that game.  I never once thought Amherst was the better team.  I'd pick Babson in a rematch, even if it were at Amherst.  I couldn't bring myself to go against ten games of perceptions because of one 2OT win.  I would note that every voter now has Amherst at either #1 or #2; they definitely proved themselves with that game.  I moved them up a number of slots because of that tremendous performance.  If those teams played 100 times, Amherst might win 48, but I don't think they win 50.

[HOPEful]

How does Babson get 3 first place votes after losing to Amherst?!

Two point loss in double overtime on the road? Based on that result alone one would probably pick Babson to win on a neutral court, no?

But they didn't play on a neutral court. They played at Amherst. I don't care if it took 6 overtimes, Amherst won the game.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

How does Babson get 3 first place votes after losing to Amherst?!

Two point loss in double overtime on the road? Based on that result alone one would probably pick Babson to win on a neutral court, no?

But they didn't play on a neutral court. They played at Amherst. I don't care if it took 6 overtimes, Amherst won the game.

In my mind this becomes the same argument as the annual discussion about a national champion - are they the best team because they won the championship, or did they win the championship by playing well for a short stretch of games, perhaps beating a better team or teams??  We can all cite champions who people would say were not the best team for a given year, but did win a naty.

[Pat Coleman]

How does Babson get 3 first place votes after losing to Amherst?!

Two point loss in double overtime on the road? Based on that result alone one would probably pick Babson to win on a neutral court, no?

But they didn't play on a neutral court. They played at Amherst. I don't care if it took 6 overtimes, Amherst won the game.

The point of a Top 25 isn't solely to represent what has already happened. We have standings for that. It's exactly to do what KS suggests: rank who would win on a neutral floor. And the championship is played on a neutral floor, so that makes sense.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How does Babson get 3 first place votes after losing to Amherst?!

Two point loss in double overtime on the road? Based on that result alone one would probably pick Babson to win on a neutral court, no?

But they didn't play on a neutral court. They played at Amherst. I don't care if it took 6 overtimes, Amherst won the game.

In my mind this becomes the same argument as the annual discussion about a national champion - are they the best team because they won the championship, or did they win the championship by playing well for a short stretch of games, perhaps beating a better team or teams??  We can all cite champions who people would say were not the best team for a given year, but did win a naty.

This is the same argument for why someone might hypothetically NOT vote the tourney winner #1 in the final poll.  If anything, an inferior team running the tournament and winning a title is even more credit to them than a consensus #1 winning.  Usually, because of the talent in the tournament, a team who wins will have played and beaten the kind of competition necessary to secure a #1 - but it doesn't have to be the case.

A champion is someone who wins a tournament - and the best team doesn't always win.  There's no shame in being one without the other.  I think of that UCONN team with Kemba Walker that had to win five games in the Big East Tourney just to get in, then won six to get the national title.  That wasn't the best team in D1 that year, but they won games when it counted.  Those are two very different things.

Amherst scored more points on Thursday - they won the game.  No excuses for Babson.  But, if they would have played the same game the next night, I'd still pick Babson; I think they're the better team and nothing in that game showed me different.  Now if they'd've come out and dominated Babson the way Marietta dismantled CNU, of course its a different story.

[smedindy]

We've seen in other places this year where something with a 30% chance of happening does indeed happen.

[Greek Tragedy]

So this is the last poll until the new year?

[sac]

Fwiw, and not much, I thought Babson looked the better team and should have won the game.  But the better team should have been able to close out that game, yet didn't, so for now Amherst should ranked ahead of them IMO.

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

Maybe they couldn't close out because they play their guys too many minutes.

[amh63]

Ryan Scott, read your initial post here on the Babson game with Amherst and your vote.  Have a question for you that may help me understand your projection of the outcome of a possible future game between the two teams.  What ten observations?  Need some clarity..time period...sites.
Last season, Babson played early in the season three Nescac teams with 4 of the present starters.  They lost to Bowdoin in OT.  They played Tufts and lost in OT.  They played Amherst in their house and lost in 2OTs.  Later in the post season in Medford, Amherst beat Babson again and beat Tufts the next day to go to the Final 4.  Four starters from that team and others played in this season's game at Amherst.  This season, Babson beat Bowdoin in a close game and also beat Tufts in a battle.  Were any of these games in your 10 Observations?
In any case, Babson has played in a lot of close games, as has Amherst to get to last year's Final 4.
Was Amherst lucky last season in the matchups and likewise this season?  Was Babson unfortunate last season in games as it seemed to you this season in the Amherst game.  Basically the same players to a great degree.  In short, the ball does take funny bounces in games between good teams.  Maybe the future game will have both teams with the same amount of rest and practice time...Amherst had played on Tuesday before the Thursday game and the Sat. before.  Flannery did sit out the game before the Tufts game this year with a "foot issue" and played 39 min. In the Tufts game and all 50 minutes in the Amherst game.  Any clarity with the foot issue? 

[Pat Coleman]

So this is the last poll until the new year?

There is a new poll next Monday, then the break.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Ryan Scott, read your initial post here on the Babson game with Amherst and your vote.  Have a question for you that may help me understand your projection of the outcome of a possible future game between the two teams.  What ten observations?  Need some clarity..time period...sites.
Last season, Babson played early in the season three Nescac teams with 4 of the present starters.  They lost to Bowdoin in OT.  They played Tufts and lost in OT.  They played Amherst in their house and lost in 2OTs.  Later in the post season in Medford, Amherst beat Babson again and beat Tufts the next day to go to the Final 4.  Four starters from that team and others played in this season's game at Amherst.  This season, Babson beat Bowdoin in a close game and also beat Tufts in a battle.  Were any of these games in your 10 Observations?
In any case, Babson has played in a lot of close games, as has Amherst to get to last year's Final 4.
Was Amherst lucky last season in the matchups and likewise this season?  Was Babson unfortunate last season in games as it seemed to you this season in the Amherst game.  Basically the same players to a great degree.  In short, the ball does take funny bounces in games between good teams.  Maybe the future game will have both teams with the same amount of rest and practice time...Amherst had played on Tuesday before the Thursday game and the Sat. before.  Flannery did sit out the game before the Tufts game this year with a "foot issue" and played 39 min. In the Tufts game and all 50 minutes in the Amherst game.  Any clarity with the foot issue?

I don't compare one season to the next, generally.  Based on the one actual game between the two, it seemed like Amherst played at or near their abilities throughout - they made fewer errors, hit big shots, and got stops when they needed them.  Still, it feels like mistakes from Babson opened the door to Amherst's heroics more than anything Amherst did to earn them.  Again, we're talking the two best teams in the country, so it's not as if I'm trashing one and praising the other - we're really splitting hairs - as a 2OT game would indicate.

I'd imagine, in a 100 game sample, Amherst would play most games at about 95% of what they did in this one and Babson would play about the same.  That's the difference for me.  I had been voting Amherst #9 until this point, mostly because I hadn't seen anything from them that told me they could really hang with a top team.  The Babson game certainly put those questions to rest - as much as I love you all, your word that these players could step up wasn't quite enough for me to vote on.  Last year, I thought the team relied too heavily on Connor Green and I wanted to see them play good competition without him.

As far as the rest of the schedule is concerned, Amherst should be a better tested in conference this year and it's certainly close enough that I might change my mind.  It's very hard for a team like Babson to keep up this level of play throughout a whole season without regular challenges (NEWMAC is not as good as some voters seem to think this year).  Amherst will get them and that could make a big difference.

[HOPEful]

I don't compare one season to the next, generally.  Based on the one actual game between the two, it seemed like Amherst played at or near their abilities throughout - they made fewer errors, hit big shots, and got stops when they needed them.  Still, it feels like mistakes from Babson opened the door to Amherst's heroics more than anything Amherst did to earn them.  Again, we're talking the two best teams in the country, so it's not as if I'm trashing one and praising the other - we're really splitting hairs - as a 2OT game would indicate.

I'd imagine, in a 100 game sample, Amherst would play most games at about 95% of what they did in this one and Babson would play about the same.  That's the difference for me.  I had been voting Amherst #9 until this point, mostly because I hadn't seen anything from them that told me they could really hang with a top team.  The Babson game certainly put those questions to rest - as much as I love you all, your word that these players could step up wasn't quite enough for me to vote on.  Last year, I thought the team relied too heavily on Connor Green and I wanted to see them play good competition without him...

Two takeaways from this...

1.) The first part is a whole lot of subjective opinion. I think it is unfair to respond to any team who just won an incredible back and forth battle to one of the best teams in the country with, "They didn't do anything special to win, Babson just didn't play their best"... Add to that predictions on how it would go if they played again, or at a neutral site, etc. places your subjective opinions to those questions ahead of the existing results. I find that to be somewhat irresponsible.

2.) The second point is important. Amherst may have jumped 7 spots on someone's ranking after that win. I still think it's irresponsible to vote Babson 1 and Amherst 2 immediately following a game in which Amherst beat Babson. However, I do respect the decision more knowing where Amherst and Babson each started before the game was played. How much should Babson be punished for losing to a top 10 team on the road in 2OT?

[ElRetornodelEspencio]

I would wonder whether that %age of capacity determination is made in other games.

I don't think it's that weird that a team that generally couldn't close the deal in close games against good teams last year has trouble again with mostly the same players.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I don't compare one season to the next, generally.  Based on the one actual game between the two, it seemed like Amherst played at or near their abilities throughout - they made fewer errors, hit big shots, and got stops when they needed them.  Still, it feels like mistakes from Babson opened the door to Amherst's heroics more than anything Amherst did to earn them.  Again, we're talking the two best teams in the country, so it's not as if I'm trashing one and praising the other - we're really splitting hairs - as a 2OT game would indicate.

I'd imagine, in a 100 game sample, Amherst would play most games at about 95% of what they did in this one and Babson would play about the same.  That's the difference for me.  I had been voting Amherst #9 until this point, mostly because I hadn't seen anything from them that told me they could really hang with a top team.  The Babson game certainly put those questions to rest - as much as I love you all, your word that these players could step up wasn't quite enough for me to vote on.  Last year, I thought the team relied too heavily on Connor Green and I wanted to see them play good competition without him...

Two takeaways from this...

1.) The first part is a whole lot of subjective opinion. I think it is unfair to respond to any team who just won an incredible back and forth battle to one of the best teams in the country with, "They didn't do anything special to win, Babson just didn't play their best"... Add to that predictions on how it would go if they played again, or at a neutral site, etc. places your subjective opinions to those questions ahead of the existing results. I find that to be somewhat irresponsible.

2.) The second point is important. Amherst may have jumped 7 spots on someone's ranking after that win. I still think it's irresponsible to vote Babson 1 and Amherst 2 immediately following a game in which Amherst beat Babson. However, I do respect the decision more knowing where Amherst and Babson each started before the game was played. How much should Babson be punished for losing to a top 10 team on the road in 2OT?

I try to do my voting as much on subjective opinion as possible.  It seems like the only point of a human poll is to be subjective - we've got lots of computers and conference stands to be objective for us.  Obviously, it's nice to have tools to gauge strength of schedule and all that when we can't see every game every team plays, but I work pretty hard to at least see everybody I'm voting for on video multiple times (I've seen 20 of my 25 at least once already this year).  By the end of the season, I've usually accomplished it.  There's a lot of subjectivity that goes into things.  I downgraded Whitman this week after seeing them play a few times - as good and as talented as they are, I think they'll have trouble with a disciplined team with size.

I watched the entire Amherst-Babson game specifically because I wanted to see how Amherst responded.  I was duly impressed, but I don't think you can count on that performance on a regular basis and I don't feel comfortable ranking them based on one game.  I know there are lots of different ways people approach a Top 25, but I don't look at it as a "who's best right now," kind of thing; I look at it as who's best over the course of the season.  Yes, there's some priority for more recent results, but in the end, Babson just seems like a better team to me, so I ranked them that way.

I'm much more comfortable approaching things this way because we do have a tournament.  I'd have a much harder time in something like D1 football where the polls really do count for something.