Top 25 talk

[sac]

The 5th and 6th place team from any year in the WIAC would win a lot of D3 leagues.

[smedindy]

St. Cloud St is not receiving votes in the NABC Coaches or D2SIDA Top 25 polls this week, however.  .  D2 uses the regional model in competitions, and they mandate that a D2 team not play a national schedule-- it is required that a DII team play at least 18 of their 22 DII mandated regular season contests against teams in their defined evaluation region.  Therefore, a high Massey rating in DII may not translate to a top 25 national ranking in DII.  The only thing you can conclude is that St Cloud State is one of the better teams this season in DII's Central Region.

There is enough crossover games in D2 through the division to allow the data points to all connect, and thus give a reasonable rating nationally.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The 5th and 6th place team from any year in the WIAC would win a lot of D3 leagues.

Notice... I didn't mention the WIAC when talking about the 5th and 6th place teams. This year, I think the WIAC may be the deepest it has ever been starting at the top. I have stated this numerous times through the year on the boards and on air. I mentioned the MIAC.

A. Dave, the affect is overstated, and by the end of the year, it's one small data point in a big sea of connected data points. It'd rather have unbiased opinions. In fact, I think these can help a D3 team just as much as they hurt them. Linfield's close exhibition loss to CWU probably helped their ranking in the long run.

Also, Dave, can you substantiate 'greatly effects' for Augie's loss to Illinois, when in fact they're #5 in Massey and were on top of Massey before their loss to IWU? That's not 'greatly effects'.

B. The 'eye test' is something that these systems are trying to eliminate - shaking up what we think we know with data.

C. Early on, with any system, there's part of the last year baked in. Over time that disappears.

D. I do feel that the one year a middling MIAC team beat a MIAC team that beat the undefeated defending national champs got peoples panties in a bunch. But anomalous results effect every rating system, human based or computer based. Remember, it's just one data point out of several interlocking data points in a big data universe. Trust data.

I have also stated that at this point in the season I have trouble with Massey and Bennett. Overall, by some time in February, the numbers come together for me and I appreciate the data. The same goes for the SOS and why I understand why national committees don't like releasing regional rankings any earlier. The data is all over the place. I get that.

Thus, people put a lot of stock in numbers that even by your admission aren't quite hashed out. I understand they aren't quite hashed out, but then the arguments come in that Bennett and Massey are being ignored when clearly they aren't quite there in terms of measuring teams. The data isn't there and it can change wildly. Bennett and Massey are far more interesting later in the season, as is the SOS, when that data has come together more, past season's info is further in the rear-view mirror, etc.

I just don't trust the numbers completely this time of the year. I trust them more later in the year. Thus, I don't think telling Top 25 voters to look at those rankings and put more stock in them right now is a reasonable argument. I stated in this week's blog that I did peak at Massey and Bennett just to see what they were saying and while some things made sense others were all over the place. I am not going to put a lot of stock in rankings that need more data.

And my Augustana question is simple: how would they rank if NOT for the Illinois game. How much is it pushing that ranking up. I have Augustana as my second best team. That is my opinion. Massey has them fifth, but includes a game that shouldn't be included. I am curious, if Massey and Bennett rankings are to be at least respected or considered, what the actual numbers would be without games that shouldn't be considered.

[WUPHF]

Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

[sac]

At present,  Massey has 6 WIAC and MIAC teams in his top 25, Matt Snyder has 4 on his efficiency chart, the other two are just outside his top 25 at 31 and 32.

Using Matt's RPI chart, he either has 6 or 7 in the top 25.


There doesn't appear to be anything egregiously biased about massey towards the WIAC and MIAC.

[smedindy]

The fact that Massey HAD Augie at #1 before their loss to IWU invalidates your concern. I'm sure other voters had Augie around 5. With 530 points, they're losing 70 points somewhere among the 25 voters from being a unanimous #2.

Right now is not like December, which I do think is too early to really rely on the ratings. Now, conferences have started and most teams have 10-12 games under their belt.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The fact that Massey HAD Augie at #1 before their loss to IWU invalidates your concern. I'm sure other voters had Augie around 5. With 530 points, they're losing 70 points somewhere among the 25 voters from being a unanimous #2.

Right now is not like December, which I do think is too early to really rely on the ratings. Now, conferences have started and most teams have 10-12 games under their belt.

Just curious - how in the world does any of that invalidate my concern? I am curious where Augie would rank without the game. That includes them being number one at one point. And I am not comparing it to the voters - again, I have had Augie #2 almost by default for weeks now. I am simply asking... where would Augie actually slot in in Massey without the Illinois game as part of their data resume. Again, just because they fell out of the top spot doesn't actually invalidate anything.

[KnightSlappy]

Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

Massey does include D1, D2, NAIA games in the calculations, and also takes into account the relative ratings of the team. A 35-point loss to a D1 is not a bad result for the average D3 team.

In a good system, a win is not always positive (in terms of rating) and neither is a loss always a negative. A single-digit road loss to Whitman should boost the rating of most D3 teams. Similarly, a single-possession home win over Goucher (sorry Dave!) should been seen as a negative for most teams.

When it comes to Augustana/Illinois, my guess is that it has very little bearing on their ranking. I think (and we're on very dangerous ground here with me thinking) I remember that Massey discounts the results of games between extremely mismatched teams.

[WUPHF]

Massey does include D1, D2, NAIA games in the calculations, and also takes into account the relative ratings of the team. A 35-point loss to a D1 is not a bad result for the average D3 team.

Both possibilities seemed plausible.

Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder what the thought process is for including teams across divisions and sanctioning bodies.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

Massey does include D1, D2, NAIA games in the calculations, and also takes into account the relative ratings of the team. A 35-point loss to a D1 is not a bad result for the average D3 team.

In a good system, a win is not always positive (in terms of rating) and neither is a loss always a negative. A single-digit road loss to Whitman should boost the rating of most D3 teams. Similarly, a single-possession home win over Goucher (sorry Dave!) should been seen as a negative for most teams.

When it comes to Augustana/Illinois, my guess is that it has very little bearing on their ranking. I think (and we're on very dangerous ground here with me thinking) I remember that Massey discounts the results of games between extremely mismatched teams.

Per the shot at Goucher... no worries from me. Fine example. I would have used it, too.

As for the last part... the problem I have is that it isn't a game for Augustana. It shouldn't factor in at all. If Augustana played that game as a real game, so be it. I wouldn't like the non-DIII games considered, but it is a game on their schedule like Catholic's game against Maryland. However, Augustana played that game as an exhibition game. For Augustana, it does not count. The fact it is factored in is an issue for me. And Augustana is not the only team in this boat and thus why I think the numbers start to get fuzzy.

[KnightSlappy]

Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

Massey does include D1, D2, NAIA games in the calculations, and also takes into account the relative ratings of the team. A 35-point loss to a D1 is not a bad result for the average D3 team.

In a good system, a win is not always positive (in terms of rating) and neither is a loss always a negative. A single-digit road loss to Whitman should boost the rating of most D3 teams. Similarly, a single-possession home win over Goucher (sorry Dave!) should been seen as a negative for most teams.

When it comes to Augustana/Illinois, my guess is that it has very little bearing on their ranking. I think (and we're on very dangerous ground here with me thinking) I remember that Massey discounts the results of games between extremely mismatched teams.

Per the shot at Goucher... no worries from me. Fine example. I would have used it, too.

As for the last part... the problem I have is that it isn't a game for Augustana. It shouldn't factor in at all. If Augustana played that game as a real game, so be it. I wouldn't like the non-DIII games considered, but it is a game on their schedule like Catholic's game against Maryland. However, Augustana played that game as an exhibition game. For Augustana, it does not count. The fact it is factored in is an issue for me. And Augustana is not the only team in this boat and thus why I think the numbers start to get fuzzy.

I agree that games that are exhibitions for one and not the other are problematic. I think the difference it makes (particularly once we get to January) are quite small. Particularly if you're using Massey et al. as a general guide rather than hard and fast numbers

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Again - I don't disagree that as we get further towards February, things get less minute and I am fine with that... and said I look at Bennett and Massey when we get to February because I trust their numbers more.

Thus... those who get on voters for not using the info in early January should understand why.

[Pat Coleman]

D. I do feel that the one year a middling MIAC team beat a MIAC team that beat the undefeated defending national champs got peoples panties in a bunch. But anomalous results effect every rating system, human based or computer based. Remember, it's just one data point out of several interlocking data points in a big data universe. Trust data.

You've mentioned this twice but just to clarify -- I have had this opinion of Massey's ratings effectiveness at the D-III basketball level for longer than that.

Trust data, sure. Trust the formula, though ...

[me]

Issues I have with Massey and Bennett can be best explained this way:

Augustana's record on Massey's website has them with three losses. They are counting the game against Illinois on Augustana's resume. It was an exhibition game for Augustana. It is a quirk with lower divisions, but it happens (unlike Catholic who chose to play Maryland as a real contest). Yes, Illinois counts the game, by rule, as a real game, but Augustana didn't.

That game greatly impacts Augustana's resume with Massey and thus everyone they play. And they aren't the only one. The struggle with Massey to not count games is frustrating and in the Central part of the country a lot of these cross over games affect the system in my opinion. I know there are cross-over games, but I have not found any games against DII, DI, NAIA, etc. to have any impact on Division III... but Massey and Bennett is affected.

Sadly, DIII can't have their games isolated to just the division or games that actually count on a consistent basis and thus the rankings are affected.

I also went through both rankings this week with the 47 teams I was looking at for Top 25 reasons. I found some odd discrepencies across the board. I can write them up later, but I was shocked at how one team ranked high in both despite horrible SOS numbers (Bennett) while another with better numbers was ranked lower.

Another thing about Bennett, I don't like how the points for and points against seem to have a significant impact. The game is far too complicated to use points for and against as part of a barometer. John Carroll puts up a ton of points, while giving up a ton as well, does that mean they are better or worse than a team who doesn't need to score a lot because their defense is so stingy?

I too have found the WIAC and MIAC ranked highly by these systems, but the national championships isn't a good enough excuse to say it is right. Sure, the top teams have won. Great. No one is denying that. It is the number of teams so highly ranked in the MIAC, especially, that gets odd. I have stated the WIAC may be the best conference in the country this year with the most depth, so I am not surprised if they rank well. I have also said the MIAC is far more competitive than it has ever been. However, I don't feel more than three or four of the MIAC teams could compete well on a national level and yet the rankings make it seem like six or seven (off the cuff) could compete. That just doesn't add up to reality in Division III.

MIAC plays good teams, particularly in the WIAC, and does well enough to get some lift from it. If they were just getting hammered every year it would show. In the year when they were ranked 29th I imagine they did just that.

The WIAC is just a great league.

I'm not bothered about the D1 games because the fact that they count for D1 means that they're going to play to win, and the algo is not going to punish a D3 team for losing to a good D1. But if you can beat one, I'm sure it would reward that handsomely, and surely should. If they were exhibitions for D1 and counted for D3, you could have a problem with D1s not taking them seriously. But it's not, so that's not a problem.

Also this is a pretty new development in that regard having the games that count for one and not the other, and the WIAC being highly ranked is much much longer-term than that.

I'm hearing a lot of "well they just can't be that good, I don't think they are and so they aren't".

[me]

Do we know for a fact that Massey considers Division I and Division II games in the rankings?

I have always assumed so, but was never 100% sure because Massey does differentiate between the divisions.  If you go to the Division III ratings and click on a particular team profile.  Then, click on Division III on the menu bar, both the record and the list of results changes to reflect Division III only.

I do not follow Massey close enough to watch for evidence, but when I look at a team such as No. 151 Eureka, it is hard for me to imagine that they should be ranked so high when we know Massey considers margin of victory and they were defeated by three Division I teams and one Division II team by an average margin of victory of 35 points.  My guess is that these teams are excluded from the rankings. 

Then again, Eureka may be proof that the other divisions are being considered.  Maybe Eureka is rewarded for playing significantly higher rated teams.

Essentially, it's all one college basketball ranking that is then split into divisions. So yes, definitely games vs. D1 and D2 are considered, as IMO they should be.