Top 25 talk

[cardinalpride]

One reason why NCC flew under the radar for so long was because of their horrid finish a year ago.  They started 13-1 a year ago and reached has high as 18th in the poll.  Then, they proceeded to lose 9 of their last 11 games.  So, coming into this year, the pollster were reluctant to give them any attention after a 10-0 start. 

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head here.

I understand the thinking, but I don't agree with it. It smacks of what I call "historical bias", a pernicious tendency among pollsters to let long-term reputations, previous seasons, etc., creep into their judgment. I've always felt very strongly that a poll is supposed to reflect the current season, and the current season only.

Greg, I agree with you.  The problem is many pollsters never see a team upclose.  They rely solely on information (what's read and heard) and sometimes that information is based on a team's history.  Because of that history, pollsters take the "wait and see approach".  It's human nature to take that approach.  I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is until everything is compurterized.  However, computers sometimes take the fun away.  Another compelling question is how do pollsters look at the poll itself?  Do pollsters select the top 25 based on how they may finish the year? Or, Do they select them based on how they're playing from week to week?  I'd be willing to bet it differs from pollster to pollster.  Which is another reason teams fly under the radar for so long.

[Pat Coleman]

Or it could be because North Central started the season with Robert Morris-Springfield, Loras, Benedictine, Illinois Tech, Adrian, Mount Marty and Ripon.

Don't act like North Central's level was self-evident from that group. Mount Marty might have been the best team in there and we have no basis of comparison for them with anyone else. Loras didn't prove itself worthy of anything until the same night that NCC did.

[mactitan]

The reason I said that NCC's high debut is evidence of the pollsters paying attention is that all too often in polls, when a team is not ranked, it takes the voters a long time to admit that they were wrong.  Nobody expects the pre-season poll to never change.  What I want from a good poll is the ability to make corrections as the season goes on.  There were good reasons that a 10-0 NCC team was not ranked, but the win at IWU in effect validated the previous 10 wins in a way that a win at Millikin would not have.  I commend the poll for being able to roll with the ebb and flow of the season.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The d3hoops.com poll changes more honestly and dramatically than any other I've ever seen (outside computer rankings, that is).  I think the group of assembled voters knows when they've been mistaken, but at the same time, they have been around for a while and know a loss doesn't necessarily mean too much in terms of overall ability.  You can complain if you want, but its the best we got.

[cardinalpride]

Or it could be because North Central started the season with Robert Morris-Springfield, Loras, Benedictine, Illinois Tech, Adrian, Mount Marty and Ripon.

Don't act like North Central's level was self-evident from that group. Mount Marty might have been the best team in there and we have no basis of comparison for them with anyone else. Loras didn't prove itself worthy of anything until the same night that NCC did.

Pat, relax.  My last post was referring to a more general perspective of all pollsters not just D3 pollster and definately not just NCC.  Stop being so defensive. 

[sac]

I wished I lived in California so I could have as much free time as Dave. 

Plus I could wear these  8) more often

Kudos to you Dave.

[sac]

oops forgot to mention #2 Hope at #4 Albion tonight.

I'm off.

[cardinalpride]

I commend the poll for being able to roll with the ebb and flow of the season.

Dido!

[Coach C]

I will admit to some of that historical bias Pat is talking about.  When a team finishes horribly, i will tend to discount them at the beginning of the next season under the theory that whatever was wrong would take a lot to fix in the off-season.

C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Dido!

I'm sure we can all appreciate the various talents of Dido; her voice is quite unique, but does she really deserve an exclamation point?

[Titan Q]

The problem with using what happened last year in decisions about this year, is that there is no way the voters know why things went bad.  Just using North Central as an example, I know they had some "personnel issues" last season right before the slide.....issues that were not a factor at the start of this season.  Unless voters are going to actually dig into that stuff (which they can't), there is no way they should be using what happened last year when they cast their ballots this year.

I can see the argument that NCC, even at 8-0 or 9-0 (whatever it was), hadn't really proven itself in 2005-06 until the win over Illinois Wesleyan.  The fact the Cardinals did not enter the poll until this week makes sense, for the same reasons it makes sense to me that Wilmington just got in.  But I'd hate to hear that some voters are actually considering the fact that "Team X went in the tank last year, so I'm not going to vote for them yet."  That's not fair.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Q,

I would agree with you that a one-season collapse should not account for much the next season, for the reasons you gave. 

But I can't agree with Greg's extending that to 'reputation' or 'historical bias'.  Sure, EVENTUALLY voting should reflect only this season.  But early on, and even through probably the midway point of the season, specific outcomes should be put in the context of consistently good (or bad) coaches and programs.  Because of the historical continuity, I simply assume that teams like Witt, Woo, IWU, and a handful of others are among the nation's elite - until they prove otherwise.  I find it eminently reasonable that it took Hanover, for example, far longer to fall out of the poll than it took some other teams.  On the other hand, a SLIAC team, or for that matter, Hamilton or Widener, is going to have to do something eye-popping to gain the benefit of the doubt (and Hamilton just showed why!).

North Central is kind of an in-between case.  They have had some success, but not consistently.  The DO have a very highly respected coach.  Still, scheduling Cupcake U for nearly all the pre-conference games may not overcome those lingering doubts - they were undefeated going into Bloomington, sure, but probably 30 other schools in the country would have been as well!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

On the other hand, a SLIAC team, or for that matter, Hamilton or Widener, is going to have to do something eye-popping to gain the benefit of the doubt (and Hamilton just showed why!).

I refer you to my earlier post where the "strength" of Widener's schedule was discussed... it's really quite amazing.

[Gregory Sager]

Or it could be because North Central started the season with Robert Morris-Springfield, Loras, Benedictine, Illinois Tech, Adrian, Mount Marty and Ripon.

Don't act like North Central's level was self-evident from that group. Mount Marty might have been the best team in there and we have no basis of comparison for them with anyone else. Loras didn't prove itself worthy of anything until the same night that NCC did.

I'm not saying that North Central should've been ranked prior to their game at Illinois Wesleyan, because their list of opponents had indeed turned out to be a modest one by this season's standards. In fact, I think that the 31 votes that they had received in the prior poll was just about right, given their record and their strength of schedule. I was commenting in general upon the issue of historical bias, a phenomenon which both you and Coach C confirmed exists.

The d3hoops.com poll changes more honestly and dramatically than any other I've ever seen (outside computer rankings, that is).  I think the group of assembled voters knows when they've been mistaken, but at the same time, they have been around for a while and know a loss doesn't necessarily mean too much in terms of overall ability.  You can complain if you want, but its the best we got.

I agree. One of the prime virtues of the D3hoops.com poll is its ability to make quick and reasonable course corrections.

I would agree with you that a one-season collapse should not account for much the next season, for the reasons you gave. 

But I can't agree with Greg's extending that to 'reputation' or 'historical bias'.

But that is historical bias, Chuck. History consists of the previous season, as well as the ten or twenty or thirty seasons before that. My point was that a team should be judged upon the current season, not any season or stretch of seasons that came before it.

Sure, EVENTUALLY voting should reflect only this season.  But early on, and even through probably the midway point of the season, specific outcomes should be put in the context of consistently good (or bad) coaches and programs.

I heartily disagree. By necessity the preseason poll has to reflect the previous season. From Opening Day on, however, the poll should reflect the current season. I think that on the whole the D3hoops.com poll largely does this, as you tend to see a lot of bounce up and down the ladder over the first few polls. But this whole "put in the context of consistently good (or bad) coaches and programs" idea opens Pandora's box. It introduces all sorts of things that are not germane to what the poll is supposed to reflect, which is the relative strength of the current season's D3 teams. Historical bias not only deviates from the objective data available -- this season's slate of games -- it's also, as Q said, a fairness issue.

Because of the historical continuity, I simply assume that teams like Witt, Woo, IWU, and a handful of others are among the nation's elite - until they prove otherwise.  I find it eminently reasonable that it took Hanover, for example, far longer to fall out of the poll than it took some other teams.  On the other hand, a SLIAC team, or for that matter, Hamilton or Widener, is going to have to do something eye-popping to gain the benefit of the doubt (and Hamilton just showed why!).

I can't tell you how much I disagree with you on this, Chuck. My agitation is making me type a lot faster than normal.  What you're advocating is tantamount to giving some teams an extra boost and others a penalty for reasons that have nothing to do with the pertinent database at hand.

You're also quite wrong about Hamilton, if you're focusing upon historical worthiness or the lack thereof. Coming into this season "Ham Tech" had won 601 games over the past thirty seasons (which is pretty darn remarkable for a D3 school that wasn't even allowed to take part in the D3 tourney until a little over a decade ago) and recorded 31 straight winning seasons. The Continentals have been in eight of the past eleven D3 tournaments. Widener, too, is a team with a storied past: Two Centennial Conference titles this decade, two past D3 Final Four appearances, and three 20-win seasons and an average of 17 wins a year over the past ten years.

North Central is kind of an in-between case.  They have had some success, but not consistently.

They've actually been one of the weaker programs in the CCIW over the past decade and a half. In fact, North Central's legacy pales in comparison to those of Hamilton and Widener -- both recently and long-term.

Still, scheduling Cupcake U for nearly all the pre-conference games may not overcome those lingering doubts - they were undefeated going into Bloomington, sure, but probably 30 other schools in the country would have been as well!

Not fair, Chuck. North Central had perennial power UW-Whitewater appear in the Cardinals' tipoff tourney. Is it Todd Raridon's fault that the Warhawks stumbled against Loras? They played Ripon in Hawaii, and the Redhawks are annually among the best that the Midwest Region has to offer. Again, is it North Central's fault that Ripon's having a rare down year? Loras, Benedictine, and Adrian are typically fairly decent programs; the latter two appear to be a little down this season, while the Duhawks are definitely on the upswing. And Mount Marty just notched a win over NAIA-2 #4 Dordt last week.

North Central's sked wasn't as tough as those of Carthage, Elmhurst, and Illinois Wesleyan this season, but it's an overreach to accuse them of "scheduling Cupcake U for nearly all the pre-conference games".

I refer you to my earlier post where the "strength" of Widener's schedule was discussed... it's really quite amazing.

See, that's a valid indictment of Widener, because it's based upon the 2005-06 season.

[David Collinge]

The coaches are part of the teams, and how good or bad a coach is is directly relevant to how good or bad the team is.  Coaches, unlike players, are fairly evaluated over multiple years.  So while I agree that teams should be ranked based on their composition and performance this season, I think it is reasonable to consider the coach's curriculum vitae over the years in the determination of how good a team is this year.  Put another way, I think a team of 15 players coached by Steve Moore will be a better team than the same 15 players coached by me, and the rankings should acknowledge this fact.

Am I the only one who is interested in the fact that the current poll is the 100th poll in D3hoops.com history?