Top 25 talk

[Mr. Ypsi]

Sort of hate to drag on the discussion, but I'm not sure that the home vs. away logic applies to the Albion-Hope game.  First, as per an extended discussion on the MIAA board, the home team had lost something like the last 7 games between these two.  Also, Albion is not back in session yet and Hope travels better than perhaps any team I have witnessed in 20+ years of following D3 hoops.  As the radio announcers for both Hope and Albion mentioned last night, it hardly seeemed like an away game for the Dutchmen.

Your first point isn't really relevant, since the quirky road-team-wins tendency of the past few seasons' worth of the Hope/Albion series is not a predictor of this season's games. Those last seven games had no bearing upon last night's game, nor will they have any bearing upon the rematch in Holland.

Your second point, however, is an excellent one. If the homecourt advantage is largely neutralized, if not reversed, by the composition of the crowd, then that needs to be taken into consideration as far as the home/road analysis is concerned.

I'll have to take issue with your first paragraph - pardon my 'historical bias' , but I thinking you're overlooking the psychology of sports.  If the road team has won 7 straight, home court may begin to feel like a negative.  There is a HUGE difference between 'we hope we can win' and 'we expect to win'.  At what point (if any) would you say that such a streak DOES become relevant psychologically (or in simply indicating that home-court is NOT an advantage) - 12 straight? 25 straight?

John Cooper had to go as OSU's footbal coach (despite a stellar record overall) because it had become obvious that 'that team up north' had gotten into his head and he could not win even in the year's that he clearly had the better team.  I doubt that Michigan will ever consistently beat Tom Izzo's Spartans even if they someday have a better team than MSU - psychology matters.

And because psychology matters, history matters.  Contrary to the disclaimor that mutual funds are required to make, 'past performance DOES affect future results'!  While it should be out-weighed as quickly as possible by current year performance, history SHOULD be A factor in early (and often even in mid-season) poll voting.

[Titan Q]

"I'm surprised that you're the one making this argument, because you're usually the first to point out that a rugged pre-conference schedule tends to better prepare a team for league play."

Greg, I think you've missed my point.  I was simply making the case that

1) All else being equal, had IWU defeated a "9-2" Carthage team by 1 point it would have been viewed a lot differently on paper by fans, voters, etc. than a 1 point win over a "4-7" team, and

2) This same Carthage team could have easily been 9-2 with a different non-conference schedule.  


In no way was I trying to suggest that Carthage would have actually been a better team had they played Augie's weak schedule.  Everyone knows my feelings on the importance of playing a strong non-conference schedule.

[cardinalpride]

cardinalfan--Albion won at HOME not at Hope.

Sac, I did correct that mistake.  Sorry.  By the way, the name is Cardinalpride.  

[Titan Q]

"As for the comparative scores thing, one thing that should be pointed out if we're using Carthage as a barometer (something that people are already doing with Elmhurst) is the fact that 10-0 and sixth-ranked Lawrence handed the Red Men a 14-point defeat in mid-December ... on Carthage's home floor."


Another good example of how it is tough to figure out what to make of comparative scores.  Let's take IWU @ Carthage and Lawrence @ Carthage...


* IWU won by 1
* Lawrence won by 13

* There were 350 in the stands for the Lawrence game
* There were 1075 for IWU

* IWU was up 45-44 at the half
* Lawrence was up 30-29 at the half

* With 6:00 to play IWU was up 4 pts
* With 6:00 to play Lawrence was up 4 pts

* Lawrence went on a 7-0 run from 5:56 to 4:10 to take control, get up 11, and coast in
* Malik Imani drilled a long 3 for Carthage at 5:53 to make it a 1 point game vs IWU and it was back and forth the rest of the way.

http://www2.carthage.edu/athletics/mens/basketball/lu.htm

http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/miwu12.htm


I always try to compare how the game was actually played when looking at common scores, and not just the final score - I tried to do that above with the Elmhurst vs Hope and Albion games.  But with these two games, for example, the fact that Lawrence pulled away and IWU didn't -- what exactly does that mean if you are voting in the poll and trying to evaluate IWU vs Lawrence?  Did IWU do something wrong and Lawrence something right?  Did Carthage do something better vs IWU than vs Lawrence?  Is it harder or easier to play on the road vs 350 people or 1075?  Was it 50/50 fan support or 90/10 Carthage? 

In general terms, all I'd be able to say is both games were "very competitive" - beyond that, I have no idea what they mean.

[Gregory Sager]

"I'm surprised that you're the one making this argument, because you're usually the first to point out that a rugged pre-conference schedule tends to better prepare a team for league play."

Greg, I think you've missed my point.  I was simply making the case that

1) All else being equal, had IWU defeated a "9-2" Carthage team by 1 point it would have been viewed a lot differently on paper by fans, voters, etc. than a 1 point win over a "4-7" team, and

2) This same Carthage team could have easily been 9-2 with a different non-conference schedule.  


In no way was I trying to suggest that Carthage would have actually been a better team had they played Augie's weak schedule.  Everyone knows my feelings on the importance of playing a strong non-conference schedule.

I see your point. I just think that your "same everything" line was a bit misleading because it invites a qualitative examination of how good a team Carthage would've been had they played an alternative schedule, that's all.

As for the comparative scores thing, I certainly agree with you that the methodology of examining comparative scores needs to be as precise as possible if you're going to use that method -- and, although I'm not 100% gung ho on using comparative scores, we have to take into consideration the fact that the Top 25 pollsters do look at them.

I'll have to take issue with your first paragraph - pardon my 'historical bias' , but I thinking you're overlooking the psychology of sports.  If the road team has won 7 straight, home court may begin to feel like a negative.  There is a HUGE difference between 'we hope we can win' and 'we expect to win'.

First of all, you're ascribing more weight to this than I'm pretty sure any of the Hope or Albion players do. I'd wager that it never even occurred to a bunch of them that this quirky seven-game streak was in effect. Ballplayers tend to be a lot more ahistorical than us avid fans; most of them were probably aware that the teams split by winning in each other's gyms last season, but I doubt that most were aware that it was a seven-game trend. And I really doubt that those of them that were aware of it cared one whit about it.

Last night's rout by the home team over the road team simply exposed the streak for what it was: A statistical anomaly of the type that becomes possible when two programs are relatively evenly-matched over a certain span of time, a trend over the past four years that I'm sure most MIAA fans would agree describes the Britons and the Dutch.

Second, are you actually arguing that an Albion player would ever consider himself disadvantaged to be playing at Kresge? Or, even more unbelievably, are you actually arguing that a Hope player would ever feel as though home court (whether at the Civic, Dow, or now at DeVos) was a negative? Really? At home in front of 2,500-3,000 screaming Dutchies clad in orange? You're straining the bounds of logic with this one, Chuck.

And because psychology matters, history matters.  Contrary to the disclaimor that mutual funds are required to make, 'past performance DOES affect future results'!  While it should be out-weighed as quickly as possible by current year performance, history SHOULD be A factor in early (and often even in mid-season) poll voting.

First of all, past performance doesn't affect future results nearly as much as you think it does in terms of streaks. Players come and go after four years, and their link to long-term streaks only goes as far as the games in which they participate. Second, we're not talking about a one-sided streak -- one-sided streaks are far more likely to weigh psychologically upon a team than a quirky streak that evens out between both teams. Third, we're talking about road games. Any scintilla of psychological doubt cast by a streak such as this one pales in comparison to the homecourt advantage enjoyed by both teams -- particularly Hope, with its legion of fans.

The Hope/Albion thing really does not help your argument that historical bias should be a valid element of compiling the Top 25 poll.

[sac]

Albion's home court wasn't neutralized at all.  Albion had more fans there and were more vocal.  I would say Albion fed off their fans all night.

Hope had a nice contingent as always but it was no larger than most trips to Albion except for the bus-load of students who made the trip.  The only thing missing were some Albion students and their band.  Even still they had a pretty good group of Britons.

I think the radio guys were embelishing a little.

Its a very tough place to play.

[sac]

Carthage was once up by 17 in the first half on Hope as well. 


Cardinalpride===you'll have to forgive me I'm still a little dazed and confused from Sager's Vander Hide post in the MIAA room this morning.

[sac]

My question: do people think that Hope will hang on to (at least) #5, or was the margin of loss such that they will get lapped by Lawrence?  (All this assumes, of course, that all relevant teams win this weekend.)

This will depend on the Hope/Calvin result.  Another stinker like Wed and Hope plummets.  Should they win I think they hover in the 5-10 range.  If they win BIG like Albion over Hope big then they probably cling to #5 or #6.

This is a good team, Albion just had one of those nights where they had all the answers.  Many of their fans expressed that they couldn't believe how well their guys played and even their coach said to me they can't play better.

Hope shouldn't drop far but that margin is going to make people leary.

[Mr. Ypsi]

sac,

I certainly don't think Hope will fall to the 5-10 range if they beat Calvin (even narrowly) - I was just wondering how people felt about 5 vs 6?!  I'm apparently more up on your team than you are!

Greg,

I must confess that the 'road-streak' 'historical bias' comments were to get your goat - I see it worked!   (I'm sure that WAS just a statistical 'fluke' - SOMETIMES heads does come up 7 in a row even with an honest coin!) 

But SOMETIMES 'history' does become a psychological issue - I'm not sure John Cooper would have EVER won another game against Michigan (players come and go, but coaches [sometimes] stick around a lot more than 4 seasons).  Even if players are not that up on history, their coaches are, which may in turn affect the players.  I contend that good programs may win an extra 2-3 games a season they would not have otherwise won due to a psychological intimidation factor (and it doesn't really matter whether that is of the players directly, the coaches, or the 'home team' advantage of the fans).

I therefore contend that history is a perfectly valid component of poll votes UNTIL such time that this season's results render it moot.  Which, depending on circumstances, may be only 3-4 games, may be 10 games, or may be virtually the entire season.

[sac]

Mr. Y

Actually I'm very up on the Dutchmen I just think the dynamics of voting psychology will push Hope down quite a bit.  They won't garner any top 4 votes for sure. 

22 point beatdown by another top 5 opponent is not one voters will brush aside

They won't face another team playing at that level the rest of the season.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Y

Actually I'm very up on the Dutchmen I just think the dynamics of voting psychology will push Hope down quite a bit.  They won't garner any top 4 votes for sure. 

Your last sentence is probably correct - but, then, will ANYONE but Albion, IWU, Witt, and Woo (to list them alphabetically and not tip my hand!) get any top 4 votes?  (Lawrence MAYBE gets 1-3.)  I just can't see Hope falling any lower than MAYBE beneath Lawrence - hence my 5 vs. 6 question.  You really think there is a serious chance of them falling farther than that?

[Gregory Sager]

But SOMETIMES 'history' does become a psychological issue - I'm not sure John Cooper would have EVER won another game against Michigan (players come and go, but coaches [sometimes] stick around a lot more than 4 seasons).  Even if players are not that up on history, their coaches are, which may in turn affect the players.  I contend that good programs may win an extra 2-3 games a season they would not have otherwise won due to a psychological intimidation factor (and it doesn't really matter whether that is of the players directly, the coaches, or the 'home team' advantage of the fans).

I never discount the possibility of psychological intimidation that can come from playing in a hostile environment, Chuck. I've heard players openly confess to being psychologically intimidated by a good team playing at home in front of a big crowd. Heck, a former CCIW player once admitted on CCIW Chat a year or so before you discovered this website that he'd been psyched out under those types of circumstances during his career. (I didn't say this, because he already hated me and at 6'6", 230 he'd kill me on sight if he ever saw me, but I'd never want the guy on my team -- if you're that psychologically brittle, there's no way I want you on the floor wearing my team's uni in a big game.)

I would never reduce it to a formula, though. The human psyche isn't that predictable. Besides, there are plenty of players who react in the exact opposite manner. They venture into a crowded gym filled with hostile fans to face a great team, and the pressure and the mass vitriol directed at them only makes them better. Some players wilt under those circumstances (such as the former CCIW player I mentioned), some thrive under it (e.g., the 1987 North Central center that Cardinalpride and I discussed a few weeks ago, Mike Bohannon, or Wheaton's center from earlier in this decade, Lukas Moo). By and large, good teams with lots of good fans will gain a psychological edge at home. But it isn't written in stone that it'll manifest itself in any given situation, nor is it really quantifiable (although Vegas betting formulas are designed to take home court into consideration).

I therefore contend that history is a perfectly valid component of poll votes UNTIL such time that this season's results render it moot. Which, depending on circumstances, may be only 3-4 games, may be 10 games, or may be virtually the entire season.

You keep saying this, but your argument doesn't give any evidence for it. Besides, you're confusing primary and secondary causation in terms of winning ballgames. If a good team has a good fan base that makes it incrementally more difficult to beat them in their gym, and that fan base arises from past history, then the origin of that fan base is secondary causation to the team winning at home (and relatively minor secondary causation at that, since fan support has only a limited effect at best upon a game) and is thus not germane to the polling process. The only matter germane to the polling process is the primary factor present in the data examined by the pollsters, i.e., a team scoring more points than its opponent.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I would never reduce it to a formula, either - sorry if my '2-3 games per year' came off that way.  Wasn't meant to be a formula, just a general average.  Different players react different ways.  The more you hate on Chauncey Billups, the more he is gonna KILL you!

I THINK I understand what you are saying about primary and secondary causes, except you are totally leaving the coaching staff out of it.  A loyal fan base will have certain postive effects on a program, but continuity of AD and coach are even more crucial.  And the fans, AD, and coaches collectively (in whatever proportions) WILL have historical memories (whether or not the players do).

History DOES matter!  (And being after 2 am after I had 3 hours sleep last nite also matters - for tonite, I bid you farewell!  Resume tomorrow?! )

[Gregory Sager]

History DOES matter!

I never said it didn't. I said that it shouldn't matter when a Top 25 pollster fills out his ballot.

[augie_superfan]

Sort of hate to drag on the discussion, but I'm not sure that the home vs. away logic applies to the Albion-Hope game.  First, as per an extended discussion on the MIAA board, the home team had lost something like the last 7 games between these two.  Also, Albion is not back in session yet and Hope travels better than perhaps any team I have witnessed in 20+ years of following D3 hoops.  As the radio announcers for both Hope and Albion mentioned last night, it hardly seeemed like an away game for the Dutchmen.

Your first point isn't really relevant, since the quirky road-team-wins tendency of the past few seasons' worth of the Hope/Albion series is not a predictor of this season's games. Those last seven games had no bearing upon last night's game, nor will they have any bearing upon the rematch in Holland.

Your second point, however, is an excellent one. If the homecourt advantage is largely neutralized, if not reversed, by the composition of the crowd, then that needs to be taken into consideration as far as the home/road analysis is concerned.

I don't think you can say the home court advantage was neutralized at all, regardless if there were even more and louder away fans at the game.  Home court advantage does not only come down to the people making the most noise.  Through experience, I always thought that the crowd was a great advantage but more important was being comfortable with the rims, gym lighting, shooting backdrop, etc.  Maybe it is just me but practicing every day on the same court offers a distinct advantage over a team that comes and plays there once a year.