Top 25 talk

[Gregory Sager]

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.

I agree with the value of homecourt familiarity, AS, especially with the value of experience against a particular shooting backdrop -- in our league, North Central is a location that is often cited as being a problem for visitors due to having a shooting backdrop that's different from those of the other seven schools. But I don't necessarily think that those things are more important than fan support. When there's more fan support for the away team than for the home team, it can have a double effect -- it can spur on the visitors, and it can be demoralizing to the homestanders.

[smedindy]

I agree with Mr. Sager, when voting for a team in the top 25, after games have been played, then history does NOT matter. How the teams are playing matter. Wilington and Bluffton may have had history against them early in the season, but now they should have been recognized for their play, not the reputations of the school.

[cardinalpride]

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.

No problem.  You're forgiven. 

[cardinalpride]

You sound like an IWU apologist!

I don't buy Hoops Fan's explanation for Illinois Wesleyan's loss to North Central, but let's be fair to Titans fans on this one. Not even the most diehard drinker of the green Kool-Ade made any excuses for Wesleyan after that loss. To their credit, the postgame talk on CCIW Chat from Wesleyan fans centered around how well North Central had played, and on what a quality team the Cardinals have this season.

Greg, that's true.  I was just having some fun with Hoops Fan regarding his explanation about IWU's approach to CCIW opponents. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

(I find it hard to believe that even Hoops Fan or Titan Q will argue that the Brits should fall below 4)

On the contrary, Albion has been above Wooster, Witt and Hope in my mind since the break.  The game this week only solidified their position in my mind.

[ScotsFan]

I never thought Hope deserved to be as high as they were, so the Albion win only solidified my position.  In fact the only thing that game proved to me was that Albion was worthy of being considered in the top 5 at all.

This is what I don't understand.  Albion has been ranked ahead of Hope all season.  What happened last week that caused the voters to all of the sudden jump on the Hope bandwagon?  Personally, I questioned why Hope would suddenly leapfrog Albion last week.  It's not like Hope had any more impressive wins the week before to warrant the leap.  They beat Kzoo and Olivet compared to Albion's wins over Tri-State and Adrian.  Had Albion stayed ahead of Hope in the polls, they might've had a better chance of passing Witt in the polls next week, although, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that either. 

As for the most dominant team argument, I don't see any clear cut #1.  I think the way the #1 votes are so spread out reflects that.  There are several very good teams, but you could make an argument that any of the top 4 or 5 could be #1.  Based on schedules, I don't think you can argue against IWU's, especially now that CCIW play has begun.  But to discount Witt's and Wooster's schedules any more than Hope's or Albion's isn't a fair judgement IMO.  All four have gone up against some pretty good teams and some not so good teams, and I don't really see any one of their schedules sticking out much more than another.  I also don't buy into the argument over Albion's only loss.  Yes, the fact that UM-D is NAIA and had 5 games under their belts gave them an advantage, but they are not a good team.  Also, Albion beat BW, but that game could have easily gone the other way, just like BW's double OT win over Wooster could have easily gone the other way. 

All I'm saying is basically, you could make a case for any of the top 4 teams in the poll next week no matter how they are ranked.  Witt should stay #1 IMO, with Albion right on their heels.  Wooster should probably stay #3 depending on how their game at Wabash goes, and IWU should be #4 depending on how their game at Elmhurst goes.  That's just how I see it.

[Pat Coleman]

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

How many IWU fans were at the Carthage/Lawrence game, though?

[Pat Coleman]

What happened last week ...

Everyone's No. 1 team lost, giving people a chance to re-evaluate the top of their entire ballot.

[Greek Tragedy]

On the topic of Carthage...

This week on Hoopsville, Pat Cummings, a D3hoops.com Top 25 voter and someone who knows Division III as well as anyone, said, "Illinois Wesleyan is not in the top 3 because they barely beat Carthage...not because they lost to North Central

I said the exact same thing when I sent my poll to Ypsi.

[Coach C]

Errr - I respect both you and Pat OS, but I am not sure that I agree 100%.  The loss WAS a factor in dropping them. 

C

[iwumichigander]

Coach C - agree.  In reality, probably a little bit of both influenced the IWU vote.

As for the upcoming poll, let's see what the weekend brings.  Heck, the voters could take the easy way out an scatter five first place votes to each of the Top 5! Would that be something!

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.

I'm just not following the logic of your argument.  If you acknowledge that history matters, then why should it NOT be a legitimate factor in voting?  I'm not talking about in the 12th poll - by then the current season provides adequate data.  I'm talking about in the early polls, when there IS little data from this season.

We assume that a victory over, say, a Wooster in game three is much more impressive than a win over, say, Caltech, but afterall, neither Wooster or Caltech would have enough of a record THIS season to say that for sure.  We base it on history (and usually correctly).  Later on, when more data is in, we can reconsider.  Lawrence's meteoric rise in the rankings was largely due to beating #2 Oshkosh.  In retrospect, it was a good win, but not nearly the win we all though at the time.

Since strength of schedule is a meaningless concept early in the season, we (of necessity) judge strength of schedule, quality wins, etc., largely on the reputation of the opponents - history again.

I suggest that NOT including history as a factor in voting would be both impossible and irresponsible.  As the season progresses, and provides its own data, the factor will be of diminishing importance.  But without factoring in history, we may as well simply dispense with polls and rely on Massey!

[diehardfan]

Coach C - agree.  In reality, probably a little bit of both influenced the IWU vote.

As for the upcoming poll, let's see what the weekend brings.  Heck, the voters could take the easy way out an scatter five first place votes to each of the Top 5! Would that be something!

lol... that's not the easy way out! that would take a lot of effort to coordinate

[Pat Coleman]

Not to put words in Pat's mouth, but I interpreted his statement as saying IWU fell as far as they did because of the Carthage game. That otherwise they might have stayed in the top four.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, Ypsi can I rank teams as tied in my poster's poll?  I'd love to give out 1/9ths of votes to a whole mess of teams at the top!