Top 25 talk

[Gregory Sager]

I have concluded that we are not really in disagreement, we're just using terms a bit differently.

I disagree.  There is a bona-fide difference of opinion here. I think that the Top 25 poll should be conducted on the basis of this season's game results. You think that introducing other elements into consideration is permissible.

I think I caught on to that with your baking contest - what YOU are not taking to account is that with early polls, the judges (voters) are NOT tasting pies, they are tasting ingredients!  (Or, at most, half-baked pies!)

I have absolutely no idea what this means, Chuck.

And what I'm calling history is far more than just the preseason poll - we would also no doubt give more credit for an early win over, say, Millikin than an early win over, say, Eureka.  These assumptions are based (largely) on what I am calling history (after all, I'm sure even Pat's most conscientious voters don't go over all 400+ rosters with a fine-tooth comb).  We assume (usually correctly) that even a mid to lower level CCIW or WIAC teams is PROBABLY better than even a higher level (not necessarily #1) SLIAC or LMC team (before you jump on my example, I'm aware that Eureka is not a higher level team even in the NIIC).

Pat goes to great lengths to keep the preseason poll from degenerating into the carnival of anecdotal guesswork or ranking-by-reputation to which you allude. He marshals a considerable amount of data on the top hundred or so teams from the previous season, and passes it along to his pollsters. The preseason poll is not based upon historical assumptions along the lines you mention (e.g., the CCIW and WIAC mid- or lower-level teams being better than the upper-tier SLIAC and LMC teams). It's based upon going over that top quartile's rosters with the fine-toothed comb that you were so sure doesn't exist. Since the upper-tier SLIAC and LMC teams weren't in that top quartile, or they're at best on the outer edges of it, they become irrelevant to the process.

It's the reason why Aurora was ranked higher in the preseason than either Calvin or Rochester. Both the Knights and the Yellowjackets reached the Final Four last season, and they play in leagues that are historically superior to the NIIC. Plus, Calvin beat Aurora by double digits on the Spartans' own floor in last season's tourney. Someone making the anecdotal assumptions based upon historical evidence that you tout would've put the Knights and the Yellowjackets ahead of the Spartans. But roster evidence showed that Calvin and Rochester lost staggering amounts of minutes and production from last season's rosters due to graduation, while Aurora had superstar Larry Welton and a decent portion of his supporting cast (esp. playmaker Courtney Carson and forward Jeremy Cartwright) returning.

It's also a little strange to see you touting the presumptive inflexibility of D3's pecking order with regard to leagues by saying that the lower slots in power conferences can be ranked out-of-hand above the higher slots in the more lowly conferences. It's strange because you've been the biggest advocate of conference-ranking fluidity on Posting Up this year. Aren't you the one who has stated in various rooms over the past two weeks that the UAA may have passed the WIAC this season in terms of overall conference strength? A reassessment that drastic blows all of the previous assumptions of the kind that you're making here right out of the water.

[BTW, I'm pretty sure that "when you assume you make an ass of u and me" predates the Old Couple - I knew that gag in the 1950s.]

You could be right about that, since I was born in the sixties and can cheerfully plead young'un status on that point. 

That 'history' does make up an improperly large factor once this season's data has become more telling is, no doubt, exacerbated by overly-early polling and the 'human nature' tendency that voters are NOT going to look at things totally from scratch each week.  Quite naturally, they are going to take their ballot from the previous week as a template, and move teams up or down from that starting point.  Polling before most teams have played at least 8-10 games is not really justifiable logically.  BUT, I'm not arguing for Pat to abandon the pre-season and/or early season polls - like I said, what else would we have to talk about in December?!

I have no argument with the existence of the preseason poll. And I probably wouldn't have much dispute with a mid-December poll kicking off the season's series of Top 25s, although I naturally wouldn't take it as seriously as a later one. But, as I said, I agree with you that the early season polls fulfill popular demand, and I completely understand why Pat offers them. I don't think that their methodology is sound, but I'm not the guy in charge here.

Gentlemen, as long as humans are in control of the polls, "historical bias" will creep in.  It's just that simple.  Computers don't have an opinion.  People do.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying computers are the way to go.  However, because we base opinions on what we see, hear, read, feel, and conclude, "historical biases" are bound to creep in.  Right or wrong.

I agree that a polling system that relies upon human voters will probably never reach 100% objectivity. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Objectivity is something that pollsters should be striving to attain, don't you think?

Greg, you used the "judge in the pie contest" example.  Nice example.  The difference is the judge actually gets to taste All the pies.  Many pollsters don't actually get to see all the teams play and they rely on information that sometimes isn't pertinent.  "Historical Bias" falls into that category.  Whether it's right or wrong is as much someones opinion as the actual D3 poll or any other poll for that matter.  Basically, what I'm saying is its all an opinion.  Why should we analyze someone elses opinion unless it's just complete nonsense.

First of all, I'm happy that you didn't butcher my analogy (sorry to use a cross-culinary reference  ) the way that Chuck did with that "tasting ingredients, not pies" jazz. You're right that the best way to "taste" a team is to see it, and the inability to see every halfway-decent team in D3 is a tremendous obstacle that D3hoops.com Top 25 pollsters have to face that isn't shared by, say, D1 football pollsters. But I think that reliance upon historical bias in the absence of actually seeing a team is a copout, because from everything I've learned about Pat's methodology I know that he goes to great lengths to give his pollsters all the information that they need in terms of game results, updated on a weekly basis.

Yeah, it's all opinions. I just want the opinions to be the best ones possible if they're opinions that count (i.e., the opinions of pollsters), and I want them to be fair.

Unless you PREFER a strict computer analysis (e.g., Massey), don't denigrate the human element in polls.  I PREFER (good) polls BECAUSE they include judgment, and that judgment is (early on) for the most part what I mean by 'history'!

I prefer good polls, too. And what I'm saying is that the first couple or so polls of the season are ipso facto not good polls, because of the paucity of hard data available.

I htink what most people are talking about here is not really historical bias as much as it's a preference given to voting for a proven coach and program over an unproven coach and program.

Uh, Coach, that's the exact definition of "historical bias" with which Chuck and I have been working over the past few days! 

Let's also remember that part of the reason to do a poll is to generate interest in our sport.  A pre-season poll does that really well since it usually incluses a large number of teams and gets people focused on the coming games.  There IS an element of FUN involved !

I heartily agree, which is why I've said all along that I fully understand why Pat offers both the preseason poll and those first few polls of the season. You make a good point when you mention the generating-interest aspect, because a lot of the media attention that this website has drawn across the country is as a result of the polls. More than anything else on this site (certainly more than Posting Up  ), it's those polls that have established D3hoops.com as the premier authoritative source on the subject of Division Three basketball in the eyes of the media.

I fully endorse the preseason poll, in and of itself. It's a great way to get people talking about the upcoming season, a great method to draw press attention to various teams, and a useful reference point as the season goes along. It's where the preseason poll bleeds into the regular season's polls and taints them (e.g., UW-Oshkosh) that I have a problem with it.

[albionbritfan]

Albion is obviously outstanding this year and Brandon Crawford is putting up Jeff Gibbs-type numbers. The question I have is, how in the world did they lose to UM-Dearborn? Maybe some of the MIAA posters could offer some insight.

won.

I think some of what Pat and others mentioned about the in-game experience for UM-Deardorn was true, especially given Albion was playing its first game without Travis Depree and Michael Thomas, who were the clear leaders of last year's Elite 8 team on both the offense and defense sides.  Plus UM-D shot just lights out in the game, if I can remember correctly (similar to the shooting clinic Albion put on against Hope this week).  Still no excuse for Albion, they absolutely should have won the game.

The big question for Albion fans was "how good are we going to be without Depree and Thomas and Champine (a very promising freshman who was like 6-7 but had a 7-foot wingspan or something ridiculous like that)?"  Needless to say, we were very scared by that first game and had visions of a long, tough season.   But Albion has rebounded nicely since then.

Crawford is a beast on the inside, despite being double- or triple-teamed when gets the ball in the post.  He has already been the MIAA player of the week four times, and he is likely going for his fifth if he has any sort of performance against Alma and the Brits win.  This, despite the fact that most MIAA posters/pundits picked Andy Phillips to be the preseason MIAA MVP, and D3hoops selected Phillips as a first team all-American (Crawford was picked on the fourth team).

Albion fans also expected Silas and Gibbons and Way to contribute to the team, but the unexpected contributor to the Brits has been the play of their starting PG, Michael Bailey.  Holy cow, the kid is like 5' 10" at the tallest, but he has remarkable quicks and, if left open, will can the three.  His dribble penetration is great and he has the ability to find the open man, usually Way or Crawford, on the rotation by the D.

As for why Hope got ahead of Albion in the poll, I don't think it's brain surgery, requiring Ns or N+1s for that matter.  In week 5's poll, Albion and Hope had all of 10 points difference between them.  Quite simply, voters felt forced to look elsewhere for a number 1 team in week 6, with IWU's loss to NCC and close game vs. Carthage.  Witt and Wooster both had a loss (like IWU not bad losses, but nonetheless), and Amherst lost the same week as IWU.  Hope was undefeated, has a very, very, very good roster and had been putting some impressive winning margins up against their opponents.  It's completely feasible, not a bad call by the voters in the least, especially if they feel compelled to now slide their votes Albion's way.  

[albionbritfan]

And either way, it's a heck of lot more interesting this year debating the Top 25 than last year, when UW-SP owned it with short intermittent appearances by IWU and Wooster.  So let's take a step back and be thankful, people.

[Coach C]

Ok Greg -

So how do you propose ranking two teams that look similar on paper from similar conferences, one that is an established winning program and one that has no pedigree?

Do you give the nod to the winning program, or just skip ranking them because you can't brek the tie without using 'historical bias?'

C

[sac]

Just my opinion but historical bias probably exists more in the earlier polls of the season.  As more games are played I think it becomes easier to rank teams based on THIS seasons performance.

But there's no doubt historical bias exists in all polls.

[John Gleich]

I agree that a polling system that relies upon human voters will probably never reach 100% objectivity. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Objectivity is something that pollsters should be striving to attain, don't you think?

I think lost in all of this discussion is the question of what a poll actually is (or should?) describe.  Whether it is a poll of informed voters or an "objective" computer analysis, either way what we have is an attempt to stack the teams up, for a "Team X is better than Team Y and would be the favorite in a game played between them."

Also lost in the "historical bias" argument is the coach.  On the CCIW page, posters have noted that Bill Harris teams play a certain way, and even if they are extremely young, they will still play very hard and put themselves in the position for some upsets.  Coaches prepare the players for the games, and if one coach is better than another at this preparation, then a less talented or experienced team may have an advantage against a more talented or experienced team.

And either way, it's a heck of lot more interesting this year debating the Top 25 than last year, when UW-SP owned it with short intermittent appearances by IWU and Wooster. So let's take a step back and be thankful, people.

I dunno, I sure enjoyed last year 

[hugenerd]

Good Day for top 25 basketball, looks like all 25 teams are in action.

[hugenerd]

And in the first final, #16 Carnegie Mellon beats a tough Christopher Newport team 94-81, at Newport, in a game where they led by almost 30 at times and by over 20 most of the second half.  The win takes CMU to 13-1 and CNU goes to 10-4.  Carnegie finishes its non conference record 10-1.

[Gregory Sager]

So how do you propose ranking two teams that look similar on paper from similar conferences, one that is an established winning program and one that has no pedigree?

Do you give the nod to the winning program, or just skip ranking them because you can't brek the tie without using 'historical bias?'

"Similar" and "identical" are not the same thing. You can always find a way to distinguish between similar-looking teams from similar conferences based upon how they've done thus far in the season.

I think lost in all of this discussion is the question of what a poll actually is (or should?) describe.  Whether it is a poll of informed voters or an "objective" computer analysis, either way what we have is an attempt to stack the teams up, for a "Team X is better than Team Y and would be the favorite in a game played between them."

Agreed. And my point is this: The fact that one team has a shining pedigree in D3 basketball and another does not doesn't necessarily translate into determining favorites and underdogs. If it did, then perennial OAC doormat Wilmington wouldn't be the team to beat in that conference right now, and perennial OAC (and national) powerhouse Otterbein wouldn't be looking up from the bottom of the heap with a 1-6 conference record. But if we allow historical bias to seep into polling considerations, we end up sticking a finger in the eyes of teams like Wilmington and Carnegie Mellon.

Also lost in the "historical bias" argument is the coach.  On the CCIW page, posters have noted that Bill Harris teams play a certain way, and even if they are extremely young, they will still play very hard and put themselves in the position for some upsets.  Coaches prepare the players for the games, and if one coach is better than another at this preparation, then a less talented or experienced team may have an advantage against a more talented or experienced team.

Agreed, and whatever benefits can be derived from having a good coach are manifested in game results. If a team has a good coach, then he'll find a way to win more often than not, and the team can be rewarded in the poll upon that basis. Again, you're seeking to reward a team for possessing a component that ought to lead to winning; I'm seeking to see teams rewarded for using that and other components and actually winning with them. One is a partial explanation of theory; the other is a manifestation of concrete results. My way is a demonstrable means of predicting the outcomes of games played between this year's teams (in other words, picking favorites and underdogs), and yours isn't.

Good coaching aside, though, Bill Harris does not have the players this season to have his team be reasonably considered favorites against the conference's ranked or receiving-votes teams, even at home in King Arena. And that is demonstrably true if you look at how Wheaton has performed this season.

Is Wheaton capable of pulling off a CCIW upset against Illinois Wesleyan or North Central or Augustana or Elmhurst based to at least some degree upon Harris's coaching acumen? Sure. But I wouldn't count on it, and counting on it is what determining favorites and underdogs is all about. Giving Harris too much credit skews the results if you take the poll into consideration. Say Wheaton had managed to stave off the frantic one-man comeback Augie staged in the last ninety seconds of Wednesday's ballgame in Rock Island. According to the judgment of someone who is taking the Bill Harris legacy into consideration, the upset is mitigated from Augie's point of view because they were facing a proven coach (never mind what this says about Augie coach Grey Giovanine ). Guess what? That judgment would have been wrong. Wheaton does not have a good team this season, and a Wheaton upset at Augie would've been a catastrophic loss for the hosts no matter how you sliced it or tried to make excuses for it. It would've been a loss for which Augie should've been severely penalized in next week's poll. Saying that they were beaten by a good coach would give them an excuse that they didn't deserve, because Wheaton's performance this year does not merit awarding that excuse to bail out Augie.

[wooscotsfan]

Final:  #3 Wooster 111  Wabash 76

Wooster absolutely thumps Wabash in Crawfordsville on the Lil' Giants home floor.  I know comparative scores are not always accurate but this is a much more impressive result than Illinois Wesleyan's 12 point win at Wabash earlier this season.

Wooster was led by James Cooper with 25 points and Tim Vandervaart with 24 points, 13 boards and 6 assists.  Wabash couldn't stop either one of them and they combined for 40 points in the 2nd half.

Wooster notched this big victory even though Tom Port, one of Wooster's best players, only played 3 minutes in the 2nd half before he fouled out.

Two nice road wins for the Scots this week!
Wooster is now 14-1, 6-0 in the NCAC.

GO SCOTS!!

[smedindy]

From my eyes, Wooster is a better team than IWU.

[sac]

Hope rebounds from Wed's thrashing to equally thrash rival Calvin.

Hope 73 Calvin 55

Hope led by 30, Calvin finished the game on a 17-5 run.

[gordonmann]

Interesting week for the Clucks of Trinity who destroy Clark (who beat WPI) by 27 and then tip Amherst in OT.

Two wins is better than the alternative.

[albionbritfan]

Albion up by 16 at the half.  Alma goes all-world in the second half, hitting 10 3-pointers and committing only two turnovers.  Albion misses 5 free throws in the last half-minute of the game, but wins by 3.  Not necessarily the way Albion should or could have won, but a win nonetheless.  Alma is a far better team than their 0-and-everything W-L records of recent past.

Also in the MIAA, Hope returns the favor to Calvin.  Big win for Hope in the new barn.  Should at least help break any fall in the top 25.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I realize there are still plenty of top games to go which will affect the answers, but three early questions:

Does #11 Hampden-Sydney losing BOTH games this week drop them all the way out of the poll?  (I'm gonna guess, barring later action tonight, that they barely stay in - say, 23 or 24.)

Does #25 Transylvania beating #21 Bluffton today atone for the earlier loss, or just drag Bluffton down with them?  (I'm guessing the latter - both will be among the ORVs next week.  Though this one is especially dependent on other action - if their likely replacements also lose, then 'never mind'!)

So, who the heck is #1?  I would have earlier predicted that Albion would jump to the top spot, but Witt destroyed Hiram (admittedlty a bad team), Woo annihilated a very solid Wabash team (IN Crawfordsville), while Albion barely survived a so-so Alma team.  If IWU can win big at former top 25 Elmhurst, things may get REALLY interesting.  Dart board time?!

On a related note, Hope's crushing of arch-rival Calvin (they were up 30 before the subs let Calvin make the final a bit more respectable) probably will keep them from falling below 5 or 6.