Top 25 talk

[Pat Coleman]

Don't know why they can't just copy and paste the poll from the press release like everyone else.

[Ralph Turner]

The NCAA 'coaches poll' lists WPI as "Worchester Tech."  As someone who was born and raised in Central Massachusetts and watched high school tournament games in that gym, I object!!!

Drop the 'h,' in spelling AND in pronunciation. 

Don't know why they can't just copy and paste the poll from the press release like everyone else.

Copyright laws... It is not exactly the same poll!  There is a disagreement on WPI vs Worchester Tech. 

[digs]

Perhaps, but also pretty sure the ceiling is higher for Wheaton than it is for Redlands, considering where they came from last year.

Pat,

I'm really not trying to piss you off on this, but I do not understand why last year's results raise the ceiling on this year's team--assuming that both teams are considered young.  Isn't the ceiling on any team is determined by the players on that particular team not what other players on that team did in past years? 

No, honestly, I just don't think so. I think the track record of the program as a national Top 25 threat means that they get better kids and may indeed have better coaching, therefore the ceiling is higher.

This goes to my original post--voters (at least one of them) have a bias based on past performance and reputation and thus Oxy dropped farther after thier 2 losses and other schools don't drop as far after 2 similar losses.  I don't quite know why you will never admit that the voters have some bias--everyone has biases based on their experience.  In the case of the voters, I trust that you have selected people with great experience and their bias is based on a lot of past experience and knowledge.  This isn't wrong just a fact.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

York is killing me, just when they look like they are flying high, they get pulled down again.  Maybe the team is buying into the success every time I do and that's what's tripping them up?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Perhaps, but also pretty sure the ceiling is higher for Wheaton than it is for Redlands, considering where they came from last year.

Pat,

I'm really not trying to piss you off on this, but I do not understand why last year's results raise the ceiling on this year's team--assuming that both teams are considered young.  Isn't the ceiling on any team is determined by the players on that particular team not what other players on that team did in past years? 

No, honestly, I just don't think so. I think the track record of the program as a national Top 25 threat means that they get better kids and may indeed have better coaching, therefore the ceiling is higher.

This goes to my original post--voters (at least one of them) have a bias based on past performance and reputation and thus Oxy dropped farther after thier 2 losses and other schools don't drop as far after 2 similar losses.  I don't quite know why you will never admit that the voters have some bias--everyone has biases based on their experience.  In the case of the voters, I trust that you have selected people with great experience and their bias is based on a lot of past experience and knowledge.  This isn't wrong just a fact.

But you are assuming that past performance and reputation is a 'bias' - Pat was arguing that, at least until this year's version of a team has shown what is really is, past performance and reputation are perfectly legitimate variables, for the reasons he cited (and I would add 'evidence of institutional support for athletics').

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Perhaps, but also pretty sure the ceiling is higher for Wheaton than it is for Redlands, considering where they came from last year.

Pat,

I'm really not trying to piss you off on this, but I do not understand why last year's results raise the ceiling on this year's team--assuming that both teams are considered young.  Isn't the ceiling on any team is determined by the players on that particular team not what other players on that team did in past years? 

No, honestly, I just don't think so. I think the track record of the program as a national Top 25 threat means that they get better kids and may indeed have better coaching, therefore the ceiling is higher.

This goes to my original post--voters (at least one of them) have a bias based on past performance and reputation and thus Oxy dropped farther after thier 2 losses and other schools don't drop as far after 2 similar losses.  I don't quite know why you will never admit that the voters have some bias--everyone has biases based on their experience.  In the case of the voters, I trust that you have selected people with great experience and their bias is based on a lot of past experience and knowledge.  This isn't wrong just a fact.

But you are assuming that past performance and reputation is a 'bias' - Pat was arguing that, at least until this year's version of a team has shown what is really is, past performance and reputation are perfectly legitimate variables, for the reasons he cited (and I would add 'evidence of institutional support for athletics').

That is basically what digs was saying, albeit in a different way.  We're down to semantics now boys; its where every serious conversation on this site leads if we let it get far enough.  Oh the joys of Posting Up.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Hoops,

I hardly think 'bias' vs. 'legitimate variables' is a semantic quibble!

As for the Oxy case, I think they fell further than some other teams not because of 'reputation', but because they did not have the same level of positive resume THIS year that the others did.  Their only 'signature' win, Amherst, was at home two months ago.  Their only other 'solid' wins, CMS, PP, and Whitworth, all came at home and all at least a month ago.  So when they beat CalTech by only 14, barely beat Whittier, then proceeded to lose three straight (including to Redlands at home), I think it was quite reasonable to wonder if the wheels on the bus were beginning to wobble!  And that is ALL from this year's evidence, not reputation.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I wasn't commenting on those words specifically, but on the full statments.  Both of you said that voters use previous year's results in their evaluation of teams.  Neither of you said this was wrong, however you used different terminology to explain it.  Thus the semantics!

[Knightstalker]

Semantics, Schementics, just bust out the steel cage and throw down.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I wasn't commenting on those words specifically, but on the full statments.  Both of you said that voters use previous year's results in their evaluation of teams.  Neither of you said this was wrong, however you used different terminology to explain it.  Thus the semantics!

But in his later post he used Oxy's bigger drop-off as an example of previous results and reputation.  I suggest it can be fully explained just by THIS year's results.

I contend that previous history and reputation are fully legitimate variables over, oh, say, the first-third of the season.  If they are STILL being used in the last-third of the season they reflect an illegitimate bias.  That's (to me, at least) an important distinction, not a semantic quibble.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Agree to disagree, Ypsi.  Digs mentioned how his perceived "bias" was legitimate, while you talk about a "legitimate variable."  From the outside of the debate (where I am firmly planted) that appears to be a trivial difference.



That being said, let me add one more thing:


Who cares?

[Mr. Ypsi]

HF,

As a statistics instructor, I care.   Bias is always ILlegitimate!

But, don't worry, I'm done!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

As a statistics instructor, I care.  Bias is always ILlegitimate!

I knew that was coming.

[digs]

Yipsi,

The discussion started before Oxy lost the third.  But the real arguement over bias was when Pat said that Wheaton had a bigger upside than Redlands at the time of their early season meeting.  His arguement for this was based on what they had done in privious years, so they obviously could improve more in the 6 weeks since this meeting.  I contended that what the school had done in privious years was irrelavant in terms of these two teams since we seemed to agree that both teams were young teams. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

digs,

But your Oxy example to illlustrate the 'bias' was yesterday, long after their third straight loss.  That was why I sought to show that no previous year or reputation biases were needed to explain why Oxy fell further than some other teams.

BTW, I'm glad you share my view that we are discussing, not arguing!  Hoops unwittingly tapped one of my pet peeves as a statistician - 'legitimate bias'.  There ain't no such thing!!