Top 25 talk

[Greek Tragedy]

#5 UW-Stevens Point (10-1) lost at Northern Michigan 101-92 and def. #9 Augustana 71-68 (and had a game at Regis [CO] cancelled)

I heard they were afraid to play Stevens Point! 

Actually, on Bob Semling's weekly radio show, he said they tried to work out a game with Winona St that eventually fell through.  Would've been cool to play the D2 defending champs.  Northern Michigan, though, was hard enough! 

[David Collinge]

Despite receiving zero points in the last poll, it seems almost inconceivable that UT-Dallas (now 11-0 with a win over a d1, and their win over MHB suddenly looking more impressive) will not enter the next poll, perhaps fairly high.

My question to DC, the all-knowing keeper of the poll archives: what is the current record high entry for a team this late in the season who previously received NO votes?

Well, that's a toughie.  Vote-points and rankings are separate things, kept in separate places.  I can (and shall proceed to) tell you who made the biggest gains in vote-points from a flat zero, and we can assume that those gains resulted in the highest rankings, but it's not necessarily the case.  That's particularly true in the early season, when more teams receive votes and therefore a relatively lower point total results in a relatively higher ranking.  That is, one team may have gone from 0 in the preseason to 150 in week one, translating to a ranking of, say #15, while another may have gone from 0 in week 7 to 160 in week 8 but only reached, say, #18.

With that caveat, here's the biggest gains from 0, divided into two categories:
Most points in preseason poll after receiving 0 in final poll of previous season:
1. Franklin & Marshall: 303 points (#12) in the preseason poll for 2001-02.
2. Trinity (TX): 261 (#13) in preseason 2003-04
3. Wheaton (IL): 211 (#17) in preseason 2003-04
4. Baldwin-Wallace: 208 (#16) in preseason 2004-05
5. Wilkes: 200 points (#19) in preseason 2000-01

Most points in a mid-season poll after receiving 0 the previous week:
1. Wilmington: 209 (#17) in week 6 2005-06
2. SCAD: 170 (#19) in week 2 2000-01
3. Springfield: 163 (#20) in week 4 2004-05
4. Hanover: 153 (#16) in week 1 2002-03
5. Augustana: 146 (#20) in week 7 2001-02
6. UW-Oshkosh: 136 (#20) in week 6 2001-02
7. UW-Stevens Point: 122 (#21) in week 6 1999-00

I think the answer to your specific question (biggest jump from zero this late in the season) has got to be Wilma last season in week 6.  That week they had won at #22 Ohio Northern and at #12 Baldwin-Wallace to move to 12-1.  The Quakers then lost their next two games, four of five, five of seven, and finished 20-7, losing in the OAC semifinals (to B-W).  They lost 192 of their 209 points in week 7, then lost the other 17 in week 8.  They made cameo appearances at the bottom of the ORV category in two later weeks, but were gone by the end of the season.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Thanks, David, I knew you'd come through (at least partially).

If UT-Dallas beats either 209 points or #17 ranking, I'll go through poll-by-poll to see if they indeed have set a new record.

[fpc85]

fpc, Happy New Year!

I think that the only way that I would consider playing a team after a 3-week break would be to catch the opponent on day 3.  I thought that was masterful scheduling...a win-win-win for everyone.

As for San Antonio, I hope that Amherst took in the Missions and the Institute of the Texas Cultures.  My favorite Texas historian is T.R. Fehrenbach at UT-San Antonio.  His Lone Star is in its 3rd edition.  Some critics think that his expertise stops at the 20th Century.  If one agrees, then his coverage of the settling of the western hemisphere and the frontier, the contrast of Spanish Colonization with Anglo-Celtic culture, and the impact of modern (European-American) technology on native Americans is sufficiently interesting in and of itself.

IMHO, the chapter on the Alamo is the best I have ever read.

Did you see the Amherst-Trinity game? 

(I like the T-shirt.  I was going to make the wisecrack as to whether that statement was a "GRE" question at Amherst!    )

RT,
Thanks and happy new years to you also. Hixon will always do what's best for his team . I didnt see the game. My grandmother told me to never travel to Texas....something bout her watching that "cops" show and a majority of the segements where in Texas. I am more of a science guy...history usually put me to sleep . I much prefer comparative embryology, transcription and translation of proteins. Even better are the bioethical issues people will face in the next 20 years.....fascinating stuff worth discussing with people...I heard the team checked out the sights and seemed to enjoy the city.... All amherst students have a healthy disdain for anything eph....The current jrs. are undefeated against Williams and I am sure they want that streak to continue.

[fpc85]

DC, Thanks for the clarity....you have restored my faith.

My only complaint has been that there is something wrong  with the top 25 listing if the Jeffs are not #1 in the next poll. It questions the ranking process of the earlier polls.

That's not necessarily so.  In the most recent poll, 22 voters thought Wooster was the best team, and all twenty-two of those votes are up for grabs.  Those voters will most probably decide between whoever was #2 on their ballots the last time, and Ohio Northern, who since the last poll beat the #6 team by 17 points, the #1 team on their home court, and the team that had just beaten the #4 team. 

Some of those voters had Amherst as their #2, but not all of them.  Amherst had 3 first place votes and 586 points.  That means they received 511 points from 22 ballots, an average of just over 23 points per ballot.  That's approximately #3 on the average ballot.  In other words, probably about half or slightly more of the voters had someone besides Wooster ranked ahead of Amherst.  If that "somebody" is ONU or Stevens Point, there's no good reason to move Amherst ahead of them this week.  If not, they still might jump ONU over Amherst, based on the last two weeks' results.  None of that I would take as an indictment of the poll.

I would, however, take it as an indictment of the poll if such voters were to promote Amherst to #1 solely on the basis of their having been #2 two weeks ago.  That would mean they ignored the large amount of data that Pat provides them, instead choosing to rely only on the previous poll (or their previous ballot) and a list of who lost since then. 

I don't think either of us has to worry.  I believe the voters vote intelligently and not robotically; and I believe that about two-thirds of them will come to the conclusion that Amherst should be #1.   

[Pat Coleman]

fpc85:

I guess I don't see why you think Amherst should be considered immune from weekly re-evaluation.

[fpc85]

Pat:
I don't think they should be immune. I don't know if they are the best team in the country....I don't know if any team can make  that claim with any certainty at this time. I think that several teams could make a case for the top spot and I am sure if there were another team at the #2 slot they would have the same argument that I have. I would be surprised if Amherst weren't #1. I don't think I have seen anything like it in 30 years of following basketball..... although DC did provide some clarity on the possibility of that occurring. . Nonetheless, my bigggest issue is that there appears to be some anti-Amherst sentiment. Not sure why, I can only surmise that it is a combination of things:
1. NESCAC format
2. Lack of Depth in NE region
3. Some of the best  teams in region refuse to play the Jeffs.

[Ralph Turner]

fpc85, it was about 3 years ago, on another Posting Up server, on which we had a careful analysis as to the convergence of several factors that aided the NESCAC teams.

The single round robin format decreased the number of losses that the NESCAC teams sustained, which in turn gave better Strength of Schedule (SOS) Indices (as it was known then), now known as Quality of Wins Index.

The relative weakness of the neighboring teams and conferences in the Northeast gave the NESCAC lower division teams inflated SOS Indices, e.g., a victory over a Middlebury that might be 1-8 in the NESCAC but ends up 11-11 in the Northeast Region or a Connecticut College ends up 3-6 in the NESCAC but 12-11 in the Northeast Region.  By the SOSI, those extra Northeast Region non-conference games raise the SOSI value of a win over Connecticut College from 10/11 points to 12/13 points.  The victory over Middlebury raises from 8/9 to 12/13 points. (Please read the Basketball Handbook for the details.  2004 Basketball Handbook )

The primary beneficiaries were Amhest and Tufts. The strong showing by Williams in 2003 had softened some of the debate that had raged in similar discussions in 2002.

This does not mean that there won't be old smoldering sentiments about the weakness of the Northeast Region in general.  I mention this so you will be aware that the NESCAC success vis-a-vis its other Northeast Region opponents is met with skepticism by some posters from the WIAC, the CCIW, the OAC, the NCAC, the MIAA and occasionally the NJAC. 

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think I have seen anything like it in 30 years of following basketball..... although DC did provide some clarity on the possibility of that occurring.

Happened in our poll in 2002 after Randolph-Macon leaped from the 11 spot to No. 1 between weeks 6 and 7. The Yellow Jackets beat the reigning No. 2 team and leapfrogged five teams which did not lose on the way to the top spot.

It has probably happened another time but that is the one that sticks out in my mind.

[fpc85]

Interesting......Did Randolph Macon last in the #1 spot for long?

[Titan Q]

fpc85, it was about 3 years ago, on another Posting Up server, on which we had a careful analysis as to the convergence of several factors that aided the NESCAC teams.

The single round robin format decreased the number of losses that the NESCAC teams sustained, which in turn gave better Strength of Schedule (SOS) Indices (as it was known then), now known as Quality of Wins Index.

The relative weakness of the neighboring teams and conferences in the Northeast gave the NESCAC lower division teams inflated SOS Indices, e.g., a victory over a Middlebury that might be 1-8 in the NESCAC but ends up 11-11 in the Northeast Region or a Connecticut College ends up 3-6 in the NESCAC but 12-11 in the Northeast Region.  By the SOSI, those extra Northeast Region non-conference games raise the SOSI value of a win over Connecticut College from 10/11 points to 12/13 points.  The victory over Middlebury raises from 8/9 to 12/13 points. (Please read the Basketball Handbook for the details.  2004 Basketball Handbook )

The primary beneficiaries were Amhest and Tufts. The strong showing by Williams in 2003 had softened some of the debate that had raged in similar discussions in 2002.

This does not mean that there won't be old smoldering sentiments about the weakness of the Northeast Region in general.  I mention this so you will be aware that the NESCAC success vis-a-vis its other Northeast Region opponents is met with skepticism by some posters from the WIAC, the CCIW, the OAC, the NCAC, the MIAA and occasionally the NJAC. 

And just to clarify, this CCIW media person and longtime Top 25 voter does not question the NESCAC's top teams at all.  I've been to Salem and watched Williams win a national title and Amherst play both Wittenberg and Illinois Wesleyan to final possession type games 9 months ago.  I've seen Nogelo and Crotty and Coffin and Bedford play.   I understand that the NESCAC's best teams are always national title contenders, just as the CCIW's, WIAC's, NCAC's, OAC's, etc are.

It is the Northeast region that is the problem.  I don't think anyone can debate that it is extremely weak outside of the NESCAC.  A team like Amherst, scheduling in-region as D3 teams are encouraged to do, is left with terribly weak non-conference schedule.  That is where, as a Top 25 voter, I struggle.  It is so much easier to evaluate teams who play multiple other good teams.  Like UW-Stevens Point, which has played at Lawrence and vs Augustana outside of the WIAC.  Or Wooster facing Ohio Northern and an NAIA I powerhouse.  10-0 Whitworth has an impressive win at Wheaton.  Lawrence has played Stevens Point, Oshkosh, and Carthage.

I'm not sure this is anyone's fault that Amherst's non-conference schedule is so weak or that there is anything that be can done to fix it.  Maybe other "Top 25 caliber" D3 teams outside of the region won't play Amherst...I don't know.  But the simple fact is that this voter in Illinois (who doesn't get to see Amherst play) has a hard time evaluating how they stack up vs other Top 10 teams.  I saw Amherst play last year and I know they lost a couple very key players (Bedord and Casnocha?) -- coming into the season I assumed they would not be as good as last year.  Right now on paper, all I have to judge whether I was right or wrong is a win over Brandeis and a bunch of wins over weak teams.  As a voter, I probably look at strength of schedule above everything else...other voters evaluate teams in their own way. 

Amherst is a great team and I suspect they'll move into the #1 spot.  We'll learn more as the NESCAC plays out.

[David Collinge]

Interesting......Did Randolph Macon last in the #1 spot for long?

They were there for two weeks, then slipped to #5 after being upset at home by Emory & Henry.  The Yellow Jackets stayed in the top 10 for the remainder of the regular season, a season in which they went 23-5 and lost to #12 Hampden-Sydney in the conference finals.  They lost in the Sweet Sixteen to eventual national champion Otterbein, and were ranked #12 in the final poll.

[Titan Q]

Happy New Year to all D3hoops.com readers and contributors.  Here is to another year filled with entertaining and intelligent discussion about the purest form of a great sport.

[David Collinge]

Happened in our poll in 2002 after Randolph-Macon leaped from the 11 spot to No. 1 between weeks 6 and 7. The Yellow Jackets beat the reigning No. 2 team and leapfrogged five teams which did not lose on the way to the top spot.

The five teams were Catholic (#5 to #3), Wash U. (#6 to #4), Brockport St. (#7 to #5), Gustavus Adolphus (#10 to #6), and Christopher Newport (#8 to #9).  Brockport was unbeaten, the others had one loss apiece.  There was a lot of carnage that week: the unanimous #1 team (Carthage) lost, the #2 team (Hampden-Sydney) lost (to R-MC), and the #3 and #4 teams (DePauw and Wheaton [IL]) each lost twice.  The competition for #1 was much more wide open that week than it is this week.  But Pat's point is still valid, that reevalutations taking into account recent results can change the order of the teams, even when none of them lose.

[David Collinge]

It has probably happened another time but that is the one that sticks out in my mind.

Here's another, less dramatic, example, one that features some of the same teams in play this week, and one that fpc85 may not like so much.

Week 13, 2004-05: Wooster #1, Amherst (23-1) #2, UW-Stevens Point (21-3) #3.  Wooster loses to #5-ranked Wittenberg and drops to #5.  Amherst won twice (Trinity, Bates) in the NESCAC tournament and remained #2.  Point won three games in the WIAC tournament and leapfrogged the Jeffs into the #1 slot.  The vote was nearly even: Point had 11 1st place votes and 601 points, Amherst had 9/597.  This was the final poll of the regular season. 

Were the voters right?  Well, Amherst lost at home in the Sweet Sixteen (to national runner-up Rochester), and Point won the "Walnut and Bronze" (smoking Rochester by 24 in the final.)