Posters' Poll

[Knightstalker]

I knew I should have sent it to you in an IM.  Do you use AOL as your net provider?

[Mr. Ypsi]

I knew I should have sent it to you in an IM.  Do you use AOL as your net provider?

No.  Probably the simplest way to submit is this site's private message service.  Otherwise, it is cabonney@netscape.net.

As tight as the top 4 were, I'm curious if your submission would have shaken them up?!

[titanfan]

Mr. Ypsi,

Did you get my ballot?

[Mr. Ypsi]

titanfan, yes. 

I thought a few of your picks were a bit eccentric, but certainly nothing indefensible! (Except, maybe, #25!?!)

[John Gleich]

The only question I've got is in regards to the weight given to HoFers and Starters+.  How does that really make it a credible posters' poll if some posters can really change the outcome, especially if there are so few voters.

Wouldn't the poll be more credible if it was one vote per voter?  It sure as heck would make it easier to track (divide the number of votes by the number of voters and discover the average place in the poll, etc).

Just a thought.

[smedindy]

The idea was that Johnny Come Lately's couldn't influence it.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The only question I've got is in regards to the weight given to HoFers and Starters+.  How does that really make it a credible posters' poll if some posters can really change the outcome, especially if there are so few voters.

Wouldn't the poll be more credible if it was one vote per voter?  It sure as heck would make it easier to track (divide the number of votes by the number of voters and discover the average place in the poll, etc).

Just a thought.

Gotcha - and already had reached the same conclusion (besides, the differential weighting was a bit of a pain)!

I was trying to lure in HoFers and discourage 'drive-by' newbies, but we only had two of the former and none, really, of the latter.  The ONLY voter in the latter category still had well-over 100 posts.

Since I will not let in any new voters after next week, my plan was to drop the differential voting after that time (but keep it this week for the reasons cited above), but now you've blown my cover!

So far, most voters are in the middle category anyway (even the 'intended' voters like Knightstalker!), and I did reserve the right to disallow ballots (if we suddenly get a swarm of voters naming Maine-Presque Isle as the #1 team!), so I'm at least leaning towards counting all ballots the same.

Comments?

[Ralph Turner]

If you like the quality of your panel, and believe them to be a fair and representative group, then weigh each ballot equally!

[titanfan]

titanfan, yes. 

I thought a few of your picks were a bit eccentric,

Thanks for the compliment!  

From what I've read, I think my number 25 is a pretty decent team.  And when you get to that point, I feel like I had about 10 teams I could have put there, and sometimes you go a little on gut.  Besides, some of the D3Hoops pollsters voted for them too!

All of this brings me to another question.  I'm guessing you are saying some of my votes were a little eccentric because they were different from the other voters.  And I'm assuming the other voters were at least relatively similar based on your comment.  I wonder if that is influenced by the actual D3Hoops.com poll?  

The real question I have, though, and Pat could answer this better, is how much differentiation is there in the individual pollsters picks in the D3Hoops poll?  All we see is the final poll, which we sort of view as the "normal" ranking, but I would guess that most individual pollsters have some anomalys in their rankings.

Just looking at our poll versus the D3Hoops poll, with only 9 posters, we've included both Hanover and Tufts who were not voted for in the D3Hoops poll.  And their poll includes St. Thomas, Elmhurst, New Jersey City, Virginia Wesleyan, UW-Oshkosh, Hamilton, and Maryville (TN), which ours does not.

Not trying to defend my eccentricity!  (though maybe I'm more normal than even I thought!!!)

[Ralph Turner]

Either we have some group-think or there is a consensus.  Ostensibly, these votes in Mr Ypsi's poll were cast before Pat's Week #6 poll appeared.  Yes, Pat's week #5 was available, but there was considerable upheaval in the Top 25 last week.

Comparing Pat's to Mr Ypsi's:

Five of five agree in #1-#5

Five of five agree in #6-#10

Seven of seven agree in #11-#17

Six of six agree in #18-#23.

[Greek Tragedy]

p.s., if anyone who has mastered tables wants to clean this up, feel free!  (And, if you are willing, I could email the tabulations to you so you can do it right on the first post! )

You won't believe how much work it takes to put all that in table format.  I figured it out, but I don't even put the WIAC pick em league in table format.  The guy in the MIAC page does...

In all honesty, I had a real hard time picking 20-25 and spent most of my time with those rankings, comparing schedules and what not...not to mention those "receiving votes" teams!

I was hoping we'd get more in too...hopefully next week.  Great job Mr. Ypsi.

[Mr. Ypsi]

If you like the quality of your panel, and believe them to be a fair and representative group, then weigh each ballot equally!

I certainly think them to be fair (and knowledgable) - representative?  They were self-selected, which puts that immediately into question, but I'm not sure I'd WANT them to be representative of all posters!  Representative perhaps of posters who follow the national scene, but tell me how to assure that!  I tried by not announcing the poll except in this area.

But coming from someone who got triple credit, I certainly will give your advice for equal weighting high consideration (especially since, if your ballot had NOT received triple weighting, my beloved Titans would have been #1 instead of #4 - that's how close the top teams finished)!

Talk it up amongst knowledgable NATIONAL fans - I'd certainly love to see twice the number of pollsters next week (I can handle the computations!).  Though if anyone else wants to handle the table...?

[There were such small samples (5 before the official poll, 4 after) that I d bother with formal computations, but I didn't SENSE any difference between before and after poll submissions.]

[Mr. Ypsi]

Either we have some group-think or there is a consensus.  Ostensibly, these votes in Mr Ypsi's poll were cast before Pat's Week #6 poll appeared.  Yes, Pat's week #5 was available, but there was considerable upheaval in the Top 25 last week.

Comparing Pat's to Mr Ypsi's:

Five of five agree in #1-#5

Five of five agree in #6-#10

Seven of seven agree in #11-#17

Six of six agree in #18-#23.

Ralph, I still haven't compared the polls, but I'm not surprised about the top 5 - I've already expressed the idea that I (at least) think there is a CLEAR top five, with separation before you hit #6.  I simply don't think anyone can bulldoze their way into that group unless someone loses their way out of it.  And that much I saw in both the REAL poll and our poll - the top 5 are virtually interchangable (so close that I suspect the winner of Hope-Albion will be #1 next week no matter WHAT the other teams do).

[Knightstalker]

I knew I should have sent it to you in an IM.  Do you use AOL as your net provider?

No.  Probably the simplest way to submit is this site's private message service.  Otherwise, it is cabonney@netscape.net.

As tight as the top 4 were, I'm curious if your submission would have shaken them up?!

I actually listed my top five in alphabetical order, I just couldn't pick one that one definitely better than the others so I thought that was fairest for this week.  The biggest help I had was the post someone made listing what the top 25 in Pats poll had done the past week.  As I placed teams on my ballot I deleted them from that list.  The other teams being considered by me were the others receiving votes.   

[smedindy]

What would the results of this poll be without the weights?