Posters' Poll

[Coach C]

As someone who does vote on the 'real' poll, I can tell you that I also have concerns about some of the 1-2 loss teams being very high in the rankings when there are 4-5 loss teams that seem to have had some better wins and play in traditionally stronger conferences. One of the metrics that I tend to look at closely is what road wins does a team have over teams that are above .500.  I have not looked at a Massey ranking in years. I will take a gander at the SOS calc, but when it comes down to choosing between teams, my 'go-to' determinant is what tough teams have they beaten on the road.

I read this thread every week and am always impressed with the knowledge of the voters and the thought that they put into their ballots.  i hope the tradition continues!

C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

As someone who does vote on the 'real' poll, I can tell you that I also have concerns about some of the 1-2 loss teams being very high in the rankings when there are 4-5 loss teams that seem to have had some better wins and play in traditionally stronger conferences. One of the metrics that I tend to look at closely is what road wins does a team have over teams that are above .500.  I have not looked at a Massey ranking in years. I will take a gander at the SOS calc, but when it comes down to choosing between teams, my 'go-to' determinant is what tough teams have they beaten on the road.

I read this thread every week and am always impressed with the knowledge of the voters and the thought that they put into their ballots.  i hope the tradition continues!

C

I get that, but usually it's easier to know who the tough teams are going to be early on.

We all thought Williams, Marietta, even Wooster were going to be better than they are - none of those teams has really beaten anybody of note.  We've also got many more teams gearing up in February who had abysmal Decembers.

I'm tempted to think 7 loss North Central might just be a top ten team right now - but there's just no way to tell.

WashU was uninspired when they played the big name teams on their schedule, but they seem a little frisky now - although that could just be because the UAA is down this year.  We just don't know.

Birmingham-Southern has played close games with terrible teams, whereas MIT hasn't really.  But is margin of victory over bad teams really a good determinant?  Who knows.  I watched Cabrini play last year, and despite the solid tourney run, they didn't actually look like a great team (and lost their second best player and charismatic leader).

[Hugenerd]

As someone who does vote on the 'real' poll, I can tell you that I also have concerns about some of the 1-2 loss teams being very high in the rankings when there are 4-5 loss teams that seem to have had some better wins and play in traditionally stronger conferences. One of the metrics that I tend to look at closely is what road wins does a team have over teams that are above .500.  I have not looked at a Massey ranking in years. I will take a gander at the SOS calc, but when it comes down to choosing between teams, my 'go-to' determinant is what tough teams have they beaten on the road.

I read this thread every week and am always impressed with the knowledge of the voters and the thought that they put into their ballots.  i hope the tradition continues!

C

I get that, but usually it's easier to know who the tough teams are going to be early on.

We all thought Williams, Marietta, even Wooster were going to be better than they are - none of those teams has really beaten anybody of note.  We've also got many more teams gearing up in February who had abysmal Decembers.

I'm tempted to think 7 loss North Central might just be a top ten team right now - but there's just no way to tell.

WashU was uninspired when they played the big name teams on their schedule, but they seem a little frisky now - although that could just be because the UAA is down this year.  We just don't know.

Birmingham-Southern has played close games with terrible teams, whereas MIT hasn't really.  But is margin of victory over bad teams really a good determinant?  Who knows.  I watched Cabrini play last year, and despite the solid tourney run, they didn't actually look like a great team (and lost their second best player and charismatic leader).

MIT is 12-1 against teams with at least a 0.500 record (not counting head-to-head; in other words, a team like Clark which is 11-12, with 2 of those losses to MIT, counts as 11-10 when considering their in-region record when computing stats for MIT, which is how the NCAA does it).  They have a few games against teams with really bad WPs (UMB, Emerson), which is driving down their OWP value, but MIT has as many wins over teams with 0.500 or better records as any team in the NE, and the best winning percentage of those games of any team (Amherst 12-2, Middlebury 12-2, WPI 12-3).

[smedindy]

Conference play is always a tough gauge because teams know each other so well. Even a mediocre team can give an excellent team fits by good scouting and a good game plan.

Plus there is the age-old match-up issue.

I love metrics like Massey but I don't hold the power ranking line when voting. Take a team like Denison - now they are playing like the should have played all season. They had the talent but couldn't close anyone out. However, I do not want to face them in the NCAC tourney now. So I put Wabash back into my Top 25 this week because they are worthy (and Wooster did beat them, so that's SOMEONE of note, cough, cough), and that loss to Denison isn't such a bad loss now.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

As someone who does vote on the 'real' poll, I can tell you that I also have concerns about some of the 1-2 loss teams being very high in the rankings when there are 4-5 loss teams that seem to have had some better wins and play in traditionally stronger conferences. One of the metrics that I tend to look at closely is what road wins does a team have over teams that are above .500.  I have not looked at a Massey ranking in years. I will take a gander at the SOS calc, but when it comes down to choosing between teams, my 'go-to' determinant is what tough teams have they beaten on the road.

I read this thread every week and am always impressed with the knowledge of the voters and the thought that they put into their ballots.  i hope the tradition continues!

C

I get that, but usually it's easier to know who the tough teams are going to be early on.

We all thought Williams, Marietta, even Wooster were going to be better than they are - none of those teams has really beaten anybody of note.  We've also got many more teams gearing up in February who had abysmal Decembers.

I'm tempted to think 7 loss North Central might just be a top ten team right now - but there's just no way to tell.

WashU was uninspired when they played the big name teams on their schedule, but they seem a little frisky now - although that could just be because the UAA is down this year.  We just don't know.

Birmingham-Southern has played close games with terrible teams, whereas MIT hasn't really.  But is margin of victory over bad teams really a good determinant?  Who knows.  I watched Cabrini play last year, and despite the solid tourney run, they didn't actually look like a great team (and lost their second best player and charismatic leader).

MIT is 12-1 against teams with at least a 0.500 record (not counting head-to-head; in other words, a team like Clark which is 11-12, with 2 of those losses to MIT, counts as 11-10 when considering their in-region record when computing stats for MIT, which is how the NCAA does it).  They have a few games against teams with really bad WPs (UMB, Emerson), which is driving down their OWP value, but MIT has as many wins over teams with 0.500 or better records as any team in the NE, and the best winning percentage of those games of any team (Amherst 12-2, Middlebury 12-2, WPI 12-3).

I don't use the OWP and OOWP like the NCAA does, because it disproportionately helps the NE region teams.  Sure, it's my home region, but it's true.  When you've got more teams crammed into a small space there are going to be more teams who load up a good record playing terrible opponents (who are also improving their records by playing terrible opponents).  It just brings the values to artificial heights.

Magnus is a great example this year.  They play in a conference with bad teams, so they've got a good record secured there.  But if they were in the Midwest, for example, there just aren't as many bad teams to schedule (even if you're not scheduling them on purpose, you still end up with more bad teams because more bad teams exist).  There's no way they would be 22-1 without so many middling teams.  There are a number of teams on their schedule with inflated records for the same reason.

I just don't think those numbers give us an accurate reflection of the quality across regions.  It works just fine within a region, but the comparison across regions isn't influential for me.

I have to find some other criteria to use - at this point we're sort of stuck with "how good are the teams you beat and how bad are the teams to whom you lost?"

[sac]

As someone who does vote on the 'real' poll, I can tell you that I also have concerns about some of the 1-2 loss teams being very high in the rankings when there are 4-5 loss teams that seem to have had some better wins and play in traditionally stronger conferences. One of the metrics that I tend to look at closely is what road wins does a team have over teams that are above .500.  I have not looked at a Massey ranking in years. I will take a gander at the SOS calc, but when it comes down to choosing between teams, my 'go-to' determinant is what tough teams have they beaten on the road.

I read this thread every week and am always impressed with the knowledge of the voters and the thought that they put into their ballots.  i hope the tradition continues!

C

I get that, but usually it's easier to know who the tough teams are going to be early on.

We all thought Williams, Marietta, even Wooster were going to be better than they are - none of those teams has really beaten anybody of note.  We've also got many more teams gearing up in February who had abysmal Decembers.

I'm tempted to think 7 loss North Central might just be a top ten team right now - but there's just no way to tell.

WashU was uninspired when they played the big name teams on their schedule, but they seem a little frisky now - although that could just be because the UAA is down this year.  We just don't know.

Birmingham-Southern has played close games with terrible teams, whereas MIT hasn't really.  But is margin of victory over bad teams really a good determinant?  Who knows.  I watched Cabrini play last year, and despite the solid tourney run, they didn't actually look like a great team (and lost their second best player and charismatic leader).

MIT is 12-1 against teams with at least a 0.500 record (not counting head-to-head; in other words, a team like Clark which is 11-12, with 2 of those losses to MIT, counts as 11-10 when considering their in-region record when computing stats for MIT, which is how the NCAA does it).  They have a few games against teams with really bad WPs (UMB, Emerson), which is driving down their OWP value, but MIT has as many wins over teams with 0.500 or better records as any team in the NE, and the best winning percentage of those games of any team (Amherst 12-2, Middlebury 12-2, WPI 12-3).

I don't use the OWP and OOWP like the NCAA does, because it disproportionately helps the NE region teams.  Sure, it's my home region, but it's true.  When you've got more teams crammed into a small space there are going to be more teams who load up a good record playing terrible opponents (who are also improving their records by playing terrible opponents).  It just brings the values to artificial heights.

Magnus is a great example this year.  They play in a conference with bad teams, so they've got a good record secured there.  But if they were in the Midwest, for example, there just aren't as many bad teams to schedule (even if you're not scheduling them on purpose, you still end up with more bad teams because more bad teams exist).  There's no way they would be 22-1 without so many middling teams.  There are a number of teams on their schedule with inflated records for the same reason.

I just don't think those numbers give us an accurate reflection of the quality across regions.  It works just fine within a region, but the comparison across regions isn't influential for me.

I have to find some other criteria to use - at this point we're sort of stuck with "how good are the teams you beat and how bad are the teams to whom you lost?"

The NESCAC not playing a round robin helps those teams have better records than they would as well.

In general winning % is a terrible way to determine a teams strength in a division with very few cross sectional games.  It works for D1 because teams travel all over the place and play half a dozen more regular season contests. 



I use massey only for its schedule strength, and only as a way to filter teams that have played decidedly less than stellar schedules.   Off the top of my head F&M is one I've held back strictly because their schedule is so much weaker compared to other teams I'd consider ranking.  Birminghm Southern is another.

[KnightSlappy]

I don't use the OWP and OOWP like the NCAA does, because it disproportionately helps the NE region teams.  Sure, it's my home region, but it's true.  When you've got more teams crammed into a small space there are going to be more teams who load up a good record playing terrible opponents (who are also improving their records by playing terrible opponents).  It just brings the values to artificial heights.

Magnus is a great example this year.  They play in a conference with bad teams, so they've got a good record secured there.  But if they were in the Midwest, for example, there just aren't as many bad teams to schedule (even if you're not scheduling them on purpose, you still end up with more bad teams because more bad teams exist).  There's no way they would be 22-1 without so many middling teams.  There are a number of teams on their schedule with inflated records for the same reason.

I just don't think those numbers give us an accurate reflection of the quality across regions.  It works just fine within a region, but the comparison across regions isn't influential for me.

I have to find some other criteria to use - at this point we're sort of stuck with "how good are the teams you beat and how bad are the teams to whom you lost?"

I don't quite understand your point. Using straight up RPI (.25 x WP + .5 x OWP + .25 x OOWP), Albertus Magnus is #48 in the nation (using all D3 games, and only D3 games). Their SOS (2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP) is .462, which is the 19th percentile. OWP and OOWP definitely does recognize that they've played "so many middling teams".

[EDIT] OK, I think I see what you mean now. If a team played Albertus Magnus, they'd receive an SOS component of .776. If they played UW-Stevens Point, they'd receive an SOS component of .740. So even though UWSP is probably a better team (and has a much better RPI), it "looks" like an easier game due to the formula.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I don't use the OWP and OOWP like the NCAA does, because it disproportionately helps the NE region teams.  Sure, it's my home region, but it's true.  When you've got more teams crammed into a small space there are going to be more teams who load up a good record playing terrible opponents (who are also improving their records by playing terrible opponents).  It just brings the values to artificial heights.

Magnus is a great example this year.  They play in a conference with bad teams, so they've got a good record secured there.  But if they were in the Midwest, for example, there just aren't as many bad teams to schedule (even if you're not scheduling them on purpose, you still end up with more bad teams because more bad teams exist).  There's no way they would be 22-1 without so many middling teams.  There are a number of teams on their schedule with inflated records for the same reason.

I just don't think those numbers give us an accurate reflection of the quality across regions.  It works just fine within a region, but the comparison across regions isn't influential for me.

I have to find some other criteria to use - at this point we're sort of stuck with "how good are the teams you beat and how bad are the teams to whom you lost?"

I don't quite understand your point. Using straight up RPI (.25 x WP + .5 x OWP + .25 x OOWP), Albertus Magnus is #48 in the nation (using all D3 games, and only D3 games). Their SOS (2/3 OWP + 1/3 OOWP) is .462, which is the 19th percentile. OWP and OOWP definitely does recognize that they've played "so many middling teams".

[EDIT] OK, I think I see what you mean now. If a team played Albertus Magnus, they'd receive an SOS component of .776. If they played UW-Stevens Point, they'd receive an SOS component of .740. So even though UWSP is probably a better team (and has a much better RPI), it "looks" like an easier game due to the formula.

Yup, this especially benefits those teams at the top of the food chain - (cough, cough - NESCAC).  The effect gets smaller as you go down.  Teams with good records are generally good, just not usually as good as their records make them out to be, especially when compared across regional borders.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Only about 3 hours to go (unless someone requests an extension), and merely SEVEN ballots in.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Much better!  Now at nine and awaiting one more promised ballot.

Last chance for someone to request an extension.

[magicman]

Mr. Y,
I'm working on one and should get it to you within an hour.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Posters' Poll, thru games of 2-12-12:

1.  Hope      269 (1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3)
2.  Amherst  254 (1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,4,6,6)
3.  MIT        238 (1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,11,11)
4.  Midd       233 (3,3,3,3,4,4,4,6,7,8,8)
5.  UWW      207 (3,5,5,6,6,7,9,9,9,10,10)
6.  UMHB      206 (1,4,5,5,5,7,7,8,8,12,18)
7.  Whitwoth 196 (5,5,7,7,7,8,9,10,10,10,12)
8.  Va Wes    193 (5,5,5,6,6,6,6,9,9,14,22)
t9  CMS        178 (2,4,7,8,9,9,10,10,11,12,-)
t9  UWSP      178 (1,7,8,8,9,10,10,11,12,13.19)
11 Cabrini      155 (4,6,7,8,8,11,12,14,16,19,-)
12 Transy      121 (10,11,12,13,13,13,14,15,16,24,24)
13 Willy Pat   103 (12,13,14,14,15,16,17,18,19,19,-)
14 F & M       101 (12,12,14,14,14,15,18,18,19,23,-)
15 Woo          96 (13,14,15,15,16,17,17,17,17,23,-)
16 Lake Forest 93 (5,12,13,13,15,18,21,21,23,-,-)
17 WashU       85 (4,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,23,24,-)
18 Birm-S       79 (11,11,11,13,17,19,22,25,-,-,-)
19 Witt          76 (9,12,14,16,16,19,21,25,-,-,-)
20 UWRF        72 (6,9,11,20,22,22,23,23,-,-,-)
21 Oswego      59 (13,13,17,18,20,21,21,-,-,-,-)
22 Emory        51 (15,15,18,18,20,20,25,-,-,-,-)
23 Wheaton    50 (11,17,20,21,22,22,23,24,24,-,-)
24 AlbertusM   43 (15,16,19,20,22,24,24,25,-,-,-)
25 Augie         38 (15,16,18,20,23,-,-,-,-,-,-)

26 Randy Mac  37 (17,19,19,21,22,23,24)
27 WPI           23 (7,22)
28 RIC            18 (8)
29 NCC           17 (16,20,25)
30 W. Conn      16 (10)
31 Williams       15 (17,20)
t32 NYU           14 (16,24,24)
t32 Keene        14 (16 22)
34 Hartwick      13 (18,23,25,25)
35 IWU            11 (21,21,25)
36 Rochester      6 (20)
37 Grinnell          5 (21)
38 Staten Island  4 (22)
t39 Wabash        3 (24,25)
t39 UT-Dallas      3 (23)
t41 Medaille        1
t41 Wesleyan      1

[Ralph Turner]

If I trade Augie for Williams, I have all 25 from the Posters' Poll.

Augie is on my watch list again.  It sure is hard to leave off Williams, tho', as strong as the NESCAC seems this year!

[sac]

I'm the high voter on Wittenberg at #9.  I've had reservations on just how good Witt is all year, in fact I'm still convinced Wooster is a statistically better team but Witt has won both games and almost every close game they've played.  Somehow they've navigated their conference better than anyone else has, a conference that has done well in the NCAA in recent years.


I don't understand the Rhode Island College #8 at all, what is that voter seeing that the rest of us aren't?


Cabrini and Birmingham Southern are off my ballot because their schedules are just poor, both in the bottom half of D3.  Frank & Marsh snuck in for me but their schedule is weak as well.  I have Mary Hardin-Baylor in the low teens, and also have reservations about the schedule and the ASC's history in the tournament.   


Like Ralph the CCIW has been a tough conference to rank for me.   I have Wheaton as the highest ranked CCIW team but I've also seen them in person.  This is the first week I didn't rank IWU, so I have just one CCIW which feels wrong.  Augustana is somewhat of an enigma, their transition games after losing Luke Scarlatta cost them some big losses.  They seem to have corrected those things but are still probably not the solid top 10 team they were with him, but still very good.  I left them off again this week, but I think they are close for me. 

I probably put a little more emphasis on the season as a whole, so North Central didn't make it.  Those early losses to Aurora, Albion, Simpson and UW-Platteville in the span of 5 games really hurt them.  I've been moving them up, they just haven't cracked my top 25.   I'm hoping it will be easier to rank the CCIW's over the next two weeks.

I'm not totally sure what to do with Washington(Mo) either, I have them mid-teens which is probably ok considering I hadn't been ranking them.  I may have moved them up a little bit more than I should have just to get them ahead of the other UAA's.  They currently have played the toughest D3 schedule according to massey taking out margin of victory.

[smedindy]

I don't think it's all the way fair to throw out two potentially excellent teams solely because of their schedules. Massey has Cabrini #17 despite their schedule and BSU #36 so it's not like they are pikers. I try not to discount them totally because winning is tough in conference.

It's hard to win that many games in conference despite the competition. Conference play has so many intangible factors (rivalry, scouting, matchups) that come into play besides the raw data.