FB: Midwest Conference

[Pat Coleman]

MIT
Amherst (receiving three votes)
St. Scholastica
Carroll

And the three voters above should have their voting privileges revoked for ignorance!

Ignorance is assuming that three votes come from three separate voters. Don't let your vendetta blind you to how a Top 25 poll works, dad.

[fulbakdad]

No, you're poll is right Pat.  In accordance to your poll, Amherst would beat Springfield, Framingham, Ithaca, Endicott, Illinois College, Carroll, and would lose in a close game to Gust Adolph.....

Right............

[AO]

No, you're poll is right Pat.  In accordance to your poll, Amherst would beat Springfield, Framingham, Ithaca, Endicott, Illinois College, Carroll, and would lose in a close game to Gust Adolph.....

Right............

You really can't claim "the poll says" based on anything below the top 25 since that likely only represents the opinion of a small minority of the voters.  Every voter that didn't put Amherst in their 25 might put them at 75 if they kept ranking.

[fulbakdad]

The poll speaks with the numbers that it produces.  Therefore I believe I can claim "the poll says". Maybe it's a flaw with the poll?  I have always found it interesting when somebody defends why some are in the rankings or getting votes, but refuse to look at the same type of reasoning that says some others should be on it or left off.

[hazzben]

The poll speaks with the numbers that it produces.  Therefore I believe I can claim "the poll says".

No, you really can't, at least not when you're arguing for the poll 'speaking' in regards to those who are receiving votes.

It's a common misnomer to continue ranking those receiving votes by their totals.

So the argument often goes: Others receiving votes: 26. Thomas More 16; 27. Montclair State 12; 28. St. Thomas 11; 29. Salisbury 9; 30. Guilford 8; 31. Texas Lutheran 6; 32. Gustavus Adolphus 4; 33. Amherst 3; 34. Franklin 3; 35. Heidelberg 2; 36. Ithaca 1; 37. Muhlenberg 1.

But that's not at all what the 'poll is saying.' Why? Because no one has been asked to rank the Top 37 teams, they were asked to rank the top 25. So Amherst has 3 votes. It doesn't mean they're 'ranked 33,' it means someone ranked them 23, one voter had them 24 and one at 25 or 3 voters had them at 25 (though Pat seemed to dispel this notion).

For all we know, if the voters had been asked to do a Top 30, let's say, GAC might have ended up at 26. Because along with the 4 votes they got in the Top 25, there were numerous voters who had them just outside their ranking, but now by extending it, would slot them. We simply have no idea who the voters would put at at 26-30. All we know is that a a few voters have slotted these teams 'receiving votes' in their top 25. You might assume that the 'top' teams in the 'receiving votes' category would be most likely to be ranked in the Top 30. But it's just that, an assumption. The poll has said nothing about who is ranked 26-30. Hence why these teams are labeled receiving votes and not with numbers 26 and following in front of their names.

For all we know, there might be 10 voters who would have Carroll at 27 if the poll went to 30, but none of whom see them as Top 25 yet. But we have no idea, because the Top 25 poll is silent about who is 26 and beyond.

[fulbakdad]

Using that same logic then any team that is in the top 25 that was left on any voters ballot doesn't belong there.  They might have been brought down using the same reasons. ..

Your poll is a collection of votes.  Amherst received 3 votes by some way.  That is one more than Gust Adolph.  More than Ithaca, etc.  Your votes put them there...


And pleas stop.  My -Karma is getting wacked!  Ruining my week! Lol...

[ExTartanPlayer]

The poll speaks with the numbers that it produces.  Therefore I believe I can claim "the poll says".

No, you really can't, at least not when you're arguing for the poll 'speaking' in regards to those who are receiving votes.

It's a common misnomer to continue ranking those receiving votes by their totals.

So the argument often goes: Others receiving votes: 26. Thomas More 16; 27. Montclair State 12; 28. St. Thomas 11; 29. Salisbury 9; 30. Guilford 8; 31. Texas Lutheran 6; 32. Gustavus Adolphus 4; 33. Amherst 3; 34. Franklin 3; 35. Heidelberg 2; 36. Ithaca 1; 37. Muhlenberg 1.

But that's not at all what the 'poll is saying.' Why? Because no one has been asked to rank the Top 37 teams, they were asked to rank the top 25. So Amherst has 3 votes. It doesn't mean they're 'ranked 33,' it means someone ranked them 23, one voter had them 24 and one at 25 or 3 voters had them at 25 (though Pat seemed to dispel this notion).

For all we know, if the voters had been asked to do a Top 30, let's say, GAC might have ended up at 26. Because along with the 4 votes they got in the Top 25, there were numerous voters who had them just outside their ranking, but now by extending it, would slot them. We simply have no idea who the voters would put at at 26-30. All we know is that a a few voters have slotted these teams 'receiving votes' in their top 25. You might assume that the 'top' teams in the 'receiving votes' category would be most likely to be ranked in the Top 30. But it's just that, an assumption. The poll has said nothing about who is ranked 26-30. Hence why these teams are labeled receiving votes and not with numbers 26 and following in front of their names.

For all we know, there might be 10 voters who would have Carroll at 27 if the poll went to 30, but none of whom see them as Top 25 yet. But we have no idea, because the Top 25 poll is silent about who is 26 and beyond.

Superb post.

AO also makes a salient point.

fulbakdad...please...just stop.

[badgerwarhawk]

Focus on the regional rankings when they are released fulbakdad.  They're the rankings that count.
And + karma for you because 1. I hate to see anyone taking a beating simply because they disagree with someone else and 2. I think the whole applaud/smite thing is incredibly stupid.

[ExTartanPlayer]

No, you're poll is right Pat.  In accordance to your poll, Amherst would beat Springfield, Framingham, Ithaca, Endicott, Illinois College, Carroll, and would lose in a close game to Gust Adolph.....

Right............

The "poll" doesn't say that.  One voter who ranked Amherst at #23, or two voters who ranked them #24/25, or three voters who ranked them #25, gave Amherst vote(s) ahead of the teams listed there.  That's hardly equivalent to "the poll says that Amherst would beat Teams X, Y, and Z who have fewer votes than they have received."

[hazzben]

And pleas stop.  My -Karma is getting wacked!  Ruining my week! Lol...

+k from me as well. While I disagree with your opinion/argument, I support your inalienable right to make it 

I'm with badgerwarkawk. Don't get overly concerned with the Karma thing. People with great Karma might merely be great at kissing up. I only (rarely) ding a person who has said something highly offensive. Never just for an opinion I disagree with. These boards would be inane if it was all about group think.

On the flip side, I try to be pretty liberal with applauds for posts that are salient, represent great respect/sportsmanship, shed new light on a subject or just flat out funny. And because I realize there are some stupid serial smiters out there.

[gbpuckfan]

Focus on the regional rankings when they are released fulbakdad.  They're the rankings that count.
And + karma for you because 1. I hate to see anyone taking a beating simply because they disagree with someone else and 2. I think the whole applaud/smite thing is incredibly stupid.

just for that I'm giving a +1 to both of you... 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm with badgerwarkawk. Don't get overly concerned with the Karma thing. People with great Karma might merely be great at kissing up. I only (rarely) ding a person who has said something highly offensive. Never just for an opinion I disagree with. These boards would be inane if it was all about group think.

Agreed.  +K for everyone on this page!  Hugs all around!

Even AO!

[scottie]

Sure, why not.  +K to all of you "visitors" who have come to the MWC board for some honest and intellectual debate.  And, yes, even to AO who probably just came over here to stir things up....   

[AO]

Sure, why not.  +K to all of you "visitors" who have come to the MWC board for some honest and intellectual debate.  And, yes, even to AO who probably just came over here to stir things up....   

[scottie]

Dammit!