East Region Fan Poll

[lewdogg11]

We all agreed that last weeks ranking were ridiculous, but to inexplicably drop a team 2 places for no apparent region just shows more of how clueless the people are who are putting these ranks together in the first place. 

Would you rather they not have corrected it and just kept on being mullishly wrong? Seems like you've made a darned if you do/darned if you don't objection here. Had they kept putting the Bison that high, you would have complained about it. But since they moved them down, more in line with your thinking, you killed them for doing that as well. Geez, at least they are trying...

Let's get something straight, Gallaudet at 5 is NOT in line with my thinking.

I did say "more in line". The rankings only go to 10... But you have to admit, moving from 3 to 5 is "more in line" with having them unranked than they were last week.

Gallaudet has to get into the playoffs, therefore, I suppose they HAVE to be on this list.  They probably should be in the 8-10 range though.  My complaint is that this ranking came out last week guns blazing, and for no reason they dropped 2 spots.  Does this trend lend to the assumption that they'll be at 7-8 next week with another victory?  If the committee wants to make a statement putting them at 3 a week ago, stick to your guns, if not, why did they do it in the first place?  If Gallaudet hosts a playoff game, I think I may throw in the towel.

[Frank Rossi]

LOL at the way the RR's get adjusted from week 1 to week 2.  This week's iteration:

EAST            
1   Hobart   8-0   8-0   
2   Ithaca   8-1   8-1   
3   Lebanon Valley   8-1   8-1   
4   Rowan   7-2   7-2   
5   Gallaudet   8-0   9-0   
6   Framingham State   8-1   8-1   
7   Alfred   7-2   7-2   
7   St. John Fisher   7-2   7-2   
9   Salve Regina   7-1   7-2   
10   Brockport   6-3   6-3   

Highlights:

1) Lebanon Valley gets moved ahead of Rowan...where they should have been all along, like I said last week.

2) Rowan is still too high.  Alfred and SJF probably both deserve to be ahead of Rowan.

3) Gallaudet inexplicably drops two spots.  Now, don't mistake my statement here as arguing that Gallaudet DESERVED that initial #3 ranking (or even the #5 ranking that they have now), but more of a "Wait, why rank them third last week and then fifth this week?" question.  It's just funny to me that they were #3 last week and then dropped two spots this week without LVC or Rowan notching a season-changing kind of win that screams "MOVE US UP IN THE RANKINGS!" in the past week.  If your argument is that Gallaudet's win this week was not impressive enough, that was even MORE true last week (when they needed the blocked FG to beat Becker) than this week.  This is just kind of amusing to me.

The winner of SJF/ALF will leapfrog Rowan, assuming that the loser remains ranked.  The Rowan jump of Gallaudet is being justified by Brockport State entering the rankings.  That part is inexplicable to me, since why THAT team at #10?  So, it artificially gave Rowan another win vs. a RRO, and justified the leap in the minds of the regional committee.  But the SOS of SJF especially is enough to, with a win vs. a RRO, jump SJF above Rowan (ALF would be a closer call, but I'd think it still happens.  That means Gallaudet will be ranked as #6 in the final rankings... You know, the ones we never see...  It's irrelevant here, though, since that won't change the fact that the top Pool C team in the East will be.

[AUKaz00]

I also have no problem with Rowan ahead of Fisher and Alfred.  I think a game between any of those 3 would be close.  Fisher and Alfred tied at 5 followed by Framingham and Gallaudet would ring more true to the consensus of this thread though.

[jknezek]

We all agreed that last weeks ranking were ridiculous, but to inexplicably drop a team 2 places for no apparent region just shows more of how clueless the people are who are putting these ranks together in the first place. 

Would you rather they not have corrected it and just kept on being mullishly wrong? Seems like you've made a darned if you do/darned if you don't objection here. Had they kept putting the Bison that high, you would have complained about it. But since they moved them down, more in line with your thinking, you killed them for doing that as well. Geez, at least they are trying...

Let's get something straight, Gallaudet at 5 is NOT in line with my thinking.

I did say "more in line". The rankings only go to 10... But you have to admit, moving from 3 to 5 is "more in line" with having them unranked than they were last week.

Gallaudet has to get into the playoffs, therefore, I suppose they HAVE to be on this list.  They probably should be in the 8-10 range though.  My complaint is that this ranking came out last week guns blazing, and for no reason they dropped 2 spots.  Does this trend lend to the assumption that they'll be at 7-8 next week with another victory?  If the committee wants to make a statement putting them at 3 a week ago, stick to your guns, if not, why did they do it in the first place?  If Gallaudet hosts a playoff game, I think I may throw in the towel.

If they drop to 7-8 next week would you complain again? I mean, at that point they are where they are supposed to be according to you. Isn't getting it "right" the important thing? The process, at least as far as most posters weight the strengths of the teams is working by moving them down, so it seems like the committee is doing what it should, even if you don't like how they started. I agree that they shouldn't have been 3, and I can't really believe they are the 5th best team in the East, but when you consider win % is a primary criteria, being undefeated is important to the committee.

All that being said, I'm just amazed at the complaints about something that is being corrected.

[ExTartanPlayer]

LOL at the way the RR's get adjusted from week 1 to week 2.  This week's iteration:

EAST            
1   Hobart   8-0   8-0   
2   Ithaca   8-1   8-1   
3   Lebanon Valley   8-1   8-1   
4   Rowan   7-2   7-2   
5   Gallaudet   8-0   9-0   
6   Framingham State   8-1   8-1   
7   Alfred   7-2   7-2   
7   St. John Fisher   7-2   7-2   
9   Salve Regina   7-1   7-2   
10   Brockport   6-3   6-3   

2) Rowan is still too high.  Alfred and SJF probably both deserve to be ahead of Rowan.

I don't get this Alfred thing. Rowan has a 3-0 record against regionally-ranked opponents (Brockport, Wesley, and Framingham). Alfred is 1-1 (Win over Brockport, loss to Ithaca). So not only is Rowan better there, Alfred's best win is shared by Rowan. As usual, the Saxons played a weak OOC slate, and they couldn't run it. They've had six home games to three road games to this point. They lost to the best team they've played in their conference (Ithaca), and haven't played the next best yet.

I'm not impressed by a team going 7-2 against a home-heavy schedule filled with mostly lightweights, especially considering their toughest game was a double-digit loss. What, if anything, does Alfred have over Rowan? A more impressive win over 3-6 Montclair?

Fair enough on Alfred/Rowan - I did kind of miss the boat on that one.  I took a close look at SJF/Rowan last week and had concluded that SJF deserved to be ranked above Rowan, and this week I just included Alfred in with SJF because I had seen Alfred and SJF as very comparable to date (although, on closer inspection, you are correct that they are not).  I see two problems with Rowan being ranked that high: they're getting too much credit for beating Wesley (I've been pounding this table for a while now that Wesley is not nearly as good as usual this year, despite their ranking at #4 in the South; I have a ton of respect for Wesley and their program but they just are not WESLEY this year) and they're not getting hurt badly enough for their really bad loss (Morrisville State is a far worse loss than SJF has - although, again, you are correct that Alfred's loss to RPI is comparable or worse), and for a bonus if we at least consider margin of victory a little bit, they have a bunch of very, very narrow escapes (I know this isn't a criteria, but they haven't won a single game by more than 11 points and they have two one-point wins against teams that are not RR).  It is fair to point out that they also have some very good wins, and I suppose there's some personal taste about whether you prefer a team with 2-3 good wins and 1-2 bad losses vs. a team that has one fewer "big win" but also has "better losses" of a sort.  You are probably correct that Alfred does not deserve a ranking above them; in my mind, SJF definitely does.

[ExTartanPlayer]

We all agreed that last weeks ranking were ridiculous, but to inexplicably drop a team 2 places for no apparent region just shows more of how clueless the people are who are putting these ranks together in the first place. 

Would you rather they not have corrected it and just kept on being mullishly wrong? Seems like you've made a darned if you do/darned if you don't objection here. Had they kept putting the Bison that high, you would have complained about it. But since they moved them down, more in line with your thinking, you killed them for doing that as well. Geez, at least they are trying...

Let's get something straight, Gallaudet at 5 is NOT in line with my thinking.

I did say "more in line". The rankings only go to 10... But you have to admit, moving from 3 to 5 is "more in line" with having them unranked than they were last week.

Gallaudet has to get into the playoffs, therefore, I suppose they HAVE to be on this list.  They probably should be in the 8-10 range though.  My complaint is that this ranking came out last week guns blazing, and for no reason they dropped 2 spots.  Does this trend lend to the assumption that they'll be at 7-8 next week with another victory?  If the committee wants to make a statement putting them at 3 a week ago, stick to your guns, if not, why did they do it in the first place?  If Gallaudet hosts a playoff game, I think I may throw in the towel.

If they drop to 7-8 next week would you complain again? I mean, at that point they are where they are supposed to be according to you. Isn't getting it "right" the important thing? The process, at least as far as most posters weight the strengths of the teams is working by moving them down, so it seems like the committee is doing what it should, even if you don't like how they started. I agree that they shouldn't have been 3, and I can't really believe they are the 5th best team in the East, but when you consider win % is a primary criteria, being undefeated is important to the committee.

All that being said, I'm just amazed at the complaints about something that is being corrected.

In fairness, I stirred this one up this week, so don't blame the East guys.  Yes, getting it right in the end is the most important thing.  I just don't really understand the committee's thought process along the way because it often seems like they're changing things with no consistent logic at all.  I'm not worried about exactly where Gallaudet deserves to be ranked or where they are actually ranked; I'm just puzzled that they opened up 3rd and then dropped to 5th without data from the previous week that would make that any more true than it was the week before, because it shows this disturbing lack of consistency.  Should LVC and Rowan be ahead of Gallaudet?  Probably.  What puzzles me is that was equally true last week (if not "more so" given that Gallaudet was coming off a pretty bad game vs. Becker) but it's only reflected now.  It almost makes it appear as though the first set of rankings is just kinda thrown out there and then adjusted when they realize "Oh, shucks, we messed that piece up!"

[jknezek]

You have to start somewhere. Respecting an undefeated team isn't a bad place to start. Then as more pieces of the puzzle are brought to the table you might re-evaluate whether win percentage, as a primary criteria, is the most applicable. It seems like those on the call last week thought that win percentage was the most important but as they reflected this week, it changed a bit. That's not unusual in process based committees, as often members don't really do much homework before the first meeting. Once the pulse of the group is taken and the dynamics of the membership are better understood, then other arguments are better presented and understood.

You have to remember this is a committee of people, all who have other, more important, real jobs. This is just one relatively small component of those jobs. While it is darned important to those of us on this board, it is a lot less important in the grand scheme of even the committee members' daily jobs and other responsibilities. So getting to the "best answer" over time is important, not just where they started.

[lewdogg11]

You have to start somewhere. Respecting an undefeated team isn't a bad place to start. Then as more pieces of the puzzle are brought to the table you might re-evaluate whether win percentage, as a primary criteria, is the most applicable. It seems like those on the call last week thought that win percentage was the most important but as they reflected this week, it changed a bit. That's not unusual in process based committees, as often members don't really do much homework before the first meeting. Once the pulse of the group is taken and the dynamics of the membership are better understood, then other arguments are better presented and understood.

You have to remember this is a committee of people, all who have other, more important, real jobs. This is just one relatively small component of those jobs. While it is darned important to those of us on this board, it is a lot less important in the grand scheme of even the committee members' daily jobs and other responsibilities. So getting to the "best answer" over time is important, not just where they started.

According to Keith's article earlier, one of the committee members is the coach of SUNY-Maritime, another ECFC team who we all remember didn't fare too well a few years back in postseason action.  I'm guessing he may have withheld some important info, or it was just overlooked?

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/regional-rankings-primer

[jknezek]

You have to start somewhere. Respecting an undefeated team isn't a bad place to start. Then as more pieces of the puzzle are brought to the table you might re-evaluate whether win percentage, as a primary criteria, is the most applicable. It seems like those on the call last week thought that win percentage was the most important but as they reflected this week, it changed a bit. That's not unusual in process based committees, as often members don't really do much homework before the first meeting. Once the pulse of the group is taken and the dynamics of the membership are better understood, then other arguments are better presented and understood.

You have to remember this is a committee of people, all who have other, more important, real jobs. This is just one relatively small component of those jobs. While it is darned important to those of us on this board, it is a lot less important in the grand scheme of even the committee members' daily jobs and other responsibilities. So getting to the "best answer" over time is important, not just where they started.

According to Keith's article earlier, one of the committee members is the coach of SUNY-Maritime, another ECFC team who we all remember didn't fare too well a few years back in postseason action.  I'm guessing he may have withheld some important info, or it was just overlooked?

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/regional-rankings-primer

And you expect him to do what? Wander onto the phone call and say "my conference is lame compared to the top of D3, so stick us way down the bottom please. We aren't worthy." Or do you think he got on the call and said, "Well, we've got the Bison coming up this weekend, but they look pretty good compared to who we have faced. They've beaten teams from the ODAC and LL pretty easily too." Think about the real world. They have the criteria, they rank the teams. You can weight the criteria, but you can't ignore it and nowhere in the criteria does it allow the committee to say "that conference is terrible and so is their champion." Regardless of what you may believe or wish...

[Frank Rossi]

Actually, the committee that determines the regional rankings is made up of the following folks:


EAST REGION

John Marzka, co-chair Albright Middle Atlantic

Clayton Kendrick-Holmes, co-chair SUNY Maritime ECFC

Mark Murnyack Norwich ECFC

John Audino Union (New York) Liberty league

Tom Kelley Framingham State Pool B (MASCAC)

Dan Garrett Kean NJAC

TBD Empire 8

Mark Ross Misericordia Middle Atlantic

Chad Martinovich MIT New England Football

So, in fact, there are two ECFC reps there.

[Jonny Utah]

Actually, the committee that determines the regional rankings is made up of the following folks:


EAST REGION

John Marzka, co-chair Albright Middle Atlantic

Clayton Kendrick-Holmes, co-chair SUNY Maritime ECFC

Mark Murnyack Norwich ECFC

John Audino Union (New York) Liberty league

Tom Kelley Framingham State Pool B (MASCAC)

Dan Garrett Kean NJAC

TBD Empire 8

Mark Ross Misericordia Middle Atlantic

Chad Martinovich MIT New England Football

So, in fact, there are two ECFC reps there.

Frank, is the E8 rep still TBD?

[AUKaz00]

Actually, the committee that determines the regional rankings is made up of the following folks:


EAST REGION

John Marzka, co-chair Albright Middle Atlantic

Clayton Kendrick-Holmes, co-chair SUNY Maritime ECFC

Mark Murnyack Norwich ECFC

John Audino Union (New York) Liberty league

Tom Kelley Framingham State Pool B (MASCAC)

Dan Garrett Kean NJAC

TBD Empire 8

Mark Ross Misericordia Middle Atlantic

Chad Martinovich MIT New England Football

So, in fact, there are two ECFC reps there.

Frank, is the E8 rep still TBD?

The committee was just ashamed to say that the E8 rep is Pep.

[rams1102]

Rowan is a funny team. I also think they get a little extra respect because of the old rep(like it or not). They **** their pants against Del Val, beat a good Wesley team but not the same as last year. Beat Montclair 7-0. In our poll I had Rowan below Alfred and ahead of Fisher. They will beat TCNJ but the game could be close due to the old rilvary. They will most likely get the NJAC AQ.  At best they will lose in the second round or maybe the first round. The NJAC is just not strong this year.

[AUPepBand]

Actually, the committee that determines the regional rankings is made up of the following folks:


EAST REGION

John Marzka, co-chair Albright Middle Atlantic

Clayton Kendrick-Holmes, co-chair SUNY Maritime ECFC

Mark Murnyack Norwich ECFC

John Audino Union (New York) Liberty league

Tom Kelley Framingham State Pool B (MASCAC)

Dan Garrett Kean NJAC

TBD Empire 8

Mark Ross Misericordia Middle Atlantic

Chad Martinovich MIT New England Football

So, in fact, there are two ECFC reps there.

Frank, is the E8 rep still TBD?

The committee was just ashamed to say that the E8 rep is Pep.

AUPep is the E8 rep. Has a certain ring to it, no?

On Saxon Warriors!

[AUKaz00]

Last ERFP of the year.  Thanks to all the voters; see you in August!