East Region Fan Poll

[Frank Rossi]

The only questions I have are

Does RPI's larger margin of victory close the gap at all between RPI and Cortland, when Cortland is clearly ahead on SoS and marquee wins?

No, because in this case, you need to look also at whether those margins of victory of note were posted against good or bad teams.  Using this to review, Cortland has the edge since RPI's 14-point win against WPI doesn't bolster the case much for them.

Do Curry's SIX wins earn it any bonus points, when compared to Cortland an RPI, with 5 wins and 4 wins, respectively?

Only slightly, but remember that Curry will have to play 11 games total this season -- it's only at that point that I think number of games is meaningful really to look at.  Right now, I use this criterion only to determine whether I should look for trends from the end of the prior season to determine a team's relative strength.  We're almost to the point at which all teams should be measured strictly by their performace in 2008 games -- Curry might be there already with the 6 games under its belt.

Does anyone besides RedSwarm81 regard OT victories differently than victories in regulation?

The most I could see doing with those is calling them a "0-point win" for purposes of average margins of victory.  However, the narrow margin will already be statistically measured in the average when enough results exist -- also, some might argue that OT wins show character in a team drawn to the wire in such fashion.  It's almost like the points should be counted to somehow count for that type of intangible, in their view.  I'm on the fence in this one -- I think OT wins should be viewed as wins, but if there is a second or third OT game in their resume, I would begin to place an intangible asterisk on their analysis.  One OT game, though?  I think a team gets the free pass for that with the average margin already being affected.

[pg04]

East Region Fan Poll - Week 6 (10/13/08)

#	School (1st votes)	Record	Pts	Prev.	This Week
1	Delaware Valley ( 6 )	4-1	95	1	at FDU-Florham
2	Cortland State ( 3 )	5-0	93	2	at Western Connecticut
3	RPI ( 1 )	4-0	81	3	vs. Susquehanna
4	Ithaca	4-1	55	6	vs. Frostburg State
5	Kean	4-1	52	9	vs. Brockport State
6	Hartwick	3-1	38	8	vs. Becker
7	Lycoming	4-1	35	NR	at Wilkes
8	St. John Fisher	3-3	28	5	at Norwich
9	Montclair State	4-1	25	7	vs. Buffalo State
10	Hobart	4-1	24	4	Open Date

Others Receiving votes:      

Rowan 16,
WPI 5,
Curry 2,
Alfred 1

Dropping out: #10 Albright


Voting Breakdown:

Delaware Valley (1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1)
Cortland State (2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2)
RPI (3, 4, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
Ithaca (6, 8, 4, 6, 5, 7, 4, 6, 4, 5)
Kean (4, 6, 9, 4, 9, 4, 5, 4, 6, 7)
Hartwick (7, -, 5, 5, 4, 9, -, 7, 9, 4)
Lycoming (5, 5, -, 7, -, 6, 10, 9, 5, 6)
St. John Fisher (10, 7, 7, -, 6, 5, 9, 10, 7, 10)
Montclair State (9, 3, 8, -, -, 10, 7, 5, 10, -)
Hobart (8, 9, 6, 8, 7, -, 6, -, -, 9)
Rowan (-, -, -, -, 10, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8 )
WPI (-, 10, -, 10, 8, -, -, -, -, -)
Curry (-, -, -, 9, -, -, -, -, -, -)
Alfred (-, -, 10, -, -, -, -, -, -, -)

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks!  For the sake of us "out-of-region" folk who are following this as a proxy for the Regional Rankings until the official "Regional Rankings" come out...

1) Del Valley  MAC 
2) Cortland St NJAC
3) RPI  LL
4) Ithaca  E8

5) Kean  NJAC
6) Hartwick E8
7) Lycoming MAC
8 ) SJF  E8
9)  Montclair St NJAC
10) Hobart LL

Pool C begins at #5 if the post-season began today!

[pg04]

One disclaimer, A 3-way tie with SJF/Ithaca/Hartwick does not give Ithaca the Pool A bid...

[theoriginalupstate]

One disclaimer, A 3-way tie with SJF/Ithaca/Hartwick does not give Ithaca the Pool A bid...

who does it give then...

[redswarm81]

The only questions I have are

Does RPI's larger margin of victory close the gap at all between RPI and Cortland, when Cortland is clearly ahead on SoS and marquee wins?

No, because in this case, you need to look also at whether those margins of victory of note were posted against good or bad teams.  Using this to review, Cortland has the edge since RPI's 14-point win against WPI doesn't bolster the case much for them.

But RPI's 14 point win against WPI was against a good team.  WPI is 5-0 for RPI's SoS calculation purposes.  If you want to claim that WPI's 2007 record should be counted against them, . . .

. . . We're almost to the point at which all teams should be measured strictly by their performace in 2008 games -- Curry [and WPI?] might be there already with the 6 games under its belt.

I think that's fair.   Frankly, I think it's unfair to rank teams--even in pre-season polls--based  on prior years' performance(s), but I also recognize that often it's the only information available.  I've actually long advocated that polls should be ignored (better yet, should not be conducted) before the midpoint of the season.

If I have the time and inclination, I'm going to try and conduct a similar "Record/SoS/Margin of Victory/Marquee win" analysis of all the upstart undefeated teams, including RPI, Curry, Otterbein, Trine, Carleton, Case Western, Willamette, and Occidental.  I suspect it will lead to some surprises.  When I did that analysis last week, it led me to conclude that statistically, RPI's SoS was noticeably higher than Hobart's SoS.  My gut reaction from looking at their schedules would have led me to the opposite conclusion.

Does anyone besides RedSwarm81 regard OT victories differently than victories in regulation?

The most I could see doing with those is calling them a "0-point win" for purposes of average margins of victory.  However, the narrow margin will already be statistically measured in the average when enough results exist -- also, some might argue that OT wins show character in a team drawn to the wire in such fashion.  It's almost like the points should be counted to somehow count for that type of intangible, in their view.  I'm on the fence in this one -- I think OT wins should be viewed as wins, but if there is a second or third OT game in their resume, I would begin to place an intangible asterisk on their analysis.  One OT game, though?  I think a team gets the free pass for that with the average margin already being affected.

This calls for some basic poll/analytical philosophy:  Being A en-guh-neer, I prefer objectively verifiable analyses to gut reactions and reputation-based poll voting.   That said, not all objectifiably verifiable data are alike.  My list of primary analytical techniques for evaluating relative team strengths, in priority order, are as follows:

• Won-loss record (or winning percentage);
• Head to head results; and
• Results v. common opponents,

with common opponent analysis being worth less than half the value of either W-L record or H2H results.  Where my primary criteria fail to produce a clear leader, I tend to use the following secondary considerations, also in priority order:

• Strength of Schedule; and
• Margin of Victory

where margin of victory is much less meaningful than SoS, which is much less useful than any of the primary criteria.

This brings me to my point, which is my discomfort with your approach to OT wins.  If I were to regard an OT win as a "0-point win," it means I'm conflating Margin of Victory--my least valuable criterion, with W-L record, my most valuable criterion.  So I'm torn.  I confess that I'm biased, since I think the college OT system is seriously flawed.  A good punter wins games for a team, but he'll never be involved in a single OT.  Same goes for a good punt or kickoff returner.  Ultimately, my opinion of an OT win is that the game was tied at the end of regulation, then the two teams played a different game, one that is a less thorough test of overall team strength than was the full game just played.

The only other evaluation technique I can think of right now is to throw out rivalry games.  That would make it difficult for me to handicap the field in the NESCAC.   

[rams1102]

I love the lack of respect for Montclair. 110-60 and "Keep Pounding".

[theoriginalupstate]

I love the lack of respect for Montclair. 110-60 and "Keep Pounding".

won by 7 vs a 1-4 wilkes (13-6)
won by 5 vs a 0-5 Mo St (12-7)
won by 2 vs a 2-3 Port (16-14)
won by 1 vs a 2-3 Wil P (14-13)

Yes they have a great D, but they were squeaking by some pretty inferior competition...

[pg04]

One disclaimer, A 3-way tie with SJF/Ithaca/Hartwick does not give Ithaca the Pool A bid...

who does it give then...

I meant to put in "not necessarily"  I'm not going through all the mathematics involved 

['gro]

I love the lack of respect for Montclair. 110-60 and "Keep Pounding".

Montclair lost to Cortland and has yet to play Kean and Rowan... I'm not a believer.

[redswarm81]

One disclaimer, A 3-way tie with SJF/Ithaca/Hartwick does not give Ithaca the Pool A bid...

who does it give then...

I meant to put in "not necessarily"  I'm not going through all the mathematics involved 

You mean that was not necessarily a disclaimer? 

The short version is that the SJF/Wick/IC three-way tie will be broken by Strength of Schedule calculations, using the NCAA method for Opponents' Winning Percentage, but not Opponents' Opponents' Winning percentage.

Unless . . .

Unless Alfred or Utica beats one or more of SJF, 'Wick, and Ithaca.  Then, it likely is decided by head-to-head.  Thus, if Alfred beats SJF and loses to Ithaca, then only Hartwick and SJF have one loss in conference, and Hartwick gets the AQ by virtue of a head to head win over SJF.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks!  For the sake of us "out-of-region" folk who are following this as a proxy for the Regional Rankings until the official "Regional Rankings" come out...

1) Del Valley  MAC 
2) Cortland St NJAC
3) RPI  LL
4) Ithaca  E8

5) Kean  NJAC
6) Hartwick E8
7) Lycoming MAC
8 ) SJF  E8
9)  Montclair St NJAC
10) Hobart LL

Pool C begins at #5 if the post-season began today!

One disclaimer, A 3-way tie with SJF/Ithaca/Hartwick does not give Ithaca the Pool A bid...

Thanks!

What #5 means is that there are some teams on the tourney selection table that are very good.

With only 6 Pool C bids to give, it will be tough to get that bid if you are not the first "at-large" at the table.

The old Linfield motto applies again..."Leave no doubt".

[Frank Rossi]

Thanks!  For the sake of us "out-of-region" folk who are following this as a proxy for the Regional Rankings until the official "Regional Rankings" come out...

1) Del Valley  MAC 
2) Cortland St NJAC
3) RPI  LL
4) Ithaca  E8

5) Kean  NJAC
6) Hartwick E8
7) Lycoming MAC
8 ) SJF  E8
9)  Montclair St NJAC
10) Hobart LL

Pool C begins at #5 if the post-season began today!

One disclaimer, A 3-way tie with SJF/Ithaca/Hartwick does not give Ithaca the Pool A bid...

Thanks!

What #5 means is that there are some teams on the tourney selection table that are very good.

With only 6 Pool C bids to give, it will be tough to get that bid if you are not the first "at-large" at the table.

The old Linfield motto applies again..."Leave no doubt".

Seven Pool C bids this year, Ralph.

[Edit:  I stand corrected.  Pool B will retain 3 bids with 27 teams.  Pat had corrected his earlier story in the Podcast, to which I have yet to listen this week.  Pool A will have 23 bids, and Pool C is left with 6, as you stated.]

[Ralph Turner]

 

You caught your error before I could get the link to the podcast!

Podcast

[Frank Rossi]

You caught your error before I could get the link to the podcast!

Podcast

C'mon, Pat has the FAQ link in his clipboard, ready to copy and paste at a moment's notice.  Right, Pat?