TOP 25

[dc_has_been]

Played the No. 3 team toe to toe on the No. 3 team's home field. Why wouldn't they move up?

Because they lost!  Johns Hopkins played No.5 Muhlenberg pretty tough 28-23, shouldn't Johns Hopkins get some votes?

[Pat Coleman]

DC: Johns Hopkins also lost to Moravian by 23 points. Minor detail.

Are these rankings or standings? Do we punish a team for losing to someone better than them? No. That is what's expected. They just proved the poll was right; we don't then take our fixed poll and go out and break it.

[K-Mack]

I've already written the portion of ATN that discussed movement in the poll, but I see the discussion here has been very lively (2-3 new pages on this week alone) and while I'm tempted to go touch up that portion of the column, I think it stands, and I think you all have so far had a sensible discussion.

A couple of quick responses though:

Re: Hampden-Sydney, one thing to keep in mind beyond this year's up-and-down results is the playoff game last season. Generally we try not to dip into last year, but not being very close to Wesley, and then having Wesley be more in the teens than top 5 can have a relative effect on H-SC.

Re: Hardin-Simmons, I agree with Pat, that's a very understated point ... if the poll hasn't been broken, why are we fixing it. We are punishing teams for losing to teams the ranking expects them to lose to. Actually, "we" are not.

Re: Case, jam you are right about the schedule. See: Hardin-Simmons. Just by playing a good team you can get a boost. Not that it's under CWRU's control ... they have to be conistently good against who they have scheduled.

re: St. John's/Wartburg/St. John Fisher ... haven't been voting for the former two since their initial losses. I wasn't really high on St. John Fisher until the Ithaca win. SJF is still on my ballot because the quality of teams lost to, plus they have a very good win. Wartburg if it continues on its current track plus Augsburg and Central turn out to be good, might find itself back in. St. John's in my mind is in a heap of top 25 trouble, especially since I overanalyze them because they tend to get 'name recognition' benefit of the doubt

Re: The McMillan Paradox ... redswarm had it pegged pretty much. In the absence of other data, h2h is a very strong piece of data to determine who is better. Though Chaminades happen, human voters are flexible enough to be discerning when it comes to flukey defeats. In most cases, even with a preponderance of other data, h2h is still the strongest piece you'll get.

There are many instances, of course, where h2h won't solve your problems, particularly in triangles like the one atop the E8 right now, or other mash-ups you see later in the season when there are several overlapping h2h results that don't jive (jibe?)

[HSC85]

Keith,

If you go back to previous years in evaluating Hampden- Sydney then I think you should go back and look at other teams in the poll as well that were one and done in the playoffs last year.  Last year one player made a huge difference in the separation of Wesley and Hampden Sydney.  It was the defensive end #92.  He was the most disruptive force of their defense and HSC did not adjust or couldn't adjust to that player. 

I thought the polls this year are for 2008.  I have posted before about the appearance of the D3 poll voters voting for teams that were in the pre-season top 25 or have had previous good years over teams that are having excellent years in 2008.  I have read the arguements that Hampden- Sydney is 5 - 0 against teams that are 8 - 16.  Well Trinity is 4 - 0 against a group of teams that are 3 - 15. 

I am not suggesting that Hampden-Sydney be ranked higher, I am suggesting that you stick to ranking teams in 2008 on 2008 performance.  The season is half over for many teams.  Personally, I don't think that Hampden Sydney should be ranked as high as 24.  There are excellent teams in Division III all over the country.  Hampden- Sydney has been inconsistent in the margin of victory against what appears to be a weak schedule.  When Josh Simpson comes back from his injury then the team may get some more complete game performances like the Guilford game. 

Thank you for your patience for my rambling.  I appreciate all that you and the D3football.com do to promote division III football.

[Ron Boerger]

HSC's margins of victory:  10 (Away - NC) , 4 (Away - PA), 16 (H), 21 (H), 3 (Away - VA).  Avg =  10.8

Trinity (TX) margins of victory:  30 (H), 24 (H), 25 (Away - CO), 28 (Away - AL).  Avg = 26.8

Sense any difference?  I don't think Trinity was having to worry about playing their first string in their fourth quarters much, either. 

[HSC85]

Ron,

I was using Trinity as an example of a team that should be ranked higher than Hampden-Sydney.  I realize that there is a difference in how a team handles a weak schedule.  I was trying to make the point that last years results should not be used to rank this years teams at mid-season.

[JT]

...(We make sure the voters see this data so they can decide whether to use it. The AFCA, to our understanding from coaches who vote in both, does not.)

I suspect they will move down in the coaches' poll, which is silly. If the poll isn't broken, why break it by moving teams down?

Pat, you've got the top site for D-3 information without challenge.
You've got the most-referenced poll for D-3 teams without question.
You've assembled the most knowledgable team of D-3 analysts without doubt.

Don't lower yourself, or your site, by throwing out sophomoric jabs at the "other" poll.

Just ignore them.  They won't go away.  But they will stay in the large shadow cast by the leader--d3football.com!

The Rowan sports department's pre-game football releases publish only the D3football.com Top 25.  They dumped the AFCA poll. In my mind that is real progress, given how "fan" sites used to viewed at the school.

[HScoach]

Keith,

If you go back to previous years in evaluating Hampden- Sydney then I think you should go back and look at other teams in the poll as well that were one and done in the playoffs last year.  Last year one player made a huge difference in the separation of Wesley and Hampden Sydney.  It was the defensive end #92.  He was the most disruptive force of their defense and HSC did not adjust or couldn't adjust to that player. 

I thought the polls this year are for 2008.  I have posted before about the appearance of the D3 poll voters voting for teams that were in the pre-season top 25 or have had previous good years over teams that are having excellent years in 2008.  I have read the arguements that Hampden- Sydney is 5 - 0 against teams that are 8 - 16.  Well Trinity is 4 - 0 against a group of teams that are 3 - 15. 

I am not suggesting that Hampden-Sydney be ranked higher, I am suggesting that you stick to ranking teams in 2008 on 2008 performance.  The season is half over for many teams.  Personally, I don't think that Hampden Sydney should be ranked as high as 24.  There are excellent teams in Division III all over the country.  Hampden- Sydney has been inconsistent in the margin of victory against what appears to be a weak schedule.  When Josh Simpson comes back from his injury then the team may get some more complete game performances like the Guilford game. 

Thank you for your patience for my rambling.  I appreciate all that you and the D3football.com do to promote division III football.

But you're forgetting that each season isn't played in a vacuum.  Early in the season, before teams get a chance to completely prove their worth (or lack thereof) on the field, the historical significance of the program means a lot. 

Even though Mount Union's opponents to date sport only a 6-10 overall record (2-2 St John Fisher, 0-4 Ohio Northern, 2-2 Muskingum and 2-2 Baldwin Wallace), where do you think they should be ranked?  About 15th since they don't have any "good wins"?. 

Just be thankful the Top 25 ranking has NOTHING to do with who gets a shot at winning a national championship! 

[dc_has_been]

DC: Johns Hopkins also lost to Moravian by 23 points. Minor detail.

Are these rankings or standings? Do we punish a team for losing to someone better than them? No. That is what's expected. They just proved the poll was right; we don't then take our fixed poll and go out and break it.

First of all the Jons Hopkins statement was sarcastic & second, no a team shouldn't be punished for losing to someone better than them, but reward by moving up 5 spots b/c they played the better team tough?  That was the only part that I was confused about.   

[Pat Coleman]

The Rowan sports department's pre-game football releases publish only the D3football.com Top 25.  They dumped the AFCA poll. In my mind that is real progress, given how "fan" sites used to viewed at the school.

Wow. That is impressive.

Is that still the case the past two weeks with the AFCA poll starting up again? There isn't an AFCA poll to cite for the first three weeks of the season. But my dim recollection is that the D3football.com Top 25 wasn't cited by Rowan at any part of the season once upon a time, so I am grateful for the recognition.

[Bob.Gregg]

Hampden- Sydney is 5 - 0 against teams that are 8 - 16.  Well Trinity is 4 - 0 against a group of teams that are 3 - 15. 

Ron, at this point in the season, the above quote could also be followed by your inquiry:

"Sense any difference?"

[JT]

The Rowan sports department's pre-game football releases publish only the D3football.com Top 25.  They dumped the AFCA poll. In my mind that is real progress, given how "fan" sites used to viewed at the school.

Wow. That is impressive.

Is that still the case the past two weeks with the AFCA poll starting up again? There isn't an AFCA poll to cite for the first three weeks of the season. But my dim recollection is that the D3football.com Top 25 wasn't cited by Rowan at any part of the season once upon a time, so I am grateful for the recognition.

When D3's Top 25 first started it wasn't published.  I believe they started publishing it in year three with the AFCA.  This year I have not seen the AFCA poll, including this week's West Conn pre-game.  It is possible that they just aren't going to update the pdf template, but maybe not. 

http://www.rowanathletics.com/Pdfs/football/2008/10/7/WesternConnecticut08.pdf

[Ron Boerger]

Hampden- Sydney is 5 - 0 against teams that are 8 - 16.  Well Trinity is 4 - 0 against a group of teams that are 3 - 15. 

Ron, at this point in the season, the above quote could also be followed by your inquiry:

"Sense any difference?"

Yes.  Trinity's not beating one win teams by three or four points.  You can't control the records of the teams you play, but you can control what happens when you play them.  Evidence shows that H-SC is not doing as well as Trinity in that regard.   

[retagent]

I think that the discussion here is very enlightening. Most of us don't have the vast scope of data in our minds that Pat, Keith and the other voters have. When they give their explanations for why things come out the way they do, it always seems that there is sensible logic behind the results. That doesn't mean that we all will ever agree on a Top 25 - What would be the fun in that? This is exactly what such polls should engender.

As far as St John's, they are a good example of why there is disagreement. They have two losses to seemingly good or middle of the pack type teams. As someone pointed out, they are two plays away from being undefeated, and have "won" the stats battle in both those losses, but still are probably now about where they should be ranked. They just have not played like a Top 25 team this year.

[Ralph Turner]

...
As far as St John's, ...


They just have not played like a Top 25 team this year.

All of us agree.  Top 25 teams "get 'er done"!