D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

"I guess it all depends on what the rest of the top 25 does. If most everyone in top 25 wins, I'll have a tough time dropping a team (that won) out of the poll, just so a team (that lost) like UWO can take its place. No matter who they played or how close it was."
02- Don't you feel that the above is one of the many problems of the BCS as well as rankings in general?  As an example, lets say NCC played UWW and Mt Union in the first two games- and lost both games in close contests.  Would you not have them in your top 25 if all the other teams were 2-0?

BCS blows. Computers shouldn't determine national championship games. DIII (and every other possible sporting event) does it right with a playoff system.

Now wait a minute.

A. Yes, there should be a playoff system in D-1A. One rep from each D-1 conference and then at-larges to make a 16 team tourney.

B. The BCS have neutered the impact of the computers. When it started, they had all of the right elements to create a good ratings system, but they threw out the margin of victory calculations (even though there was a limit on how big of a margin counted, in Sagarin especially there is diminishing returns), revamped the SOS to where it's not that relevant (or accurate), and then didn't throw out games against 1-AA schools so they can feast on the Charleston Southerns of the world instead of playing real, actual opponents.

I feel that good computer rankings are better than trusting the assistant to the traveling secretary to cast the coaches' vote (which may happen in the D-1 coaches poll, never here!) or some cynical ink-stained wretch who never sees anyone outside of his own little geographic area except for when he has a chance to catch a game on TV. But the BCS wanted to 'rig' the system - heck they always want to 'rig' the system and so they're not using real computer rankings.

I know the RPI has flaws, but they use it for many sports in the NCAA and it does a decent job. Same with the PairWise system for hockey. A good computer ranking can help aid the discussion of who should stay or go...TO A PLAYOFF!

And yes, you can keep the bowl games for the other teams outside of the 16.

That's pretty much the solution I'd like to see for the BCS as well... 16 team tourney with 11 conference champs and 5 at large, and with there being 35 bowl games this year, you could take 15 away for a tourney and still leave 20 games for 40 other teams. That would give 56 (out of 120ish schools) rather than 70 playing in the postseason and forcing games like 6-6 New Mexico St vs 6-6 Buffalo which no one will care about.

And as to the comment about computers determining the national championship game... I don't think anyone (computers, people, or a mixture) should determine a championship game... since there's usually more than just 2 teams worthy of competing. Now using computers as a tool or guide can be very beneficial but I don't know if I'd rely solely on them to pick a tournament field either. Computers are only as good as the person who programs the formulas and so will likely always have some flaw possible, but they can try to compare every team with every result with no bias which a human will never be able to do.

[BoBo]

If top 25 poll votes were awarded due to attention paid, Wisconsin-Oshkosh would be the unanamous #1!!

[BoBo]

Looks like we'll see a major shake up after this week.  A number of ranked teams have gone down today - and a few others are in the process of losing.  Top of the heap stays the same as UWW and Mount both win easily.

[hazzben]

Another top 5 team falls this week.

Wesley loses to Kean, who they beat something like 48-10 last year. It was Kean's first game, so I don't know if this says more about Wesley's weakness or Kean's unexpected strength. Probably a little of both.

Should be another interesting week in the upcoming polls.

[smedindy]

It took me 15 minutes to decide on 12-25 on my ballot. I think everyone is treading lightly...

[sflzman]

That poll was tough

[02 Warhawk]

02, I just don't know that I totally understand it because much of what you say relies on some preseason "top 25" list as if it is a true ranking of the best teams based on fact.  Wouldn't you agree that there are probably several schools that don't make a pre-season top 25 list that more than likely will end up there during the season?  And don't you agree that there are some that make the list that will be gone?  That's the challenge of the preseason poll- there is a huge amount of unknown.  But now we have one game under our belts for most teams.  So take Oshkosh, you'd agree they beat a pretty darn good team in Central wouldn't you?  Central is probably a better team than the majority of teams that were beat by preseason Top 25 teams- right?  Just in terms of strength of schedule alone for week one Oshkosh is a top team- and they won.  Then, if they play the #2 team in the country really tough and lose- you don't feel you have enough evidence that Oshkosh is worthy of moving into the top 25?

Yea, I admit the preseason polls is very tough to do, b/c there's a lot of uncertainty. But it isn't a total shot in the dark. There is a degree of research involved in making the polls, and there's reasoning behind where teams are ranked to begin the season.

Yes, of course I agree there will be schools that aren't in the top 25 to begin the year that will end up there during the season. I would agree that Oshkosh beat a good program in Central. Although, according to some research, Central was picked to finish fourth in the IIAC this year, with a record just over .500. So, experts think they possibly won't be as good as previous years. Hence, Central not being ranked to start the season. So, I guess time will tell if they actually are a "pretty darn good team" this year. Is Central better than a majority of the teams beat by a top 25 team? I have no idea, and few do, but yes it's possible. That's another debate.

Unfortunately for Oshkosh, strength of schedule isn't good enough to get you in the top 25....you still have to win the games. Beating an unranked team at home, then losing to a powerhouse doesn't get you in the top 25, in my book. And it looks like I'm not alone.

Since Oshkosh was blown out at Alliance, looks like this is all a mute point. However, I appreciate the debate and respect your point of views. It's been fun. 

[emma17]

Now 02, you didn't really think Oshkosh's loss would mute me did you?

Preface, I don't have any connection to Oshkosh that causes me to think irrationally (it's my undersized brain that does that).  Oshkosh happens to be the WIAC team that was playing Mt this year.  Because they have played 2 tough teams (yes, Central is a tough team in a tough conference), they are an interesting case study when it comes to discussing ranking teams-IMO. 

I get the feeling that some look at the Oshkosh game as a "blow out" (24 point loss) and, as such, Oshkosh isn't deserving of ranking discussion.  So who does deserve national rankings?  Since it's all about who we think is the best team in the country at the time of the poll (I think), I choose to rank teams based upon the following question:
"How would this team fare against the top 2 teams in the country?"

If my approach above has merit (and maybe I'm missing something here), then there are some hard facts to ignore in the current rankings.

If Oshkosh was blown out Saturday and therefore, undeserving of ranking disucssion, what about:
ONU-they lost by 27 points to MT last year, and ONU finished 8th in the final D3 poll and are preseason 12.
Alfred-they lost to Mt by 30 in the playoffs last year, and they are preseason 16.
Del Valley-they lost to Mt by 28 in the playoffs last year, and they are preseason 25.
Surely Oshkosh has at least equal talent returning this year as teams above (I say that facetiously because they probably have better talent returning). 
If the arguement is that Oshkosh appeared to be a "tougher out", relatively speaking, because it was Mt's first game- then look at the scores of Mt's last 6 "first games".
If the arguement is overall wins and losses, well that just goes back to the question of who have the other teams played to warrant such a ranking?

I know comparative scores are not the best way to determine strength, but what other method can be used at this point to try and determine how one team may do against another?     

This isn't a knock on ONU, the OAC or any team mentioned above.  The point is, what criteria do we use to rank teams?

More and more, I'm tempted to put all WIAC teams in the top 10 to start the season, and just drop them down once other teams prove they can beat them.   

[BoBo]

More and more, I'm tempted to put all WIAC teams in the top 10 to start the season, and just drop them down once other teams prove they can beat them.

. . . or possibly when they start beating on each other?

[smedindy]

emma17 -

Me thinks you doth protest too much. This is supposed to be 'fun' for us. Early season rankings are always conjecture. Until a body of work comes into play, it's all about what we 'think' is right and true and just.

I can't put too much into one result, or even two. I still have my conjecture. Like North Central vs. Redlands. I still think North Central is a better team, and I will rank them higher. Because I KNOW of the paradox that I wrote about earlier (A beats B, B beats C, C beats A), and I want to avoid it because I know that ranking on the initial head to head isn't a true gauge especially with the staggered starts.

You shouldn't rank against the top 2 teams, either. That's not a realistic standard. My standard is, "if A and B played 1000 times, who would win more"? If A, they're ahead of B, if B then they're ahead of A. Sometimes it's easy to do. This week, it was tough. I think Wabash would beat Wittenberg about 518 times out of 1,000 (or so...). I don't care about their results against the Purple Horde - the chances of an NCAC team winning there are equally lousy, and statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

And I have Wesley ahead of Kean. Because Wesley's a better team. But I don't have Wesley third anymore, and I have Kean ranked now. And I think Wesley beats Kean 2/3 of the time. Saturday was the other 1/3.

But again, this is FUN!

[02 Warhawk]

I choose to rank teams based upon the following question:

"How would this team fare against the top 2 teams in the country?"

If my approach above has merit (and maybe I'm missing something here), then there are some hard facts to ignore in the current rankings.

If Oshkosh was blown out Saturday and therefore, undeserving of ranking disucssion, what about:
ONU-they lost by 27 points to MT last year, and ONU finished 8th in the final D3 poll and are preseason 12.
Alfred-they lost to Mt by 30 in the playoffs last year, and they are preseason 16.
Del Valley-they lost to Mt by 28 in the playoffs last year, and they are preseason 25.
Surely Oshkosh has at least equal talent returning this year as teams above (I say that facetiously because they probably have better talent returning). 
If the arguement is that Oshkosh appeared to be a "tougher out", relatively speaking, because it was Mt's first game- then look at the scores of Mt's last 6 "first games".
If the arguement is overall wins and losses, well that just goes back to the question of who have the other teams played to warrant such a ranking?

[smedindy]

Warhawk, are you saying I put too much time and effort into the response I posted.

But you know every Mt. Union team is monolithic. They're all the same...they just cleverly change the names in the program. So you CAN compare 2006 to 2011.

Right?

[02 Warhawk]

Warhawk, are you saying I put too much time and effort into the response I posted.

But you know every Mt. Union team is monolithic. They're all the same...they just cleverly change the names in the program. So you CAN compare 2006 to 2011.

Right?

not sure what you mean

[smedindy]

It was about comparing last year Mt. Union to this year Mt. Union, and last year Alfred, Del Val and ONU to this year, and I extrapolated it. Trying to be cerebral and funny on a day where my head hurts.

[emma17]

Smedindy,
I think you may have meant to respond to me, not to Warhawk?

I am sorry if my posts reduce the fun of the board, it's not my intention at all.  For me, it's a lot of fun to have the discussion.  This is a Fan Poll of top 25 and very few of them actually play each other (at least this soon in the season), so the whole point is conjecture I think.

If asking the question about a team like Oshkosh isn't fun or provacative, I'll stop- it's no fun for me to discuss with myself.

In case others are interested in the discussion, I'll just ask the question.  What is it about the teams ranked 16-25 that makes us believe Oshkosh couldn't beat them?  And in your scenario Smed- what makes us think Oshkosh wouldn't beat them 501 out of 1,000 times?