D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[wally_wabash]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

[jknezek]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

90% of the time, yes. It's one reason I just don't like early season, and especially preseason, polls. People get locked in, primarily based on history, and it is very hard to dislodge those conceptions. It gives us something to talk about, but it creates a tremendous bias.

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP. You can't ignore the H2H based on this year's results only. Of course it is very hard to ignore everything else we know and think we know based on history and the upcoming schedules for both teams...

[BashDad]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

Yes. Always.

[D3MAFAN]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

90% of the time, yes. It's one reason I just don't like early season, and especially preseason, polls. People get locked in, primarily based on history, and it is very hard to dislodge those conceptions. It gives us something to talk about, but it creates a tremendous bias.

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP. You can't ignore the H2H based on this year's results only. Of course it is very hard to ignore everything else we know and think we know based on history and the upcoming schedules for both teams...

The good thing is that at the end of the day, our champion is always decided on the field.

[BashDad]

Also, and unequivocally, if you're using upcoming games to rank teams, you're doing it wrong.

[02 Warhawk]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

90% of the time, yes. It's one reason I just don't like early season, and especially preseason, polls. People get locked in, primarily based on history, and it is very hard to dislodge those conceptions. It gives us something to talk about, but it creates a tremendous bias.

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP. You can't ignore the H2H based on this year's results only. Of course it is very hard to ignore everything else we know and think we know based on history and the upcoming schedules for both teams...

I don't think people get locked in to this notion. But rather they look at last season a little because there's not much data to go off of when doing a poll early on. We know to rank UWW, Mount, Linfield, NCC, Wesley and MHB towards the top...because history tells us they are exceptional programs each year.

I like to look at who is returning at each program (this is where Kickoff helps me out a lot), that's why I ranked UMU over MHB for the #2 spot. Even though MHB was the runner up last year.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP.

Yup.

"I don't think NCC is that bad to be in the 20's, nor is UWSP that good to be in the teens just so they can be ranked ahead of NCC."

I just cannot wrap my head around this kind of logic.  UWSP isn't good enough to be ranked ahead of a team that they just beat?

[D3MAFAN]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

90% of the time, yes. It's one reason I just don't like early season, and especially preseason, polls. People get locked in, primarily based on history, and it is very hard to dislodge those conceptions. It gives us something to talk about, but it creates a tremendous bias.

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP. You can't ignore the H2H based on this year's results only. Of course it is very hard to ignore everything else we know and think we know based on history and the upcoming schedules for both teams...

I don't think people get locked in to this notion. But rather they look at last season a little because there's not much data to go off of when doing a poll early on. We know to rank UWW, Mount, Linfield, NCC, Wesley and MHB towards the top...because history tells us they are exceptional programs each year.

I like to look at who is returning at each program (this is where Kickoff helps me out a lot), that's why I ranked UMU over MHB for the #2 spot. Even though MHB was the runner up last year.

Want to play Devil's advocate here, but aren't their teams that loss to UWW by 20+ points in the previous year and returned a good amount of their players not ranked or ranked less than number 2. Now that's where history is your vote to rank Mount #2. However, I think Mount back ups were probably better than majority of DIII starters, because they have so much playing time throughout the season within the OAC.

[02 Warhawk]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

90% of the time, yes. It's one reason I just don't like early season, and especially preseason, polls. People get locked in, primarily based on history, and it is very hard to dislodge those conceptions. It gives us something to talk about, but it creates a tremendous bias.

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP. You can't ignore the H2H based on this year's results only. Of course it is very hard to ignore everything else we know and think we know based on history and the upcoming schedules for both teams...

I don't think people get locked in to this notion. But rather they look at last season a little because there's not much data to go off of when doing a poll early on. We know to rank UWW, Mount, Linfield, NCC, Wesley and MHB towards the top...because history tells us they are exceptional programs each year.

I like to look at who is returning at each program (this is where Kickoff helps me out a lot), that's why I ranked UMU over MHB for the #2 spot. Even though MHB was the runner up last year.

Want to play Devil's advocate here, but aren't their teams that loss to UWW by 20+ points in the previous year and returned a good amount of their players not ranked or ranked less than number 2. Now that's where history is your vote to rank Mount #2. However, I think Mount back ups were probably better than majority of DIII starters, because they have so much playing time throughout the season within the OAC.

Exactly...this is a great example on where I used history AND current data to rank teams. In fact, I used some history as well as returning starters for ALL the teams in my top 25.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

When I have a tough decision for ranking teams sometimes it comes down to a little test.
If Team A and Team B were to play today on a neutral field and you were forced to place a large bet on one of the teams winning the game who would you choose? That team is the team you should rank higher.

[USee]

The serious question is if you, as a voter, still think NC can beat UWSP three out of the next five?

This is kind of a cop out, isn't it?  Don't we use this who would win the most out of seven or ten games to more or less dismiss an actual game result that doesn't jive with our preconceptions?

While this is true for the most part I think we also need to remember teams evolve and change, sometimes dramatically, through the course of a year so results in weeks 1-4 may be entirely different  later in the season for a number of reasons. We have some data on this as we occasionally see teams play each other again in the playoffs. In 2002 Wheaton lost @Alma by 7 to start the season, ran the table and ended up @Alma in the playoffs, beating them by 28. Mt Union beat Capital by 20+ in the regular season in 2005 and had to come from behind to win by 3 in the playoffs. NCC lost to Concordia, WI by 6 to start the 2006 season and beat them by 29 in the playoffs, etc. etc. And of course we find teams like the 2008 Wheaton and 2011 St John Fisher who lose to weak teams during the season and become world beaters in the playoffs, making it to the semi's despite 2 regular season losses. Mt Union won the title in 2005 after losing at home mid-season to ONU.

So it's not necessarily misplaced conjecture to try and anticipate how teams change over the course of a season and how that would affect repeat results.  We have to be careful of absolutes. This rankings game is fun but it is part art part science.

[02 Warhawk]

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP.

Yup.

"I don't think NCC is that bad to be in the 20's, nor is UWSP that good to be in the teens just so they can be ranked ahead of NCC."

I just cannot wrap my head around this kind of logic.  UWSP isn't good enough to be ranked ahead of a team that they just beat?

Since I was the one who said that, I guess I'll try and defend myself here. I suppose I've fallen victim to reviewing college football polls since I was a kid (back when I was a Notre Dame freak), and knowing how the Top 25 usually rounds out from week to week.

I've learned that if a #5 team loses to an un-ranked team, they will almost never drop far enough to be placed behind the team that just beat them. I'm not saying that's right or wrong (however, you can certainly make a strong case why that's wrong), but that's just how these polls usually end up. Judging how the voting went this week in our poll, I'm far from alone in voting that way:

13)   North Central        124      (10, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 15, 15, 16, 17)
18)   UW-Stevens Point      70      (13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, --)

Also, the D3football.com poll seemed to go in the same direction:

13    North Central (Ill.)    2-1    289    5
17      UW-Stevens Point    3-0    188    --

[wally_wabash]

The requirement for Stevens Point to be ranked ahead of North Central today should not include them having to beat Whitewater later on or North Central losing again later on.  Might future results lead us to rank North Central higher down the road?  Of course they might.  But as of this minute there isn't a single logical reason for North Central to be ranked ahead of Stevens Point other than "meh, I'm not buying it".  They didn't lose at the buzzer on a 50-yard field goal.  They didn't lose because their coach ran into the huddle at the end of the game.  No, no.  In the words of Teddy KGB: "He byeat me.  Straight up.  Pay that man hees money." 

[BashDad]

I think you see that in some of the responses that say "well I can't move NCC that far down" or "I can't move UWSP that far up." That is the definition of poll bias and is the weakest argument you can make. It is not dependent on the data, it is simply dependent on what the voter thought originally and not wanting to be that "wrong" based on the latest data point. Yes, wrong in quotes since it's a poll and you can't be wrong on an opinion.

I will say that if you were starting the poll from scratch, today, based on what has happened in the last three weeks and nothing to do with history beyond that, there is no way you put NCC at 2-1 above 3-0 UWSP.

Yup.

"I don't think NCC is that bad to be in the 20's, nor is UWSP that good to be in the teens just so they can be ranked ahead of NCC."

I just cannot wrap my head around this kind of logic.  UWSP isn't good enough to be ranked ahead of a team that they just beat?

Since I was the one who said that, I guess I'll try and defend myself here. I suppose I've fallen victim to reviewing college football polls since I was a kid (back when I was a Notre Dame freak), and knowing how the Top 25 usually rounds out from week to week.

I've learned that if a #5 team loses to an un-ranked team, they will almost never drop far enough to be placed behind the team that just beat them. I'm not saying that's right or wrong (however, you can certainly make a strong case why that's wrong), but that's just how these polls usually end up. Judging how the voting went this week in our poll, I'm far from alone in voting that way:

13)   North Central        124      (10, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 15, 15, 16, 17)
18)   UW-Stevens Point      70      (13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, --)

Also, the D3football.com poll seemed to go in the same direction:

13    North Central (Ill.)    2-1    289    5
17      UW-Stevens Point    3-0    188    --

Well, that's dumb. You're ranking teams according to how you're used to seeing polls adjust whatever team in whatever year after whatever game? That's dumb. Just rank the teams.

[BashDad]

When I have a tough decision for ranking teams sometimes it comes down to a little test.
If Team A and Team B were to play today on a neutral field and you were forced to place a large bet on one of the teams winning the game who would you choose? That team is the team you should rank higher.

A regular Bill James.