D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[smedindy]

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."

For the record, I didn't rank NC ahead of Stevens Point. I do, though, fail to see how it can be a COP OUT if you don't think that one result, which can be a fluke, happenstance, circumstance, bad weather, injuries, nefariousness, rivalries, etc.

It's not dumb people, and can't be a simple yes / no. It's complicated at times.

And I'm talking IN GENERAL, not in this ultra-specific instance. Some want to say you can NEVER rank a team higher than a team that beat them. Not the case at all.

[smedindy]

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?

NO! It's not a cop out. Weird results and outliers would pollute our rankings. Say Kenyon upsets Wittenberg. We'd never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg.

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

False assumption on your part, my friend.

[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?

NO! It's not a cop out. Weird results and outliers would pollute our rankings. Say Kenyon upsets Wittenberg. We'd never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg.

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

False assumption on your part, my friend.

Kenyon is 0-4. I'm not assuming anything. If Kenyon was undefeated and beat Witt, then yes, I would rank them ahead of Witt.

I do, though, fail to see how it can be a COP OUT if you don't think that one result, which can be a fluke, happenstance, circumstance, bad weather, injuries, nefariousness, rivalries, etc.

As near as we can tell, none of these fluke happenstances occurred. So why rank UWSP behind NCC?

[ExTartanPlayer]

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?

NO! It's not a cop out. Weird results and outliers would pollute our rankings. Say Kenyon upsets Wittenberg. We'd never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg.

In the words of William Wallace: "Why? Why is that impossible?"

Why would you "never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg" if Kenyon had actually beaten Wittenberg?  Rank the teams based on what actually happens on the field, not the teams that you thought were good before the season!  If there is other data within that same season to support it - i.e. Kenyon losing to several other teams that Wittenberg has beaten already - then, of course you consider those data points as well, and conclude that a larger body of evidence proves that Wittenberg is better than Kenyon.

In the specific cases we're arguing about, that data does not exist.  There is no result that supersedes UWSP 34, NCC 27.  If UWSP loses down the road to UWP, fine, the rankings will appropriately reflect how everyone weighs those results later.

[smedindy]

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?

NO! It's not a cop out. Weird results and outliers would pollute our rankings. Say Kenyon upsets Wittenberg. We'd never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg.

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

False assumption on your part, my friend.

Kenyon is 0-4. I'm not assuming anything. If Kenyon was undefeated and beat Witt, then yes, I would rank them ahead of Witt.

I do, though, fail to see how it can be a COP OUT if you don't think that one result, which can be a fluke, happenstance, circumstance, bad weather, injuries, nefariousness, rivalries, etc.

As near as we can tell, none of these fluke happenstances occurred. So why rank UWSP behind NCC?

I didn't. THAT was your false assumption. You made it personal and I was not talking my personal rankings but a thought process.

[smedindy]

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?

NO! It's not a cop out. Weird results and outliers would pollute our rankings. Say Kenyon upsets Wittenberg. We'd never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg.

In the words of William Wallace: "Why? Why is that impossible?"

Why would you "never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg" if Kenyon had actually beaten Wittenberg?  Rank the teams based on what actually happens on the field, not the teams that you thought were good before the season!  If there is other data within that same season to support it - i.e. Kenyon losing to several other teams that Wittenberg has beaten already - then, of course you consider those data points as well, and conclude that a larger body of evidence proves that Wittenberg is better than Kenyon.

In the specific cases we're arguing about, that data does not exist.  There is no result that supersedes UWSP 34, NCC 27.  If UWSP loses down the road to UWP, fine, the rankings will appropriately reflect how everyone weighs those results later.

Some argue or imply that that is what you do. Rank teams ahead of teams they beat, the hell with the other data points.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Some argue or imply that that is what you do. Rank teams ahead of teams they beat, the hell with the other data points.

Who has argued that?  Please, quote a specific instance of someone in this thread saying that.

[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?

NO! It's not a cop out. Weird results and outliers would pollute our rankings. Say Kenyon upsets Wittenberg. We'd never rank Kenyon ahead of Wittenberg.

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

False assumption on your part, my friend.

Kenyon is 0-4. I'm not assuming anything. If Kenyon was undefeated and beat Witt, then yes, I would rank them ahead of Witt.

I do, though, fail to see how it can be a COP OUT if you don't think that one result, which can be a fluke, happenstance, circumstance, bad weather, injuries, nefariousness, rivalries, etc.

As near as we can tell, none of these fluke happenstances occurred. So why rank UWSP behind NCC?

I didn't. THAT was your false assumption. You made it personal and I was not talking my personal rankings but a thought process.

Hmm. Apologies. The statement I made "you want to ignore the result" wasn't really targeted at what you may or may not have done but in the way the argument put forth is designed to allow someone to ignore the result. It was not meant to be a personal attack so much as part of the general arguments. I should have worded it better. Sorry.

[smedindy]

Some argue or imply that that is what you do. Rank teams ahead of teams they beat, the hell with the other data points.

Who has argued that?  Please, quote a specific instance of someone in this thread saying that.

There's a strong implication in some of the comments above through the entire thread where those who take a more nuanced view of a H2H result may be called out. I went extreme with Kenyon / Wittenberg, but the St. Thomas / St. John's game is probably a better example where since it's a rivalry game, and St. John's has a loss as well, where the H2H between the two may NOT be as black and white as some would think. On that given day St. Thomas lost. Who is the better team, though? The loss to C-M by St. John's still lingers. IF C-M beats St. Thomas, then all in the MIAC is aligned.

[jknezek]

Some argue or imply that that is what you do. Rank teams ahead of teams they beat, the hell with the other data points.

Who has argued that?  Please, quote a specific instance of someone in this thread saying that.

There's a strong implication in some of the comments above through the entire thread.

I haven't picked up on that, but there are different ways to read everything. Witness my apology above. I think some of the problem is ExTP and I are talking about this specific instance while smedindy is being more general. I certainly agree there are other circumstances that have to be weighted. I just don't see any for this instance. So we're probably mostly in agreement here and just not doing a good job of understanding exactly what each one of us is referring to. Especially since the posts, and some modifications, are coming quickly.

[smedindy]

As above, since I revised and extended my remarks for the record.

[jknezek]

Some argue or imply that that is what you do. Rank teams ahead of teams they beat, the hell with the other data points.

Who has argued that?  Please, quote a specific instance of someone in this thread saying that.

There's a strong implication in some of the comments above through the entire thread where those who take a more nuanced view of a H2H result may be called out. I went extreme with Kenyon / Wittenberg, but the St. Thomas / St. John's game is probably a better example where since it's a rivalry game, and St. John's has a loss as well, where the H2H between the two may NOT be as black and white as some would think. On that given day St. Thomas lost. Who is the better team, though? The loss to C-M by St. John's still lingers. IF C-M beats St. Thomas, then all in the MIAC is aligned.

C-M isn't exactly a bad loss. They are 4-0, 2-0. Will they beat St. Thomas? I don't know, but it's not like St. Johns lost to a hopeless team. Why is this mitigating before the St. Thomas - CM Game? Wouldn't you take both games at face value right now and rank C-M over St. Johns over St. Thomas? If any one of them loses again before the C-M / St. Thomas game you could re-evaluate then, but right now why mess up what seems a series of credible results on the field? Is there a reason to believe St. Thomas is significantly better than C-M? No common opponents so far. Are we relying on history, preconceptions? Where is the smoking gun that makes either the C-M win or the St. Johns win a fluke in relation to St. Thomas's quality?

[Bombers798891]

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

I don't think anyone's ignoring the result. There's a reason North Central went from 533 points in the polls to 289 while Stevens-Point went from 0 to 188. People clearly think more of Stevens-Point and less of North Central then they did last week. The result's not being ignored, it's just not being weighed as heavily as you'd like it to be by everyone

[jknezek]

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

I don't think anyone's ignoring the result. There's a reason North Central went from 533 points in the polls to 289 while Stevens-Point went from 0 to 188. People clearly think more of Stevens-Point and less of North Central then they did last week. The result's not being ignored, it's just not being weighed as heavily as you'd like it to be by everyone

I know. The question a few of us are asking is why? Why aren't people using the result on the field?

[02 Warhawk]

Ridiculous. Kenyon has mitigating data in terms of other losses. UWSP is undefeated. There isn't any mitigating data. You just want to ignore the result.

I don't think anyone's ignoring the result. There's a reason North Central went from 533 points in the polls to 289 while Stevens-Point went from 0 to 188. People clearly think more of Stevens-Point and less of North Central then they did last week. The result's not being ignored, it's just not being weighed as heavily as you'd like it to be by everyone

I know. The question a few of us are asking is why? Why aren't people using the result on the field?

I think everyone is. Hence NCC dropping a ton, and UWSP getting added. It's just not being used to your liking.