D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[smedindy]

I have answered the question, and I'm not the one being defensive. You inferred opinions were wrong when they were well thought out and are just conjectural opinions. Neither set has to be right OR wrong. You conflated the NCAA SOS and RRs with real, actual, rankings that have contextual rigor behind them. The gaps are NOT wide. I went through my logic, though I can't speak for the other nine. And you have no right to disparage my due diligence or anyone else's because the result didn't meet with your rigor.

A stark edge to Centre, who on my ballot is in the 20's over a team that is also in the 20's but not in the top 25? That's STARK?

Stark is the difference between Heidelberg and Muskingum; between Wittenberg and Hiram; between North Park and North Central...

[Tekken]

Unless the views aren't different (another possibility, I originally acknowledged).  Your personal ranking backs up this stance. 

I'll let your work of a validated defense for Muhlenberg ......


Again, your personal ranking validates this second premise.  Other responses, as I have expanded upon, did not.

The actuality at this point is you look at my screenname and assume homerism instead of objectively answering the question, whether it be from historical perspective a la Wabash or an internal doubt of your own due diligence to properly rank them.

And you have no right to disparage my due diligence or anyone else's because the result didn't meet with your rigor.

Or.  It's a very powerful word.  It's almost as if I keep trying to help you make your point, but you refuse to let me; entrenching yourself further and further into defensiveness.  Whatever the case, I've got to get up in the morning.  My rationality often perturbs those who are more emotional, so no harm taken from this end.  I have numerous times shown that I understand/value some of your positions; some of the others, I don't jive with.  I am, however, still interested on how others reconcile the difference (let me be clear here, if there actually is one).  After all, this is a discussion board, is it not?

[D3AlumniParent]

collectively speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Talking points are preached when convenient, but dismissed when they fly in the face of your (I use this pronoun generically) given logic.

Dude, you're funny. I have to let you know, however, that you can't take the independent thoughts of two people, "collect" them, then say that they're "collectively speaking out of both sides of your mouth" when those thoughts differ. I admire your spunk. But that's just against the rules of rational discourse.

Now you're answering my questions and proving your mettle. (Congrats @smedindy for proving that mettle!) I'll let your work of a validated defense for Muhlenberg negate the petty hissy fit comment at the end.  Where have I ever claimed anything, much less cried about it?

Actually I think @smedindy's comment was both accurate and humorous.

Or, perhaps there is another entirely different reason.  I have my own personal reasoning for where I believe TLU should stand, but it is based on objective reasoning. 

You come across just a bit dismissive of others and, oh I'll just say *slightly* too impressed with your own "rational" (of course) thought process.

I can follow most of your logic, I just find issue with your politics statement.

OK. I'm trying to imagine the world you live in where politics aren't so tangible you can almost reach out and touch it. From your tone and opinions, I'm guessing you're either a student or make your living in academia- not that there's anything wrong with that. But there's another reality off campus- especially in Texas politics and football polls! 

but the defense AGAINST the regional rankings is that they are so rigid based on criteria.  You're wanting it both ways by claiming subjectivity here.

Sorry bud. I've never defended RR. If I follow you correctly, though, I guess in this instance I'm being "collectively" hypocritical. The only cure to collective hypocrisy, as I can best imagine, is for me to start a thread, then close it immediately after one post. I'll try that next time so nobody makes me a talk out of the other side of my mouth without me knowing.

Not sure if you're familiar with Bennett Rank -http://www.bennettrank.com/- but they have Centre @ 23, Rhodes 51, LC 63, TLU 65, HSU 67. Unless HSU  blows out LC, the game result won't change my mind, which is that Rhodes is likely a better team than HS, and might even be better than TLU (not that I'm saying they should be ranked higher). The anomaly that exits related to TLU's ranking higher than an undefeated team resides in one place.

My rationale does not include two sided defenses about strength of schedule and margin of defeat against UMHB.  That result, especially, is irrelevant to anyone ranked outside the top 15 or so.

Wrong. It's relevant in two ways. 1) TLU lost. This fact alone is likely all that matters here. 2) TLU lost BADLY. Down 39 after 2 quarters. I realize UMHB is on a higher level than TLU, Centre, Muhlenberg, etc. But in no way do I believe that Centre loses so badly.

Had TLU scheduled any of Centre's opponents this year, there is a very good liklihood they would also be 9-0

Hey Pot. Kettle here. Now you're showing your homerism. I'm glad you're so confident in your assessment. I am not so confident. AGAIN, please refer to my earlier post: Remove UMHB's 9-0 record from TLU's SOS and we're comparing 4.41 to slightly under 4.8. I'm going to call that insignificant. Now you want to "hang your hat" on that? Plus a loss? A "RR win" from a #10. All of that's enough for you to send 9-1 over a 10-0?

[smedindy]

To him, it's about ethics in D3 Top 25 voting journalism....#top25gate

[wally_wabash]

One or the other is wrong, by virtue of them being different.  Unless the views aren't different (another possibility, I originally acknowledged).  Your personal ranking backs up this stance.  By the way it works, we will likely never know which diverging view is most correct.  Also, by no means take my response as belittling or insulting your efforts.  The two views of TLU's merit are indeed, mutually exclusive, so they can not both be right.  There are far too many teams and far too many comparisons between them, for anyone to be right, anyhow.  I appreciate your efforts and the time and energy that go behind them, but I genuinely was trying to rectify the difference in positions (if there is actually one), given the same set of data, to gain insight as to why the fan poll is so vastly different to the top 25 and regional rankings in this one particular area.  By contrast, they are actually very similar in regards to all the other top south teams.  I really don't have a forum to garner the other side's position.  I also understand there are only ten of you, but I lean on that striking similarity between the other 7 teams to conclude this is not a difference simply based on sample size. The responses, however, I feel were completely copout in nature; collectively speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Talking points are preached when convenient, but dismissed when they fly in the face of your (I use this pronoun generically) given logic.

From my vantage, much of this debate comes down to philosophy.  You say you think Centre and Muhlenberg are better.  Why?  Centre has beaten two teams with a winning record, zero regionally ranked.  Their strength of schedule is decidedly lower.  Muhlenberg has beaten one team with a winning record, zero regionally ranked.  Their strength of schedule is also decidedly lower.  TLU has beaten three teams with winning record, one regionally ranked, with a decidedly higher strength of schedule.  Do Centre and Muhlenberg get the nod simply because they don't have a blowout loss to one of the four super elites?  Is their lack of schedule rewarded?  If so, so be it.  That is a concrete objective reason, open to interpretation by differing philosophies.  Or, perhaps there is another entirely different reason.  I have my own personal reasoning for where I believe TLU should stand, but it is based on objective reasoning. 

The prevailing thought to answer the original question, however, was to defensively attack with cries of homerism and/or corruption, or cherry pick a margin of victory defense when it suits your (again, generic) current opinion, but goes against everything else that has ever been used in these forums to defend margin of victory and results against the "super elites".

The RRs and the top 25s are different because, as stated, the rules by which they are put together are different. More to the point, the RACs have no option but to swallow the heaping spoonful of BS that is the NCAAs strength of schedule metric and top 25 voters can do what they will with that number up to and including ignoring it completely.

In the case of Texas Lutheran, top 25 voters can see that they haven't beaten anybody of any particular substance and in their showcase game they lost by over 50. Top 25 voters can also see that TLU genrally gives up a boatload of points, and teams that do that generally don't fit in the top 25 (check your ncaa stats...you'll see a stronger correlation to win percentages and total defense than you will to win percentages and total offense...good teams defend, almost without exception).

But here's the best part of this four page debate to me- being mad about the polls and where people vote for your team is silly. It's triple silly when we get deep enough into the season to have regional rankings and your team is ranked WAY higher than the polls would have indicated because at the end of today timmytlu, those NCAAS rankings really, really matter. The polls couldn't matter less. You're ahead, man.  Your Bulldogs gave up 70 and lost by 50+ and they are still in really good shape to make the tournament.  That should never ever happen and yet here we are. Celebrate it. Go to Belton next Saturday and check out that stadium and enjoy the playoff experience. And who knows- if the Bulldogs can figure out a way to not lose by 50, they might even get a vote or two here.

That is a long winded way of saying that the regional rankings and the polls are two completely different entities and shouldn't be compared to one another really at all, let alone use one to validate the other. Apples and oranges here. 

[desertcat1]

One or the other is wrong, by virtue of them being different.  Unless the views aren't different (another possibility, I originally acknowledged).  Your personal ranking backs up this stance.  By the way it works, we will likely never know which diverging view is most correct.  Also, by no means take my response as belittling or insulting your efforts.  The two views of TLU's merit are indeed, mutually exclusive, so they can not both be right.  There are far too many teams and far too many comparisons between them, for anyone to be right, anyhow.  I appreciate your efforts and the time and energy that go behind them, but I genuinely was trying to rectify the difference in positions (if there is actually one), given the same set of data, to gain insight as to why the fan poll is so vastly different to the top 25 and regional rankings in this one particular area.  By contrast, they are actually very similar in regards to all the other top south teams.  I really don't have a forum to garner the other side's position.  I also understand there are only ten of you, but I lean on that striking similarity between the other 7 teams to conclude this is not a difference simply based on sample size. The responses, however, I feel were completely copout in nature; collectively speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Talking points are preached when convenient, but dismissed when they fly in the face of your (I use this pronoun generically) given logic.

From my vantage, much of this debate comes down to philosophy.  You say you think Centre and Muhlenberg are better.  Why?  Centre has beaten two teams with a winning record, zero regionally ranked.  Their strength of schedule is decidedly lower.  Muhlenberg has beaten one team with a winning record, zero regionally ranked.  Their strength of schedule is also decidedly lower.  TLU has beaten three teams with winning record, one regionally ranked, with a decidedly higher strength of schedule.  Do Centre and Muhlenberg get the nod simply because they don't have a blowout loss to one of the four super elites?  Is their lack of schedule rewarded?  If so, so be it.  That is a concrete objective reason, open to interpretation by differing philosophies.  Or, perhaps there is another entirely different reason.  I have my own personal reasoning for where I believe TLU should stand, but it is based on objective reasoning. 

The prevailing thought to answer the original question, however, was to defensively attack with cries of homerism and/or corruption, or cherry pick a margin of victory defense when it suits your (again, generic) current opinion, but goes against everything else that has ever been used in these forums to defend margin of victory and results against the "super elites".

The RRs and the top 25s are different because, as stated, the rules by which they are put together are different. More to the point, the RACs have no option but to swallow the heaping spoonful of BS that is the NCAAs strength of schedule metric and top 25 voters can do what they will with that number up to and including ignoring it completely.

In the case of Texas Lutheran, top 25 voters can see that they haven't beaten anybody of any particular substance and in their showcase game they lost by over 50. Top 25 voters can also see that TLU genrally gives up a boatload of points, and teams that do that generally don't fit in the top 25 (check your ncaa stats...you'll see a stronger correlation to win percentages and total defense than you will to win percentages and total offense...good teams defend, almost without exception).

But here's the best part of this four page debate to me- being mad about the polls and where people vote for your team is silly. It's triple silly when we get deep enough into the season to have regional rankings and your team is ranked WAY higher than the polls would have indicated because at the end of today timmytlu, those NCAAS rankings really, really matter. The polls couldn't matter less. You're ahead, man.  Your Bulldogs gave up 70 and lost by 50+ and they are still in really good shape to make the tournament.  That should never ever happen and yet here we are. Celebrate it. Go to Belton next Saturday and check out that stadium and enjoy the playoff experience. And who knows- if the Bulldogs can figure out a way to not lose by 50, they might even get a vote or two here.

That is a long winded way of saying that the regional rankings and the polls are two completely different entities and shouldn't be compared to one another really at all, let alone use one to validate the other. Apples and oranges here.

Hey Wally,

Are we the Apples or Oranges Here?

[ExTartanPlayer]

It is my firm belief that if two people disagree on a subject, it will never be resolved by exchanging post/emails. Sitting behind a computer screen in the privacy of you home/office will never come to an agreement. Go sit face to face discuss the issue calmly to come to an conclusion/resolution. Before you take offense to this, I will admit this is only my opinion.

I disagree.  I think that we should resolve our disagreement about whether things can be resolved through posts and emails by exchanging some posts and emails to decide whether we can come to an agreement about whether disagreements can be resolved through posts and emails.

[hazzben]

The NCAA hates all teams equally.

Ha!

...#top25gate

On a Roll Smeds, don't stop now! 

[retagent]

Not that I disagree strongly with the ranking of St John's, but just to add some info to those who voted them either #16, #17 or #18. They have one loss to a team receiving votes in the Poll (Concordia). That loss came without their starting QB, early in the year, and they mounted a not quite good enough comeback bid, once he got his footing. They also beat a team (Bethel) that had one loss to the #4 ranked team (Wartburg) The was Bethel's first game of the season, Wart's second. Personally, I would rank them anywhere from #10 to #12, so I'm baffled by those who have ranked them well below that.

[USee]

One or the other is wrong, by virtue of them being different.  Unless the views aren't different (another possibility, I originally acknowledged).  Your personal ranking backs up this stance.  By the way it works, we will likely never know which diverging view is most correct.  Also, by no means take my response as belittling or insulting your efforts.  The two views of TLU's merit are indeed, mutually exclusive, so they can not both be right.  There are far too many teams and far too many comparisons between them, for anyone to be right, anyhow.  I appreciate your efforts and the time and energy that go behind them, but I genuinely was trying to rectify the difference in positions (if there is actually one), given the same set of data, to gain insight as to why the fan poll is so vastly different to the top 25 and regional rankings in this one particular area.  By contrast, they are actually very similar in regards to all the other top south teams.  I really don't have a forum to garner the other side's position.  I also understand there are only ten of you, but I lean on that striking similarity between the other 7 teams to conclude this is not a difference simply based on sample size. The responses, however, I feel were completely copout in nature; collectively speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Talking points are preached when convenient, but dismissed when they fly in the face of your (I use this pronoun generically) given logic.

From my vantage, much of this debate comes down to philosophy.  You say you think Centre and Muhlenberg are better.  Why?  Centre has beaten two teams with a winning record, zero regionally ranked.  Their strength of schedule is decidedly lower.  Muhlenberg has beaten one team with a winning record, zero regionally ranked.  Their strength of schedule is also decidedly lower.  TLU has beaten three teams with winning record, one regionally ranked, with a decidedly higher strength of schedule.  Do Centre and Muhlenberg get the nod simply because they don't have a blowout loss to one of the four super elites?  Is their lack of schedule rewarded?  If so, so be it.  That is a concrete objective reason, open to interpretation by differing philosophies.  Or, perhaps there is another entirely different reason.  I have my own personal reasoning for where I believe TLU should stand, but it is based on objective reasoning. 

The prevailing thought to answer the original question, however, was to defensively attack with cries of homerism and/or corruption, or cherry pick a margin of victory defense when it suits your (again, generic) current opinion, but goes against everything else that has ever been used in these forums to defend margin of victory and results against the "super elites".

The RRs and the top 25s are different because, as stated, the rules by which they are put together are different. More to the point, the RACs have no option but to swallow the heaping spoonful of BS that is the NCAAs strength of schedule metric and top 25 voters can do what they will with that number up to and including ignoring it completely.

In the case of Texas Lutheran, top 25 voters can see that they haven't beaten anybody of any particular substance and in their showcase game they lost by over 50. Top 25 voters can also see that TLU genrally gives up a boatload of points, and teams that do that generally don't fit in the top 25 (check your ncaa stats...you'll see a stronger correlation to win percentages and total defense than you will to win percentages and total offense...good teams defend, almost without exception).

But here's the best part of this four page debate to me- being mad about the polls and where people vote for your team is silly. It's triple silly when we get deep enough into the season to have regional rankings and your team is ranked WAY higher than the polls would have indicated because at the end of today timmytlu, those NCAAS rankings really, really matter. The polls couldn't matter less. You're ahead, man.  Your Bulldogs gave up 70 and lost by 50+ and they are still in really good shape to make the tournament.  That should never ever happen and yet here we are. Celebrate it. Go to Belton next Saturday and check out that stadium and enjoy the playoff experience. And who knows- if the Bulldogs can figure out a way to not lose by 50, they might even get a vote or two here.

That is a long winded way of saying that the regional rankings and the polls are two completely different entities and shouldn't be compared to one another really at all, let alone use one to validate the other. Apples and oranges here.

Amen, Amen, and Amen. Well said Wally.

I would add (and this is not new) that the tournament is decidedly not designed to pick the 32 best teams. The RAC's recognized this because the winner of the NACC is going to get hammered by the winner of the WIAC in the first round (as a proxy). We can't change that because the system allows 24 teams an automatic bid. So we are left to haggle and argue about the at large bids. That system, driven by the RAC's and eventually the national committee, is set up to alleviate the inequality of quality teams in stronger conferences  getting a chance. It also allows non AQ teams a chance (see Centre). This isn't the exact point you guys are debating but I think its an important concept to understand what drives the RR vs the Top 25.

Voters in polls are trying to determine the absolute best teams. The RR are trying to supplement the AQ (or equal access system) with the best remaining teams. The system is, by design, limited and the poll system is much more unconstrained.

[smedindy]

Not that I disagree strongly with the ranking of St John's, but just to add some info to those who voted them either #16, #17 or #18. They have one loss to a team receiving votes in the Poll (Concordia). That loss came without their starting QB, early in the year, and they mounted a not quite good enough comeback bid, once he got his footing. They also beat a team (Bethel) that had one loss to the #4 ranked team (Wartburg) The was Bethel's first game of the season, Wart's second. Personally, I would rank them anywhere from #10 to #12, so I'm baffled by those who have ranked them well below that.

I have them at #13. But I can tell you this, I was agonizing from 12 on below. I think everyone else was, too. Enough carnage happened for me to reassess everything, really. You've got Wheaton, Del Val, and W&J that are unblemished. Wabash has the same record. Chapman does too. What to do with Platteville and Oshkosh? Lots of good teams fighting for those spots, so #18 isn't unreasonable...

[USee]

Not that I disagree strongly with the ranking of St John's, but just to add some info to those who voted them either #16, #17 or #18. They have one loss to a team receiving votes in the Poll (Concordia). That loss came without their starting QB, early in the year, and they mounted a not quite good enough comeback bid, once he got his footing. They also beat a team (Bethel) that had one loss to the #4 ranked team (Wartburg) The was Bethel's first game of the season, Wart's second. Personally, I would rank them anywhere from #10 to #12, so I'm baffled by those who have ranked them well below that.

I have them at #13. But I can tell you this, I was agonizing from 12 on below. I think everyone else was, too. Enough carnage happened for me to reassess everything, really. You've got Wheaton, Del Val, and W&J that are unblemished. Wabash has the same record. Chapman does too. What to do with Platteville and Oshkosh? Lots of good teams fighting for those spots, so #18 isn't unreasonable...

Seems like a tight spread between 12-19 and then a drop off. Maybe 3 tiers of teams right now? Or even 4?

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Not that I disagree strongly with the ranking of St John's, but just to add some info to those who voted them either #16, #17 or #18. They have one loss to a team receiving votes in the Poll (Concordia). That loss came without their starting QB, early in the year, and they mounted a not quite good enough comeback bid, once he got his footing. They also beat a team (Bethel) that had one loss to the #4 ranked team (Wartburg) The was Bethel's first game of the season, Wart's second. Personally, I would rank them anywhere from #10 to #12, so I'm baffled by those who have ranked them well below that.

I'm the 18 so I can comment. Of the 17 teams I have ahead of them... there's 12 unbeatens (UWW, Mount Union, Wesley, UMHB, Wartburg, John Carroll, Johns Hopkins, Hobart, W&J, Wheaton, Widener, DelVal), Witt (who is unbeaten in D3), Wabash who's only loss is to Witt, Linfield, UW-Platteville, and North Central. I can see arguments for St John's being higher than the last three of those. It's not that I don't think they're not a #10-12, it's that there's quite a few other teams that are also #10-12 worthy.
On a scale of 1-100 I could think the top three teams are 100, 98, 95 but their rankings would be spread out on the ballot the same as say #13-15 who might be rated 89.6, 89.55, 89.5.

[retagent]

Thanks. Good explanations. Just trying to provide some context. I'm glad I'm not voting, but it looks as though you're splitting hairs, which is never easy.

[02 Warhawk]

I for one have St. John's at #9, I think they've more than earned to be a top 10 team based on their body of work.

Sorry.... I'm not ranking a team that gives up 70+ points, and I don't care who it was against.