D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[Mr. Ypsi]

Despite my Green blood, whichever voter ranked IWU 13th should probably be drug-tested!

It's true that #14 UW-LAX needed double OT to beat 'em, and the weather definitely conspired against IWU's offensive strength in the loss to #10 Wheaton, 0-2 is still 0-2!   If they make it to 6-2 before meeting NCC (and I think they will), THEN these extenuating factors can justify a lofty ranking - but not yet.

[smedindy]

Well, every 0-2 isn't always equitable. Luck of the draw to have two coin-flip tough games back to back. Not like they're Finlandia

[Oline89]

Well, every 0-2 isn't always equitable. Luck of the draw to have two coin-flip tough games back to back. Not like they're Finlandia

True, but that's why it's a 10 game season.  As of now 0-2 is 0-2 and can't qualify you as a top 25 team, no matter how good you "will be".

[02 Warhawk]

Despite my Green blood, whichever voter ranked IWU 13th should probably be drug-tested!

Not only that, whoever put them at 13 actually moved them up in the poll, considering their highest rating last week was 14th. Now if it was a good loss, like losing on a last second field goal in Wheaton, then yes....that can be justified. But moving them up after losing by 14 points is tough to consider.

[USee]

Well, every 0-2 isn't always equitable. Luck of the draw to have two coin-flip tough games back to back. Not like they're Finlandia

Not sure it was your intention but I don't think the Wheaton game would be fairly characterized by a "coin flip".

Point is IWU is a top 25 team and that is likely accurate. I think its likely they end up 8-2/7-3

[Oline89]

Well, every 0-2 isn't always equitable. Luck of the draw to have two coin-flip tough games back to back. Not like they're Finlandia

Not sure it was your intention but I don't think the Wheaton game would be fairly characterized by a "coin flip".

Point is IWU is a top 25 team and that is likely accurate. I think its likely they end up 8-2/7-3

IWU may end up a top 25 team (especially if they end up 8-2), but at 0-2 , on 9/25, I just don't see how that could be justified.

[hazzben]

Well, every 0-2 isn't always equitable. Luck of the draw to have two coin-flip tough games back to back. Not like they're Finlandia

Not sure it was your intention but I don't think the Wheaton game would be fairly characterized by a "coin flip".

Point is IWU is a top 25 team and that is likely accurate. I think its likely they end up 8-2/7-3

IWU may end up a top 25 team (especially if they end up 8-2), but at 0-2 , on 9/25, I just don't see how that could be justified.

My gut/guess is the IWU is indeed a top 25 team at seasons end. But at this point they haven't won a single game. Top 25 is a stretch, but definitely top 15. At some point they need to prove it on the field (and I think they will), but until then this looks like name recognition and past performance. Neither should outweigh what's actually happened on the field in 2019.

That said, the middle of the Top 25 was utter chaos this week.

[smedindy]

I guess that if a hypothetical team loses to UMHB by 10 and Mt. Union by 8 then they wouldn't be a Top 25 team if 0-2???

Really??

Mind you I had IWU at #25.

[Pat Coleman]

Age-old question: Are we supposed to rank teams on how good they are, or on what their results have been on the field to date?

If you're just voting on what they've done on the field to date, might as well just sort the teams by winning percentage. Not putting a lot of critical analysis into your ranking, then.

[Bombers798891]

Age-old question: Are we supposed to rank teams on how good they are, or on what their results have been on the field to date?

Shouldn't that be "How good we think they are, despite what their results on the field might indicate"? Isn't that the whole thing people struggle with? Trying to decide if a loss or two is a canary in a coal mine, or just the result of a strong early schedule and a few bad breaks?

Take St. John Fisher in 2017. They were 8-3 the year before, and had not won fewer than 7 games since 2002. They were ranked 22 in the preseason, and kicked off the year by losing a close game to Washington & Jefferson on the road. (They had a 27-23 lead and a 1st and 10 at the W&J 34 early in the 4th quarter.) They wound up losing by 10, but all in all, no one would be ringing alarm bells over a loss like that—after all, W&J is always strong. Fisher got dropped from the rankings, but still got votes in the poll, perhaps justifiably.

Fisher, as we all know, finished dead last in the E8 that year, got blown out a ton, and frankly, could have gone winless without much changing. We probably would have said someone dismissing Fisher after that first loss was overreacting—even though they would be proven right in the end.

The reverse is kind of happening this year, right? They weren't good these last two years, and even though they're 3-0, they're not being taken seriously because the schedule has been lousy. But maybe, the schedule is lousy and Fisher's good, and they're about to party like it's 2006-2012 and smoke the Bombers.

[hazzben]

It's more nuanced than that Pat. No one is advocating straight win percentages. But this early in the season we don't actually know a lot about who any teams are yet. How good is LaCrosse? How good is Wheaton? In the MIAC I'm asking the same questions about Bethel, GAC, and UST. A week ago people were high on Linfield and Whitworth.

It gets clearer each week. But to smeds point, IWU didn't lose to Mount and UMHB by 10 and 8 respectively.

Part of it is just timing. If IWU was 5-2 and coming off a loss to Wheaton but had some other games that showed how good they are, that's another thing. At this point we have preseason assumptions about how good IWU was supposed to be, same with Wheaton, and LaCrosse being a WIAC school. To have them at 13, after having them at 14 the prior week,  is drinking some CCIW Kool Aid. Not exactly what I'd call a lot of critical analysis.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I can shed some light on the IWU at 13 vote... because I wasn't sure if they knew that they did it. Here was their reply:

Oh **** me....I messed up. 

I will say I was the other voter who had them at 25.

[Teamski]

I had the same thoughts about Berry's jump to 10 after beating a 1-1 team 14-10. Wesley's close win was lackluster but they beat a (still) Ranked Del Val team the week prior and yet ended up 14th.... You just can't put too much into the poles sometimes....

-Ski

[MRMIKESMITH]

Salisbury moved up the polls by playing this team called "Bye-week", they actually play them again this week. They also show up on everyone's schedule as well from time to time. Nevertheless, you can only use what data points you have. I notice in various rankings you have teams that are still rank in front of teams they actually loss to, while the other team is in fact undefeated. I think we are all having a "SEC" voting dilemna. Do you reward teams just because of their affiliation knowing that 9 times out of 10 the top teams in the conferences could win against 90% of DIII? That will still leave 10% of DIII or 25 teams that they aren't better than.

Note: Disregard those percentages as they were created from a place where the Sun doesn't shine.

[Pat Coleman]

Age-old question: Are we supposed to rank teams on how good they are, or on what their results have been on the field to date?

Shouldn't that be "How good we think they are, despite what their results on the field might indicate"?

This would be my take on that.