FB: Region 4 fan poll

[smedindy]

Hey, at least it's a better ballot than Craig James' (Boise State 23rd?)

[DPU3619]

I'd sure like to have a lot more consensus on the fourth best team in the region by the time everybody played 11 games, many of those against each other.

[smedindy]

I can see the issues though. B-W gets credit for the OAC and almost beating Mt. Union, Franklin gets credit for their schedule and their effort against a Purple (and thwacking T-More) and IWU gets credit for the CCIW. But they all have significant minuses (B-W's is Cap, Franklin is the HCAC and IWU is Monmouth...)

[DPU3619]

wally, there was a pretty good discussion on the D3 Top 25 Fan Poll board about that very issue, including the exact logic of why that particular voter did that.  Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's over there. 

[wally_wabash]

Yeah, I leafed through that.  It's difficult to have an objective conversation about it when one of the teams involved is so clearly being supported by people trying to debate the issue which is why doesn't h2h matter.  Arguments for get dismissed as somebody just trying to stick up for their team which they think is getting screwed or disrespected or whatever.  I don't want to spark that fire again, but would just like to chime in that I think if we're going to be so easily dismissive of a h2h result, then any poll after the preseason poll isn't worth it.  If people have already made up their mind which team is better than which team, actual on-field results be damned, then the polling becomes pretty pointless.  I'd say this no matter which teams were involved.  When IWU lost to North Central, I bumped them down below Wheaton because your instinct tells you that when you lose, you're going to get knocked down.  I didn't pay enough attention to previous results, found my mistake and corrected it the next week moving IWU back in front of Wheaton where they belonged. 

Basically, if two teams have similar or identical records and one team beat the other, then the h2h has to matter.  In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary (i.e. "bad" losses to other teams, one team beat the other when the losing team had key players missing, etc.), the h2h has to trump whatever it is that you think you know about the teams you're voting on. 

I think a fun hypothetical here would be to ask people who vote for North Central ahead of Wabash what they would have done if Wabash had beaten Mount Union last weekend.  I'm confident that 100% of voters would have made Wabash #1 in the region (and would have placed Wabash ahead of both North Central and Mount Union in national polling) if that happened.  So how does it make sense that Wabash is better than North Central if they beat Mount Union, but not if they beat North Central? 

In any case, people are going to have different voting philosophies, which is fine.  And just to be a good sport, here's my final top 10 for people to pick at.   

1- Mount Union
2- Wabash
3- North Central
4- Illinois Wesleyan
5- Baldwin Wallace
6- Wheaton
7- Franklin
8- CWRU
9- Heidelberg
10- Wittenberg

This was fun...looking forward to doing it again next year!  Thanks to Wes for compiling each week!

[smedindy]

Well, it doesn't have to trump it, because it could be just one bad game. Unfortunately in football there's not a lot of room for error.

I bet 95 times out of 100 North Central beats Redlands after seeing the entire body of work...and I bet Wabash doesn't need the crazy-go-nuts comeback if Belton was in control (nothing against Burke, but the Mt. Union game showed me, at least, Belton > Burke) so I feel confident that the Wabash / NC game was less of a fluke than it looked.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I ended up voting Wabash over North Central... but as I said when I submitted my ballot they were 2a and 2b. I have absolutely no problem with someone having it the other way because they were pretty much even in my eyes.
Wabash beat NCC by a single point at home, which to me means the H2H result is a wash in deciding who I would rank higher. Honestly if I could go back and vote again I think I might have them flipped.

I think a fun hypothetical here would be to ask people who vote for North Central ahead of Wabash what they would have done if Wabash had beaten Mount Union last weekend.  I'm confident that 100% of voters would have made Wabash #1 in the region (and would have placed Wabash ahead of both North Central and Mount Union in national polling) if that happened.  So how does it make sense that Wabash is better than North Central if they beat Mount Union, but not if they beat North Central? 

Your confidence is misplaced I'm afraid. Now if Wabash beat Mount Union by double digits then I probably would have Wabash #1... but if Wabash beat Mount the same way they did North Central I'd still have them #2 at least for the week until I saw how they did in the semifinals because overall Mount would still have the more impressive resume.


But that's the fun of polls, you get an average of many opinions with many points of view. Just as long as you don't use them for anything serious... I mean, who would be stupid enough to do a thing like that? *cough*BCS*cough*

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Thought I'd compare the difference between the final regular season poll and this last poll. Unless people made opposite changes, the playoffs didn't make much difference. Only changes I see are 4 people moving Wabash ahead of North Central, 1 moving Franklin ahead of IWU, 1 moving Franklin ahead of IWU and BW, 1 moving BW ahead of IWU, 1 moving Franklin ahead of BW, and 1 moving Ohio Northern into the poll for CWRU

[Mr. Ypsi]

Sorry, I was out of town this weekend, so late to the discussion.

I'm the one who had NCC over Wabash.  I am an IWU supporter, not NCC (though I admit to being a CCIW partisan).  I explained my reasoning on the Top 25 board.

If one gives ANY credence to home-field advantage (usually pegged at anywhere from 2-4 points; larger if a long trip involved), how can a ONE-point win at home be compelling evidence of superiority (due to a h-to-h win)?!  I do not wish to diss Wabash in any way (they won; they deserved to win and advance), but I thought NCC was better going in, and the game was insufficient evidence to change my mind.  (Again, note the anguish of the intended LG receiver on the conversion, sure his missed reception had cost the game.)

I fully realized I would probably be the only such voter, but there it is.  Next time win by more than a 'fluke' 2-point conversion, or do it in Naperville - either way, you have my vote!

[Mr. Ypsi]

BTW, wally, I already addressed your hypothetical about Wabash beating UMU (on the other board).  If they had, I would have voted the North as 1. Wabash  2. NCC  3. UMU (even if it was a one-point LG win over UMU).

The difference?  The game was in Alliance.

[wally_wabash]

BTW, wally, I already addressed your hypothetical about Wabash beating UMU (on the other board).  If they had, I would have voted the North as 1. Wabash  2. NCC  3. UMU (even if it was a one-point LG win over UMU).

The difference?  The game was in Alliance.

I can't follow this logic at all.  Wabash doesn't get credit for beating North Central until they validate by beating, oh I don't know, let's saaaaay Mount Union...that's some 12 labors of Hercules nonsense. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

BTW, wally, I already addressed your hypothetical about Wabash beating UMU (on the other board).  If they had, I would have voted the North as 1. Wabash  2. NCC  3. UMU (even if it was a one-point LG win over UMU).

The difference?  The game was in Alliance.

I can't follow this logic at all.  Wabash doesn't get credit for beating North Central until they validate by beating, oh I don't know, let's saaaaay Mount Union...that's some 12 labors of Hercules nonsense.

Personally, I'd rank Wabash over NCC, but I think you guys are doing the thought that Mr. Ypsi put into this a disservice.  Didn't you even read his discussion above?  He does have SOME logic to support his position.  It's not the same choice that I'd make, but I can at least acknowledge how he arrived at his final position.

[wally_wabash]

BTW, wally, I already addressed your hypothetical about Wabash beating UMU (on the other board).  If they had, I would have voted the North as 1. Wabash  2. NCC  3. UMU (even if it was a one-point LG win over UMU).

The difference?  The game was in Alliance.

I can't follow this logic at all.  Wabash doesn't get credit for beating North Central until they validate by beating, oh I don't know, let's saaaaay Mount Union...that's some 12 labors of Hercules nonsense.

Personally, I'd rank Wabash over NCC, but I think you guys are doing the thought that Mr. Ypsi put into this a disservice.  Didn't you even read his discussion above?  He does have SOME logic to support his position.  It's not the same choice that I'd make, but I can at least acknowledge how he arrived at his final position.

I think we can debate how legitimate a poll vote is based on the reaction of a wide receiver.  If that's the thing that's deciding poll positions, then it's probably being overthought.  I think we can also debate this 2-4 points that don't count because it's a home game.  How many points does a team get for having the starting quarterback unavailable for the game?  If you watched the game, it was not a David/Goliath situation.  North Central was not demonstrably bigger or faster or in any other way in a different league than Wabash.  Wabash didn't win that game with Ollie tossing underhanded free throws. 

I don't want to turn this into a Wabash vs. everyone else thing.  The issue that I have is that it's been decided ahead of time that one team is better than another, basically because of what league those teams come out of. When we're doing these polls, some of it, especially early on, is based on what we think about different teams.  By the time we get through 10 or 12 games, what we think ought be getting replaced by what we know.  And what we know is who beat who.  To dismiss what you know in favor of what you think isn't logic that makes sense to me. 

[smedindy]

But who beat you doesn't ALWAYS work. Otherwise you'd rank Kean ahead of Wesley and Redlands ahead of North Central. The body of work shows that those weren't true indicators of the teams actual strength.

[wally_wabash]

I would rank Redlands ahead of North Central.  Kean has the Brockport State result plus Wesley's romp through the UMHB quadrant is enough compelling evidence to tell me that Wesley needs to be ranked ahead of Kean.  Before the Brockport State result, not so much.  In the Wabash/North Central case, I don't see where there is enough evidence to talk oneself out of rewarding the h2h result...I don't think "the CCIW is better" or James Krause was unhappy because he didn't catch the two point pass are good enough reasons to ignore the final score of the game.