FB: Region 4 fan poll

[jhahn201]

Interesting.  Curious why people moved Ohio Northern, Albion, and Franklin ahead of NCC vs. the Week 11 poll.  NCC didn't make the playoffs, but only one of those teams made it past the first round only to get smeared by Oshkosh in the second.  Especially curious about the rationale of those voters who had them 5th and 6th at worst after Week 11 but dropped them out of the rankings completely for the final.


NT,

speaking only on Ohio Northern which got "smeared" by Oshkosh. They might be looking at what Oshkosh also did to Platteville (63-28) who beat NCC. No offense but NCC crapped the bed vs every quality opponent on their schedule. Playing teams close is only going to get you so high in the rankings eventually you have to win some of those games. Had they been put behind John Carroll another team that lost to every quality team on their schedule then I would seriously question it. Since NCC basically had  both the Platteville and Wesley games won but found some way to lose.This is not to say that NCC is a bad team they just didnt put it all together in the games that mattered. Or it could just be something as simple as the voters felt that simply making the playoffs was enough to put Albion Franklin and Ohio Northern ahead of NCC.

[Mr. Ypsi]

jhahn, I'm fine with a voter moving ONU ahead of NCC (though I had NCC 4, ONU 5), but the two voters who completely dropped NCC (after having them at least 6th) are CLEARLY guilty of both lazy and inconsistent voting.  Lazy to automatically rank ANY postseason team higher than any who didn't get in, and inconsistent in that they elevated at least three NON-tourney teams above NCC (the North only had 7 teams in the tourney).

I move that wally withhold those voters' checks!

[USee]

Interesting.  Curious why people moved Ohio Northern, Albion, and Franklin ahead of NCC vs. the Week 11 poll.  NCC didn't make the playoffs, but only one of those teams made it past the first round only to get smeared by Oshkosh in the second.  Especially curious about the rationale of those voters who had them 5th and 6th at worst after Week 11 but dropped them out of the rankings completely for the final.


NT,

speaking only on Ohio Northern which got "smeared" by Oshkosh. They might be looking at what Oshkosh also did to Platteville (63-28) who beat NCC. No offense but NCC crapped the bed vs every quality opponent on their schedule. Playing teams close is only going to get you so high in the rankings eventually you have to win some of those games. Had they been put behind John Carroll another team that lost to every quality team on their schedule then I would seriously question it. Since NCC basically had  both the Platteville and Wesley games won but found some way to lose.This is not to say that NCC is a bad team they just didnt put it all together in the games that mattered. Or it could just be something as simple as the voters felt that simply making the playoffs was enough to put Albion Franklin and Ohio Northern ahead of NCC.

Hmmm. Using your logic they may have not been looking at what NCC did to IWU who beat Franklin? And what "quality" wins did Franklin, Olivet, Depauw, Witt, Lakeland or even ONU have that were better than NCC? It's not that simple. There is no logic that has Lakeland ranked ahead of NCC. That has at least a direct common opponent (Wheaton). NCC and Franklin also have a direct common opponent.  I think there is some serious NCC hatred on here. I am more than happy to be the president of that club but my logic had me  rannk NCC 4th.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Interesting.  Curious why people moved Ohio Northern, Albion, and Franklin ahead of NCC vs. the Week 11 poll.  NCC didn't make the playoffs, but only one of those teams made it past the first round only to get smeared by Oshkosh in the second.  Especially curious about the rationale of those voters who had them 5th and 6th at worst after Week 11 but dropped them out of the rankings completely for the final.


NT,

speaking only on Ohio Northern which got "smeared" by Oshkosh. They might be looking at what Oshkosh also did to Platteville (63-28) who beat NCC. No offense but NCC crapped the bed vs every quality opponent on their schedule. Playing teams close is only going to get you so high in the rankings eventually you have to win some of those games. Had they been put behind John Carroll another team that lost to every quality team on their schedule then I would seriously question it. Since NCC basically had  both the Platteville and Wesley games won but found some way to lose.This is not to say that NCC is a bad team they just didnt put it all together in the games that mattered. Or it could just be something as simple as the voters felt that simply making the playoffs was enough to put Albion Franklin and Ohio Northern ahead of NCC.

Not true.  IWU was not a particularly quality opponent by the end of the season (after losing Artie Checchin to injury), but they were ranked #15 (at 7-0) when they played NCC.  NCC was already ahead when Checchin left with a season (and career) ending injury.  I dare say that qualifies as a better win than any of the teams ranked above NCC had.

OMG, I'm defending NCC - I need to go shower!

But wally, seriously, those two voters who left NCC entirely off their ballot should be encouraged to retire.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Final 2015 North Region Fan Poll:


1- Mount Union (15-0)       80 points (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
2- Wabash (12-1)            69 points (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3)
3- Wheaton (11-1)           67 points (2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
4- Ohio Northern (9-3)      47 points (4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8)
5- Albion (9-2)             41 points (5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7)
6- Franklin (8-3)           39 points (5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7)
7- North Central (7-3)      38 points (4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, x, x)
8- John Carroll (8-2)       24 points (5, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, x)
9- Olivet (9-1)             13 points (7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, x)
10- Wittenberg (8-2)         9 points (9, 9, 9, 9, 10, x, x, x)
10- DePauw (8-2)             9 points (8, 8, 9, 10, x, x, x, x)

ORV:
Lakeland (8-3)               4 points (9, 10, 10, x, x, x, x, x)



The NRFP is voted on by: Captain_Joe08, Dr. Acula, FCGrizzliesGrad, Li'l Giant, Mr Ypsi, NCF, USee, and wally wabash.

My ballot didn't change much. Only 4 teams managed a single win (and three of them were already my top 3) and just my top 2 managed multiple wins. Only difference from my pre-tournament ballot was ONU moved up to #8 knocking down Witt and Lakeland to 9 and 10. JCU would have been #11.

[New Tradition]

jhahn, I'm fine with a voter moving ONU ahead of NCC (though I had NCC 4, ONU 5), but the two voters who completely dropped NCC (after having them at least 6th) are CLEARLY guilty of both lazy and inconsistent voting.  Lazy to automatically rank ANY postseason team higher than any who didn't get in, and inconsistent in that they elevated at least three NON-tourney teams above NCC (the North only had 7 teams in the tourney).

I move that wally withhold those voters' checks!

Thanks, Ypsi.  This is more my point.  Thanks for putting it more eloquently.  I'm also ok with ONU ahead of NCC, but those other 2 don't have a leg to stand on except for the fact that they made the tournament (with weaker schedules than NCC...NCC 8, Albion 18, Franklin 155, ONU 159) and NCC didn't.  When looking at NCC's body of work, there is a plethora evidence to suggest that they would have handled themselves better than Franklin and Albion.  And to rank those teams that finished 8-10 over them?  I'm extremely curious to hear the rationale there.  What's the thought process?  Maybe there is something I'm not seeing?

[Captain_Joe08]

Final 2015 North Region Fan Poll:


1- Mount Union (15-0)       80 points (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)
2- Wabash (12-1)            69 points (2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3)
3- Wheaton (11-1)           67 points (2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
4- Ohio Northern (9-3)      47 points (4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8)
5- Albion (9-2)             41 points (5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7)
6- Franklin (8-3)           39 points (5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7)
7- North Central (7-3)      38 points (4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, x, x)
8- John Carroll (8-2)       24 points (5, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, x)
9- Olivet (9-1)             13 points (7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, x)
10- Wittenberg (8-2)         9 points (9, 9, 9, 9, 10, x, x, x)
10- DePauw (8-2)             9 points (8, 8, 9, 10, x, x, x, x)

ORV:
Lakeland (8-3)               4 points (9, 10, 10, x, x, x, x, x)



The NRFP is voted on by: Captain_Joe08, Dr. Acula, FCGrizzliesGrad, Li'l Giant, Mr Ypsi, NCF, USee, and wally wabash.

Looking back there was a definite top 4 but after that IMO, I had a hard time putting together the rest of the top ten. There were a few teams that were left out that were better than some of the Playoff Qualifiers but juggled them both in my list.

[USee]

The defacto north region top teams from the D3 top 25 are;

1. UMU
2. Wabash
3. Wheaton
4. North Central
5. Ohio Northern
6. John Carroll
7. Franklin
8. Albion
9. Depauw

Their 10th is likely Witt or Olivet

[Li'l Giant]

For the record, I had NCC 6th.

They played 5 games against teams that ended the season with winning records. They won 2: Trine and IWU. I agree that IWU was a quality opponent at the time NCC beat them. Trine? Meh.

NCC played 4 quality teams and they only beat 1 of them. I don't think it's "lazy" voting if someone chose to put them out of the top 10 because they lost to 3 of the 4 best teams they played. I think it is a defensible position to say there's a limit to the number of "quality losses" a team can sustain before they fall out.

I don't think it's "hatred" for NCC either. I can see voters holding the lofty expectations of NCC against them when they don't live up. Not sure that's hatred, but that may not be fair either.

[USee]

For the record, I had NCC 6th.

They played 5 games against teams that ended the season with winning records. They won 2: Trine and IWU. I agree that IWU was a quality opponent at the time NCC beat them. Trine? Meh.

NCC played 4 quality teams and they only beat 1 of them. I don't think it's "lazy" voting if someone chose to put them out of the top 10 because they lost to 3 of the 4 best teams they played. I think it is a defensible position to say there's a limit to the number of "quality losses" a team can sustain before they fall out.

I don't think it's "hatred" for NCC either. I can see voters holding the lofty expectations of NCC against them when they don't live up. Not sure that's hatred, but that may not be fair either.

I really don't want to belabor the points with NCC. I don't think it really matters where they rank in the NRFP at this point. They got what they played for. But for process sake, I would be very careful with this kind of analysis. It's a Pandora's box. By way of example, Ohio Northern played 5 teams with winning records and won 2. John Carroll and Franklin. Not exactly awe inspiring competition, especially when you can easily make a case for NCC over Franklin via common opponent. And the common opponent NCC has with Albion and Olivet is meh Trine. So no case for them over NCC either. Your analysis also involves losses in a vacuum. If you are going to say they had 3 losses and that's too many to be ranked, then ONU, Franklin, and Lakeland had the same number of losses. If you want to not rank all of those teams because they had 3 losses then so be it. But it's hard to justify ranking one three loss team over another without looking at the games played (wins and losses) of those teams. NCC ranks pretty closely with Ohio Northern but decidedly better than Franklin and Lakeland via the common opponent analysis. Common opponents with Albion and Olivet make for easy comparison as well. I would be interested in a rationale for putting any of those 4 teams ahead of NCC in the region. So 4th to 6th is completely fair. I am even fine with putting Depauw and Witt ahead of NCC if someone thinks their season's were arguably better. But unranked for NCC? I don't see a fair reason for that other than strong dislike for the "royalty" tag that has been placed on them (which I think is petty).

Overall, it's hard to rank teams with the limited data we have. Most of the guys on here are thoughtful and reasonable in their approach. We usually only point out inconsistencies in rationale and those debates makes for entertaining discussions and lively banter. I have enjoyed the process this year and hope to do it again next fall. There's some good data and views on these boards that consistently make it worthwhile to engage. I for one appreciate the passion and the discussion. Happy Holidays.

[smedindy]

I think the most difficult thing to do is rate teams with more losses than expected, or more quality losses (close losses to excellent teams) than others. Yes, it's who you beat, but realistically a 5-5 team could be a Top 25 team because of their schedule, luck and happenstance. No one will vote for them, though.

I think the hardest thing to do is to roll through your conference undefeated (Mt. Union is a special case, well, you know why). Someone is always gunning for you, and making the game against you THE game of their season. So I don' t think voting an undefeated MIAA team (for example) ahead of a 7-3 CCIW team is that bad of a call. But a 9-1 MIAA team (with a conference loss) against a CCIW team that's 7-3. Dealer's choice, I guess.

I hopefully will be back to voting next year. My project at work has been delayed (vendor issues) and the winter's gonna be fun. (Hah...)

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I can understand not having North Central all the way up at 4th where I had them, but I don't see how you can say with a straight face that there were 10 teams in the north that would beat them on a neutral field. It's not like they lost 3 games in the HCAC or something... they were the 2nd best team in the CCIW and only lost to teams that finished ranked in the top 14 in the country.
I'm curious had NCC beaten Finlandia and Earlham by 50 points instead of playing Wesley and Platteville would they have appeared on the ballots that left them off?

[Mr. Ypsi]

I can understand not having North Central all the way up at 4th where I had them, but I don't see how you can say with a straight face that there were 10 teams in the north that would beat them on a neutral field. It's not like they lost 3 games in the HCAC or something... they were the 2nd best team in the CCIW and only lost to teams that finished ranked in the top 14 in the country.
I'm curious had NCC beaten Finlandia and Earlham by 50 points instead of playing Wesley and Platteville would they have appeared on the ballots that left them off?

At that point they would have been 9-1 and in the tourney.  So I think it is safe to say they would have been on all the ballots (unless they lost in the first round to a 5-5 team by 200 points)!

My earlier post that it was 'lazy' voting was due to them having been at least sixth on the final regular-season ballots of those who left them off entirely - what did they do in their premature off-season to drop so far?

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

I can understand not having North Central all the way up at 4th where I had them, but I don't see how you can say with a straight face that there were 10 teams in the north that would beat them on a neutral field. It's not like they lost 3 games in the HCAC or something... they were the 2nd best team in the CCIW and only lost to teams that finished ranked in the top 14 in the country.
I'm curious had NCC beaten Finlandia and Earlham by 50 points instead of playing Wesley and Platteville would they have appeared on the ballots that left them off?

At that point they would have been 9-1 and in the tourney.  So I think it is safe to say they would have been on all the ballots (unless they lost in the first round to a 5-5 team by 200 points)!

My earlier post that it was 'lazy' voting was due to them having been at least sixth on the final regular-season ballots of those who left them off entirely - what did they do in their premature off-season to drop so far?

There is 0 reason for them to have dropped from 6 to off because of no playoffs but I'm playing devil's advocate here trying to figure out what is going through some people's heads.
Forget making the playoffs, just have those two changes be the only difference for NCC. So 9-1 (and no playoffs) instead of 7-3 but replacing two close losses to top 14 teams with easy wins over bottomfeeders. That can't possibly make a difference because how could beating Earlham and Finlandia be a better result than losing by 1 to Wesley or going OT with Platteville?
Are we saying beating up on weak teams to pad the record is a better result than going to OT or having a single score game with great teams? What is this, the SEC with their midseason cupcake games?

[USee]

Smed

I agree with your comments with a caveat.  It can't be "dealers choice" when the MIAA teams one loss is to a team 7-3 team beat soundly.   That's blackjack.