FB: Region 6 fan poll

[desertcat1]

Hey boys,  this is a west fan poll not anything else. (R R) 

[D O.C.]

And the West is not just just Minnesota, Wisconsin (North)
or Iowa.

[desertcat1]

And the West is not just just Minnesota, Wisconsin (North)
or Iowa.

Hey doc,
It's really be tough this year after week two putting those other west coaster ahead of the Wildcats each week. 

But, if we take care of thing we should get another shot at the sciac champ soon .
Butt it's rat killing week now. 

[hazzben]

The Regional Rankings are advised heavily by the criteria and they play a big role.

I'm referring to fan poll rankings. Obviously the real Regional Rankings rely heavily on the criteria. My point is that a good fan poll/ballot should as well.

[D O.C.]

hey boy this is a West fan poll and not anything else

[hazzben]

And the West is not just just Minnesota, Wisconsin (North)
or Iowa.

Nope, but when judging the merits of West teams in those states, that's where the crossover games and H2H matchups are taking place. If we were debating the merits of Linfield or Whitworth or Redlands in the poll, I'd be talking about teams in that neck of the woods.

[Baldini]

The Regional Rankings are advised heavily by the criteria and they play a big role.

I'm referring to fan poll rankings. Obviously the real Regional Rankings rely heavily on the criteria. My point is that a good fan poll/ballot should as well.

So what is the fan poll criteria? Is it about just picking the 10 teams most likely to make the tournament or just the 10 teams most likely to defeat all the other teams?

In d3 footballs article last week about the possible regional rankings, both Martin Luther and Monmouth were listed as possibilities in the wings. If it is just about the highest rated teams, well we can all do that accounting and end of discussion. If people want ranking just go to Hansen or Massey and they have them all ranked from 1 to 247, but that is not the process and I'm glad to see art76 think outside the box a little.

If a 2 lose team does come into play for a pool C bid and Gustavus Adolphus is still a 2 lose team and Martin Luther slips into the 10th spot in the west, well that could be a difference maker for them. Yet Martin Luther is the 38th rated west team on Hansen this week, but Hansen is not selecting the field of 32 either.

George S. Patton Quotes
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.

[wm4]

The Regional Rankings are advised heavily by the criteria and they play a big role.

I'm referring to fan poll rankings. Obviously the real Regional Rankings rely heavily on the criteria. My point is that a good fan poll/ballot should as well.

So what is the fan poll criteria? Is it about just picking the 10 teams most likely to make the tournament or just the 10 teams most likely to defeat all the other teams?

In d3 footballs article last week about the possible regional rankings, both Martin Luther and Monmouth were listed as possibilities in the wings. If it is just about the highest rated teams, well we can all do that accounting and end of discussion. If people want ranking just go to Hansen or Massey and they have them all ranked from 1 to 247, but that is not the process and I'm glad to see art76 think outside the box a little.

If a 2 lose team does come into play for a pool C bid and Gustavus Adolphus is still a 2 lose team and Martin Luther slips into the 10th spot in the west, well that could be a difference maker for them. Yet Martin Luther is the 38th rated west team on Hansen this week, but Hansen is not selecting the field of 32 either.

George S. Patton Quotes
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.

Worth noting that while Hansen has this fantastic formula that's specifically designed for D3, and results is great predictive value, he doesn't use it exclusively to form his weekly top 25 ballot.

And, as Pat says, the D3.com Top 25 won't tell you who will make the tournament, but it will be a great indicator to tell you who will win the games.  I'd like to think the West Fan Poll operates in that same spirit, taken as a whole.

[hazzben]

My issue with the real regional rankings is that if RRO is a criteria shouldn't the regional ranking prioritize who the best teams in the region are? Aka, you are supposed to be crediting a team with having beaten the better teams. If we are trying to evaluate who has played the toughest schedules for Pool C purposes, but then not having the philosophy of ranking the best 10 teams in the region, RRO has diminished accuracy and utility.

[Baldini]

The west as it currently stands probably has 13 teams that are in the mix to be ranked in the first regional rankings. WIAC ( UW-W, UW-P, UW-O, UW-LC), MIAC ( St. John's, St. Thomas, Bethel,  Gustavus Adolphus), ARC (Wartburg, Central), SCIAC (Chapman, Redlands), NWC (Linfield). The point of the list is to point out the hole in the theory of just the top ten teams. Is the value of a win against the teams that will ranked 11-13 here actually less impressive than wins against teams 8-10. The depth of the list of top 10 teams in each region is different and ever changing, which makes me less anal about the need to focus on just those 10 at this moment. For me it is okay to move different parts in and out to bring new prospective to the discussion.

And no it doesn't matter how long we discuss something, Martin Luther, Lake Forest or Monmouth are not going to over take Whitewater in the ranking this year. But if a domino effect of loses hit several of these teams and Gustavus Adolphus wins out impressively, how is the Martin Luther resume' now viewed? 

[Pat Coleman]

The committee did rank a UMAC team in 2016, but hasn't since.

[Baldini]

The committee did rank a UMAC team in 2016, but hasn't since.

I'm really not advocating for a UMAC team in the regional rankings, just for everyone to keep an open mind to other possibilities is all. 

[WW]

If by "keeping an open mind" you mean "ignoring inconvenient results," I guess ranking Martin Luther and Lake Forest as two of the West's top 10 teams is plausible. That arse-whuppin by unranked-by-you Gustavus Adolphus was a long long time ago, shouldn't even count. And the Foresters have, after all, run what I like to call the "Grinnell Gauntlet" (Grinnell, Lawrence, Beloit, Macalester) and come out unscathed.

I get this is a "fan" poll. I'd prefer it not become a farce.

[Baldini]

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings


Martin Luther is #10 in the first regional ranking, good job art76 for thinking outside the box. 

[hazzben]

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/d3/regional-rankings


Martin Luther is #10 in the first regional ranking, good job art76 for thinking outside the box.

Just because the Regional Rankigs list Martin Luther 10 doesn't mean it's correct or a good use of the criteria. Especially when there's a H2H result that screams, they aren't as good as GAC. The point of SOS and RRO is to give some data against pure W-L record slotting.

It's not a huge deal right now. But if GAC beats UST Saturday and ML is still above them, that's egregious. And I'm not saying they have to rank GAC, just that if they are ranking ML and not GAC they have missed something significant (I. e. An actual H2H result that was very lopsided)