2015 D3 Season: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

[Flying Weasel]

Just to be clear, in all the points I am making, I am not defending the position/inclusion/ommission of specific teams in the rankings.  I am only speaking in generalities about the process, the criteria, and the purpose of the rankings. I don't agree with all teams included/ommitted or where all the teams are positioned.  I often disagree with the opinions of others and with the collective opinion of the voters.  I have no problem with you guys voicing your disagreements with the Top 25 rankings.  I just disagree with saying that voters in a poll should be forced to put the Sweet 16 teams in the Top 16 and so forth, and should not be allowed to vote their opinion.  If they can't vote their opinion--which is what they do all season long--in the final Top 25, then you guys should really be arguing for not doing a final Top 25 rather than saying the voters should just fill their ballot out in order of tournament finish.

I'm sorry FW but I disagree with most of your assessment. I see your viewpoint with it being a total body of work for 2015 not just based off of the NCAA tournament finish. But then why even play the NCAA tournament if it's not going to matter how you finish?

Why play the NCAA tournament?  Are you serious?  You make it sound like they play the tournament in order to get a higher ranking as if the final Top 25 ranking is a higher and more important prize than NCAA tournament finish.  It obviously isn't.  Being NCAA champion is the highest prize, not the D3soccer.com or NSCAA No. 1 ranking in the final polls.  Making it to the Final Four or Elite 8 is in and of itself a higher prize than being ranked Top 10 in a poll. Sweet 16 teams, Elite 8 teams, semifinalists, the runner-up, the champion do not need the Top 25 ranking to confirm or validate their tournament finish.  Their tournament finish is what it is and is its own reward.

Regardless, I think a team should make the Sweet 16 to be ranked 16th or higher, the Elite 8 to be 8th or higher, etc. Ultimately, there may be more talented teams out there, and things could flip-flop based on overachieving/underachieving squads, but hypothetical situations should never be given much credence when the facts (rounds that a team makes it to) are right there for all to see.

A team's complete season, their complete body of work is not a hypothetical.  It is a fact. It is there for all to see. And covering 18 to 25 games versus just a handful, the full body of work is more likely to be a fair representation and less able to be distorted by a single off-day/weekend, a lucky/unlucky bounce, an upset win or loss, catching fire or running into a team on fire, etc.  So it can be given full credence. What's the argument to ignore (or next to it) the full body of work and let a few single-elimination games, on back-to-back days nonetheless, define a season?  If you believe that Messiah 2011 and Ohio Wesleyan 2013 were not among the best 10 or 15 teams in the nation those years just because they picked up their lone loss of the season in the 2nd Round of the NCAA tournament in upsets, then I personally think the credibilty issue is with your approach, not with an approach that allows voters to vote their opinion.

I still maintain my position that NCAAs should be tied into the rankings, simply because not doing so is too idealistic in my humble opinion.

So should the NSCAA and D3soccer.com stop doing Top 25 rankings during the season?  They have no tournament results to base them upon.  Is it too idealistic to depend on the opinions of their voters, and they'd be better off not doing them at all?

There is no way that St. Olaf should not be in the top 25 after their NCAA performance. No way. If you disagree you are wrong I am telling you that right now. I watched them twice and they were a very solid team to my surprise. 8 losses yeah sure but they clicked at the right time and had a great run. How they aren't in the top 25 is ABSURD!!!! They do deserve to be ahead of Etown, Colorado, Middlebury, etc.

I never weighed in with an opinion on St. Olaf.  Never disagreed (or agreed) with you. You're entitled to your opinion as we all are, and we're all entitled to think the other person is wrong.  My point is that St. Olaf should not be blindly put on anyone's ballot simply because they reached the Sweet 16.  It should be because the voter personally thinks they are one of the best 25 teams in the nation.  You seem to have reasons apart from mere tournament finish for thinking St. Olaf is a Top 25 team (you saw them play and liked what you saw), so I have no problem with you feeling the way you do and disagreeing with the Top 25 voters. But I do have a problem with saying voters, who are entitled to their own opinions--opinions which may and often will differ from yours and mine--must blindly put St. Olaf on their ballot just because they reached the Sweet 16.



If we applied the approach some of you guys seem to favor, Amherst probably shouldn't even have been in the NCAA tournament because their NESCAC tournament finish was so poor that they should have free-fallen in the rankings. Based on the tournament results, at least four NESCAC teams were better than Amherst, so it would have required at least four at-large berths for the NESCAC in order for Amherst to have gotten in (and, yes, I know we have a lot of NESCAC fans who believe 5+ of their teams should get into the NCAA tournament each year). Thing is, I don't remember us judging Amherst's season primarily on a weekend or two of tournament results.  No one was calling for Amherst to be dropped from the Top 25 when that happened or for Wesleyan and Bowdoin to all of a sudden be ranked Top 10.  I wonder what some of your reactions would have been had the Week 10 Top 25 had Bowdoin at No. 2, Weslayan at No. 11, and Amherst just receiving votes.  Would you guys have agreed with that because tournament finish is how we define who is better? Would you have said "Wesleyan--7 losses yeah sure but they clicked at the right time and had a great run. How they aren't in the top 25 is ABSURD!!!!" Or would you have argued that looking at the season as a whole, Amherst was still the better team and is the team that most should get the at-large berth for the NCAA tournament, not Wesleyan?

As to teams not participating in the NCAA tournament, if you think on the merits, 25 other teams are better than tournament ommissions Middlebury, E-town, and Colorado, that's fine.  But I can't begin to understand how the NCAA selection committee's decision to omit those teams (decisions many on here disagreed with) should dictate to Top 25 voters who they can (and cannot) consider and evaluate for inclusion on their ballot.  We had a good number of people saying there's no way RPI should be in the NCAA tournament because they didn't even make the Liberty League tournament.  But, now apparently, based solely on the NCAA selection committee's say-so, they are better than Middlebury, E-town, and Colorado College and the Top 25 voters aren't entitled to have an opposing opinion (or if they are allowed that, they can't let that opinion interfer with their ballot selections). Heck, by virtue of their 1st round win and a close OT loss in round two, apparently voters should have almost been obligated to include RPI in their final Top 25, even though before the NCAA tournament the same voters would have been prohibited from even considering RPI for their Week 10 Top 25. I just can't get on board with this type of approach.

Again, I have no probrem disagreeing with the rankings (i.e. disagreeing with the voter's opinions), but calling for voter's to not be able to vote their opinion and making the Top 25 little more than an unecessary/redundant NCAA tournament standings or leader board is something I can't agree with. 

It's kind of funny.  During the season there seemed to be a sentiment that the NSCAA and D3soccer.com rankings don't mean anything--all that matters is the end-of-season NCAA regional rankings and getting into the tournament and making your mark there--so no reason to get too worked up about the D3soccer.com or NSCAA rankings. Now all of a sudden the rankings are being discussed as if they are practically the most important thing.  Quite the shift of sentiment and I don't understand it.

Also, as an old-timer on the D3 soccer message boards it's also funny to me how several years ago (maybe it's almost 10 now!) I was criticized (on the old message board) for my critiques of the D3soccer.com Top 25 being told that the coaches voting know the game and the teams better than some fan on a meesage board, so their opinions should be taken as credible while mine shouldn't be taken too seriously. In other words, I had no place pointing out where I thought they had gotten it wrong (even if I gave my reasoning, as I always did). Now, it seems that the tide has turned and the current crop of posters has little hesitance to criticize the voters. And I'm fine with that as long as the reason for disagreeing with the voters is something more than mere tournament finish.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Is a fan 3-4 years from now really going to care if his team finished #14 or #15 instead of RV?

I was thinking of terms in using a National Ranking as leverage for recruiting purposes.

Exactly Last Guy. What sounds better....yes we finished ranked top 15 in all the national polls this past season or yeah we RV in a poll...?

[1970s NESCAC Player]

The logic of FW's arguments is too sound and compelling to ignore!  Any other approach renders the final poll (i.e., opinions of the pollsters) superfluous.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Just to be clear, in all the points I am making, I am not defending the position/inclusion/ommission of specific teams in the rankings.  I am only speaking in generalities about the process, the criteria, and the purpose of the rankings. I don't agree with all teams included/ommitted or where all the teams are positioned.  I often disagree with the opinions of others and with the collective opinion of the voters.  I have no problem with you guys voicing your disagreements with the Top 25 rankings.  I just disagree with saying that voters in a poll should be forced to put the Sweet 16 teams in the Top 16 and so forth, and should not be allowed to vote their opinion.  If they can't vote their opinion--which is what they do all season long--in the final Top 25, then you guys should really be arguing for not doing a final Top 25 rather than saying the voters should just fill their ballot out in order of tournament finish.

I'm sorry FW but I disagree with most of your assessment. I see your viewpoint with it being a total body of work for 2015 not just based off of the NCAA tournament finish. But then why even play the NCAA tournament if it's not going to matter how you finish?

Why play the NCAA tournament?  Are you serious?  You make it sound like they play the tournament in order to get a higher ranking as if the final Top 25 ranking is a higher and more important prize than NCAA tournament finish.  It obviously isn't.  Being NCAA champion is the highest prize, not the D3soccer.com or NSCAA No. 1 ranking in the final polls.  Making it to the Final Four or Elite 8 is in and of itself a higher prize than being ranked Top 10 in a poll. Sweet 16 teams, Elite 8 teams, semifinalists, the runner-up, the champion do not need the Top 25 ranking to confirm or validate their tournament finish.  Their tournament finish is what it is and is its own reward.

Regardless, I think a team should make the Sweet 16 to be ranked 16th or higher, the Elite 8 to be 8th or higher, etc. Ultimately, there may be more talented teams out there, and things could flip-flop based on overachieving/underachieving squads, but hypothetical situations should never be given much credence when the facts (rounds that a team makes it to) are right there for all to see.

A team's complete season, their complete body of work is not a hypothetical.  It is a fact. It is there for all to see. And covering 18 to 25 games versus just a handful, the full body of work is more likely to be a fair representation and less able to be distorted by a single off-day/weekend, a lucky/unlucky bounce, an upset win or loss, catching fire or running into a team on fire, etc.  So it can be given full credence. What's the argument to ignore (or next to it) the full body of work and let a few single-elimination games, on back-to-back days nonetheless, define a season?  If you believe that Messiah 2011 and Ohio Wesleyan 2013 were not among the best 10 or 15 teams in the nation those years just because they picked up their lone loss of the season in the 2nd Round of the NCAA tournament in upsets, then I personally think the credibilty issue is with your approach, not with an approach that allows voters to vote their opinion.

I still maintain my position that NCAAs should be tied into the rankings, simply because not doing so is too idealistic in my humble opinion.

So should the NSCAA and D3soccer.com stop doing Top 25 rankings during the season?  They have no tournament results to base them upon.  Is it too idealistic to depend on the opinions of their voters, and they'd be better off not doing them at all?

There is no way that St. Olaf should not be in the top 25 after their NCAA performance. No way. If you disagree you are wrong I am telling you that right now. I watched them twice and they were a very solid team to my surprise. 8 losses yeah sure but they clicked at the right time and had a great run. How they aren't in the top 25 is ABSURD!!!! They do deserve to be ahead of Etown, Colorado, Middlebury, etc.

I never weighed in with an opinion on St. Olaf.  Never disagreed (or agreed) with you. You're entitled to your opinion as we all are, and we're all entitled to think the other person is wrong.  My point is that St. Olaf should not be blindly put on anyone's ballot simply because they reached the Sweet 16.  It should be because the voter personally thinks they are one of the best 25 teams in the nation.  You seem to have reasons apart from mere tournament finish for thinking St. Olaf is a Top 25 team (you saw them play and liked what you saw), so I have no problem with you feeling the way you do and disagreeing with the Top 25 voters. But I do have a problem with saying voters, who are entitled to their own opinions--opinions which may and often will differ from yours and mine--must blindly put St. Olaf on their ballot just because they reached the Sweet 16.



If we applied the approach some of you guys seem to favor, Amherst probably shouldn't even have been in the NCAA tournament because their NESCAC tournament finish was so poor that they should have free-fallen in the rankings. Based on the tournament results, at least four NESCAC teams were better than Amherst, so it would have required at least four at-large berths for the NESCAC in order for Amherst to have gotten in (and, yes, I know we have a lot of NESCAC fans who believe 5+ of their teams should get into the NCAA tournament each year). Thing is, I don't remember us judging Amherst's season primarily on a weekend or two of tournament results.  No one was calling for Amherst to be dropped from the Top 25 when that happened or for Wesleyan and Bowdoin to all of a sudden be ranked Top 10.  I wonder what some of your reactions would have been had the Week 10 Top 25 had Bowdoin at No. 2, Weslayan at No. 11, and Amherst just receiving votes.  Would you guys have agreed with that because tournament finish is how we define who is better? Would you have said "Wesleyan--7 losses yeah sure but they clicked at the right time and had a great run. How they aren't in the top 25 is ABSURD!!!!" Or would you have argued that looking at the season as a whole, Amherst was still the better team and is the team that most should get the at-large berth for the NCAA tournament, not Wesleyan?

As to teams not participating in the NCAA tournament, if you think on the merits, 25 other teams are better than tournament ommissions Middlebury, E-town, and Colorado, that's fine.  But I can't begin to understand how the NCAA selection committee's decision to omit those teams (decisions many on here disagreed with) should dictate to Top 25 voters who they can (and cannot) consider and evaluate for inclusion on their ballot.  We had a good number of people saying there's no way RPI should be in the NCAA tournament because they didn't even make the Liberty League tournament.  But, now apparently, based solely on the NCAA selection committee's say-so, they are better than Middlebury, E-town, and Colorado College and the Top 25 voters aren't entitled to have an opposing opinion (or if they are allowed that, they can't let that opinion interfer with their ballot selections). Heck, by virtue of their 1st round win and a close OT loss in round two, apparently voters should have almost been obligated to include RPI in their final Top 25, even though before the NCAA tournament the same voters would have been prohibited from even considering RPI for their Week 10 Top 25. I just can't get on board with this type of approach.

Again, I have no probrem disagreeing with the rankings (i.e. disagreeing with the voter's opinions), but calling for voter's to not be able to vote their opinion and making the Top 25 little more than an unecessary/redundant NCAA tournament standings or leader board is something I can't agree with. 

It's kind of funny.  During the season there seemed to be a sentiment that the NSCAA and D3soccer.com rankings don't mean anything--all that matters is the end-of-season NCAA regional rankings and getting into the tournament and making your mark there--so no reason to get too worked up about the D3soccer.com or NSCAA rankings. Now all of a sudden the rankings are being discussed as if they are practically the most important thing.  Quite the shift of sentiment and I don't understand it.

Also, as an old-timer on the D3 soccer message boards it's also funny to me how several years ago (maybe it's almost 10 now!) I was criticized (on the old message board) for my critiques of the D3soccer.com Top 25 being told that the coaches voting know the game and the teams better than some fan on a meesage board, so their opinions should be taken as credible while mine shouldn't be taken too seriously. In other words, I had no place pointing out where I thought they had gotten it wrong (even if I gave my reasoning, as I always did). Now, it seems that the tide has turned and the current crop of posters has little hesitance to criticize the voters. And I'm fine with that as long as the reason for disagreeing with the voters is something more than mere tournament finish.

I will sum this up in a short and sweet fashion.

St. Olaf is deserving of a top 25 ranking after I saw them play AND because of how well the performed in the NCAA tournament. By saying that the NCAA tournament finish/performance doesn't matter in comparison to final rankings positioning is ludicrous. That's like saying well SOS doesn't matter in the selection process. Should it matter? YES. Should it be the only criteria(NCAA or SOS example? NO! But it should be a major factor as SOS is and NCAA performance IMO is.

FW never once said you were wrong just didn't agree with your analysis. Doesn't make me right or wrong either.

The Amherst example with Wesleyan is just silly. Stop it.

All the rankings matter and I don't think I was ever a person to say they didn't. I enjoy and look forward to the rankings each week and in particular to see teams from the Mid-Atlantic region in the polls. But the NCAA rankings mean more IMO but that doesn't dismiss the fact that the other rankings don't mean anything?

Lastly, I tend to agree with you FW on most topics probably 80/20 in favor of your opinions. I rarely speak out with such conviction as I have the past few days but some of the rankings are just foolish and there is no way around it. I am extremely disappointed in the final D3soccer rankings and the website should be too.   

[PaulNewman]

I can't believe any of this could make any difference in recruiting.  You lead with your best data points, not your weakest.

If I was a coach I would use whatever works best....like "we were #1 for much of the season and reached the Sweet 16 3 years in a row so please help us get over the hump" OR "we were ranked as high as #12 this year, the highest ranking we've ever attained" OR (if never ranked) "we made a run all the way to the Elite 8 and next year we project to again be one of the top teams in the country."

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I can't believe any of this could make any difference in recruiting.  You lead with your best data points, not your weakest.

If I was a coach I would use whatever works best....like "we were #1 for much of the season and reached the Sweet 16 3 years in a row so please help us get over the hump" OR "we were ranked as high as #12 this year, the highest ranking we've ever attained" OR (if never ranked) "we made a run all the way to the Elite 8 and next year we project to again be one of the top teams in the country."

The better your ranking the more appealing your team will be for top recruits. That's common sense is it not? Come on NCAC.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Would you rather go play for a 3-14-1 team or an NCAA tournament team that was ranking top 20 all year and finished 17th overall. Whose program sounds better and more exciting to go play for? Success or struggles? I vote the ranked team........

[PaulNewman]

Would you rather go play for a 3-14-1 team or an NCAA tournament team that was ranking top 20 all year and finished 17th overall. Whose program sounds better and more exciting to go play for? Success or struggles? I vote the ranked team........

What?!?!  Talk about bad examples.  How does a 3-14-1 team come into this discussion?  If I wasn't happy with my final ranking I would highlight something else...like "we were a top 20 team all season long" or "we reached a ranking as high as #5 this year and made the Sweet 16 for the 2nd year in a row."  The St. Olaf coach can say we have a proud tradition, went on a miracle run to win our conference tourney, won two games in the NCAAs, and took Wheaton to the limit in a legendary snow bowl game.  Whether St. Olaf is ranked at #17 or RV is immaterial in terms of recruiting.  I was a huge fan of St. Olaf during the tournament, but they don't clearly warrant a top 25 ranking.  They are a 9 blemish team.  Many teams can make a run in the tournament....that's the nature of tournaments.  Do you think Midd might have made the Sweet 16, with St Olaf's draw?  Or E'town?  Or Messiah?  St. Olaf did benefit from their run in the tournament.  That's what got them into RV.  Should they be ahead of RUC?  Do you think they would beat RUC?

[PaulNewman]

I can't believe any of this could make any difference in recruiting.  You lead with your best data points, not your weakest.

If I was a coach I would use whatever works best....like "we were #1 for much of the season and reached the Sweet 16 3 years in a row so please help us get over the hump" OR "we were ranked as high as #12 this year, the highest ranking we've ever attained" OR (if never ranked) "we made a run all the way to the Elite 8 and next year we project to again be one of the top teams in the country."

The better your ranking the more appealing your team will be for top recruits. That's common sense is it not? Come on NCAC.

It's very hard to figure out what you are so upset about.

I'll take my team.  I don't think recruits are going to care one bit that Kenyon's last ranking this year is #8 and #7 when the coach can say we've been ranked #1 and #2 for good portions of the last 2 years, we have everyone returning (well, that might hurt), we won the NCAC regular season and tournament, we're one of the hottest programs in the country, and btw, the school and atmosphere are fantastic.

And I can guarantee you that St. Olaf will not lose a single recruit based on their final ranking when the coach can highlight all the other aspects about their season.

[Flying Weasel]

NCAC beat me to it, but what I was going to say was . . .

I'm sure that a Sweet 16 team disappointed with where they were ranked will opt to emphasize tournament finish in their recruiting.

And I have no idea what comparing as 3-14-1 team to a Top 20 team has to do with this discussion/debate.  The more relevant question for where this discussion is presently at would probably be: Would you rather go play for a Top 20 team who exited in the round of 32 or a Sweet 16 team receiving votes?  Can't imagine chosing the Top 20 team over the Sweet 16 team on that basis alone. I've got to think that there's going to be a lot of other factors coming into that decision (there certainly should be, at least), both soccer-related and all the other stuff (location, size, academics, cost/financial aid, etc.).

I'm all for getting the Top 25 as accurate as possible, and I would never suggest settling for less than the best that is practical.  But polls are matters of opinion, not fact.  There is no single correct Top 25.  Opinions will vary. 

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

3-14-1 was just an example record. You asked how you don't understand how rankings would play a part in recruiting? It's a huge part I would imagine in just day to day emails you send to recruits. You can make your program sound really good by saying something like "Hey John Smith I just wanted to reach out and give you an update on our season and check in with you. here's how we are doing so far....FILL IN info about season here....FILL IN info about rankings here...FILL IN info about upcoming games here....Finish with hope you can catch a game as we are interested in you for our program or some BS like that." And there is you recruiting letter/email/text. However the kids do it these days. So my point is that if you are struggling like a 3-14-1 team or a team that's having a good season but isn't getting recognized in the rankings or only RV it hurts compared to a team who can say hey we are doing really well here is our proof and we hope you follow our current success as to the others where it's like hey we are trying want to take us to the next step.

It definitely has an impact on recruiting and no coach or player/recruit would say otherwise.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

The way you phrase and approach it you are correct NCAC but I was just trying to make a different point is all. 

[Shooter McGavin]

I would like to hear Mr. Right's perspective on this topic (I am being serious here).

I think in the simplest ways it goes like this:

1. Rankings matter when it comes to recruiting and having extra pull. Say otherwise is simply false
2. The way you approach a recruit is also true with what NCAC was conveying in his post, but as I said above, rankings make a difference
3. FW is correct with his opinion of Polls being an opinion and there shouldn't be restrictions like only NCAA teams get ranked etc...BUT NCAA teams should have a little extra weight in favor of them being ranked in my own personal opinion
4. These discussions are good. I don't know why Karma is being thrown around like wildfire. MAF and FW have good karma and are in a good debate and yet I see there Karma only getting negative. Give them some positive Karma for starting a good conversation. Just because they don't agree doesn't mean they don't like each other. Like they said they normally do agree with one another. Stop with the childish abuse of the Karma.
5. The dreaded the off-season officially begins   

[blooter442]

I'm all for getting the Top 25 as accurate as possible, and I would never suggest settling for less than the best that is practical.  But polls are matters of opinion, not fact.  There is no single correct Top 25.  Opinions will vary. 

Opinions will vary, but I think it is better to accept the opinions of others than rather than taking an issue with the credibility of one approach or labeling it "right" or "wrong."

A team's complete season, their complete body of work is not a hypothetical.  It is a fact. It is there for all to see. And covering 18 to 25 games versus just a handful, the full body of work is more likely to be a fair representation and less able to be distorted by a single off-day/weekend, a lucky/unlucky bounce, an upset win or loss, catching fire or running into a team on fire, etc.  So it can be given full credence. What's the argument to ignore (or next to it) the full body of work and let a few single-elimination games, on back-to-back days nonetheless, define a season?  If you believe that Messiah 2011 and Ohio Wesleyan 2013 were not among the best 10 or 15 teams in the nation those years just because they picked up their lone loss of the season in the 2nd Round of the NCAA tournament in upsets, then I personally think the credibilty issue is with your approach, not with an approach that allows voters to vote their opinion.

That is true, but then wouldn't it make sense to award a team the title of NCAA Champion based on their entire body of work rather than a single-elimination tournament? I'm aware that the NCAA Tournament is a completely different prize, but I do think there should be some link between ranks and NCAA finish. Again, my opinion, but I can see the other side of it as well.

I think we all need to take a deep breath. I wouldn't go as far to say that the rankings are foolish or the website should be disappointed, but I have to say I really didn't expect such a defensive response for expressing a different opinion — I didn't question the credibility of the D3soccer.com rankings, or the approach to arrive at those rankings. For the record, I'll say that I agree with the vast majority of the men's top 25 (22 out of 25, in fact, so 88 percent!). Furthermore, FW, I greatly appreciate all the work that you do, as well as the other folks on the site. All I said was that I personally think that rankings should be somewhat tied into where a team finishes the season — first eight in spots 1-8, 8-16 in spots 8-16, etc., but I put that down to a philosophical difference in opinion rather than an issue with credibility.

[blooter442]

4. These discussions are good. I don't know why Karma is being thrown around like wildfire. MAF and FW have good karma and are in a good debate and yet I see there Karma only getting negative. Give them some positive Karma for starting a good conversation. Just because they don't agree doesn't mean they don't like each other. Like they said they normally do agree with one another. Stop with the childish abuse of the Karma.

Agreed. Karma is superfluous, and the only time I ever throw around negative karma (very rarely) is when someone makes an ad hominem attack or makes a homer claim without the slightest hint of objectivity or regard for anyone else's opinion. Disagreement or difference in opinion should not be grounds for negative karma.