Playoffs -- 2015

[skunks_sidekick]

And there's my good buddy Art!  Art, if I was so inclined (which I am not), I could go back and show where you have NEVER picked Mount in almost any significant game they played.  It's always been "overrated..resting on their laurels...not fair that they always play at home".
Dude..to say you are not biased is the biggest crock of crap out there.

And Retagent, you have made it very clear where you stand over the past few years.  I just love when guys get on here and pontificate how "unbiased" they are, but yet you can read previous posts and their bias is fairly obvious.

I think this game will be very good, and what makes it so is that the match-ups are really intriguing.  STT's O-line & big back against Mount's aggressive/fast D-line.  Mount's skill players vs. STT's D-backs.  STT's cheap shots vs......oh wait...never mind.  :-)  (That was a D3 board "dig", and didn't represent my true feelings).

[smedindy]

Well, I, for one, tend to use data from a neutral observer, like Massey - who factors in offense and defense and MOV (with diminishing returns).

Who, BTW, if you discount the NESCAC (which I don't want to go over WHY it's ok the NESCAC's in there because it's all relative to each other anyway and you can just throw them out because they're a closed data set...) the rankings are:

1. Mt. Union
2. St. Thomas
3. Whitewater
4. Linfield
5. Wabash
6. St. John's
7. UMHB
8. Oshkosh
9. Wesley
10. Thomas More

However, a read of the actual ratings show that Wabash through Thomas More is quite close, and probably that any game between those teams would be toss-ups or slight home favorites.

Data > 'the so-called eye test'

[pg04]

Well I think one person actually answered that they think UST will win and are not a UST fan before the topic ran amok AGAIN on where ST John's should be ranked

[wally_wabash]

jamto understands what I'm getting at. There is precious little head to head to go on. I'm just trying to find a way to distinguish the indistinguishable.

It's easy  to criticize. What's your criteria, wally, and how do you rank those teams that don't play head to head?

I get that, but the problem with what you're claiming as a distinguishable criteria- namely UST's MOV vs. SJU and Wabash- doesn't resolve anything in my view.  You're trying to convince me that 38-19 (in what was a 31-7 game) is any different than Wabash's 37-7 game.  Those games aren't very different in my mind- certainly not to an extent that makes SJU appear a superior team.  In blowouts, there are diminishing returns on score margins.  It's different if the game was 24-19 in the 4th quarter and UST pick sixed you and then punched one more in to get to 38-19.  But that didn't happen. 

In the front let's say half to two-thirds of the season, I think it's fair to speculate and rank teams based on who you think would win the hypothetical game on a neutral field (which never happens by the way...how many neutral field games get played in D3?  It's basically just the one, right?).  But at the end of the season, I think you have to take what's been done by each team and evaluate those accomplishments.  For me, who you beat matters an awful lot.  In this instance, Wabash beat at least one team better than anybody St. John's beat (reflected in the rankings), and maybe two or three teams better than anybody St. John's beat (not reflected in the rankings...Wabash's opponents aren't the beneficiaries of pollster confirmation bias the way SJU's opponents are).   I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that. 

[AO]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play. 

[retagent]

A case can be made for both our trains of thought. In the end, however, it gets pretty subjective. I'll respect your opinion, if you respect mine.

[wally_wabash]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?   

[jknezek]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

I think you guys have beaten this to death. I hardly think there is much evidence to put one over the other. If I was voting I'd probably have Wabash in front with one loss. But if Wabash played UST twice, there isn't much doubt in my mind they'd have two losses. So it is splitting hairs. There are thin differences and I think each fan base has a case. In the end, I think 1 loss is better than 2, and that's just unfortunate for SJU as far as it matters. Which is not very much at all...

[wally_wabash]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

I think you guys have beaten this to death. I hardly think there is much evidence to put one over the other. If I was voting I'd probably have Wabash in front with one loss. But if Wabash played UST twice, there isn't much doubt in my mind they'd have two losses. So it is splitting hairs. There are thin differences and I think each fan base has a case. In the end, I think 1 loss is better than 2, and that's just unfortunate for SJU as far as it matters. Which is not very much at all...

It's forest and trees, jk.  That's my point.  The entire pro-SJU argument orbits around the results vs. UST.  And those results don't differentiate anything.  It's the rest of the results that do.

This is the annoying part of this part of the year.  The tournament games, and specifically the very last one you play, tends to trump everything that happened in the previous 2+ months.  That shouldn't be happening. 

[AO]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

Of course we're guessing.  Who is bigger, faster, stronger, smarter?  The objective statistics help a bit, but there just aren't enough common opponents to separate teams that are so close.  The computers couldn't tell that St. Thomas and Mount Union were 30 points better than Linfield or Whitewater.

[wally_wabash]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

Of course we're guessing.  Who is bigger, faster, stronger, smarter?  The objective statistics help a bit, but there just aren't enough common opponents to separate teams that are so close.  The computers couldn't tell that St. Thomas and Mount Union were 30 points better than Linfield or Whitewater.

They aren't that close though. That's what I'm saying.

[pg04]

 

I think you guys have beaten this to death.

Beaten to death is probably the biggest understatement ever made on these boards.

[jknezek]

I think it's clear that Wabash had the better season here and the ranking should reflect that.

The ranking should reflect the better team regardless of who they had the opportunity to play.

And again that's the crutch that lets you stick with what you know instead of examining and giving fair assessment to other teams.  Maybe Oberlin is better than UST?  How the hell would we know- they didn't actually play, so we're just guessing, right?

Of course we're guessing.  Who is bigger, faster, stronger, smarter?  The objective statistics help a bit, but there just aren't enough common opponents to separate teams that are so close.  The computers couldn't tell that St. Thomas and Mount Union were 30 points better than Linfield or Whitewater.

They aren't that close though. That's what I'm saying.

There aren't that many people that are going to join you barking up that tree. There is a reason that most ranking programs use head to head and common opponent data at the top of their criteria list. Sure head to head is better, but common opponent is SIGNIFICANTLY more relevant than uncommon opponent data. You are trying to argue the opposite. That uncommon opponent data is at least, if not more, significant than common opponent. That is a very difficult argument to make.

Based on the single common opponent, I lean toward SJU a hair. Don't get me wrong, neither game was great, 21-7 deficit at home and 31-7 on the road the end of the third aren't exactly close games, but 38-0 at the end of the third is indisputably worse. Two touchdowns worse. That is somewhat significant regardless your argument. Up by 3 scores, yeah keep the starters in for a bit. Comeback isn't likely, but 3 possessions in the 4th quarter isn't unheard of. Up by 5 possessions? Game is a blowout.

Balance that out with your uncommon opponents however you want. It's certainly mitigating. TMC is most likely better than Gustie, but SJU beat Gustie and you beat TMC. You did make it a round deeper. You do have one fewer loss. Skimming the info? I'd probably put Wabash ahead of SJU just because winning does count. But is it a slam dunk? No.

And the SJU crowd clearly has a statistically significant argument for saying you are wrong. Skimming the data, Wabash ranks ahead. Looking at the most relevant data we have, a common opponent, I'm not so sure...

But there is definitely no right or wrong, and "they aren't that close" is something only a Wabash fan could think...

[wally_wabash]

TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.  St. John's has brand name cachet and they come from a league that most people think is the best (I agree with that, btw...I just don't think that designation is worth very much).  That's a debate ender for most people.  For me it isn't- that's where the debate starts. 

[jknezek]

TMC was also better than SJU if we're being honest, but that'll fly even less so than Wabash was better than SJU, so I won't even try.  St. John's has brand name cachet and they come from a league that most people think is the best (I agree with that, btw...I just don't think that designation is worth very much).  That's a debate ender for most people.  For me it isn't- that's where the debate starts.

TMC beat my boys like a drum. You don't have to talk them up to me. That being said, I think you are short-changing people's ability to look at relevant information in your zeal for your team.