|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 14, 2006 21:40:44 GMT -5
A possible explanation for what many perceive as weird AVCA voting on Big Ten teams: the coaches thought, rightly, at the beginning of the season that about four Big 10 teams should be in the top 16. They've been slow to respond to actual Big Ten games and make adjustments in the rankings, but the anomaly could just be put down to them picking the wrong four teams to start with and the slowness of working that out. After this weekend, I suspect they'll start getting it righter. Unless there's real craziness, Minnesota finally moves up a lot -- six spots, anyway -- since it'll be pretty hard for AVCA voters to ignore the fact that MN is second in the Big Ten with some big wins over higher-ranked opponents. (Meanwhile, those Hawaii and Tennessee losses further muddy the waters). Forget about what happened at the beginning of the season -- I predict this is the week AVCA voters recognize that Minnesota and Wisconsin are the other powers in the Big Ten, not Purdue and Ohio State.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Oct 16, 2006 10:43:09 GMT -5
I was at Saturday's MN/Purdue match and they were showing the Big 10 standings and rankings. I thought this looked a little odd:
Team Big 10 record Ranking Penn State 6-0 2 Minnesota 6-1 23 Purdue 5-2 9 Wisconsin 5-2 14 OSU 3-3 16
Something a little out of kilter here.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 16, 2006 10:54:14 GMT -5
You are making the mistake of thinking that the AVCA rankings reflect who the voters really think are the best teams ranked in order of who will beat whom. As much as we would like it to be that way, it's not.
The AVCA rankings are a system of preseason expectations and punishments from there. How were they ranked last week, and did they lose.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Oct 16, 2006 11:00:04 GMT -5
I am understanding that more and more. My rose colored glasses are becoming more and more clear.
Fortunately, as I have mentioned in the past, at least we have a play-off and championship system in place, as imperfect as it may be. The players get to decide the best teams at the end of the year, not voters.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 16, 2006 11:02:00 GMT -5
I agree. The BCS would be a lot better if they put less emphasis on the polls and put more weight on the more objective measures, like the computer rankings.
Unfortunately, it has gone in exactly the wrong direction.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Oct 16, 2006 11:05:31 GMT -5
And, like the AVCA, if you start out ranked low, it is very difficult to rise up in the ranks. Unfortunately for college football, the polls have a significant factor in determining who actually gets to play for the national championship.
Too bad college presidents "feel" that football players can't afford the time away from school. At least at the top division, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 16, 2006 11:24:36 GMT -5
I have no problems with the concept of using the polls to determine the champion. Champion is a matter of definition, no more, no less.
The advantage of the football approach is that it in principle has the best chance of awarding the championship to the "best" team (see IB's eyes roll here) over the course of the full season, as opposed to rewarding a team that is ok for the season but gets hot at tournament time (see Villanova over Georgetown - Georgetown won 3 out of 4 in head to head, yet Villanova is the champion; it's not obvious why this is preferable from a competition standpoint (excitement, yes, competition, no) to not letting Villanova not compete because, for example, they didn't even win their own conference champion).
I just think it could be done better, and the better way to do it is it get away from the belief that it is more important to have the BCS reflect the polls.
See West Virginia right now. In the polls, they are 4th. In the computer rankings, they are 14th. Yet they end up 5th in the BCS standings. Of course, the reason West Virginia is 4th is for the exact same reason Cal was #7 in the AVCA. The polls behave the same way. I asked Jeff Sagarin last year, if they aren't going to pay attention to the computer rankings, why even bother?
The problem they have had with the BCS is that they have used a "top-down" approach to its development and a "it doesn't look right" approach to evaluating it. They've not done, for example, what I have done with Pablo which is to a) define what they want it to do beforehand, and then b) evaluate it under those guidelines.
Yes, it drives IB nuts, but they say they want the BCS to reveal the two best teams in the country, then they have do define what they mean by best. And then develop a procedure that gives them the best chance to do that.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Oct 16, 2006 11:28:06 GMT -5
Good points on the poll and overall season vs. getting hot at the right time.
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Oct 16, 2006 11:49:40 GMT -5
I was at Saturday's MN/Purdue match and they were showing the Big 10 standings and rankings. I thought this looked a little odd: Team Big 10 record Ranking Penn State 6-0 2 Minnesota 6-1 23 Purdue 5-2 9 Wisconsin 5-2 14 OSU 3-3 16 Something a little out of kilter here. I really don't find it odd at all when you consider their overall records and losses. Granted Minnesota is 6-1 in the conference, but to overcome previous losses, they need to continue playing this way. If they do, they will rise in the rankings. I think you guys are taking the Purdue losses a little out of line -- they played Wisconsin and Minnesota at their home gyms. Those are not bad places to have a loss. They still have every chance to take the wins when played at Purdue.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Oct 16, 2006 11:54:55 GMT -5
I'm not misunderstanding the way AVCA works. I'm predicting this is the week there will be some fixes, and that this week will provide AVCA voters the opportunity to make the sort of shifts that will drag the poll kicking and screaming into a better reflection of who could beat whom because the "preseason expectations and punishments" are starting to align better with who's actually beating whom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 12:02:53 GMT -5
Tennessee and Ohio State will be spanked. Hawaii may be.
Otherwise, I think you may be disappointed in the "correction" you anticipate.
I'm curious as to what they do to Purdue. Personally, I think they should be no lower than #12, but I'm guessing they get hammered for two Big10 road losses against very good teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 12:11:59 GMT -5
My guess:
1--Nebraska 2--PSU 3--Stanford 4--UCLA (I think UW is a better choice) 5--UW 6--USC 7--Florida 8--Texas 9--Utah 10--Cal
11--Wisconsin 12--Missouri 13--Santa Clara 14--LSU 15--Hawaii 16--Purdue 17--BYU 18--Cal Poly 19--Ohio 20--San Diego
21--Minnesota 22--Oklahoma 23--New Mexico State 24--Duke 25--Ohio State
Not sure what they will do with Tennessee. Maybe OSU gets dropped instead of the Vols?
Minnesota could jump San Diego and maybe Ohio, but I wouldn't count on it.
I don't agree with this ranking, mind you. It's just my guess.
|
|
|
Post by Keystonekid on Oct 16, 2006 12:37:36 GMT -5
I've gotta send a big "I told you so" to Ruffda. I did go on record as saying if Mn stays the course and wins the matches they should they would move up the poll. In Ruffda's defense he was in a negative mood regarding, the poll, the NCAA, the Gophers when he claimed they wouldn't. I'm sure he will accept the tradeoff of eating crow and a highly ranked Gopher squad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 13:26:14 GMT -5
I won't eat crow because that's not what I said. I said making the Top 20 would be difficult. They could not afford one misstep -- like a loss at OSU, even though OSU was ranked above them.
And I'm still not convinced they'll crack the Top 20 this week either. It may take a win over Wisconsin.
Even so, they're right back out with a loss @ Purdue, Wisconsin or to anyone else except PSU at home.
I don't want to come off as whining or a crybaby. But it's a bad hand they were dealt. Totally out of proportion to the alleged transgression.
But I NEVER said they would not move up in the poll if they won. Not once.
No crow for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2006 13:28:25 GMT -5
And, yes, I know the AVCA poll does not affect seedings. But it does have an effect on how a team and a program is perceived. This affects many things: seedings (possibly), recruiting, national media coverage, etc.
|
|