|
Post by GatorVball on Sept 24, 2007 14:57:18 GMT -5
Cal loses its only match of the week, at home, and gains 23 points? Oregon goes 1-1 and gains 136 points? Arizona lost both it's matches and gained 5 points. Good things polls are meaningless, cause there is just no consistency in the week to week point totals.
|
|
|
Post by leadbrain on Sept 24, 2007 14:57:54 GMT -5
How can a 6-3 Texas be ranked at #7 when Washington is 13-0? simple reason is Texas's three losses were to Penn State (twice) and Nebraska. So when you're only losses are to two of the top three teams in the country, they cut you some slack. conversely, I don't UW has played anyone that highly ranked yet (they obviously in the coming weeks with Stanford, SC and UCLA)
|
|
|
Post by leadbrain on Sept 24, 2007 15:02:17 GMT -5
if we haven't figured all this out by now, it's pretty obvious that the majority of people who vote in these things have no idea what they are doing. look at the pre-season poll. utah was still ranked even though everyone knew they lost their three best players for the year. there is no rhyme or reason to the poll and the ncaa doesn't really take into consideration the poll. looking at the rkpi or pablo is much more accurate though there still is some sifting to be done regarding we are only one month into the season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2007 15:02:57 GMT -5
You have to remember that when Team A loses points they have to go somewhere. Everyone's ranking teams RELATIVE to the other teams (duh). It doesn't necessarily meaning they are rewarding Arizona. It could mean -- and probably does in this case -- that they are punishing other teams more.
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Sept 24, 2007 15:12:03 GMT -5
You have to remember that when Team A loses points they have to go somewhere. Everyone's ranking teams RELATIVE to the other teams (duh). It doesn't necessarily meaning they are rewarding Arizona. It could mean -- and probably does in this case -- that they are punishing other teams more. But there is no consistency. Washington and Florida lose more points, winning matches against ranked teams on the road than USC, who went 5 at home against an unranked team. It's especially strange for Washington, considering Oregon's huge gain. LSU also gained points from last week after losing to Florida in 4. Penn State sweeps 2 matches and loses points. And UCLA goes 5 with an unranked team at home and actually gains points.
|
|
|
Post by spikerthemovie on Sept 24, 2007 15:12:30 GMT -5
Dayton at #15? Who have they beaten besides Purdue and Utah, neither of whom is rated nor getting votes? Washington at #8? Who have they beaten besides Oregon? I guess I don't understand the anti-Michigan sentiment. Shoot, they are between Wisconsin, whom they lost to, and Hawaii, whom they beat. As the AVCA poll goes, this is as rational as it gets. To act as if it is some embarrassment that they are #11 is silly. It's the AVCA poll, it's the way things work (note that they did even drop this week, despite only losing to a team ranked higher than them) Yeah, but the salient fact -- as I understand the goofy poll -- is that Purdue was ranked when Dayton beat them, regardless of whether they are now (and Utah was still getting votes), so Dayton got credit for beating that we-now-know-overranked team and hasn't lost credit since then because Dayton keeps winning. (And they have possibly the handsomest coach in volleyball, which should totally be worth some AVCA points.)
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Sept 24, 2007 15:16:11 GMT -5
Has anyone done less to be voted #11 than Michigan? Has any school had more interesting polls this year than Michigan? Football team goes from #5 to out of the top #25 based upon two losses (albeit one was a HUGE upset). The volleyball team goes from out of the top 25 to #10 primarily on the basis of two victories. The football team is most likely underranked at this time while the volleyball team is probably overranked some. I am confident both will work themselves to their proper rankings in the next few weeks. On the other hand, the volleyball team still has a chance to win the national championship (I said A chance, not a great chance) while football team has absolutely no chance.
|
|
|
Post by cruncher on Sept 24, 2007 15:16:55 GMT -5
Hey -dub or Rich, what time does the new Pablo go up on rk.com?
|
|
|
Post by rubyredslippers on Sept 24, 2007 15:19:19 GMT -5
Ucla only went five with one team usd.. They were the only team to take a game off of nebraska. All the other teams have lost by 3....
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Sept 24, 2007 15:20:52 GMT -5
Isn't Duke at 14 kind of ridiculous?
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Sept 24, 2007 15:23:37 GMT -5
Ucla only went five with one team usd.. They were the only team to take a game off of nebraska. All the other teams have lost by 3.... yes, my bad. i was mistaking their arizona result with USC.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Sept 24, 2007 15:24:21 GMT -5
Isn't Duke at 14 kind of ridiculous? ACC BIAS!!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 24, 2007 15:24:50 GMT -5
Dayton at #15? Who have they beaten besides Purdue and Utah, neither of whom is rated nor getting votes? Washington at #8? Who have they beaten besides Oregon? I guess I don't understand the anti-Michigan sentiment. Shoot, they are between Wisconsin, whom they lost to, and Hawaii, whom they beat. As the AVCA poll goes, this is as rational as it gets. To act as if it is some embarrassment that they are #11 is silly. It's the AVCA poll, it's the way things work (note that they did even drop this week, despite only losing to a team ranked higher than them) Yeah, but the salient fact -- as I understand the goofy poll -- is that Purdue was ranked when Dayton beat them, regardless of whether they are now (and Utah was still getting votes), so Dayton got credit for beating that we-now-know-overranked team and hasn't lost credit since then because Dayton keeps winning. (And they have possibly the handsomest coach in volleyball, which should totally be worth some AVCA points.) So Tim Horsman posts on Volleytalk. Who'd a figure? ;D ;D No argument with what you say, but then why the questioning of Michigan, who a) beat ranked Hawaii, and b) kept winning? I am not questioning why Dayton is where they are, but why there are jabs at Michigan despite the fact that there are many teams in the same situation. As you said, this is just how the polls work. I don't see that Michigan's situation is at all noteworthy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2007 15:28:46 GMT -5
You have to remember that when Team A loses points they have to go somewhere. Everyone's ranking teams RELATIVE to the other teams (duh). It doesn't necessarily meaning they are rewarding Arizona. It could mean -- and probably does in this case -- that they are punishing other teams more. But there is no consistency. Washington and Florida lose more points, winning matches against ranked teams on the road than USC, who went 5 at home against an unranked team. It's especially strange for Washington, considering Oregon's huge gain. LSU also gained points from last week after losing to Florida in 4. Penn State sweeps 2 matches and loses points. And UCLA goes 5 with an unranked team at home and actually gains points. All I can figure is that someone BELOW them is taking their points, like Wisconsin. But in fact, PSU and USC give up 6 points (4 + 2) and UCLA gains 4. Florida loses 6 and Texas gains 8 and you're back to zero net points. So it's Texas's win over Iowa State? Why that's worth more than a road win over LSU is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 24, 2007 15:28:54 GMT -5
Cal loses its only match of the week, at home, and gains 23 points? Oregon goes 1-1 and gains 136 points? Arizona lost both it's matches and gained 5 points. Good things polls are meaningless, cause there is just no consistency in the week to week point totals. It's seems to be the same old Pac-10 bias. Top Pac-10 teams taken to 5 games by lower Pac-10 teams means that the lower Pac-10 team generally must be given more points because the higher Pac-10 teams are obviously very great teams. Top teams in other that are pushed into hard fought / close matches by lower teams in their conference must lose points because those lower teams are obviously very bad teams. The voters ought to ignore conferences and treat all teams consistently the same based on wins, losses, and current rankings.
|
|