|
Post by StuffU on Oct 4, 2004 0:48:18 GMT -5
Whoa! The craziness of this season has many people seeing things VERY differently. In any case, here are the results of the latest poll.
1. 260 Washington (13) 2. 236 USC 3. 228 Minnesota 4. 215 Nebraska 5. 198 Hawaii 6. 184 Penn State 7. 170 Florida 8. 163 Colorado State 9. 162 Ohio State 10. 159 Texas 11. 120 UCLA 12. 105 UC-Santa Barbara 13. 098 Santa Clara 14. 075 St Marys 15. 069 Stanford 16. 063 Texas A&M 17. 057 Kansas State 18. 040 California 19. 026 Tennessee 20. 020 Utah
Others Receving Votes: Michigan, Long Beach State, Arizona, Pacific, Florida A&M, Louisville, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Rice
VOTERS (13) - Beachman,vballmaniac40, SaltNPepper, IdahoBoy, gobears, Anonymous55, caljr, publius, (R)uffda!, FreeBall, Xplaya, tito99, vbfan4life
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Oct 4, 2004 0:55:10 GMT -5
To clarify my intro to this week's poll. It is clear that we have VERY differing opinions on some teams.
For example,
Nebraska has votes ranging from #2 down to #9
Hawaii has votes ranging from #2 down to #12
Penn State has votes ranging from #4 down to #11
Colorado State has votes ranging from #5 down to #18
Ohio State has votes ranging from #2 down to #12
Texas has votes ranging from #2 down to #14
Stanford has votes from #7 to not being included on two ballots.
interesting .....
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 4, 2004 8:53:37 GMT -5
To clarify my intro to this week's poll. It is clear that we have VERY differing opinions on some teams. For example, Nebraska has votes ranging from #2 down to #9 Hawaii has votes ranging from #2 down to #12 Penn State has votes ranging from #4 down to #11 Colorado State has votes ranging from #5 down to #18 Ohio State has votes ranging from #2 down to #12 Texas has votes ranging from #2 down to #14 Stanford has votes from #7 to not being included on two ballots. interesting ..... I was one of the voter that had several of the anomalies mentioned above. To summarize how I voted, I never looked at my last weeks vote nor the AVCA poll from the previous week. I mostly just looked at the entire season records of teams and considered teams in about the top 35 of pablo. I tended to put more emphasis on team with fewer losses especially when teams with more losses didn't have wins over other "top teams". Obviously my definition of "top teams" might not be the same as everyone elses. I made some pretty big swings from how I've voted in the past and I'm not so sure that's all bad. I didn't see anything in the rules saying a team could only be lowered or raised "x" number of spots each week. All of my top 10 was in the final top 10 but only Washington, Nebraska & Colorado State were ranked the same. I was the one that voted Texas #2. I had a difficult time putting them under some of the other top 10 teams that already had 2 loses. If they can make it through the Big 12 unbeaten then that ranking would be justified otherwise I'll drop them accordingly. I was one of the two people that left Stanford off (as well as TAMU, KSU & Cal). With two losses to St. Mary's and no wins against any of the other teams in my top 20, they were the last team that I dropped from my list. I was glad to see a few more people vote this week. I really like the diversity that this fan poll can show and I have a hunch it may be less political that the AVCA coach's poll.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Oct 4, 2004 10:20:49 GMT -5
Yes, it was interesting and there are no rules set forth for picking your Top 20. That's the great part. For example, I think Stanford is still ranked because, in the back of our minds, we know the history of the Cardinal program. We've seen them play poorly initially, only to find their way come post-season. But that doesn't mean that they should be ranked as highly based on potential alone ... especially after the preseason poll (which is mostly about potential). .... This goes for Arizona's "potential" as well ... they have really stunk it up, yet they still show up on many people's ballots with a Top 20 list ...
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Oct 4, 2004 12:35:19 GMT -5
How Minnesota (with 2 losses) can be ranked higher than Ohio State (who's UNDEFEATED, AND just spanked Minnesota's butt recently) defies all logic. Wake up and smell the coffee people. Just because you THOUGHT a team was so good--or so bad--before, doesn't mean you should IGNORE the FACTS and continue in your dream world of self-denial and convoluted reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2004 13:19:07 GMT -5
Calm down.
You can't base it on one match. OSU has two good wins: @ Georgia Tech and at home against Minnesota. And GT is a borderline good win.
I put OSU in the top 10, but we need more data. Let's see how they do @ Minnesota and @ PSU. OK?
And that was not a butt spanking, either. But thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Oct 4, 2004 14:13:12 GMT -5
...You can't base it on one match... Who's basing it on just one match? I'm basing it on their entire records. No UNDEFEATED team should ever be ranked below an opponent they've beaten. Period. You probably also ranked Texas below Florida based upon your silly reasoning of ignoring current FACTS and games actually PLAYED to your preferred world of what might happen in future in, as yet, UNPLAYED games. IF something HAPPENS in a FUTURE game, THEN it WILL be reflected in a FUTURE ranking. It's just plain stupid to base CURRENT ranking, not on reality, but on FUTURE potential.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 4, 2004 14:25:59 GMT -5
No UNDEFEATED team should ever be ranked below an opponent they've beaten. It is real hard to argue this point. Question is, why would we want to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2004 14:46:44 GMT -5
Who's basing it on just one match? I'm basing it on their entire records. No UNDEFEATED team should ever be ranked below an opponent they've beaten. Yes. They can be and should be. It all depends on the other matches. Let's see if OSU wins @ PSU or Minnesota, then we'll talk. As a matter of fact, I did. It's not just the future. It's the past. Texas and OSU haven't beaten enough quality opponents. But I'm not. I'm basing it on who they have played AND last year AND who they have for players THIS year. You want a ranking based solely on results, go with Pablo and don't bother insulting us. These rankings are, by definition, our opinions. I don't think OSU is as good as Minnesota. I also don't know yet if Texas is as good as Florida. Now. Can you be a little more civil?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2004 20:28:12 GMT -5
You want a ranking based solely on results, go with Pablo and don't bother insulting us. I guess that doesn't even help you. Minnesota's ranked ahead of OSU there, too.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Oct 4, 2004 21:43:41 GMT -5
I guess that doesn't even help you. Minnesota's ranked ahead of OSU there, too. Resorting to quoting yourself now are we? There you go again: selectively choosing things that just happen to validate your pre-conceived conclusions, while blissfully ignoring others that blatantly contradict your position. You've conveniently left off the fact that the very poll you've chosen to validate your point also happens to have Texas at #2 and Minnesota at #5.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Oct 4, 2004 21:58:32 GMT -5
I guess that doesn't even help you. Minnesota's ranked ahead of OSU there, too. Here, let me help you Ruffda. Instead of trying to use Pablo's rankings to help your argument, what you really want to do is defend the RKPI ranking method--which originally had Minnesota at #2 behind #1 Hawaii last week, but ACTUALLY moved Minnesota to #1 ABOVE UNDEFEATED Hawaii this week AFTER Minnesota lost to Ohio State. I'm SURE you'll have no problem EXPLAINING that as perfectly reasonable in your world of thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2004 23:16:45 GMT -5
Who ARE you? Give me one good reason why I should carry on this conversation. Such bile. It's as if I've had discussions with you before or something.
So. The fact that OSU won at home does not even enter into your thinking, right?
Good luck with your "no undefeated team should ever be ranked below a team they beat" theory. I wish you the best with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2004 23:20:34 GMT -5
Resorting to quoting yourself now are we? There you go again: selectively choosing things that just happen to validate your pre-conceived conclusions, while blissfully ignoring others that blatantly contradict your position. You've conveniently left off the fact that the very poll you've chosen to validate your point also happens to have Texas at #2 and Minnesota at #5. For the record, I am not looking to Pablo to validate my point. I was suggesting that you might prefer Pablo to subjective rankings. Turns out, you wouldn't like the OSU-Minnesota ranking in Pablo either. You've got an SoBB style to your abuse. Intelligent, but wacky. Are you related?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2004 23:22:47 GMT -5
Here, let me help you Ruffda. Instead of trying to use Pablo's rankings to help your argument, what you really want to do is defend the RKPI ranking method--which originally had Minnesota at #2 behind #1 Hawaii last week, but ACTUALLY moved Minnesota to #1 ABOVE UNDEFEATED Hawaii this week AFTER Minnesota lost to Ohio State. I'm SURE you'll have no problem EXPLAINING that as perfectly reasonable in your world of thinking. And the condescension. Very SoBB-like.
|
|