Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 10:18:03 GMT -5
I'm not trying to beat up on you, or Florida. You are just a convenient target. I think most responders probably place Florida above Texas, but I cannot understand why. This is not last year's team (Florida or Texas), and to rank Florida above an undefeated team that won convincingly against them (in the Gator Swamp) reflects something other than the facts. Texas may very well fall to TAMU or K State or someone else on the road (Florida and Kansas were on the road, and top-25), but now is now. These rankings are now, not the Novembe 27 version. Regards (tag) And I'm not arguing that a legitimate claim -- such as yours -- for Texas to be ranked above Florida cannot be made. It can. But I am still going to base my rankings on 3 factors: 1) the totality of the season (i.e., not just one match); 2) who is back from 2003 (and how good the team was in 2003); and 3) who is new for 2004. And then I go with my gut feeling (or what is spelled out in my alphabet soup, although that is invariably "Vgrntys".) Did you know that MY ranking is the only one to which Wolfgang pays any attention? ;D For me, Texas still comes up behind Florida. I could be wrong. I would not be surprised to be wrong (the difference between #5 and #8 just isn't that much). But I'm not dissing Texas.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 7, 2004 10:30:10 GMT -5
But I am still going to base my rankings on 3 factors: 1) the totality of the season (i.e., not just one match); 2) who is back from 2003 (and how good the team was in 2003); and 3) who is new for 2004. And then I go with my gut feeling (or what is spelled out in my alphabet soup, although that is invariably "Vgrntys".) You know, for the first few weeks of the season, I basically did the same. But the last week or two, I've pretty well stopped looking at "who is back from 2003 (and how good the team was in 2003); and who is new for 2004.", especially if teams have played each other or have common opponents from which I can draw a comparision. I'm just wondering, how long during this season will you continue to look at how good they were in 2003? All year?
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 7, 2004 10:44:36 GMT -5
And I'm not arguing that a legitimate claim -- such as yours -- for Texas to be ranked above Florida cannot be made. It can. But I am still going to base my rankings on 3 factors: 1) the totality of the season (i.e., not just one match); 2) who is back from 2003 (and how good the team was in 2003); and 3) who is new for 2004. And then I go with my gut feeling (or what is spelled out in my alphabet soup, although that is invariably "Vgrntys".) Did you know that MY ranking is the only one to which Wolfgang pays any attention? ;D For me, Texas still comes up behind Florida. I could be wrong. I would not be surprised to be wrong (the difference between #5 and #8 just isn't that much). But I'm not dissing Texas. Ok. So what you are saying is, on this issue, based on reasons 1), 2) and 3), it's your "gut feeling" that is determining the placement of these two teams, although, I will admit Florida returned a lot of players (how many were starters?) this year from last year. Fair enough.;D By the way, I don't think you are "dissing" Texas. Regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 11:29:11 GMT -5
You know, for the first few weeks of the season, I basically did the same. But the last week or two, I've pretty well stopped looking at "who is back from 2003 (and how good the team was in 2003); and who is new for 2004.", especially if teams have played each other or have common opponents from which I can draw a comparision. I'm just wondering, how long during this season will you continue to look at how good they were in 2003? All year? It's not ALL I look at. As I said, I also look at the totality of the season. In the cases of OSU and Texas--which are both in the top 10 for me btw--I want to see OSU play someone ON THE ROAD and I want to see how Texas does against KSU, TAMU, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado (on the road). Texas has a VERY good win at Florida and a close win, at home, against Colorado. Kansas was beat up when they played them. I don't think I am being unreasonable. Last week, I pretty much ignored my previous week's rankings and started all over. It was the only way I could adjust for St Marys, Texas and OSU--something I don't think the AVCA rankings have done. But it still comes down to my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. My opinion remains that Florida is still the better squad than Texas. I am ready to adjust if additional results tell me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 7, 2004 11:30:33 GMT -5
By the way, I have Texas ranked higher than all 3 polls at the top of this page. 1--Washington 2--Nebraska 3--USC 4--Minnesota 5--Florida 6--Hawai'i 7--Penn State 8--Texas 9--Colorado State 10--Ohio State 11--UCLA 12--UCSB 13--Santa Clara 14--St Mary's 15--KSU 16--Stanford 17--Texas A&M 18--Cal 19--Long Beach State 20--Utah Regards (right back at ya), (R) You have Nebraska way TOO HIGH. The CornHuskers don't deserve to be ranked anywhere near the top 3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 11:34:59 GMT -5
Ok. So what you are saying is, on this issue, based on reasons 1), 2) and 3), it's your "gut feeling" that is determining the placement of these two teams, although, I will admit Florida returned a lot of players (how many were starters?) this year from last year. Fair enough.;D By the way, I don't think you are "dissing" Texas. Regards Collymore (who's been disappointing), Moscovic (who's lost her starting job), Chatman and Williams. Doesn't sound like world-beaters, maybe, until you factor in the frosh--Hampton, McGinnis, Killingsworth, and Klinkenborg. Maybe I'm ranking them too much on potential. Dunno. But, yes, my gut tells me the Texas loss was not a true indication of the relative strength of the two teams. But, again, #5 - #13 is VERY close this year. Heck, #1 - #13 may be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 11:38:10 GMT -5
You have Nebraska way TOO HIGH. The CornHuskers don't deserve to be ranked anywhere near the top 3. Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, I should rank them above Washington. I think Nebraska, right now, is the only team in the top 10 who could potentially separate themselves from the pack. What about the FAMU loss, you'll ask? Early in the season AND an anomaly. The one team in the top 10 I have serious doubts about is CSU. They are not nearly as good as I thought they would be--at least not in the 3 matches I've seen. I think Utah may give them a run for the MWC title.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 7, 2004 11:49:27 GMT -5
Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, I should rank them above Washington. I think Nebraska, right now, is the only team in the top 10 who could potentially separate themselves from the pack. Above Washington? I know its your ranking (R)uffda but that just isn't right. I think you're basing your ranking on your perception of potential and not where the teams should really be ranked according to season results. Btw, I did watch the Nebraska/ Texas A&M match. I don't see the Huskers as the dominant team others do. Not that they can't or won't be the team people expect but they were not as of that match.
|
|
|
Post by SaltNPepper on Oct 7, 2004 12:29:56 GMT -5
It's not ALL I look at. As I said, I also look at the totality of the season. In the cases of OSU and Texas--which are both in the top 10 for me btw--I want to see OSU play someone ON THE ROAD and I want to see how Texas does against KSU, TAMU, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado (on the road). Texas has a VERY good win at Florida and a close win, at home, against Colorado. Kansas was beat up when they played them. I don't think I am being unreasonable. Last week, I pretty much ignored my previous week's rankings and started all over. It was the only way I could adjust for St Marys, Texas and OSU--something I don't think the AVCA rankings have done. But it still comes down to my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. My opinion remains that Florida is still the better squad than Texas. I am ready to adjust if additional results tell me otherwise. Actually, my last question wasn't about whether Florida or Texas should be higher. I can understand someone might feel either way based upon the weakness in the Texas early seson schedule. I was really more interested in the general topic of using previous year's results along with returning & new players as factors in a weekly rankings. Prior to the beginning of play this year, that was about all we had to go on and when the regular season is over, there will be no reason to use any 2003 results. But, we are approaching the midpoint of this season as I think most teams will have played roughly half of their regular season matches by the time this weekend's matches are over. It surprises me a little that you'd still be using 2003 for any appreciable amount in ranking teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 12:35:39 GMT -5
Above Washington? I know its your ranking (R)uffda but that just isn't right. I think you're basing your ranking on your perception of potential and not where the teams should really be ranked according to season results. And that gets to the crux of the matter (whatever a crux is--plural of crotch?). I am NOT basing my rankings on who DESERVES to be ranked wherever--at least that's not my main criteria. I am ranking by who I (poor little (R)uffda!) thinks are the better teams. And, yes, potential is part of it. If I think Nebraska is going to win the National title this year--and I do--shouldn't I give serious consideration to ranking them above Washington (who I don't think can win the National title)? Anyhow. I'm willing to concede almost every point you and Curious and S&P are making. But I think Pablo is for results--and you disagree with its conclusions, too--and these other polls are both results AND subjective evaluations. UNLESS, you come at it strictly as a system of reward. If that's the case, a case should be made for Washington, Hawaii, Texas and OSU as your top 4 teams. And that too is fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 12:41:07 GMT -5
But, we are approaching the midpoint of this season as I think most teams will have played roughly half of their regular season matches by the time this weekend's matches are over. It surprises me a little that you'd still be using 2003 for any appreciable amount in ranking teams. Absolutely. It does become less and less of a factor. But I do think Florida, USC and Minnesota (and Hawai'i to a lesser extent, due to their huge turnover) have a big advantage over the other schools: they all have the most recent experience of playing in (and winning) Regionals, and of playing in a Final Four. I don't know which way Washington will go. On the one hand, they lost. On the other hand, it was in 5. And maybe the extra motivation is an advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 7, 2004 12:47:31 GMT -5
And that gets to the crux of the matter (whatever a crux is--plural of crotch?). I am NOT basing my rankings on who DESERVES to be ranked wherever--at least that's not my main criteria. I am ranking by who I (poor little (R)uffda!) thinks are the better teams. And, yes, potential is part of it. If I think Nebraska is going to win the National title this year--and I do--shouldn't I give serious consideration to ranking them above Washington (who I don't think can win the National title)? Anyhow. I'm willing to concede almost every point you and Curious and S&P are making. But I think Pablo is for results--and you disagree with its conclusions, too--and these other polls are both results AND subjective evaluations. UNLESS, you come at it strictly as a system of reward. If that's the case, a case should be made for Washington, Hawaii, Texas and OSU as your top 4 teams. And that too is fine. darn! How can one argue with such magnanimity and honesty? Were it not for the subjective aspect of the ratings, there could be no argument. Regards
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 7, 2004 12:54:41 GMT -5
darn! How can one argue with such magnanimity and honesty? Were it not for the subjective aspect of the ratings, there could be no argument. Regards As an aside, who let the Gestapo in here? A ubiquitous word like "Dam" (that's not how I really spelled it in the post with the pink in it, and "darn" isn't what I wrote) is now so offensive to the ultra-sensitive? Don't we think that's taking censorship a little far? Regards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2004 13:12:39 GMT -5
Holy crapola! This is f@#!ing unbelievable! God dammit, you cockstinkers!
Hey! Dammit is OK!
Woo-hoo!
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 7, 2004 13:55:40 GMT -5
Holy crapola! This is f@#!ing unbelievable! God dammit, you cock stinkers! Hey! Dammit is OK! Woo-hoo! We'll have to continue our research on what these @$$%*!*s (that might get me lectured) are trying to do to remove all the f@#!ing color from this darned language. Are they trying to cover their asses, or trying to protect our fine sensibilities? Hey, found two more. This might need its own thread. Regards
|
|