Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2004 15:04:10 GMT -5
Here is an interesting fact:
This is the first poll where a California school has not been in the top 5. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by RobertCB on Oct 11, 2004 15:12:55 GMT -5
How does a team like Texas A&M stay in the top 25 with an eight and five record with only one win over a currently ranked opponent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2004 15:16:13 GMT -5
How does a team like Texas A&M stay in the top 25 with an eight and five record with only one win over a currently ranked opponent? Easy. No bad wins and the magic bullet--they beat a Pac10 school. Swept the Bears. The whole poll has the Pac10 as its axis. Everyone else is just there to be compared to the Pac10.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Oct 11, 2004 15:16:59 GMT -5
How does a team like Texas A&M stay in the top 25 with an eight and five record with only one win over a currently ranked opponent? Strength of Schedule. Look at who the five losses are to.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 11, 2004 15:19:02 GMT -5
How does a team like Texas A&M stay in the top 25 with an eight and five record with only one win over a currently ranked opponent? Two wins. At the time TAMU beat them, Cal was #8 and Kansas #24. However - 4 of their 5 losses were against ranked teams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2004 15:19:53 GMT -5
How does a team like Texas A&M stay in the top 25 with an eight and five record with only one win over a currently ranked opponent? The same way Kansas State stays in. Their only win over a Top 25 team was, ahem, Texas A&M. Their only other distinction is losses to top 25 teams (like in 5 games to Minnesota and Florida). Maybe there is also a bias in Favor of the Big 12!
|
|
|
Post by Xplaya on Oct 11, 2004 15:59:17 GMT -5
Strength of Schedule. Look at who the five losses are to. If you're going with THAT logic, then GT should be in there as well!
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Oct 11, 2004 16:09:10 GMT -5
If you're going with THAT logic, then GT should be in there as well! Maybe, but let's compare schedules and wins: Georgia Tech is 11-5 (and I have them on my potential radar to make the Sweet 16 this season, by the way). Losses to: #6 USC #7 Colorado State Unranked Purdue Unranked Wisconsin #8 Ohio State Of their wins: 0 Top 25 wins. Which is why voters are hesitating, even though its really not their fault they had a slow start this season! What must Georgia Tech do to re-crack the Top 25? Simple... keep winning. I just have one question for them... Why Winthrop to close out the schedule? ------------------------------------------------------------------ On the other hand, there is Texas A&M: 8-5, 4-3 Losses are to: #11 UCLA #19 UCSB (back when they were playing good) #16 Kansas State #4 Nebraska Listed Missouri (@ 27) On their wins: #13 California Biggest difference... the win, although it appears that G-Tech scheduled a tougher preseason schedule.
|
|
|
Post by GauchoDon on Oct 11, 2004 16:18:36 GMT -5
Random thought... if we are having this much trouble with who should be in the top 25 due to the upsets how many upset people is there gonna be when the selections come out
|
|
|
Post by Xplaya on Oct 11, 2004 16:20:06 GMT -5
Maybe, but let's compare schedules and wins: Georgia Tech is 11-5 (and I have them on my potential radar to make the Sweet 16 this season, by the way). Losses to: #6 USC #7 Colorado State Unranked Purdue Unranked Wisconsin #8 Ohio State Of their wins: 0 Top 25 wins. Which is why voters are hesitating, even though its really not their fault they had a slow start this season! What must Georgia Tech do to re-crack the Top 25? Simple... keep winning. I just have one question for them... Why Winthrop to close out the schedule? ------------------------------------------------------------------ On the other hand, there is Texas A&M: 8-5, 4-3 Losses are to: #11 UCLA #19 UCSB (back when they were playing good) #16 Kansas State #4 Nebraska Listed Missouri (@ 27) On their wins: #13 California Biggest difference... the win, although it appears that G-Tech scheduled a tougher preseason schedule. I see your points, but at the time of the losses USC was #1, and Wisc twenty something ....Winthrop? Not sure, maybe proximity, someone to play before the tourney...it's not like they added them at the last minute, like some coaches like to do! ;D
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Oct 11, 2004 16:23:40 GMT -5
Winthrop? Not sure, maybe proximity, someone to play before the tourney...it's not like they added them at the last minute, like some coaches like to do! ;D LOL! Good point about Winthrop. As far as the rankings at the time, Georgia Tech was rated when they played those team (USC, Wisconsin, etc.) Pablo will tell you about how you can't use the "then" rankings of the teams, but you have to use the now (I think he'd say that). Georgia Tech scares me a little... but not as much as Nebraska!! What's up with Nebraska fans being silent all-of-a-sudden? They've swept EVERYONE they've played since losing to FAMU! I'll have to watch some more of their matches to see just how solid they can be though.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Oct 11, 2004 16:24:39 GMT -5
Random thought... if we are having this much trouble with who should be in the top 25 due to the upsets how many upset people is there gonna be when the selections come out I think we'll have to wait to find out who is upset in the Conference Tournaments before we can get a feel for just how upset some of us are going to be.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 11, 2004 16:40:45 GMT -5
LOL! Good point about Winthrop. As far as the rankings at the time, Georgia Tech was rated when they played those team (USC, Wisconsin, etc.) Pablo will tell you about how you can't use the "then" rankings of the teams, but you have to use the now (I think he'd say that). Teams change over time, but on the whole, yes, I am not big on putting much stock in the "they were ranked then" arguments, especially when they rely on early season rankings. UNI was originally ranked 21st this year. If anyone thinks at any time this season they were actually the 21st best team in the country, they are crazy. Even now, the AVCA poll is distorted heavily by preseason expectations, as teams like Ohio State and Texas struggle to climb over teams that lose and even teams they beat. One could imagine that Ohio St could finish the season undefeated and still finish behind Minnesota, provided that Minnesota only lost to them. That's how important preseason expectations can be in the polls. Humble pie?
|
|
|
Post by TDome on Oct 11, 2004 16:59:04 GMT -5
Easy. No bad wins and the magic bullet--they beat a Pac10 school. Swept the Bears. The whole poll has the Pac10 as its axis. Everyone else is just there to be compared to the Pac10. It would be nice to see the poll a little more like the football and basketball polls, just using K-State as an example there is no way in hoops or f-ball that they could be #16, lose to #11 and stay #16 in either of those polls.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Oct 11, 2004 17:06:47 GMT -5
It would be nice to see the poll a little more like the football and basketball polls, just using K-State as an example there is no way in hoops or f-ball that they could be #16, lose to #11 and stay #16 in either of those polls. But why is that necessarily bad? I have always wondered, since I was a little tike, why a team ranked 21st should drop in the polls after losing to the team ranked #9, for example. It seems to me that all this tells you is that you had them ranked correctly in the first place. Why should the 12th best team in the country be penalized just because the only games it plays are against the 11 teams better than them?
|
|