Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

The Poll Attacks

Posted on: December 19, 2011 3:42 pm
Edited on: December 19, 2011 3:46 pm
By Gary Parrish

UNLV should be ranked ahead of Illinois.

Only six Associated Press voters don't understand this.

But hopefully those six will learn their lesson in this week's Poll Attacks.

Associated Press poll: Leaving UNLV off your ballot is wrong.

Leaving UNLV off your ballot that includes Illinois?

That's way wrong.

But six AP voters -- Bill Cole, Elton Alexander, Pete Glibert, Roger Clarkson, Ron Morris and Rod Beard -- managed to do exactly that this week, and so now they find themselves in the middle of the Poll Attacks. Merry Christmas, fellas. Did you see what UNLV did to Illinois on Saturday in Chicago? The Rebels won 64-48. And, no, head-to-head matchups aren't the deciding factor on everything. They can't be. But UNLV doesn't only have that 16-point victory over the Illini in Illinois, the Rebels also have a better overall body of work.

UNLV has wins over No. 5 North Carolina and No. 25 Illinois, and the Rebels' only losses are at No. 13 Wisconsin and at Wichita State, which is receiving votes in the AP poll.  Meantime, Illinois has zero wins over schools currently ranked. So UNLV has better wins than Illinois, no real bad losses and -- don't forget this -- a dominant win over the Illini in Chicago. In my opinion, both schools should be ranked. So I'm not killing Illinois. All I'm saying is that UNLV should also be ranked. And definitely above Illinois. Because ranking Illinois while not ranking UNLV is almost as dumb as Will Barton being an official candidate for an award given annually to the nation's top point guard.

Coaches poll:
Would you drop a team because it lost a game when three players fouled out?

Of course you would.

We all would.

Which is why I have no problem with the coaches dropping Xavier from ninth to 15th in this week's poll even though Tu Holloway, Mark Lyons and Dez Wells did not play in Sunday's home loss to Oral Roberts, because they essentially fouled out of the game before it started via the roles they played in that brawl against Cincinnati. They were all suspended because of their actions. So why shouldn't Xavier pay a price for that?

An injury?

That's nobody's fault.

That's why Ohio State didn't suffer when Jared Sullinger's absence cost the Buckeyes at Kansas.

But Holloway, Lyons and Wells are responsible for putting their team in a bad spot just like when somebody else's starting center picks up two dumb fouls early and puts his team in a bad spot. When that team loses, we don't excuse it and say, "But that team wouldn't have lost if its center would've played smarter." So why should we excuse Xavier's loss and say, "But the Musketeers wouldn't have lost if Holloway, Lyons and Wells would've acted appropriately against Cincinnati?"

Answer: We shouldn't.

So I'm OK with how the coaches handled Xavier.

It's similar to how we handled the Musketeers in the Top 25 (and one).

And I realize this is sort of a reverse Poll Attack, but whatever. I wanted to make that point.
Since: Sep 10, 2006
Posted on: December 23, 2011 6:25 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Aug 1, 2007
Posted on: December 23, 2011 12:55 pm

The Poll Attacks

Hey IU fan, according to your own "logic" Syracuse is better than we all thought, they just beat a (then) 11-1 team in Tulane. While nobody thought much of them, they had an 11-1 record and MUST therefore be good? Strength of schedule?'s based on PERCEIVED rankings that you abhore. You simply can't pick and choose what part of perceived rankings you want to accept and dismiss the same things when they fail to prove your position. Indiana has moved up the rankings as they should, the system is working! And your Butler example of how it doesn't work? Do you really think they were the second best team either of the past two years? God bless them and how they overachieved, good for them! But were they honestly the second best team in the land? The rankings were not flawed because Butler failed to be ranked near the very top, it only goes to show how wonderful the tourney is and how rankings DON'T MATTER yet here you are blathering on and on trying to get the rest of the world to accept Indiana is the best team. Nobody is buying it but here's the wonderful part of this, if they keep winning, they WILL be ranked number one eventually and lookie there, the system will have proven itself once again!

Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 23, 2011 11:27 am

The Poll Attacks

As an obvious note...if you are ranked in the top 10, you are also ranked in the top 15 and the top 20.  His points were the same, IU is underranked.  He was saying there is no doubt they are in the top 20, should be in the top 15, and likely in the top 10...pinning down an exact number doesn't even matter because no one else pins down exact numbers.
Yeah, and you've said they should be between 6th and 8th, and yet I didn't bother to go quoting you about a bunch of other predictions.  I wonder why that is?

Oh wait, I know...


He's all torn up over the idea that I would rank OSU anywhere except #! if I think they are the #1 team.  He stated on multiple occasions that he had no issue at all with the AP/Coaches poll ranking IU in the teens, which is a bunch of horse schiat since he's on record as saying they are the 10th best team.  By his own definition, that makes him crazy and/or stupid.  (or a giant hypocritical dooshbag by my definition)

Unless you want to put forth a full top 10 of your own, don't expect others do to so.  He made is case (a very strong one) for IU being in the top 10...which would mean they would also be in the top 15 and the top 20.
I don't need a top 10 of my own.  I have no issue with the AP or the Coach's, or Parrish's for that matter.  I don't have any major issues with any of them, and have defended them (quite convincingly I might add to everyone except biased IU fans evidently)

Glad we had a troll on this blog...nothing like explaining things over and over to an uneducated troll! 
Yeah, and I'm glad we have a bunch of whiny delusional IU fans on here who insist they know more than the coaches and AP writers and think they actually have a top 10 team because they beat 1 good team and ran the score up on a bunch of laughably, bad bottom of the barrel, didn't even know they were in Division 1, sucktastic teams.

Since: Sep 10, 2006
Posted on: December 23, 2011 8:29 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 22, 2011 9:08 pm

The Poll Attacks

Well, since it looks like smashed247 has left us for the holidays, I'll leave everyone with a Best Of Smashed Quotes...

How is IU not in ANYONE's top 20?
I have seen NO ONE keep them out of the top 20 except parrish. 
Now, I don't want to split hairs here, but it sounds to me like he's suggesting that IU isn't in ANYONE's top 20, and then turns right around and says that IU is in EVERYONE's top 20 except 1.  

Well, let's see if we can answer the question of where Smashed thinks IU should be ranked...

How is IU not in ANYONE's top 20? 
Okay.  Top 20 .  Got it.
How are they [IU] not in anyone's top 15?
But, you just said top 20?  Okay, fine.  Top 15.  (clever readers will also note that those two quotes were actually taken from the same paragraph)

They are easily a top 10 team right now. 
But you just said top 15? Okay.  fine.  Top 10.  Are you sure you want to stick with that?
I will list the reasons (again) that I think IU is a top 10 team.
Great, finally some consistency.  Can you pin it down for me though?  I seem to recall asking for an exact ranking.
I simply have COMPARED the body of work to other in the top 15 and feel IU should be ranked higher.  I think #10. 
Eureka!  There it is!

So you're on record as saying that you think IU is the 10th best team in the country.  Of course you are also on record saying that you think it's okay that IU is just ranked in the top 15 or top 20.  I'm glad you have such flexability with your ranking system...

You rank who you think the best teams in the country are based on why you think they are the best.
Wait, so you're saying that you shouldn't be that flexible?  That ranking them higher or lower for any reason isn't right?

I just said you don't rank the best as the best.  I think that is stupid.
You know what.  I owe you an apology.  All this time I've been calling you retarted, whem clearly, I should have just been calling you stupid.

My mistake.  

Have a Happy Festivus, stupid.


Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 22, 2011 4:48 pm

The Poll Attacks

See my posts below, its all in there. 

Merry Christmas... See you next year.

Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 22, 2011 1:57 pm

The Poll Attacks

Well, actually, they can't.  In order to have a clear mind for critical thinking, you must release any belief perserverances.  This is very basic stuff.  I'm guessing you haven't taken any graduate courses at all, and likely no undergraduate courses relating to critical thinking.
Right, critical thinking by itself should be free of preconceived biases.  But once a person has weighed all of the objective evidence and ranked teams accordingly they can then balance that with with other factors.

That is essentially what I have done when I started my previous comparison with the unbiased Sagarin ratings and then added a little common sense to balance things out.

I don't need graduate courses in critical thinking to know that there are things I'm aware of that aren't taken into account in the Sagarin rankings.  

By the way, I love how you mentioned everyone's strength of schedule and wins, but ignored that many of those teams have not 1, but 2 or even 3 losses.  Just because you have a high stength of schedule doesn't make you better, ESPECIALLY if you lose the games to the teams that are bringing up your strength of schedule.
How many of those teams have bad losses?  I'm more than happy to penalize a team for a bad loss.  Let me know who has lost to a team outside of the top 50 and we can discuss it.  And I'm well aware that a high SoS doesn't make you better.  I'm also aware that running up the score on a bunch of bottom feeders doesn't make you better either.  But you seemed to miss the part where I brought up QUALITY WINS (aka top 50 wins) and demonstrated that pretty much all of those teams with comperable or better SoS actually have more quality wins than IU.  

Thos teams have all proven MULTIPLE TIMES that they can beat quality competition. Has IU shown that they can beat quality competition MULTIPLE TIMES?  (I'll give you a hint, the answer is "no")

You already pointed out a few teams that it makes no sense for IU to be behind. 
Baylor: Has more quality wins.
Missouri: I haven't seen anyone here make a case for IU being ahead of Mizzou either.
Xavier: I'll give you that one.
Pittsburgh: I'll give you that one.
Florida:  Was competitive with the #1 and #2 ranked teams.  Has beaten everyone else.  Sounds like a top 10 team to me.
Georgetown: Their loss isn't a bad loss.  Their SoS is basically the same as IU's, not significanty worse. And they still have more quality wins.
Wisconsin: Still has morequality wins that IU does, and we're not doing the "let's take this away for arguments sake" bit now.  We're actually talking about all of the teams resume, so I'm not taking away their two losses, and I'm not dropping their SoS.  They played those games.  I'm taking into account the losses, so I'm damn sure going to take credit for having played good teams.  Or is that some of that advanced critical thinking that I need to go to grad school to get?
Kansas:  Kansas has played a brutal schedule. They've been competitive in every game, 20 of those losses are close losses to top 10 teams, and despite those losses they STILL have more quality wins than IU.  

So with the exception of 2 teams, it makes perfect sens why those teams are ranked ahead of IU.  Thy've proven MULTIPLE TIMES that they can beat QUALITY competition.  IU has yet to do that.  Show me it's not a fluke, and I'll happily move IU into the top 10, as will the AP voters, no doubt.

Out of the 16 teams that you have listed ahead of IU, you ruled out 5 of them...which would move them to #11 
No.  I ruled out 2.  You then made a piss-poor argument for ruling out more. 

Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 22, 2011 1:21 pm

The Poll Attacks

I will AGAIN, try to explain to you why YOU can not use the sag's SOS.  You do not believe IU is the number #2 ranked team in the country.  Basically thats its.  I will explain further.  If IU isn't the second ranked team in the country then the ENTIRE ranking system INCLUDING its SOS calculations are wrong.  In this system, IU is bringing up KY sos MORE THAN KY is bringing up IU schedule.  Get it.  IU is #2, KY is #3....  Look at the rest of the ranking do you agree with it?  Because the sos is based on that ranking.  
Fisrt of all, I'll use Sag's SoS if I damn well want to.  Sag isn't the end-all, be-all word on teams.  It is simply a ranking of their resume/body-of-work.  By virtue of being a computer ranking syste, that's all it CAN measure.  That is ONE component of what actually goes into ranking a team.  Maybe you'll recall from the dozens of times that I mentioned it yesterday, that resume isn't the only thing that I (or the AP voters evidently) use when deciding where to rank teams.

I'm sorry if you can't wrap your brain around that little tidbit, which you obviously can't (or at least are totally unwilling to) but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

If you use it and believe what your using YOU MUST AGREE IU is the #2 team in the country.
#2 (or 3) body of work.  Not the overall #2 team.  There is a difference.  I've explained it countless times.  Stop being retarded.

In addition,  YOU consider a team with 12 wins no losses a better record than 11 wins no losses, BUT consider 10 wins and two losses as SIMILAR.  That is unreasonable (not surprised)
Okay, fine.  10-2 isn't similar.  I made was looking at that at around 5:00am.  They still have a better SoS and more quality wins.

You don't mention losses in your reason (probably because they don't help you).  They don't count for anything.  Just quality wins, similar record and SoS.  Losses count too.  eg.  you have Wisonsin with 10-2 (say that is a similar record but SY isn't similar to IU) your reasons they are above IU is similar record (isn't) Better SoS, (based on a system you don't agree with) More quality wins.. and then don't mention the 2 losses making them 2-2 against the sag top 50.  The losses have to be used also.  With the exception of a record that is truly similar.... only 5 other have a truly similar record.  

I don't mention losses in my argument, because for the most part those specific losses don't matter.  They aren't bad losses.  In the minds of most reasonable people those losses aren't held against those teams.  

Finally, you have several teams that Parrish has in his top 20 with a "damned if I know"  WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.   Especially since you only listed 17 with 3 "damned if I knows" which would put IU  into the top 14.  not 22.
You've been SAYING that Parrish has it wrong, but you've been ARGUING that they are better than many of the teams in the top 10 in ALL of the polls.  I'm obviously going to disprove the more ridiculious of your claims.

THAT IS WHY I WANTED YOU TO COMPARE.  You have proven me correct.  Your the bias one, look how you say 10-2 is similar 11-0 but 12-0 is not.  That reaks of bias.  
So you found one thing on my comparison that you disagree with and based on that, the whole thing is wrong?  Interesting.  Stop being retarded.

I've demonstrated WHY the teams that are ranked ahead of IU are there.  I've explained it in generic terms (combination of better SoS and more quality wins) I've explained it team by team.  I've discussed why the teams that didn't fit the previous description (eg Florida) are still ranked ahead of IU.  I've conceded there are two teams that I wouldn't rank ahead of IU that currently are.  (it seems as though you guys have a terrible case of selective reading once again and didn't bother to actually read the explanations for the "damned if I know" teams.  

Never was saying IU should be in top 15 or 10 in AP or Coaches (even thought I think they are top 15 maybe 10) 
And this is why you can't really be taken seriously.  So uh, I'm not trying to argue that IU should be in the top 10, but I'm going to repeatedly state that I think IU is a top 10 team.  Stop being retarded.  

You seem to feel so strong that IU is ranked improperly, then by all means.  TELL US EXACTLY WHERE THEY SHOULD BE RANKED.  Make a stand, commit to you reasonong, and give us a damn number, intead of biatching and bellyaching.  You go on and on and on about how the best teams should be ranked at the top, without exception, and I'm crazy or stupid for thinking it is okay to rank Syracuse #1 even though I don't think they are the best team, yet you continue to state that you think there aren't 10 teams better than IU, yet you seem to be okay with the idea of them being ranked 15th.  Here's a though... Stop being retarded.

Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 22, 2011 12:29 pm

The Poll Attacks

Not buying it, you make it sound like this syastem can't work when in fact you are flat out WRONG. 1. It has worked and worked quite well

So Butler was ranked #2 at the end of the season the last 2 years?

Just thought I would throw that out there.   They were not even in the top 25 at the end of last year.



And a question asked earlier, do you honestly believe IU is better than these other teams?

What other teams?  The teams in the top 20?  some of them.  Teams in the top 10? well a couple...   But you guys are the ones claiming to know how everyone thinks..

Of course not!
Now you are claiming to know what I think.... 

I am going to assume you just ignored my post since you didn't comment on anything I said and just commenting on how people vote, what they think and the reasoning behind their thoughts. 

Since: Aug 1, 2007
Posted on: December 22, 2011 12:00 pm

The Poll Attacks

Not buying it, you make it sound like this syastem can't work when in fact you are flat out WRONG. 1. It has worked and worked quite well for, oh about forever. 2. By the end of the season things certainly DO work themselves out (to a very large degree) 3. Your own suggestion that we ignore perception is absolutely impossible to do so early in the season, otherwise we should have Murray State at number one right now (a greeat start and playing well, but should they be a top team, does anyone think they should be ranked ahead of Ohio State, North Carolina, Duke, etc right now?) ...nope, perception must be a part of the rankings, nothing wrong with that at all. And a question asked earlier, do you honestly believe IU is better than these other teams? Of course not!

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or