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.
Comments

Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 3:33 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

leaving work, not wasting my personal time.  I think your post speaks for itself.  Anyone who can read, and has basic reasoning skills can see the multiple faults and arrogance of that post though.  Basically saying again, IU has a weak schedule and refusing AGAIN to relate it to others ranked above them.  I will have a more in depth response tomorrow as I am not taking vacation until friday.

See ya tomorrow.



Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 2:55 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Just going to ignore most of your post, we have gone over it several times.
You say that as if you haven't completely ignored most of my points up until now.  This is pretty much you're MO.

See my post about the resume being WHY i would rank them as the best.  The resume is not thrown out.  It is used to form the opinion of WHO IS BEST.... geezz
Right now, I think SU is the best, BECAUSE OF THEIR RESUME. 
Yes, and I think OSU is best in spite of their resume.  I would take OSU to win on a neutral court (with Sullinger of course) against any team in the country right now.  But they aren't undefeated because they have a road loss to Kansas.  In spite of that I wouldn't vote them #1 as Syracuse has a better combo of Vote Expectations, Perceived Strength and Resume.

Just like other top 10 and top 20 teams, remember WE ARE COMPARING.  Great IU has just 1.  So do a lot of teams ranked over them.
Here's a thought.  If you want me to stop correcting you on that, stop saying IU has multiple quality wins.  You've done it a half dozen times now.  Surely you've figured out by now, I'm going to call you on that bullshiat every time.  

And again, the resume is why you think the team is the best.  Seriously, is it that hard of a concept to grasp?
No.  Evidently a resume is why YOU think a team is the best.  Me and the rest of the world look at the other things I've mentioned.

What? lol,  No, UofL gets more votes because people think UofL are better based on the resume of the 3 teams.  If you think Duke or UNC would beat UofL like 9 out of 10 times. you put Duke over UNC.  Why wouldn't you?  You got a really messed up thinker buddy.  You are getting further and further away from proving anything with your ramblings.  They don't make sense.
Louisville and Syracuse have both moved up because the teams above them lost.  That doesn't mean that people think that Syracuse is any better now than they did at the beginning of the season.  Same for Louisville.  If I thought UNC and Duke would beat louisville at the beginning of the season, (which I did, and evidently the voters did too since they were ranked higher) I haven't seen anything that makes me think that UNC and Duke wouldn't beat louisville now.  I can only assume the voters have watched the same games I have.  UNC and Duke both picked up blemishes on their resume which is why the dropped.  THat doesn't mean the perception of the teams has changed though.  Again, if you choose not to understand this, that's fine.  The polls will still have IU in a spot where you don't want them.

We were comparing IU's quality wins with a top 5 team.  You stated that minusKY,  IU has only beaten 2 teams with better than .500 records as to point out quality wins.
No I said that to emphasize the lack of quality wins that IU has.  I was quite clear in disparaging all of those teams, even the ones with winning records.  I was not calling any of those quality wins.  That's why I keep correcting you and pinting out that IU has a quality win.

I went on to say the same thing about Kentucky.
You went on to say something incorrect.  I corrected you.  That's what I do when you say things that are incorrect.  I thought you would have picked up on that trend by now. 

You went on to point out Penn St. has a 6-5 record so it was 3.  To point out QUALITY WINS by top teams. 
Now you're simply imaginging things.  I never even implied that PSU was a quality win.  I said they were above .500 nothing more nothing less.  I can't help it if you're grasping at straws now.  

Then you go on to say IU has only beaten 1 team that will make it in the tournament (PURE CONJECTURE)  Because I pointed out the falacy of your .500 argument by COMPARING it to a top 5 team that has the EXACT same thing.  
I know it's conjecture.  That's why I used the word "likely" dumbass.  And all you did was prove something wrong that you imagined I implied.  I was stating what a crappy, crappy, shaitty, schedule IU has played to date.  The fact that you somehow tried to turn that into me calling NCState and Notre Dame, "quality wins" is beyond me.  Seriously.  I've seen some downright remarkably stupid stuff on here over the years, and that has to be one of the dumbest. 

Say what you want about IU and their schedule but if you fail to compare it to the teams WE ARE COMPARING (eg. top 20 in Parrish's poll) it means little.  No teams can say they played 2 or 3 great teams and have won them and have no losses.  IU may not be able to, but that means little, no one can.
Back to my original point.  Your wins over those crappy, crappy, teams are meaningless.  Hell with teams that bad you should have beaten them by 50, but that point aside, those wins are meaningless.  Anyone in the top 50 should have won those games.  THey do nothing to bolster your argument for top 20 or top 10.  The ONLY part of your resume that warrants discussion about a higher ranking is the UK win.  That simply isn't enough.  The voters want more than just 1 game to prove that they were wrong in their revious rankings.  You know how I know that?  BECAUSE IU ISN'T RANKED IN THE TOP 10!  Maybe you'd noticed that.  Why exactly do YOU think they aren't ranked higher?  Kelvin Sampson has a bunch of votes?

YES!  Most of them (more than half) ranked over them in Parrish's poll.  And several in the AP and Coaches.
Back to your bias.  (or in this case, delusions of granduer)

Your opinion.
No it's a fact.  Have they beaten a ranked team on a neutral court?  No.  Then they haven't proven that they can beat a ranked team on a neutral court.  That is how you prove that you can beat a ranked team on a neutral court... you go to a neutral court and you beat a ranked team.  That's what "proof" is.  Has IU done that?  No.  Thus, they haven't proven that they can beat a ranked team on a neutral court.  FACT.

Ok, you think team A is good,

then say "i look at resumes besides just watching a team play and deciding if I think they are good or not.

Isn't that why you think team A is good.  You just stated the reasons why you decide a team is good, stated a team A is good.  
No, it's not why I think Team A is good.  I might think Team A is good for any number of reasons aside from who they've played.  THat's why I specifically said, that they were independant items.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

You keep saying if they dont play anyone good or enough good teams you don't rank them.
Stop being retarded.  I never said that.  I said I won't rank a team as high, not that I wouldn't rank them at all.  

THE ENTIRE TOP 20 is in the same boat as IU.  How did you get Kentucky as a top 10 team?
Stop being retarded.  No they aren't. The rest of the top 20 has pre-season expectations in their favor, and/or a better resume, and/or better preception of strength.  Thats why all of them are ranked ahead of IU.  The important part at this point is that they ARE in fact ranked ahead of IU.  

To me.  They are VERY SIMILAR resumes.  IU is 1000 against top 25 teams.  1000against top 10 and top 5.  NO team can live up to the qualifications you are setting on IU.   I can't except that as good reasoning.
And you're wrong.  AGAIN, the most important thing on a resume is Quality Wins and bad losses.  UK has more quality wins (2 vs 1) and neither has any bad losses.  That gives them the edge in the resume department, albeit not by much, since the rest of their wins are against pretty crappy teams too.  As far as the qualifications I'm setting for IU, yeah you're right.  With the crappy schedule they've palyed and their preseason expectations, there is a zero percent chance they crack the top 10 at this pont in the season, barring everyone ranked in the preseason having a complete and utter meltdown.  

It explains nothing as to why parrish has IU out of his top 20.  In fact only reassures the argument that most people feel they deserve better.  I conceded that some voters use preseason expectations but I don't agree.  Much like I don't agree with Parrish.  I think you are stupid if you don't rank the teams based on who you think is the best with the resume being the reason you think they are best (had to add that, you keep saying I throw it out.)
Indiana is hurt by their crappy schedule (resume) and poor preseason expectations by the voters.  How does that NOT explian why Parrish has indiana ranked where they are?  Stop being retarded.

And whether you agree with it or not, expectations DO factor in.  I don't see why this is such a hangup for you though.  Expectations are EASY to overcome.  All you have to do is show a TREND of exceeding expectations.  IU has yet to do that (nor have they had the opportunity)  They've done the first step by beating UK.  Win @MSU and beat OSU and you've established a trend.  That's all.  It's not magic or anything.  It just takes more than ONE thing.

Disagree, UNC didn't drop out of the polls, or even out of the top 10. 
Nobody said they did.  I said they dropped.  They did indeed drop.  What's the problem here?  Stop being retarded.

I cant say what people think (unlike you) but people probably looked, compared what they have done so far and voted who they think is the best.  
I can't gaurantee what they think but I can damn sure tell you how they behave.  And their behavior indicates that every time a team loses to another team not ranked significantly ahead of them, that team drops, at least one or two spots, possibly more.  This happens like clockwork.  I defy you to find an exception.  I can't guarantee that they still think UNC and Duke could beat Louisville, but if they watched the same games I've seen, there isn't anything thats happend on the court to make me think that they've changed their minds.  

How very arrogant for you to make the assumption on how every voter votes.  D
I'm not assuming that's how every voter votes.  I'm asuming that's how the polls end up looking based on years of watching basketball and the polls.  

And let me say, how very arrogant of you to assume that every voter is wrong in where they ranked IU.

That does not follow any sort of logical reasoning.  If "Perceived Strength" is how good you think a team is, what are you basing that on if you don't look at their resume?  Just a gut feeling?  There's logic.  I still contend that these voters are unaware of your big 3 (2) criteria and vote on who they think is the best (again looking at the entire body of work, yada yada... ) 
I never claimed that the voters would sit and evaluate each team based on those 3 things.  What I can tell you is that anything that could conceivably be used to evaluate teams will fall into one of those 3 categories.

Resume is wins and losses, SoS and MoV.  I don't know anyone who includes anything else under the resume umberella.  I actually watch games and look at players and coaches and evaluate the teams, not just what they've done.  I can look at a Syracuse team and know they're flawed just like every other Boeheim team and as soon as they run into a team that can shoot the 3 well, they're screwed.  That isn't something that is part of their resume.  It's something I know about the team because I know about basketball.  UK is going to have trouble against teams with experienced point guards.  These are things I have perceived about teams.  Get it now?  Of course not.








Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 2:20 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

hattie947,

You are right... But this is the slowest week of the year here at work.  What else am I going to do to pass the time...

Happy Holidays to you!



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 2:16 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

You insist that people should vote a certain way.

No, I just like logical reasoning.  Was arguing Parrish's and your opinion that IU is not a top 20 team.  You came back with reasons.  I refuted them.   Think I have made my point, EMPHATICALY.  So emphaticaly that you changed and started arguing the only things the voters look at.  I don't think you can make that claim. 

hey can vote however they damn well want, and they do.

ok

Percieved strength is how good you think a team is, regardless of who they've played so far.  Their resume doesn't factor in at all.  It is a totally seperate concept and idea.  Combine those two totally seperate and distinct things, with a third completely disticnt factor (voter expectations) and you get a team's ranking.



That does not follow any sort of logical reasoning.  If "Perceived Strength" is how good you think a team is, what are you basing that on if you don't look at their resume?  Just a gut feeling?  There's logic.  I still contend that these voters are unaware of your big 3 (2) criteria and vote on who they think is the best (again looking at the entire body of work, yada yada... )

Here's the thing.  You can argue about this until you're blue in the face.  IU is still going to have a lower ranking than you want. And all of your impotent protesting will never change that.


Well I am complaining about Parrish's top 26 in Poll attacks, maybe, just maybe he will read my thoughts and consider them.  Maybe not.  Either way.  I am sitting here at work with nothing to do, and this is a fun way for me to pass my time.  (can you believe i am getting paid for this : )






Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 2:04 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Well, I happen to believe that teams earn their ranking by playing some tough competition along with just being good.  I might think team A is a bunch of world beaters, but if they haven't played anyone good I'm not going to rank them #1.  THat's why I look at resumes besides just watching a team play and deciding if I think they are good or not. 


Ok, you think team A is good,

then say "i look at resumes besides just watching a team play and deciding if I think they are good or not.

Isn't that why you think team A is good.  You just stated the reasons why you decide a team is good, stated a team A is good. 

You don't see the contradiction here?


You keep saying if they dont play anyone good or enough good teams you don't rank them.  Well at this point, you are pretty much saying no team should be ranked because THE ENTIRE TOP 20 is in the same boat as IU.  How did you get Kentucky as a top 10 team?
They have good wins against a 3 loss Kansas team and NC and a loss to IU.  Those are their ranked opponents.  2 wins and 1 loss.  IU has 1 win and no losses.  To me.  They are VERY SIMILAR resumes.  IU is 1000 against top 25 teams.  1000against top 10 and top 5.  NO team can live up to the qualifications you are setting on IU.   I can't except that as good reasoning.


Well, my explination perfectly explains why everyone is ranked where they are.  Your does not.  But yeah, I'm the crazy one.

Is Indiana actually ranked in the Top 10?  Sure as shat, they aren't.  I guess that means you're wrong.  

I do believe this is where I call "scoreboard" (or ranking page more appropriately)

It explains nothing as to why parrish has IU out of his top 20.  In fact only reassures the argument that most people feel they deserve better.  I conceded that some voters use preseason expectations but I don't agree.  Much like I don't agree with Parrish.  I think you are stupid if you don't rank the teams based on who you think is the best with the resume being the reason you think they are best (had to add that, you keep saying I throw it out.)

If everyone truly voted for who they thought was best, the rankings wouldn't change nearly as much from week to week.  A single game shouldn't really change the perception of a team.  UNC dropped in the polls after they lost @ UK.  If you thought they were the #3 team in the country before they played UK there was absolutely nothing in that game to make you think they weren't the #3 team in the country afterward.  But yet they dropped.  The perception of the team didn't change.  Their resume did.
Disagree, UNC didn't drop out of the polls, or even out of the top 10.  This comment works against you in my opinion.  I cant say what people think (unlike you) but people probably looked, compared what they have done so far and voted who they think is the best.  That make more sense.  Thats why they dropped.  KY beat them.  Undefeated Duke, SU, Ohio St. and KY all move over them... Probably because after that loss, UNC didn't look as good as those other teams.  Thats the way I see it.  Not sure how, or why you think different.  Flawed reasoning i guess.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, or if it doesn't make sense to you.  That's still the way things actually work.

How very arrogant for you to make the assumption on how every voter votes.  Did you interview them?   Why is the such a drastic differnces if every thinks like you and thats how they actually work?

This just in, the voters don't vote who they think is the best(based on why they think they are the best), they vote on something entirely different.



Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 1:56 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

****  Smashed--- Theres an old adage   "never fight with someone who buys INK by the Barrel"  !!    Sounds like your are arguing with someone who likes to write ad infinitem  BUT .... Well- -I think you see my point !!   Happy Holidays !!



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 1:39 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Just going to ignore most of your post, we have gone over it several times.

You disagree with what?  What actually factors into the polls, or what you think should factor in?  If the latter, then you've contradicted yourself once again.  First it should be all about resume.  Then it should just be who is the best.  Now we're back to resume again?  Make up your mind dude.


See my post about the resume being WHY i would rank them as the best.  The resume is not thrown out.  It is used to form the opinion of WHO IS BEST.... geezz
Right now, I think SU is the best, BECAUSE OF THEIR RESUME.

IU has 1 quality win.  I'm going by selection committee criteria.  not wins.  Win.  Singular.  Just 1.


Just like other top 10 and top 20 teams, remember WE ARE COMPARING.  Great IU has just 1.  So do a lot of teams ranked over them.
Can we stop bringing that up.  Its going no where.... "IU has one win" "similar to the rest of the top 20 right now" "but IU has 1 good win" "Very similar to the rest of the top 25"  etc... etc... 

Talk to me after Big10 play starts if/when you actually pick up that 2nd quality win.  Right now you have 1.  That's where IU is.
and again, thats where the rest of the top 20 is.

It's the resume!  It's the best team!  It's the resume!  It's the best team!  Seriously.  Take your meds.  The MPD is getting out of hand.


And again, the resume is why you think the team is the best.  Seriously, is it that hard of a concept to grasp?

They aren't in the same boat.  The other teams have 1) better expectations from the voters, 2) a higher percieved team strength to go along with their 3) resume


and YET AGAIN, their percieved team strenght is their ranking.  So you got resume (but we are throwing that out cause you have an opinion of the best or something.)  and expectations.  I don't look at expectations at this point.  We can all look and see how teams are doing at least enough to rank them based on resume.  But as I said, I will concede your expectations.


The reason was not the conclusion. I would think someone as nuanced as you, Captain Semantic, would know that.  As the voters or most basketball fans if they think that UofL would beat Duke or UNC on a neutral court.  You'll find that Louisville would likely be picked as the loser in most of those matchups, yet they are ranked higher.  Even though many people would say that UNC and Duke are better than UofL, UofL still gets more votes because of the losses by UNC and Duke.  Percieved strength is not the same as ranking.  Three.
What? lol,  No, UofL gets more votes because people think UofL are better based on the resume of the 3 teams.  If you think Duke or UNC would beat UofL like 9 out of 10 times. you put Duke over UNC.  Why wouldn't you?  You got a really messed up thinker buddy.  You are getting further and further away from proving anything with your ramblings.  They don't make sense.


Jesus, you must be ficking retarded.  I said no such thing.  I don't consider every win above a > .500 team a good win.  That was the ONLY time Penn State was brought up.  Learn to read you idiot.   


We were comparing IU's quality wins with a top 5 team.  You stated that minusKY,  IU has only beaten 2 teams with better than .500 records as to point out quality wins.  I went on to say the same thing about Kentucky.  Only beaten 2teams with better than .500.  You went on to point out Penn St. has a 6-5 record so it was 3.  To point out QUALITY WINS by top teams.  and weak schedules.  I went on to say, well KY has the same thing... and a loss.

 Then you go on to say IU has only beaten 1 team that will make it in the tournament (PURE CONJECTURE)  Because I pointed out the falacy of your .500 argument by COMPARING it to a top 5 team that has the EXACT same thing.  Same with KY (only one I really looked deeply at but they are the consensus #3) That is my point. 

Say what you want about IU and their schedule but if you fail to compare it to the teams WE ARE COMPARING (eg. top 20 in Parrish's poll) it means little.  No teams can say they played 2 or 3 great teams and have won them and have no losses.  IU may not be able to, but that means little, no one can.

Do you think that Indiana would beat most of the teams ranked above them on a neutral court?


YES!  Most of them (more than half) ranked over them in Parrish's poll.  And several in the AP and Coaches.

They haven't proven that they can beat a ranked team on a neutral court. 


Your opinion.

Why do you believe that?


Again, based on their record, ppg, who they have played, who they have beaten, how they play, margin of victory, COMPARABLE games to other in top 20, etc. etc.. basically their resume.

If you don't then why do you assert that they should be ranked ahead of them?


If I didn't we would not be having this debate.



Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 1:28 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

We have to vote on who we think is the best.  Have no choice.  Why you think that team is the best includes their resume.  You just don't get the idea of premise and conclusion. 
No, I get the idea of premise and conclusion just fine. You just can't wrap your tiny little head around the idea that the voters don't vote the same way you do.

You insist that people should vote a certain way.  That isn't reality.  I'm talking about reality.  

They can vote however they damn well want, and they do. 

You're simply confusing two similar things because they often overlap a lot.  But that doesn't mean they are the same thing.  

Percieved strength is how good you think a team is, regardless of who they've played so far.  Their resume doesn't factor in at all.  It is a totally seperate concept and idea.  Combine those two totally seperate and distinct things, with a third completely disticnt factor (voter expectations) and you get a team's ranking.  

Yes, the ranking and their perceived strength often overlap but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. To suggest that they are just goes to show how screwed up your logic is.

Here's the thing.  You can argue about this until you're blue in the face.  IU is still going to have a lower ranking than you want. And all of your impotent protesting will never change that.




Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 1:19 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

When did I change my tune?  I just said you don't rank the best as the best.  I think that is stupid.  I didn't throw anything out the window.  Just pointed out that not ranking the team you think is best (by whatever standard you use) at number 1, is stupid.  
Well, I happen to believe that teams earn their ranking by playing some tough competition along with just being good.  I might think team A is a bunch of world beaters, but if they haven't played anyone good I'm not going to rank them #1.  THat's why I look at resumes besides just watching a team play and deciding if I think they are good or not.  

Well to reallyt clarify how the polls work, people rank the teams based on who they think are the best.  You may claim to know each individuals thought process.  But I contend you are crazy.  I am pretty sure each voter ranks the team from best to worst based on their own opinion on how teams stack up to each other.  Thats how I do it.  Now, not all of them think the same and I am sure some rankings are skewed by expectations.  But they still just rank the teams as they see them or perceive them..
Well, my explination perfectly explains why everyone is ranked where they are.  Your does not.  But yeah, I'm the crazy one.

Is Indiana actually ranked in the Top 10?  Sure as shat, they aren't.  I guess that means you're wrong.  

I do believe this is where I call "scoreboard" (or ranking page more appropriately)

I will also contend that your 1) "perceived strenght (or who is the best)" is the same as the ranking.  If you perceive Ohio St as the best team, then you think they are the best team and rank them, well, as the best team.  Your still using only 2 reasons.  your 1) is the conclusion.  Deny it, I don't care, but who is the best is who the best is. and that team should be #1.  
Your lack of understanding does not mean it isn't so.  

If everyone truly voted for who they thought was best, the rankings wouldn't change nearly as much from week to week.  A single game shouldn't really change the perception of a team.  UNC dropped in the polls after they lost @ UK.  If you thought they were the #3 team in the country before they played UK there was absolutely nothing in that game to make you think they weren't the #3 team in the country afterward.  But yet they dropped.  The perception of the team didn't change.  Their resume did.  Point being, ranking changed.  Perceived strength didn't.  Perceived strength is NOT the same thing as ranking.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, or if it doesn't make sense to you.  That's still the way things actually work.



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 1:08 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Now you're changing your tune completely, and we're just throwing resumes out the window andnow we're just voting on who we think is best regardless of anything else?


we have to vote on who we think is the best.  Have no choice.  Why you think that team is the best includes their resume.  You just don't get the idea of premise and conclusion. 

The conclusion is the beleif.   eg. Ohio St. is the best.

The premise is the reasoning behind the belief.   eg. Based on their Wins/Losses, ppg, margin of victory, who they play, how they play, yada yada...Their resume.

One supports the other.

If you think Ohio St. is the best, you should have reasons to support that belief.  Like their resume.

I really think you should take some classes on logic and reason.  Read Rosen's book The Philospher's Handbook.  It shows you valid argument forms, proper reasoning technique and critical thinking practices.   You may actually have some valid arguments, but you have failed to put them into a valid form.   Stating that you wouldn't rank the team you think is the best at #1 is kinda scary.  You gotta have reasons to think they are the best.  Not sure what your reasoning is to not rank them as the best.


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