Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. 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.
Comments

Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 1:04 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Um, no.  Remember we look at the WHOLE picture.
Um no, remember the conversation.  I said that IU wasn't the only undefeated team not in the top 20.  You certainly didn't refute that claim.  In fact it appeared that you agree with it, since it is indeed an undesputed fact.


Yep, IU has a good wins, no bad losses.  Wait no losses.

Fixed that for you.

But you do consider Penn St.????  You posted it about KY.  Ride that fence boy.   I will also bet that Butler wins the Horizon.  Won't go far in the tourny but they play in the Horizon.  I follow them as well.  Horizon is weak.  Butler will be there.  Not that it matters...
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.    
 
Nope, I conceded that.  Although I do DISAGREE.  
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.

What if you have no bad losses but have a huge win.  Gotta give somewhere.  Mutliple wins, mulitple losses equal out.  What about no losses and quality wins???  Thats where IU is.
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.

Well I gues we just have to disagree on this.  Right now, no one has mulitple quality wins without losses.  IU has quality wins, with no losses.  I just don't see how you can't give credit for that.  
IU has 1 quality win.  I'm going by selection committee criteria.  not wins.  Win.  Singular.  Just 1.

Guess we all have to pick what means much for ourselves, cause yours just doesn't make sense to me.  But you don't rank the best as the best either... go figure, we think different.
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.

Ok, pick out 10 top 20 teams and tell me how many  top 5 teams they have beaten.  We are comparing teams in ranking.  You can't just say IU has only 1 top 20 win and leave out the rest of the top 20.    Still don't get it.  That reason doesn't mean anything if the rest of the teams are essentially in the same boat (with few exceptions).  But can't say they have top 10 wins or better yet top 5 wins.  That is what you are not getting.  Just keep saying IU has only beaten KY.  Well right now, compared to others add the undefeated, margin of victory, yada yada... IU looks just as good compared to others in top 20... well make that top 10.
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.

You listed 3 reasons.  One of the reasons was the conclusion.  Take that away and you have 2.  Then you go on to say something about percieved strenght... well that is the same as their rankings.  Again the conclusion.  If you say perceived strength isn't the same as the ranking then it has to be the same as expectations.  Still only 2 things.  
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.

See, you expected them to be top 5.  Then you currently think top 15.  well if you think their strength is 15, NOW.  Why wouldn't that be your ranking of the team???  Kinda like the whole i wouldn't rank the team I think is the best as #1.  That just doesn't make sense.  You do a lot of that.
Do you think that Indiana would beat most of the teams ranked above them on a neutral court?  They haven't proven that they can beat a ranked team on a neutral court.  Why do you believe that?  If you don't then why do you assert that they should be ranked ahead of them?



 
 



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 12:55 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

So earlier, rankings were supposed to be all about resumes.  This team has a better resume so it should be ranked ahead of another resume.

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?

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. 


Interesting.

Well just to clarify how the polls actually work (as I've already stated numerous times) they are a combination of 1) Perceived strength (or "who's the best") 2) Expectations (by the pollsters, not the retarded fans) and 3) Resume.

That's 3 things.  They look at all three.  I even numbered them for you so you could be sure to tell that there are 3.  .


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..

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. 



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 12:32 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

"Yes, you're right.  Not all of the undefeated teams are in the top 20" would have also sufficed.

Um, no.  Remember we look at the WHOLE picture.

The two most important things on a resume is quality wins, followed by bad losses.  After that it's just a matter of figureing out how the rest of the wins and losses happened.  It's pretty much the same stuff the NCAA selection committee uses to guage resumes.  You know the commitee that selects teams to play in the NCAA tournament.  Oh... maybe you've forgotten.  My bad.


Yep, IU has good wins, no bad losses.  Wait no losses.

ND, Butler and NCState are all likely to miss the tournament this year.  I don't consider those quality wins.  (that could change later on in the season, but for now, they're all looking doubtful)


But you do consider Penn St.????  You posted it about KY.  Ride that fence boy.   I will also bet that Butler wins the Horizon.  Won't go far in the tourny but they play in the Horizon.  I follow them as well.  Horizon is weak.  Butler will be there.  Not that it matters...

And that's also why I've continued to point out that resume isn't the only thing that counts in the rankings.  You seem to keep missing that piint though.  Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

Nope, I conceded that.  Although I do DISAGREE. 
Multiple bad losses do.  If hypothetically, your only two losses were to the #1 and #2 teams in the country (and they were competitive too) I don't think those necessarily change the rankings much.

What if you have no bad losses but have a huge win.  Gotta give somewhere.  Mutliple wins, mulitple losses equal out.  What about no losses and quality wins???  Thats where IU is.

most of the losses that teams in the top 20 have don't mean much either.


Well I gues we just have to disagree on this.  Right now, no one has mulitple quality wins without losses.  IU has quality wins, with no losses.  I just don't see how you can't give credit for that.  Guess we all have to pick what means much for ourselves, cause yours just doesn't make sense to me.  But you don't rank the best as the best either... go figure, we think different.



And how many ranked teams has IU defeated?  Just 1.

Ok, pick out 10 top 20 teams and tell me how many  top 5 teams they have beaten.  We are comparing teams in ranking.  You can't just say IU has only 1 top 20 win and leave out the rest of the top 20.    Still don't get it.  That reason doesn't mean anything if the rest of the teams are essentially in the same boat (with few exceptions).  But can't say they have top 10 wins or better yet top 5 wins.  That is what you are not getting.  Just keep saying IU has only beaten KY.  Well right now, compared to others add the undefeated, margin of victory, yada yada... IU looks just as good compared to others in top 20... well make that top 10.


If you really want to drive home the "IU fans can't count" point, feel free.

You listed 3 reasons.  One of the reasons was the conclusion.  Take that away and you have 2.  Then you go on to say something about percieved strenght... well that is the same as their rankings.  Again the conclusion.  If you say perceived strength isn't the same as the ranking then it has to be the same as expectations.  Still only 2 things. 

The date.  One is current the other is past.  My expectations for UConn were of a top 5 team, on the same level as OSU, UNC and UK.  I currently think they are well below that.  More on the order of a top 15 team.  That is their current strength.  I think their ranking around 10 is appropriate.


See, you expected them to be top 5.  Then you currently think top 15.  well if you think their strength is 15, NOW.  Why wouldn't that be your ranking of the team???  Kinda like the whole i wouldn't rank the team I think is the best as #1.  That just doesn't make sense.  You do a lot of that.



Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 12:17 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

I've been arguing with someone who wouldn't even rank the best as the best.   Not sure, but maybe I am an idiot... Just for trying to reason with someone who lacks the ability to reason.
So earlier, rankings were supposed to be all about resumes.  This team has a better resume so it should be ranked ahead of another resume.

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?

Interesting.

Well just to clarify how the polls actually work (as I've already stated numerous times) they are a combination of 1) Perceived strength (or "who's the best") 2) Expectations (by the pollsters, not the retarded fans) and 3) Resume.

That's 3 things.  They look at all three.  I even numbered them for you so you could be sure to tell that there are 3.  .






Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 12:07 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Its not semantics.  its logic.  You simply can't defend a conclusion with the conclusion.  What is different about perceived team strength and expectations.
The date.  One is current the other is past.  My expectations for UConn were of a top 5 team, on the same level as OSU, UNC and UK.  I currently think they are well below that.  More on the order of a top 15 team.  That is their current strength.  I think their ranking around 10 is appropriate.

Do I really need to point out to you that those are 2 reasons again?
If you really want to drive home the "IU fans can't count" point, feel free.

Ok, you got me, KY has 3 wins against teams that are above .500... Oh wait a second, doesn't IU?
And how many ranked teams has IU defeated?  Just 1.

Um, no.  They look all pretty similar to IU.  Kinda what I been saying all along.  I'll give you some like 5 of the top 10.  But thats all I see.  Oh and most of them also have losses.  You don't count losses in your equation?   Gotta include it all when comparing TOTAL BODY OF WORK.  Thats what I do.
I look at losses the same way I look at wins. It's going to take more than 1 loss to make me change my opinion of a team.  And much Like most of IU's wins don't really prove anything, most of the losses that teams in the top 20 have don't mean much either.  

Muliple.  Quality.  Losses.. They matter.
Multiple bad losses do.  If hypothetically, your only two losses were to the #1 and #2 teams in the country (and they were competitive too) I don't think those necessarily change the rankings much.

I thought that was implied.  My comparison of IU vs. teams in the top 10 was an attempt to show how asanine it is to keep IU out of top 20 because their resume, body of work is comparable to not just top 20 teams, but to top 10 teams.
And that's also why I've continued to point out that resume isn't the only thing that counts in the rankings.  You seem to keep missing that piint though.  Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

I like how you want to just argue my bias opinion, but havn't chosen to select the teams you follow.  I guess I will just claim the same thing.
Well for starters, you clearly are biased, so I thought it was worth a mention.  Also I'm not just arguing bias.  I've also gone to pretty great lengths to pint out how your logic is flawed too.  And I follow college basketball, not just one team.  If you can't figure out which team I'm biased for, I must not be very biased.

But that isn't what I said.   I don't see 10 with a better resume.  Like the whole thing.  But you just look at quality wins, and they are only quality if you say so, don't look at the rest of the stuff I mentioned "compare the above to those teams" and just point out 1 quality win.  Which if you ask me, its at least 3.  ND isn't bad at 8-5, NCState isn't bad at 7-4 and even Butler at 5-7 isnt' a bad team(just not a good team) when you consider they have losses to gonzaga, xavier, IU and louisvill
The two most important things on a resume is quality wins, followed by bad losses.  After that it's just a matter of figureing out how the rest of the wins and losses happened.  It's pretty much the same stuff the NCAA selection committee uses to guage resumes.  You know the commitee that selects teams to play in the NCAA tournament.  Oh... maybe you've forgotten.  My bad.

ND, Butler and NCState are all likely to miss the tournament this year.  I don't consider those quality wins.  (that could change later on in the season, but for now, they're all looking doubtful) 

I count 5.  All in Parrish's top 10. Except 2.  IU is the only non-midmajor, undefeated team not in the top 10.  IU is also the only undefeated team that has beaten a consensus top 5 team.  And I think they are the only undefeated team to beat a top 10 team.
"Yes, you're right.  Not all of the undefeated teams are in the top 20" would have also sufficed.







Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 11:57 am
 

The Poll Attacks

For example, I would not rank Ohio State #1 right now, but I think they are the best team in the country.



I dont like to call people stupid, although I have done it.  But that statement is stupid.  If you think Ohio St. is the best team in the country, WHY wouldn't you rank them as the best team in the country.  Thats what the rankings are.  You rank who you think the best teams in the country are based on why you think they are the best.

I've been arguing with someone who wouldn't even rank the best as the best.   Not sure, but maybe I am an idiot... Just for trying to reason with someone who lacks the ability to reason.



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 11:43 am
 

The Poll Attacks

There are multiple undefeated teams right now.  Not all of them are in the top 20


I count 5.  All in Parrish's top 10. Except 2.  IU is the only non-midmajor, undefeated team not in the top 10.  IU is also the only undefeated team that has beaten a consensus top 5 team.  And I think they are the only undefeated team to beat a top 10 team.




Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 11:34 am
 

The Poll Attacks

Oh, pardon me, Captain Semantics.  I'm referring to perceived team strength.  For example, I would not rank Ohio State #1 right now, but I think they are the best team in the country.  Their perceived strength is #1 even though their ranking is not.



Its not semantics.  its logic.  You simply can't defend a conclusion with the conclusion.  What is different about perceived team strength and expectations.

Do I really need to point out to you that those are 2 reasons again?

UK has wins against UNC and Kansas.  UK has the benifit of being perceived as a great team this year.  UK was EXPECTED to be a top 5 team.  UK also has the benifit of knowing the difference between 2 and 3.  Something you STILL haven't managed to figure out yet.  (Penn State is 7-5)
Ok, you got me, KY has 3 wins against teams that are above .500... Oh wait a second, doesn't IU?

The differenc is almost every other team in the top 25 has multiple quality wins to go along with their cupcakes.  MULTIPLE.
Um, no.  They look all pretty similar to IU.  Kinda what I been saying all along.  I'll give you some like 5 of the top 10.  But thats all I see.  Oh and most of them also have losses.  You don't count losses in your equation?   Gotta include it all when comparing TOTAL BODY OF WORK.  Thats what I do.

Multiple.  Quality.  Wins.  They matter.

Muliple.  Quality.  Losses.. They matter.

Yeah...  too bad I beat you to it.
 

Yeah... sure you did.




Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 11:26 am
 

The Poll Attacks

But if you want to argue that you should be in the top 20 on Parrish's polls, why not just say why you should be ahead of MSU, UM and MSU, instead of going on some assinine rant about the top 10?



I thought that was implied.  My comparison of IU vs. teams in the top 10 was an attempt to show how asanine it is to keep IU out of top 20 because their resume, body of work is comparable to not just top 20 teams, but to top 10 teams.

I like how you want to just argue my bias opinion, but havn't chosen to select the teams you follow.  I guess I will just claim the same thing.

6) When I look at the other teams ranked above them in Parrish's pole and compare the above to those teams.  I don't see 10 with a better resume.  Not sure how you do. But hard to argue opinions.  Goes both ways though.
I can certainly find 10 teams with more than 1 quality win.  1 Quality win might be a fluke.  Multiple quality wins means you're legit.


But that isn't what I said.   I don't see 10 with a better resume.  Like the whole thing.  But you just look at quality wins, and they are only quality if you say so, don't look at the rest of the stuff I mentioned "compare the above to those teams" and just point out 1 quality win.  Which if you ask me, its at least 3.  ND isn't bad at 8-5, NCState isn't bad at 7-4 and even Butler at 5-7 isnt' a bad team(just not a good team) when you consider they have losses to gonzaga, xavier, IU and louisvill




Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 11:23 am
 

The Poll Attacks

1) Without a top 10 resume.  well you said not all top 10 teams have a top 10 resume.  You said it.  reason one, refuted.
No, you've refuted nothing.  I said you need to have a combination of the above mentioned 3 things.  All of the top 10 teams have at least 1 of the items I listed.  IU does not.

2) Without being a 10 ten team.  You define a word using that word?  This is not a premise, THIS IS THE CONCLUSION.  You can't support the conclusion with the conclusion.  And you call me an idiot.
Oh, pardon me, Captain Semantics.  I'm referring to perceived team strength.  For example, I would not rank Ohio State #1 right now, but I think they are the best team in the country.  Their perceived strength is #1 even though their ranking is not.

3) Without top 10 expectations..  So because they were not expected to, they are not.  
In combination with the above, yes exactly.

Um, you listed 2 factors not 3 (and you call me stupid) and then pointed out the flaw in the first in your own post by saying not all top 10 teams have a top 10 resume.  So, why is IU any different.  Because you say so?  Premise is flawed.  Sorry, its right there proven by you.
Evidently you just can't count, so I'm going to let that one go.

Irrelevant,,, hmmm and from someone who is basing their ENTIRE argument on expectations.  Why do I think it is relevant?  Easy, Big 10 recruiting, EXPECTATIONS, coaching, etc, etc... are all much better than say an undefeated MAC team.  Coach Crean is a great coach, IU has had phenominal recruiting, with expectations of NBA talent.  I like Murray State, very impressed, think they are top 20 team also, however to say their coach and recruiting compare to that of a big 10 team is stretching it.
Was IU in the Big 10 last year?  The year before?  Did you expect all of that Big 10 recruiting prowess to get you into the top 10?  The perception of your team is what it is, regardless of the conference you're in.

Well, I will give you 7.  I tend to look at the games tho, average margin of victory of 32ppg.  If you want to add the other 3, its 27ppg.   It's just as bad of a schedule as ALMOST EVERY TEAM in the top 25.  I compare and look at the games.  You give no credit, where credit is most certainly due.
The differenc is almost every other team in the top 25 has multiple quality wins to go along with their cupcakes.  MULTIPLE.  

Outside of IU, UK has played 2 teams with a winning record. 2 Two. Tee Double-You Oh 2. 

Oh and they lost the IU game : P
UK has wins against UNC and Kansas.  UK has the benifit of being perceived as a great team this year.  UK was EXPECTED to be a top 5 team.  UK also has the benifit of knowing the difference between 2 and 3.  Something you STILL haven't managed to figure out yet.  (Penn State is 7-5)  

Oh you mean like HALF THE TOP 10?
Multiple.  Quality.  Wins.  They matter.

Each and every point.
Yeah...  too bad I beat you to it.  







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