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: Jan 5, 2009
Posted on: December 21, 2011 11:19 am
 

The Poll Attacks

Thanks for pointing this out, Parrish. As a UNLV fan, we are used to the bias, so spreading the word to the masses is nice. If nothing else, the constant under rating of teams like this by poll voters has taught us that it really doesn't matter in the big picture. We have a high RPI. Our conference is decent. We'll make the tourney and settle things properly.



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:57 am
 

The Poll Attacks

No, my conclusion is that there are 3 factors that affect the rankings.  If none of those three factors rank in the top 10 individually, it is stupid to expect the overall ranking to be in the top 10. 



You listed 3 factors to support your conclusion, copy and pasted from your post with a bold face by me pointing out the 3.

So without a top 10 resume, and without being a top 10 team, and without top 10 expectations, you expect IU to be ranked in the top 10 why exactly?  Because you're biased.


Without a top 10 resume.  well you said not all top 10 teams have a top 10 resume.  You said it.  reason one, refuted.

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.

Without top 10 expectations..  So because they were not expected to, they are not. 

No, my conclusion is that there are 3 factors that affect the rankings.  If none of those three factors rank in the top 10 individually, it is stupid to expect the overall ranking to be in the top 10.  

So I guess my real conclusion is that I'm rude and you're stupid.

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.


So like I said we are down to

Without top 10 expectations.  No one expected IU to be in the top 10, so they are not.  Thats it.  You are probably right.  But that isn't good enough to stop me from complaining.


"Big 10" team is irrelevant.

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.

10-0 against unranked teams.  10-0 against teams with an average RPI of 226.  10-0 against teams with an average Sagarin rating of 221.  10-0 against teams with an average of 3.5 wins.  10-0 against teams with an average of 6.5 losses.  By whatever metric you want to use, these teams are bad.  It's a bad schedule.  Bad.  No way around it. 

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.

3)  Outside of UK you've played 2 teams with a winning record.  2.  Two.  Tee Double-You Oh.  2.
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


4) It's probably never happened because there's never been a team that's managed to play this poor of a schedule thus far. 


Oh you mean like HALF THE TOP 10?


Each and every point.






Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:55 am
 

The Poll Attacks

1) IU is undefeated at 11-0
There are multiple undefeated teams right now.  Not all of them are in the top 20.  Win/Loss record without context is meaningless.

2) they have creamed the puffs by average margin of victory of 32 ppg.
Considering the competition, this is no feat.  The teams you averaged this against are ranked (pretty closely on RPI and Sag) an average of 265.  THat's not a bad ranking.  That's abysmal.  They're averaging less than 3 wins per team.  Blowing out creampuffs isn't anything special.  It's simply what is expected.

3) they have beaten teams people thought would test them before the year BASED ON EXPECTATIONS shown in the polls.  Butler, NCstate and Notre Dame were all expected to be better than IU.  Done so by 12 ppg margin of victory.
And here's the thing you don't seem to understand about EXPECTATIONS.  They can be overcome by MULTIPLE disproofs.  All have picked up MULTIPLE losses nullifying their expectations.  We aren't wondering if Butler is any good.  We know they aren't now.  None of those teams is as good as expected.  We know that.

4)  I have watched every game, IU is deep and good.  Zeller is amazing, is competing with KY star for freshman of the year.
Have you watched every game from every other team ranked?  You have to have something to COMPARE those games to, right?  And having a star player doesn't get you a free pass to the top 25.  

5) They beat KY, were in control of the entire game, except maybe 5-7 min total.  Withheld a last 3 min comeback from kentucky (hard to do) and hit a CLUTCH 3 point shot to win the game.
Beating UK didn't get Alabama into the tournament last year.  (or South Carolina the year before) It certainly isn't going to get you into the Top 20 all by itself.

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.



Rankings are based on 1) Resume 2) Team strength and 2) POLLSTERS expectations.  You need a top 10 (20) combination of those 3 things to be ranke in the top 10 (20)

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?



Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:54 am
 

The Poll Attacks

The irony here is that Trolly is actually the one being trolled.



Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:52 am
 

The Poll Attacks

The irony here is that Trolly is actually the one peong trolled.



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:31 am
 

The Poll Attacks

TrollyMcTroller

Your arguments are easy to refute.  I will list the reasons (again) that I think IU is a top 10 team.  Not complaining that they are not.  I understand people see things different.  I don't understand the ranking outside the top 20 by parrish, WHICH IS MY ARGUMENT.

1) IU is undefeated at 11-0

2) they have creamed the puffs by average margin of victory of 32 ppg.

3) they have beaten teams people thought would test them before the year BASED ON EXPECTATIONS shown in the polls.  Butler, NCstate and Notre Dame were all expected to be better than IU.  Done so by 12 ppg margin of victory.

4)  I have watched every game, IU is deep and good.  Zeller is amazing, is competing with KY star for freshman of the year.

5) They beat KY, were in control of the entire game, except maybe 5-7 min total.  Withheld a last 3 min comeback from kentucky (hard to do) and hit a CLUTCH 3 point shot to win the game.

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.

Thats it.  Make any of those reasons look wrong and you refute my argument, and I have to start over.  You have not done so.  But I am able to answer each AND EVERY ONE (not just one chain) or your premise.  You have not done one of mine (which is all you really need to do)  but mine are all true.



Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:31 am
 

The Poll Attacks

You are talking in circles.  Look above, you listed 3 reasons and included in those reasons the conclusion.  So you have 2 reasons.  
Sorry.  I thought it was obvious to anybody with a modest amount of intellect.  I'll clarify for you though.

The first expectations are the expectations of the people that matter, ie the coaches and the AP voters.  The later was a reference to what you expect.  It was'nt a circular reference in the least.

Without a top 10 resume.  Which you conceded earlier that the top 10 ranked teams don't have the best 10 resumes,  kinda making that point, pointless.
By itself, yes.  That's why I was sure to include it with the other poinys, which you conveniently took out of context again.  At best you're being disingenious with all of these out of context quotes.  At worst, you're just a raving idiot.  Care to enlighten me as to scenario you actually belong?

Down to "without top 10 expectations",  conclude that because IU wasn't expected to be in the top 10, they are not.
No, my conclusion is that there are 3 factors that affect the rankings.  If none of those three factors rank in the top 10 individually, it is stupid to expect the overall ranking to be in the top 10.  

So I guess my real conclusion is that I'm rude and you're stupid.





Since: May 31, 2011
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:21 am
 

The Poll Attacks

I disagree.  And even think you are a little delusinal....  or maybe just stubbornly obstinate.  Either way, I disagree.  You have no clue, thats my opinion.  Without the KY win you see a big 10 team, undefeated at 10-0 with no team coming within 11 points and an average margin of victory of 27 points per game not in the top 25.  That has never happend before in the history of the polls.  But that is your stand.  

1)  "Big 10" team is irrelevant.  Have you played any Big 10 teams yet?  Then why does it matter if you're a Big 10 team?  Without an conference games being played, conference affiliation is utterly meaningless.  Just goes to show your bias though.

2)  10-0 against unranked teams.  10-0 against teams with an average RPI of 226.  10-0 against teams with an average Sagarin rating of 221.  10-0 against teams with an average of 3.5 wins.  10-0 against teams with an average of 6.5 losses.  By whatever metric you want to use, these teams are bad.  It's a bad schedule.  Bad.  No way around it.  

3)  Outside of UK you've played 2 teams with a winning record.  2.  Two.  Tee Double-You Oh.  2.

4) It's probably never happened because there's never been a team that's managed to play this poor of a schedule thus far.  

Again, if the world had higher expectations for IU coming into the season and they were started of as a top 25 team then they would certainly still be in the top 25 (without the UK win) but the reality of the situation is they weren't ranked, and the pollsters wouldn't reward them for playing such a crappy schedule.  Which is, incidentally, part of the reason they aren't currently ranked higher, even with the UK win.  



Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:19 am
 

The Poll Attacks

So without a top 10 resume, and without being a top 10 team, and without top 10 expectations, you expect IU to be ranked in the top 10 why exactly?  Because you're biased. 



You are talking in circles.  Look above, you listed 3 reasons and included in those reasons the conclusion.  So you have 2 reasons. 


Without a top 10 resume.  Which you conceded earlier that the top 10 ranked teams don't have the best 10 resumes,  kinda making that point, pointless.

Down to "without top 10 expectations",  conclude that because IU wasn't expected to be in the top 10, they are not.


Good one.







Since: Aug 24, 2006
Posted on: December 21, 2011 10:09 am
 

The Poll Attacks

sorry for the double post, kept giving me an error and appeared my post vanished.


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