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: November 15, 2010 3:41 pm
Edited on: November 16, 2010 12:27 pm
 
Remember how two voters got Poll Attacked for putting Kansas State No. 1 in the preseason?

Well, they've changed their votes this week and put Duke No. 1.

That means their ballots now look more sensible.

But they're gonna get Poll Attacked again, still.

Let's go!

(Details of AP ballots courtesy of PollSpeak.com. )

Associated Press poll: The only thing sillier than ranking Kansas State No. 1 in the preseason is dropping KSU after a 75-61 win over James Madison, but that's precisely what Dave Jones and Kevin Dunleavy did this week, presumably because they were worried about being featured in consecutive Poll Attacks. Well now look. Trying to avoid the Poll Attacks has landed them right back in the Poll Attacks, because neither understand how to properly rank and predict. So allow me to offer a lesson, and that lesson is this: Always stick with it until you can't anymore!

When I do something stupid -- like leave Northern Iowa unranked all last season, for example -- I stand strong until there's no way to stand anymore. It took a little dude hitting a wacky shot against top-ranked Kansas for me to admit my mistake about UNI, and rest assured I was never going to admit it otherwise. I might be stubborn, but I don't go out like a little B. So if I would've been off enough to rank Kansas State No. 1 in the preseason, there's no way I would've changed before Kansas State lost and made me change. That's where Dave and Kevin went wrong with this ballot. They gave up too soon. Now they look crazy twice.

Coaches poll: Villanova ahead of Kansas. Kansas ahead of Villanova. Honest to God, it doesn't matter to me because we're way too early in the season to be seriously debating whether a team that lost Scottie Reynolds is better than a team that lost Sherron Collins, Xavier Henry and Cole Aldrich. Me? I have Villanova ranked No. 8 and Kansas ranked No. 11, but if you wanted to put Kansas at No. 8 and Villanova at No. 11, I'm cool with it.

In other words, they appear to be the same class of team.

We could find out differently later.

But for now, they seem to be in the same class. And they both won their openers with ease. Which is why I can't understand why Kansas was ahead of Villanova in the first coaches poll but is now behind Villanova in the second coaches poll. KU was sixth and Villanova was seventh. Now Villanova is sixth and KU is seventh. Why the flipflop? Is it because Josh Selby isn't available (because the reality is that he was never going to be available in the first week anyway)? And does anybody really think Selby is merely the difference between the Jayhawks being sixth and seventh in the country? More likely, he's the difference between them being top five or top 15 (just like Enes Kanter is the difference between Kentucky being top five or top 15).

Those are all rhetorical questions, by the way.

Here's the truth: The reason for the flipflop is because many coaches have no idea what their first ballot looked like. They just sat down Sunday and scribbled names with little regard to what they scribbled on their first ballot, causing inexplicable changes to rankings that give me something to Poll Attack even when a ranked team has yet to lose.
Comments

Since: Oct 6, 2006
Posted on: November 15, 2010 11:57 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

I-N-I



Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: November 15, 2010 11:22 pm
 

The Poll Attacks / Repeal

For the love of God, man, repeal the Poll Attacks!



Since: Aug 28, 2009
Posted on: November 15, 2010 11:10 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

I-L-L



Since: Jun 16, 2010
Posted on: November 15, 2010 10:55 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Honestly, there shouldn't be a significant change in the poll. But, if there would be any, it would be because either: 1. a key player gets injured, or 2. A rank team defeated a tough opponent. A team that should boost up the rank would be Georgetown, defeating Old Dominion (CAA defending champ) at the road. Other teams should not go up the rank for defeating a 1-AA team, because it should be a simple victory. However, if there were to be teams to drop down, we could do so if a key player(s) gets injured (but not a dramatic drop).



Since: Feb 4, 2008
Posted on: November 15, 2010 10:13 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

There's a difference between losing a Second Team-All American and Big Ten Preseason Player of the Year and losing just one of six 4-/5-star (per Rivals.com) incoming freshman before he's even played a minute.

Purdue still returns more production than KU and UK because they still have JaJuan Johnson and E'twaun Moore.  So are returning stars important or not?  UK and KU are ranked based on highly touted freshman, then you act like they can just lose these highly touted freshman and still have a leg up on Purdue.  It's a joke.  Without Hummel, Purdue made it as far as KU and one round back from UK, Purdue also lost to the eventual champion unlike the previously mentioned teams.  Everyone still just remembers the struggle in the Big Ten tournament...adjustment time is over folks.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!




Since: Nov 20, 2006
Posted on: November 15, 2010 7:00 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

So UK and KU drop from top 5 to top 15 if they lose a key player.  Purdue drops from top 3 to 23rd when they lost a key player.  Attack your own poll GP.
I don't see the problem here. The fact that KU and UK remain robust minus one player is a testament to the fact that they are loaded with players.  KU and UK have better supporting casts, plain and simple.




Since: Mar 12, 2007
Posted on: November 15, 2010 6:19 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

So UK and KU drop from top 5 to top 15 if they lose a key player.  Purdue drops from top 3 to 23rd when they lost a key player.  Attack your own poll GP.

There's a difference between losing a Second Team-All American and Big Ten Preseason Player of the Year and losing just one of six 4-/5-star (per Rivals.com) incoming freshman before he's even played a minute.




Since: Feb 8, 2007
Posted on: November 15, 2010 6:00 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

A) I don't drop teams just because they lose. I agree with your point there.

B) If you didn't know Irving, Curry, Dawkins, Smith, Singler and the Plumlees were gonna be awesome, you're not that bright. You shouldn't have needed to see what happened last night to know that.



Since: Oct 3, 2009
Posted on: November 15, 2010 4:46 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

Gary, I completely disagree with your construction of "stubbornness."  Pollsters should rank teams every week based on who they think is the best team; is it not possible that pollsters in the preseason thought that Duke's back court would be lacking this season with the departure of Jon Scheyer, only to see in Duke's opening game that the shooting of Seth Curry, Andre Dawkins, and Kyrie Irving will more than make up for it?  In such a scenario, I would expect that pollster to possibly be conviced to rank Duke #1.  There's no reason to think that you can only shuffle your rankings in the case of a loss; likewise, there's no real logic behind dropping a team in the rankings just because they lost a game.  For example, if the #2 team in the country played the #1 team in the country on the road and lost in overtime by 1 point, does that necessarily mean they should be ranked 3, 4, or 5?



Since: Feb 4, 2008
Posted on: November 15, 2010 4:31 pm
 

The Poll Attacks

So UK and KU drop from top 5 to top 15 if they lose a key player.  Purdue drops from top 3 to 23rd when they lost a key player.  Attack your own poll GP.


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