3/10 Polls

[rhovorka]

USCHO.com Division I Men's Poll
March 10, 2003

   Team      (First Place)    Record  Pts   Last Week
 1 Colorado College   (33)    26-5-5  593     1
 2 Cornell            ( 7)    24-4-1  561     2
 3 New Hampshire              23-7-6  516     3
 4 Ferris State               27-8-1  449     5
 5 Boston College             23-9-4  438     6
 6 Minnesota                  20-8-9  383     7
 7 Michigan                   24-9-3  308     8
 8 Boston University         23-12-3  293    10
 9 Maine                      24-9-5  282     4
10 MSU-Mankato               18-8-10  267     9
11 North Dakota               24-9-5  237    11
12 Harvard                    19-8-2  172    12
13 Ohio State                22-10-5  125    15
14 Denver                    20-12-6   54    14
15 Michigan State            21-13-2   47     -

Others receiving votes: Providence 27, 
St. Cloud State 22, Massachusetts 9, Dartmouth 8,
Minnesota-Duluth 6, Miami 2, Quinnipiac 1

[Adam]

Interesting how even this late in the season it can still differ so much with PWR.

[Section A]

Very surprised that while Maine dropped dramatically, there wasn't a coincident rise for UMass.

[KeithK \'93]

The difference isn't too surprising to me.  For example: BU may be #4 in the current PWR but with 12 losses it's hard to vote them that high in a poll.  Maine's losses this weekend don't look nearly as bad in the numbers as they do to the pollsters.  unny thing is, in those cases I think the polls have it right.  Maine *should* be punished for tanking at seaons end and getting swept at home in their playoff series (they still deserve a bid I think, but definitely a low seed).  Fifth place (in HE) BU doesn't deserve a top seed in the tourney, no matter what the SOS arguments are.

I think the differences simply point out real or perceived flaws in the selection criteria.

[KeithK \'93]

Rank School                             Pts (1st) Last  W-L-T
1.   Colorado College                   254 (16)   1   26-5-5
2.   Cornell University                 236 (1)    2   24-4-1
3.   University of New Hampshire        218        3   23-7-6
4.   Ferris State University            198        5   27-8-1
5.   Boston College                     183        6   23-9-4
6.   University of Minnesota            169        7   20-8-9
7.   Boston University                  137       10   23-12-3
8.   University of Michigan             133        9   24-9-3
9.   Minnesota State University-Mankato 118        8   18-8-10
10.  University of Maine                102        4   24-9-5
11.  University of North Dakota          97       11   24-9-5
12.  Harvard University                  66       12   19-8-2
13.  The Ohio State University           60       15   22-10-5
14.  University of Denver                32       14   20-12-6
15.  Michigan State University           24       NR   21-13-2

Others receiving votes: St. Cloud State University 8, 
Miami University (Ohio) 2, Providence College 2, 
University of Minnesota-Duluth 1.

[Adam]

Keith, I absolutely agree that the differences point out flaws in the selection criteria.  In some cases, sportswriters and coaches who watch these teams every week are in a better spot to assess equitable rankings than are computer models.

[KeithK \'93]

I kind of pull for Miami of Ohio since a good friend of mine went there.  But how the hell are they still getting votes?  They haven't been good in months.  Plus they lost to Sacred Heart.  They proabbly got a #14 vote in both polls, probably by the same person (assuming the set of voters intersect).

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Keith, I absolutely agree that the differences point out flaws in the selection criteria. In some cases, sportswriters and coaches who watch these teams every week are in a better spot to assess equitable rankings than are computer models.[/Q]
I absolutely agree that the differences point out the flaws of the pollsters. In no case can a sportswriter or coach follow all the teams in the country well enough to totally fairly distinguish a top 15. They would certainly not be aware of some games or of specific teams records versus the top teams. Plus, polls trend to a "what have you done for me lately" point of view. Had Maine had this loosing streak at the beginning, and finished up stronger, it would likely make a huge difference in the polls, with the pollsters all but forgetting about the early stuggles, while a mathematically system treats all games equally.



Post Edited (03-10-03 17:53)

[KeithK \'93]

I think Maine *should* be penalized for losing two at home to UMass in the playoffs.  The PWR and RPI wouldn't change if the losses were spread out around the season, but I think that this is a flaw in the system.  I would like to see a system where the playoff games are given more weight. I don't have a good suggestion, but I know what I'd like to see.

Delta, I agree with you that pollsters aren't objective and tend to put too much weight on what have you done lately.  Mathematical formulas are objective.  But they are only as "accurate" as the formula imposed.  Flaws in the system are objectively carried through to the results.

[DeltaOne81]

It's perfectly reasonable to have debates on what the mathematical formulas should include and how they should work, I just don't think that the polls are a good place to start looking for what the goal should be  ::yark:: . The polls have short-term memory in the season, and long-term memory for a school. UMass has had a pretty good season, beats Maine twice, and doesn't even get any votes in the polls. I'm sure them having never been a big time school has something to do with that.

[gwm3]

I don't know if playoff games should necessarily be given greater weight, but I do think that any ranking system should give an indication of how good a team is right now.  

Consider the following scenario: Team A wins its first 25 games, then has two of its star players go down with season ending-injuries and loses its last 5 games.  Team B loses its first 5 games while waiting for its star goalie to come back from an offseason injury, then goes on to win out its remaining 25 games.  Which of these teams deserves a higher seed going in to the tournament?  I would have to say it's team B, who is playing well now, and is going to be a much harder team to beat.

[ugarte]

It depends on whether you think the seeds are supposed to reflect who the committee thinks is going to win, or to reflect the team that has had the best season.

A system that treats game 1 the same as game 30 comes closer to giving a neutral evaluation of a team's season long performance and seems to me to be the better method for selection/seeding.

[Chris 02]

All this stuff with the recent memory was recently removed from the PWR rankings and the NCAA selection criteria when they chopped off the "Last 16" as part of the formula to compute your rating.  

Is anyone here seriously advocating that we bring that back?  Wasn't the reason they got rid of it because most teams play the final games in the season against teams from their own conference (which are sometimes very weak)?

[jtwcornell91]

Should a team which tanks at the end of a conference regular season be seeded lower in their conference playoffs than their overall conference record (which is determined by their play over the whole season) would call for?

[Al DeFlorio]

KeithK '93 wrote:

> I would like to see a system where the playoff games are given more weight.

Amen to that.

To the tournament winners, playoff games mean automatic berths--->they turn out to be very important games.  To everyone else, they count the same as the Anchorage-vs.-Fairbanks season opener--->ho-hummers.  It's just not consistent.  

Perhaps tournament performance could be considered in a manner similar to the mysterious "quality wins" factor in adjusting final RPI.



Post Edited (03-10-03 20:07)