We're #1!!

[JetpackJesus]

When Stephen F Austin beat #1 Duke on November 26, 2019, at Cameron, should the AP voters have voted SF Austin #1? Or put them ahead of Duke, or one spot behind us? Or even put them in the top 25? Because nobody put them ahead of Duke in the next week's rankings and only seven voters ranked them at all. I assume you didn't think it was ridiculous then?

This isn't even comparing fruits, though. SFA was not the #5 team when it beat #1. And it did not beat #1 in a week where #2 and #4 lost (I did not look this up to confirm). It definitely did not have the same record as, and better wins than, the #3 team that did not lose.

I think we can safely infer all those factors without reading Cameron's post to say any team that beats the #1 team should become the new #1.

[dukefan5656]

Ah, yes. The down-to-earth, level-headed discussion that we are told happens over there

You're clearly referencing me and they did have a more level-headed take on the Paolo and Savarino issue which was exactly my point; they are nut cases (even more so than IC) which made the crazy overreactions on here all that much more ridiculous.

[flyingdutchdevil]

This isn't even comparing fruits, though. SFA was not the #5 team when it beat #1. And it did not beat #1 in a week where #2 and #4 lost (I did not look this up to confirm). It definitely did not have the same record as, and better wins than, the #3 team that did not lose.

I think we can safely infer all those factors without reading Cameron's post to say any team that beats the #1 team should become the new #1.

Also, SFA came in with a loss (to Rugters). Their "best" win was...I have no idea. They came in with wins over LeTourneau (who?), NC Central, Niagara, and Drexel.

Duke's body of work coming into the Zags game was much better: no losses and a win over a top 10 opponent on a neutral court.

If SFA had a top 10 win and was undefeated coming into the Duke game, then I'd expect them to be ranked in the top 10 after the #1 Duke win (and arguably leapfrog Duke). But, as JetpackJesus noted, this is apples to electric cars.

[Papa John]

@JesseNewell

There will be many Duke fans coming to this Twitter account soon, I'm sure, so if you are one of those, please read this story and reverse the names Duke and Gonzaga. Should explain a lot. ✌️

Jesse Newell hopes there will be a lot of Duke fans coming to his Twitter account soon... Why give him the satisfaction? His opinion is largely irrelevant.

[dukefan5656]

When Stephen F Austin beat #1 Duke on November 26, 2019, at Cameron, should the AP voters have voted SF Austin #1? Or put them ahead of Duke, or one spot behind us? Or even put them in the top 25? Because nobody put them ahead of Duke in the next week's rankings and only seven voters ranked them at all. I assume you didn't think it was ridiculous then?

I see the contrarian has arrived. I don't know all of the logical fallacies off of the top of my head, but I'm certain this fits the definition of one, or more, of them.

[JetpackJesus]

Jesse Newell hopes there will be a lot of Duke fans coming to his Twitter account soon... Why give him the satisfaction? His opinion is largely irrelevant.

Narrator: There weren't.
There Weren't.jpg

[Papa John]

Narrator: There weren't.
There Weren't.jpg

Outstanding!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Like I said in my earlier post, they got seven top 25 votes in the following poll.

Once you agree that pulling an upset doesn't automatically grant you ranking rights, isn't the rest just a matter of degree? SF Austin didn't deserve to be ahead of Duke (even though they beat us on our home court) because despite the loss Duke was still the better team. I think that's all the contrarian voter was really saying. Gonzaga was a 9-point favorite against Duke; despite the loss he still thinks Gonzaga is better. What's ridiculous about that?

That you suggested that an unranked team would be deserving of #1 after beating them. I made my statement with Duke as a #5 team (and higher in many "power rankings", so us jumping them is completely logical. For SFA to do the same would be ridiculous. I would not have made my statement if Duke were 6 or lower, and hadn't beaten solid teams prior to the game.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This isn't even comparing fruits, though. SFA was not the #5 team when it beat #1. And it did not beat #1 in a week where #2 and #4 lost (I did not look this up to confirm). It definitely did not have the same record as, and better wins than, the #3 team that did not lose.

I think we can safely infer all those factors without reading Cameron's post to say any team that beats the #1 team should become the new #1.

Posted my comment before reading yours. Exactly and thanks. Sporks your way! (If I can)

[cato]

Narrator: There weren't.
There Weren't.jpg

Nice to see. I certainly didn’t give that guy a view or a click.

[Kedsy]

I would not have made my statement if Duke were 6 or lower, and hadn't beaten solid teams prior to the game.

So after Duke won one game as a 9-point underdog while the team was ranked #5 it was ridiculous to not vote them #1, but if they had been ranked #6 it would have been fine?

This isn't even comparing fruits, though. SFA was not the #5 team when it beat #1. And it did not beat #1 in a week where #2 and #4 lost (I did not look this up to confirm). It definitely did not have the same record as, and better wins than, the #3 team that did not lose.

Actually, what it sounds like to me is you guys are relying on your own self-created metric, based on human polls and who lost this week. It's just that your metric is more simplistic, more arbitrary, less basketball-based, and less rational than the computer metric that the contrary AP voter is relying on.

[weezie]

...you guys are relying on your own self-created metric...It's just that your metric is more simplistic... and less rational...

Yes, guilty as charged. My metrics are all pretty simplistic and rarely rational. But, that's what makes me insufferable.

[CameronBornAndBred]

So after Duke won one game as a 9-point underdog while the team was ranked #5 it was ridiculous to not vote them #1, but if they had been ranked #6 it would have been fine?

You are totally trolling this subject now.

[Eternal Outlaw]

Like I said in my earlier post, they got seven top 25 votes in the following poll.

Once you agree that pulling an upset doesn't automatically grant you ranking rights, isn't the rest just a matter of degree? SF Austin didn't deserve to be ahead of Duke (even though they beat us on our home court) because despite the loss Duke was still the better team. I think that's all the contrarian voter was really saying. Gonzaga was a 9-point favorite against Duke; despite the loss he still thinks Gonzaga is better. What's ridiculous about that?

For me it would be that a human poll is being decided apparently by a computer or betting lines at least for one fellow. If the guy had said he thought Gonzaga was the better team and Duke scrapped by because their two bigs were in foul trouble and they are not likely to be in that state much during the year plus they just destroyed UCLA then that's a fine human observation to make to have them above Duke. If it's Vegas/computer models tells him that Gonzaga would be favored, well, ok, um, do you have any thoughts on if they are right or wrong from watching the game (under no impression these guys actually watch every game to rank teams but I hope they all watched this match-up like any top 5 match-up) or what?

It just seems lazy. Don't question me, all these other things think the same way too! Except I don't know if you actually feel that way or just hiding behind other things.

My brother is a much bigger stat guy than me. Sometimes he cites one for a discussion in favor of what he's arguing and I ask him to break down the entire metric since I can't really argue against what I don't know. Most of the time he can't even break down the metrics that get used as potential arguement winners. So it bothers me that a guy might rank with metrics he doesn't understand rather than what he saw. And if he saw Gonzaga as still deserving #1, fine, that is still reasonable but please don't use metrics or favorite lines.

[JetpackJesus]

So after Duke won one game as a 9-point underdog while the team was ranked #5 it was ridiculous to not vote them #1, but if they had been ranked #6 it would have been fine?



Actually, what it sounds like to me is you guys are relying on your own self-created metric, based on human polls and who lost this week. It's just that your metric is more simplistic, more arbitrary, less basketball-based, and less rational than the computer metric that the contrary AP voter is relying on.

This thread is about the human poll, so it seems to me that using the human poll and who lost last week is a sensible metric. Also, I think the human polls should be based on what actually happened and not what a model (never mind the SSS) says should have happened. Otherwise, just get rid of the human polls (a topic for another thread). To be clear, I think models and advanced statistics are extremely useful when applied appropriately. I just think this voter is applying the models inappropriately.

Also, your response to my post does not address my original point. That is, that your post heavily implied, if not explicitly stated, that the post to which you were replying was saying that a team that beats #1 should become #1. There is no reason to make the SFA comparison otherwise. So unless Cameron is secretly Bill Walton--if you are, know that I meant everything I've ever said about you--Cameron's post obviously was not saying what you said/implied it was saying.

[dukefan5656]

So after Duke won one game as a 9-point underdog while the team was ranked #5 it was ridiculous to not vote them #1, but if they had been ranked #6 it would have been fine?



Actually, what it sounds like to me is you guys are relying on your own self-created metric, based on human polls and who lost this week. It's just that your metric is more simplistic, more arbitrary, less basketball-based, and less rational than the computer metric that the contrary AP voter is relying on.

Where would YOU rank Duke then? And what logic do you use to determine a team's rank, Mr. Smarty Pants?

Your condescending nature is really getting old by the way.

[Phredd3]

So after Duke won one game as a 9-point underdog while the team was ranked #5 it was ridiculous to not vote them #1, but if they had been ranked #6 it would have been fine?

Point to the post where he says that. Quite to the contrary, what CB&B actually says is this:

I'm ok if he is so beholden to the Zags that he leaves them at one, but not having Duke at #2 at least is ridiculous.

It might be time to reconsider, Kedsy. It's one thing to argue against a position, but it is desirable that the position being argued against is actually held by the person you are arguing with. The term "straw man" comes to mind here.

[JetpackJesus]

For me it would be that a human poll is being decided apparently by a computer or betting lines at least for one fellow. If the guy had said he thought Gonzaga was the better team and Duke scrapped by because their two bigs were in foul trouble and they are not likely to be in that state much during the year plus they just destroyed UCLA then that's a fine human observation to make to have them above Duke. If it's Vegas/computer models tells him that Gonzaga would be favored, well, ok, um, do you have any thoughts on if they are right or wrong from watching the game (under no impression these guys actually watch every game to rank teams but I hope they all watched this match-up like any top 5 match-up) or what?

It just seems lazy. Don't question me, all these other things think the same way too! Except I don't know if you actually feel that way or just hiding behind other things.

My brother is a much bigger stat guy than me. Sometimes he cites one for a discussion in favor of what he's arguing and I ask him to break down the entire metric since I can't really argue against what I don't know. Most of the time he can't even break down the metrics that get used as potential arguement winners. So it bothers me that a guy might rank with metrics he doesn't understand rather than what he saw. And if he saw Gonzaga as still deserving #1, fine, that is still reasonable but please don't use metrics or favorite lines.

Agreed. Why have the polls if they're just going to regurgitate the models? The polls and the models are different things. They should do different things.

[howardlander]

just so y'all know...the wildcats over on the UK board have us inked to be gifted an undefeated season including the natty by the ncaa and the "refs"...


just thought y'all would want to know...

I can live with that...

[brevity]

It was AP Pollster Jesse Newell.

@JesseNewell

There will be many Duke fans coming to this Twitter account soon, I'm sure, so if you are one of those, please read this story and reverse the names Duke and Gonzaga. Should explain a lot. ✌️

His tweet links to an article from 2018.

Here’s his top 25 for week 4:

https://collegepolltracker.com/baske...ll/2021/week-4

The name was familiar to me. I posted about him in the AP and Coaches' 2020 Polls thread when he was a pro-Duke contrarian, ranking them #2 in the January 27 poll, which collectively ranked Duke #9. So maybe he is consistent in following computer rankings.

Personally, though, I can't think of too many circumstances where I would keep a team #1 after a loss:

* They lost, but so did everyone else that week.
* Even after losing, they still had fewer losses than anyone else.
* They lost in a controversial fashion, where some mistake was officially declared, or universally acknowledged.
* They offset the loss with a bigger win in the same week, such that no other team could make a better claim for the top spot.

Gonzaga comes close on that last circumstance with the UCLA win. I would even say that many more pollsters would have kept Gonzaga #1 had the UCLA win come AFTER the Duke loss. But as it is, the Zags did not end the week on a high, and Purdue and Duke (and maybe Baylor) could make a better claim.

I'm of the opinion that #1 ranking is a source of pride for the players, and undefeated teams should be rewarded for doing everything that is asked of them. I would have given the top rank to Purdue, who followed a terrific Week 2 with a quieter Week 3, playing once (a 57-point win over Summit League team Omaha). They may not have had a high-profile game or two in Las Vegas, but that's not their fault. They beat all the teams in front of them, and Gonzaga didn't.