PDA

View Full Version : Dec. 7 Men's DIII Poll



Pages : [1] 2

Matthew Webb
12-07-2009, 02:06 PM
USCHO.com Division III Men's Poll
Minneapolis, Minn./December 7, 2009

Team (First Place) Record Pts Last Week
1 Oswego (12) 10-1-0 290 1
2 Plattsburgh ( 5) 7-1-2 270 2
3 Norwich ( 1) 5-0-1 251 5
4 Adrian ( 2) 10-0-0 233 4
5 St. Norbert 10-2-1 224 3
6 Elmira 9-2-0 204 6
7 St. Scholastica 6-2-2 180 7
8 Middlebury 3-1-2 132 8
9 Wis.-River Falls 7-3-1 116 10
10 Bowdoin 5-0-0 97 14
11 Curry 7-0-1 96 12
12 Wis.-Superior 7-3-1 88 9
13 Hamline 6-1-2 65 15
14 Williams 5-0-1 63 NR
15 Salem State 5-1-1 45 NR

Others Receiving Votes: Gustavus Adolphus 19,
Wentworth 19, Amherst 5, New England College 2,
Hobart 1

The USCHO.com Poll is compiled weekly and consists of 20 voters, including 15 coaches of Division III programs and five men's hockey writers. USCHO.com provides in-depth coverage of college sports, including hockey, lacrosse, soccer and others.

joecct
12-07-2009, 02:08 PM
I would have thought that Norwich would have jumped to #2.

Ozz
12-07-2009, 02:09 PM
I would have thought that Norwich would have jumped to #2.

Not when five voters STILL have Platty as their number one.:confused:

polarbearfan
12-07-2009, 02:13 PM
Im not going to complain too much here with Bowdoin getting into the top 10 but how does Midd gain votes after a tie at home against a 1-4 team and then a win at home against possibly the worst team in D2/3?

norm1909
12-07-2009, 02:15 PM
Not when five voters STILL have Platty as their number one.:confused:

Those are the 5 voters who knows that the team that consistently outplays its opponents, will in the end, be #1 (even if they do need to be taught a lesson or two) :p

NUProf
12-07-2009, 02:17 PM
Not when five voters STILL have Platty as their number one.:confused:

They were the better team on the ice when they tied Potsdam, apparently. :rolleyes:

d3follower
12-07-2009, 02:18 PM
Im not going to complain too much here with Bowdoin getting into the top 10 but how does Midd gain votes after a tie at home against a 1-4 team and then a win at home against possibly the worst team in D2/3?

Reflexive voting based on national championships of yesteryear . .

norm1909
12-07-2009, 02:20 PM
They were the better team on the ice when they tied Potsdam, apparently. :rolleyes:

SUNYAC the toughest conference out there:p :cool:

jerrynu26
12-07-2009, 02:42 PM
I would have thought that Norwich would have jumped to #2.
I thought they should have been lower than they were last week, and MIGHT be worthy of a 5 or 6 this week. They still only have half the games as any other top-5 team.

Ozz
12-07-2009, 02:54 PM
Those are the 5 voters who knows that the team that consistently outplays its opponents, will in the end, be #1 (even if they do need to be taught a lesson or two) :p

I didn't realize the polls were a prediction of the end of the year...I thought it was an analysis of the year thus far:p

Russell Jaslow
12-07-2009, 03:03 PM
Im not going to complain too much here with Bowdoin getting into the top 10 but how does Midd gain votes after a tie at home against a 1-4 team and then a win at home against possibly the worst team in D2/3?

Beats me. I still have Middlebury low in my poll.

Russell Jaslow
12-07-2009, 03:06 PM
I thought they should have been lower than they were last week, and MIGHT be worthy of a 5 or 6 this week. They still only have half the games as any other top-5 team.

I moved Norwich up in my poll. The fact is, they shutout two teams (albeit weak ones) after coming off a strong Primelink weekend and St. Norbert split (albeit against a good team) after coming off a poor T-day weekend.

I don't have an issue with how many games a team plays. I only have an issue when a team hasn't played any games, yet.

I wouldn't have an issue with not moving Norwich up, but I don't see how they could move down, especially when you need to consider who deserves to move above them.

[I also have Salem State way higher than anyone else seems to like them at.]

Dyce
12-07-2009, 03:13 PM
I didn't realize the polls were a prediction of the end of the year...I thought it was an analysis of the year thus far:p
Agreed. Obviously, the poll requires pure "projection" for its preseason iteration, and at least a little bit for the first couple of weeks (say, pre-Interlock), but at this stage of the season I don't see the point in treating it like a futures market. If it were a little less frequent, I could see the need for a more predictive stance, but something that turns over on a weekly basis might as well reflect the reality as of that week. If Plattsburgh is a #1 team, give them the votes when they start posting the wins to back it up, rather than assuming that upturn weeks or months in advance.

Stormy8174
12-07-2009, 03:56 PM
I didn't realize the polls were a prediction of the end of the year...I thought it was an analysis of the year thus far:p

Nah...how about not always how the whole season has been thus far but how the teams are playing up to that particular poll...then again...Potsdam should be getting votes for coming back and tying Plattsburgh (2) in less the 20 minutes of hockey. :rolleyes:

Looking way ahead if this was the poll going into January 7th...if Adrian were to lose a game, do they drop? Furthermore, if Adrian beats Oswego do they get all first place votes and/or will Oswego drop below Plattsburgh just because?

Nice to be "number 1" but then again with three games this week its going to be difficult with that on their backs.

joeyc3402
12-07-2009, 04:00 PM
Ahh, yes... the (sort of) weekly in-season ritual that can be broken down into 12 simple steps once the poll is posted....

1) Someone complains about _______ being ranked too high
2) Someone complains about _______ being ranked too low
3) Someone asks the posters of #1 and #2 above, "who should move (up/down) then?"
4) A voter comes out and says he voted _____ (higher / lower) than final tally
5) Someone denounces these polls, as they are flawed and useless anyways
6) Someone says though these polls are flawed and just for fun, they're better than the selection committee
7) Someone says that these should be based on quantitative on-ice performance (records), and not qualitative traits like "how they looked against ____"
8) Someone posts satirically proving that (insert bottom feeder here) > (insert top 5 team here)
9) Someone brings up how ____ gets votes based on reputation / past seasons
10) Someone denounces the mentality of voters who contribute to #9 above
11) Someone talks about how ____ (early season: "hasn't played any games" / "hasn't played enough games;" late season: "has a weak schedule")
12) Someone brings up "the big picture" and says how he/she enjoys the discussion that the polls generate

Any corrections / modifications to this process are welcome.

NUProf
12-07-2009, 04:22 PM
Both the KRACH and my computer rankings have SSC and some others from the MASCAC/NE group way up there. KRACH likes Adrian [I]way more than my computer does.

Matthew Webb
12-07-2009, 04:29 PM
KRACH likes Adrian way more than my computer does.

Why is that? You give more weight to SOS/OWP/whatever?

NUProf
12-07-2009, 04:47 PM
Why is that? You give more weight to SOS/OWP/whatever?

Instead of straight opponent's winning percentage I modify it by including a factor for the winning percentage of the teams you have beaten. In the case of an undefeated/untied team, they are really getting a double dose of OWP - seems to hurt Adrian (it also kills winless teams who just get a zero for that measure.) I'm still tweaking, but I'm not changing my model in the middle of the year. SAL's win over STN really pushed them up. ADR hasn't really beaten anybody with a good record and they get killed compared to other teams.

NorthernLite
12-07-2009, 05:02 PM
Ahh, yes... the (sort of) weekly in-season ritual that can be broken down into 12 simple steps once the poll is posted....

1) Someone complains about _______ being ranked too high
2) Someone complains about _______ being ranked too low
3) Someone asks the posters of #1 and #2 above, "who should move (up/down) then?"
4) A voter comes out and says he voted _____ (higher / lower) than final tally
5) Someone denounces these polls, as they are flawed and useless anyways
6) Someone says though these polls are flawed and just for fun, they're better than the selection committee
7) Someone says that these should be based on quantitative on-ice performance (records), and not qualitative traits like "how they looked against ____"
8) Someone posts satirically proving that (insert bottom feeder here) > (insert top 5 team here)
9) Someone brings up how ____ gets votes based on reputation / past seasons
10) Someone denounces the mentality of voters who contribute to #9 above
11) Someone talks about how ____ (early season: "hasn't played any games" / "hasn't played enough games;" late season: "has a weak schedule")
12) Someone brings up "the big picture" and says how he/she enjoys the discussion that the polls generate

Any corrections / modifications to this process are welcome.

Excellent summary...a couple of my favourites.

13) Someone discredits the results based on regional bias of pollsters.

14) Someone questions how anyone could rank teams that they have never seen play.

norm1909
12-07-2009, 05:15 PM
Excellent summary...a couple of my favourites.

13) Someone discredits the results based on regional bias of pollsters.

14) Someone questions how anyone could rank teams that they have never seen play.

15) Someone else is wrong, because I am perfect, once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken:rolleyes: