LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I'm a little surprised that the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ranked teams would receive votes for the top ranking, but the 2nd ranked team would not. Even though St. Johns played Claremont to a one point game earlier this season. (I know it's early, coaches could have voted for their own teams, or a team that played a team earlier in the season would like thier loss to look better, ect......) Just an observation!

With respect Zeuslax - I'm not too surprised.

1. SJU had a 1 goal loss to Claremont (the consensus #1), and thus it's not surprising that noone can vote them ahead of Claremont.

2. SJU beat the prior consensus #1 San Diego, the returning champion. This cements (for now) their #2 as well as Claremont's #1

3. Montana and UVSC have not played any other top 6 Div. B team this year and until they play each other, it is not wrong for voters - especially from those regions - to highly rank them. Both teams did well at nationals last year from what I recall. And if both brought on good talent, and the evaluator believes the WCLL teams to be a step below last year an evaluator will be able defend such a vote - this is a defense of the Montana/UVSC # 1 spot votes.

Some things (but not all) I'm going to be looking at as a poll voter.

A. The Claremont v. USD game.

B. Calvin's games.

C. SJU v. Univ. of St. Thomas. UST has beaten Calvin and Dordt, as well as Ferris State.

D. Montana's OOC games and game v. PLU.

E. UVSC's OOC games.

F. If any trend can be determined from the eventual PCLL season.

G. SELC season - Elon had a nice win v. ECU. Davidson has talent Elon vs Davidson this weekend will be key? And after that, will one of these teams run off a series of dominant wins. Is there someone else in SELC? OOC games here as well.

H. Harding v. Crieighton. And those teams OOC games.

Rob Graff wrote:With respect Zeuslax - I'm not too surprised.

1. SJU had a 1 goal loss to Claremont (the consensus #1), and thus it's not surprising that noone can vote them ahead of Claremont.

2. SJU beat the prior consensus #1 San Diego, the returning champion. This cements (for now) their #2 as well as Claremont's #1

I don't completely agree... Does anyone else give any weight to last season's performances in Blaine? Many did for the pre-season poll & poll number 1...

If you do, and I do because it so early in the season, with regard to SJU, I only see 1 game as greatly important, their loss to Montana by 5.

With Claremont at 9-0, including a 1 goal win vs. SJU, & SJU beating USD by 2, we can assume these teams are all roughly the same caliber, and belong at the top of the list. No one team is far superior to the rest, but the wins help us rank them in order Claremont, SJU, USD. We left out UVSC for this conversation, but it simplifies things for now.

If lets say, Montana graduated no one, added a coaching staff, another goalie, a stellar midfield (that's right, line or more), & a D1 transfer attackmen, they've filled their holes and improved (as I've seen). I cannot have SJU ranked above Montana in my poll due to that loss. A 5 goal win is convincing in my book, & the team is greatly improved (more so than I expect any other elite team to have improved). I think that is an easy way to justify the #1 ranking.

UVSC is easy to justify as the #1, last seasons number 2, the number 1 lost. They've only played 2 games, their 1-1 with a loss to a ranked A team in Arizona (just beat BYU).

Now justifying the USD #1 vote is unsettling for me, but its not my poll, I was only able to vote once, and my vote should be obvious. I also realize that butt kicking USD put on Montana in Blaine, but things should shake out. The Montana vs. PLU, WWU, & UVSC games should be interesting, as will the USD vs. Claremont game this weekend... What will the voters do if USD beats Claremont?

After the preseason poll, what happened last year should be irrelevant. It seems to be a juicy rationalization.

Kyle Berggren wrote:
If you do, and I do because it so early in the season, with regard to SJU, I only see 1 game as greatly important, their loss to Montana by 5.

they've filled their holes and improved (as I've seen). I cannot have SJU ranked above Montana in my poll due to that loss. A 5 goal win is convincing in my book, & the team is greatly improved (more so than I expect any other elite team to have improved). I think that is an easy way to justify the #1 ranking.

I also realize that butt kicking USD put on Montana in Blaine

Ok, You have dug yourself a hole here because you are talking like Montana is the only team that has improved and added players. That was last year, that shouldnt really factor at all for this poll. If Montana had a stronger OOC schedule at the begining of the year they would be able to prove themselves worthy of the #1. (they only have one OOC game vs UVSC on 3-25) At SJU we tried that and we proved ourselves worthy of the #2 spot.....

I honestly don't know how montana is, but i can tell you they are good-they beat us easily last year and it seems they have improved.

Pinball wrote:That was last year, that shouldnt really factor at all for this poll. If Montana had a stronger OOC schedule at the begining of the year they would be able to prove themselves worthy of the #1. (they only have one OOC game vs UVSC on 3-25) At SJU we tried that and we proved ourselves worthy of the #2 spot.....

I honestly don't know how montana is, but i can tell you they are good-they beat us easily last year and it seems they have improved.

Is your logic that because Montana didn't play a stronger OOC schedule early in the season, they can't be #1? How do we determine what these stronger OOC schedules are? If we can't use the Blaine performances how do we know?

You say we proved ourselves worthy of the #2, well, I say you're being a hypocrit ::): Don't use our game against them last season, but we beat last years #1 by 2, and lost to a great team by 1. The logic is circular, we have to use it as a part of our logic this early in the season. If we don't, ranking a team like Montana or UVSC (2 games) between conferences is a pure guess. This way, there is at least a touch of play reflecting what's going on in the polls.

so here is my two cents, how can any team move down in the polls without losing a game? i mean i can kinda understand in a situation like ncaa football where you can watch a team go through the ups and downs of a season. but how, in a league where you probably dont get to see things outside of stats in your own confrence much less in a conference across the country, can someone move down without losing. anyone who plays or has played knows, that a win is a win.

anyway...just my thoughts.

CATLAX MAN wrote:After the preseason poll, what happened last year should be irrelevant. It seems to be a juicy rationalization.

I agree... After the preseason poll, last year's results really are irrelevant for polling purposes. Otherwise what is to stop you from going back even further to games at the begining of last season, or even the end of the previous season before that for ideas with polls. Nonsense...

The Johnnies beat the defending national champs (5-1 this year with a brutal schedule), and lost by one to the team that is beating everybody else. I agree with Rob that the top three seem to be pretty set in cement comfortably.

I just don't think you can make a case for fitting Montana into the top three until they play more difficult teams (like Claremont, SD, or SJU)... this season.

Tomorrow's game SD v. Claremont will be a good one for sure.

Mr. Berggren:

I'm pleased Montana has improved, as per your game report. They certainly are formidable. But you cannot say that St. Johns has not improved - I doubt you've seen them, and I have (as you point out in your PNCLL preview). I also watched the Claremont/SJU tape. So I've seen Claremont too. No doubt many other teams have improved as well as these two teams.

And you may be right - Montana might well be the best team right now. But they also might not. That's what's great about the national championship - if a team is talanted enough to get there, they have as good a shot as anyone else to be a champion.

Regarding the poll vote:

Fact - USD was ranked #1 by most poll voters going into the season. For whatever reasons existed in all the pollsters minds.

Fact - SJU was ranked 6.

Fact - SJU went to California, and beat USD

Fact - Claremont beat SJU.

Fact - Montana had not played a game when the first poll vote took place.

Fact - UVSC had beaten Western by 5.

So, what is a pollster to do?

*** Ignore the feelings of all the poll voters becasue the #1 team was beaten by another top 6 B team, and move the #2 and #4 teams up (even though the #2 team had beaten Western by 5 goals, and Montana had not played a game yet?)

*** Penalize the #1, but not benefit the #6? Especially when the #6 v. #3 game (that was SJU's 3rd game in 3 days) was a 1 goal game decided late?

You would prefer that SJU not "leapfrog" over Montana/UVSC based upon what rationale?

SJU took a risk, and played USD and Claremont early on - knowing that two losses would have immediately kicked them out of the top 10. They beat the #1, but lost to the #3. So the poll voters were correct that these teams were closely matched. Such a result indicates to me that there is at least more than some validity in the preseason poll. If SJU stumbles v. St Thomas, or if USD/Claremont falter, and Montana continues it's current pace and beats UVSC, I have no doubt the polls will change.

And Catlax man - I disagree - preseason polls are by necessity at least partly based upon last season's results, as well as an assessment of how the team did in the fall, players lost, incoming players, coaching changes, etc. You must begin to construct your poll framework with some information, and as better information (current games) comes along, you modify the framework with the better information.

Our discussion demonstrates why geographical diversity is crucial in the poll (we cannot see everyone), as well as the importance of teams scheduling OOC games - so that discussions like we're having can be settled on the field.

Montana/UVSC game is an important matchup. I forgot to specifically add that to my earlier list, although it is subsumed in the "OOC" category.

Finally - how do you rationalize that "the only Blaine game that counts" is when Montana beat SJU, when you later note that USD beat the Grizz with emphasis? I cannot - either you take both, or neither.

I think that what it comes down to is that we are missing the point that each voter has his/her own poll they adjust... On my poll, USD moving down, does not necessarily reformat my entire top 5. Teams move up & down with wins and losses... It is entirely possible that Montana loses a tough game played at PLU (in their extrodinarily bad mudpit), or against WWU that just hasn't quite found a way to win close games over the past few years. There are more, UVSC is a huge game for them.

My rationale for 'the only Blaine game that counts' is simple, it was the only game with any major importance due to the 1 loss your out in the tournament. I can't count their other games as highly because I'm sure the entire bench played, when that might not have happened in a meaningful game. When I construct my preseason poll I took more weight to the Blaine games than Fall games, because of that type of coaching style. When we play Fall games, everyone plays, we're building, losses are unimportant, just as they are in the consolation bracket at Nationals. I know this isn't necessarily the polling norm, but if you were to judge UPS 2 season ago, we were 0-4 in the Fall, and able to win the PNCLL B convincingly. Last season we were the same, and were able to play with PLU, WWU, & Montana.

"I just don't think you can make a case for fitting Montana into the top three until they play more difficult teams (like Claremont, SD, or SJU)... this season. "

We rate the teams on the games they play, not the games they don't. I can't schedule for them. Once the voters individual preseason poll is formed, they can adjust it from there. Does the USD loss mean that they've improved or gotten worse? Do I make the choice to drop Montana & UVSC (the #2 team in Blaine) down the ranks until they play tougher games? or do I move teams around them, assuming my preseason poll was correct, until they prove they don't belong there? In my eyes, if I believe Montana is #1, and they are in that place in my poll due to the #1 losing early, do I move them down (no)? and move them back up if they beat the #15, #20 team convincingly or the #5 team (no)? Those are hardly reasons to move up to #1 in my eyes, as is not playing a games early in the season (especially when we use a league scheduler). At this point, they can move down in my poll pretty easily, PLU will be their first common opponent with the rest of the top 5 teams. The mud-battle & PLU's new goalie should make it interesting, but two other teams in the top 5 beat PLU by 12.

I obviously can't bump USD too far down the list, as SJU, Claremont, & USD are all comparatively skilled. UVSC hasn't played anyone in the top 5 B yet, but they played a 1 goal game against USD in the Championship, toss them in the mix... I'm not saying its easy, and I re-wrote that original post 5 times before posting it. I know its controversial, especially with Claremont at 9-0, playing what seems like most of the top 25. I expected this type of reaction.

Montana can pretty easily move down in my poll, they have tough games to come, that the #1 must win. I might even allow another let down (close game), if they get the win. I don't want to move UVSC & Montana out of the top 5 until they get more games in, then leapfrog them when they've played into the #1/2/3 position. If they are left out of the top 5 until later in the season. If I assume my preseason poll is correct, I don't need those moves, and losses/tight games against teams they should beat can move them down.

I hope that clears some things up. I know this obviously isn't the popular view, Claremont is obviously extremely talented at 9-0, as is SJU & USD, but things will shake out, and my poll will evolve, it won't stay the same, nor will it morph with random teams jumping spots each week. If I ranked Montana at #1, and UVSC at #10 before they played some games, then UVSC crushed Montana, obviously I had both teams at the incorrect spot this early in the season. I don't want that kind of giant jump if I can prevent it.

I should add, in my preseason poll... When I rank these teams, I don't want a win from last season to carry over if it doesn't have to, but I remember the reason I have them where I do before I move them around the next poll. It doesn't have as much impact as current games, but it is a framework for viewing recent games. Again, I'm not adjusting the poll that comes out, I'm adjusting my poll.

That's also exactly how the someone can rank UVSC #1 as well.

I agree with what a lot of you are saying. . .Honestly, I think it is a good thing at this point that there are some differing opinions as to who is #1.

This we know:

1. Claremont is really good. They beat St. John's, who must be better than the 2005 version after knocking off last year's national champs. They also had little problem with Pacific Lutheran (pre-season top-10), #15 Northern Colorado, #13 Pepperdine and #19 UC Irvine

2. St. John's deserves this spot at #2. Is it possible Montana or UVSC is better than St. John's? Sure. . .but with the job St. John's did in Irvine, nobody can argue that they deserve the #2 spot.

3. San Diego has their chance this weekend to prove they are still the team to beat. . .if they win this weekend, all we'll know for sure is that these top-3 teams are all very, very close in ability. Last year USD was indisputably in a class by themselves.

** I must add that I still can't think of a defendable position for ANYONE to put this team at #1, except possibly the Claremont coach, who I don't think is a pollster. You can't lose to the #2 team in the country this early in the season and still be #1. It doesn't add up. . . I digress. . .

4. Montana belongs in this conversation. Montana has yet to really prove themselves - although having watched them in person I can comfortably say the 2006 version is more talented and much deeper than the 2005 bunch, that fared well in Blaine. They have 4 more games this season against teams that have been in and out of the top-10, so we will have a better idea how they stack up very soon. (they play PLU and UVSC before the next poll)

5. UVSC rounds out the top-5. . .but when all is said and done we may be talking about the RMLC as the deepest B conference this year. They will have a chance to prove themselves against Montana in 2 weeks, and they'll face several really good RMLC teams as the season goes on. . .

I think the pollsters got it right with this top-5. It doesn't match mine exactly, but I think it is in good order at this point, with the meat of the schedule yet to come. . .and the best matchup of them all will happen this weekend.

I really don't see any big problem here, folks. Kyle ranked Montana #1 to start the season, and he is entitled to do so. Remember that only the Final Poll after the conferences conduct their post-season tourneys really matters. And even then whether a team is ranked #1 or #2 doesn't have that great an importance.

I liken this to our difficulties doing the A Division poll. I had Colorado State #1 almost all of last season, and made the Rams #1 in my pre-season poll this year also. I have no problems with others voting for another team -- and most pollsters tabbed Sonoma State #1. I have enormous respect for 'Noma, and don't see why it is a problem ranking them behind CSU early in the season. Obviously results coming up shortly will either solidify my pick of CSU as my #1, or they will fall due to an MDIA loss, and then I will pick a new #1.

Different folks can review the same data and draw different conclusions, after all.

Dan I don't think the issue is that Montana is number 1, the issue is that I made it seem as though the only game that mattered was Blaine, Montana vs SJU 15-10. I rewrote that post so many times trying to edit it down, I left out tons of information, and in re-reading it on my side I see some problems that weren't clarified.... Just goes to show you I should have been working not posting.