1st MDIA Div. A Poll (2/23/05) is out

[jtlax]

It is my opinion that Chico is a better team than last year. They seemed to have pretty good team speed. I believe they are much better than a #22 ranking.

[LaxGuru]

Except for the top 5-8 teams, everything is a guess who gets the voters in the polls. How can two teams each play 1 game and win but the higher ranking of the two plummets behind the other then pounds on that team over this past weekend. If your doing a poll, make it public who is voting and keep it to either the Head Coach or a predesignated Assistant Coach. Make their votes known so they have to put thaught into it or else they lose their right to vote and catch an outcry from the people trying to judge how good teams really are.

[PigPen]

to onpoint-in the words of Lee Corso "not so fast my friend" , as another poster has pointed out-the AQ is the ticket to the Great White Not So North, at least for the LSA. It's feasible, almost comical, and sadly representitive of the DI college football bowl situation, that A&M could lose the rest of their games wind up .500 or close to it and still go to Blaine. Trippy isn't it.

[LaxC21]

I would compare it to College Basketball. There are some schools that play big names because of the money, end up .500 and could make the tournament.

[jessexy]

i'm a little surprised to see texas a&m ranked ahead of texas tech. they each lost to colorado state. maybe the difference was texas a&m's win over florida.

Shouldn't be. Tech beat A & M; they should be above them. That appears to be a reputation vote.

as many reputation votes as Arizona and Cal and Stanford have gotten in the past, i wouldnt be commenting about A&M losing 6 places in the polls and staying ahead of an unranked team that it hasnt lost to in 12 years.


not to bring college bball into this discussion (but really) when #3 Kansas (Final Four last year and 2 All-Americans) lost to unranked Villanova (hasnt been to the NCAA tourney in years and hasnt been good since 85), was Kansas supposed to drop out of the Top 25 and Villanova supposed to enter it at #10? Just a hypothetical. I mean, Nova DID beat Kansas in a blowout no-less. I'm sure Kansas has a good reputation and that's why they were #3 in the first place, Right?

[CATLAX MAN]

i'm a little surprised to see texas a&m ranked ahead of texas tech. they each lost to colorado state. maybe the difference was texas a&m's win over florida.

Shouldn't be. Tech beat A & M; they should be above them. That appears to be a reputation vote.

as many reputation votes as Arizona and Cal and Stanford have gotten in the past, i wouldnt be commenting about A&M losing 6 places in the polls and staying ahead of an unranked team that it hasnt lost to in 12 years.

In my opinion, recent results have proven my original statement to be true.

[jessexy]

i'm a little surprised to see texas a&m ranked ahead of texas tech. they each lost to colorado state. maybe the difference was texas a&m's win over florida.

Shouldn't be. Tech beat A & M; they should be above them. That appears to be a reputation vote.

as many reputation votes as Arizona and Cal and Stanford have gotten in the past, i wouldnt be commenting about A&M losing 6 places in the polls and staying ahead of an unranked team that it hasnt lost to in 12 years.

In my opinion, recent results have proven my original statement to be true.

you were one of the main ones wanting to give Zona the benefit of the doubt, when they were losing all those games last year. so are you only an apologist for the west coast teams that lose games but have a good rep? i was the first to say A&M wasnt as good this year, but i have always said you have to win games to show how good you are. you, however, have always been an apologist for ranked teams that lose games. why is it different for A&M now. They have always been a top 15 team.

[CATLAX MAN]

you were one of the main ones wanting to give Zona the benefit of the doubt, when they were losing all those games last year. so are you only an apologist for the west coast teams that lose games but have a good rep? i was the first to say A&M wasnt as good this year, but i have always said you have to win games to show how good you are. you, however, have always been an apologist for ranked teams that lose games. why is it different for A&M now. They have always been a top 15 team.

I think you have brought up a bad example. Arizona went 14-4 last year. 2 of those losses came against UCSB (one of them a 1 goal game) and, I think, 1 of the losses came against Michigan (another 1 goal game, I believe). The other loss was a 9-4 loss to CSU, so there is no apologizing necessary for Arizona's vote. It is deserved both on last year's record and on early results this year (see victory over BYU). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for A&M. Their vote came as you say because "they have always been a Top 15 team." That would be the only justification for that vote, because results (this year and last) surely don't bear out a ranking.

[CSUalum32]

For that matter, it seems like the entire LSA is in a rush to get out of the poll. It's not like previous years when there aren't enough teams to fill the top 25, now if you start losing, that's it, you're out. TAMU has some good games left on the schedule, but they need to show something against their last seven ranked opponents (Utah, UCSD, BYU, Colorado, Michigan, Oakland, Texas). Looking at that schedule, it is realistic they could lose ALL those games if they are not careful. It's only February still, but has Texas A&M and Missouri sealed their own fates with shoddy early season performances?

i agree with an earlier post, yeah, A&M and Missouri have a chance to go to Blaine if they win their resepected leagues. there are too many teams that are arising in the top 25 that not many expected. alex you are right, it is getting really close to the point where one lose, (depending on magnitude and against who) can drop you down in the top 25, if not completly out of it.

i think this past weekend showed us just how competitive the top 25 is getting.

[uzisuicide]

I would agree that A&M is getting a reputation vote, but obviously that reputation, at least this year, is dimishing. Now who knows about next year. My personal take on the ranking situation among the LSA teams is simple. I don't think that really any of them deserved to be ranked. The LSA is just not a competative conference this year. The big teams are down, and the small teams even if up, they are not up enough. Sure Tech beat A&M, but as the Aggies continue to struggle in their season does that win hold the as much weight as previously thought. Tech is a decent team, but they beat A&M because they are very down this year not because Tech is some powerhouse. I mean A&M's big name players, while all decent, their names don't hold the same weight that names like Pike, Dunn, or Lamb did. Plus UT has not played Tech or A&M, and got beaten by SMU. Both the SMU/Tech game, and the UT/SMU game were decided by one goal, so it is hard to make any predictions there. Also lets not forget the giant elephant in room that is the fact that out of conference opponents are having a field day it seems with everyone in the LSA. So regardless of who gets to Nationals; do they stand a chance? The answer is no, because of probably a continuing trend in losses to out of conference opponents, so who ever comes out of the LSA will get a bad seed, draw a really good team and they'll get creamed. So unless some major changes start happening quick, it's case closed. That's just my opinion :D

[benji]

Also lets not forget the giant elephant in room that is the fact that out of conference opponents are having a field day it seems with everyone in the LSA. So regardless of who gets to Nationals; do they stand a chance? The answer is no, because of probably a continuing trend in losses to out of conference opponents, so who ever comes out of the LSA will get a bad seed, draw a really good team and they'll get creamed. So unless some major changes start happening quick, it's case closed. That's just my opinion

With the exception of the CSU vs. LSA teams, I would say your account of teams in the LSA is at best flawed. No disrespect, but the games (Tech vs. Oakland, Tech vs. New Hampshire, TAMU vs. Oakland, UT vs Oakland, and UT vs SMU) serve as poor examples for the LSA's performance versus OOC opponents. Let's not forget TAMU's performance against U Florida, a team which I have seen absolutely no question regarding thier deservance of rank in the USLIA polls.

The games above to which I refer to were played in, well, let's just say far less than perfect circumstances. (For more info reference the LSA Discussion: Houston Invitational Thread). The LSA is bringing competitive teams to the table this year, regardless of personnel losses/ gains, and they will always continue to do so in the future. I think its a little presumptuous to go ahead and claim that no LSA team will be deserving of a spot in the Top 25, or in Blaine. In fact, I believe its flat out incorrect. I certainly have a degree of bias here, but with a claim like yours, lets just hope that your team doesn't lose to an LSA team in the future.

[onpoint]

Benjii, I'm confused. How can those losses to OOC not be representative of the league's performance OOC? That's exactly what they are, right? Three different teams have come in and beaten the big three in the LSA (two of them while not playing games before the Texas contests) and TAMU just got hammered on a Utah road trip. As things stand now, Florida appears to be the fourth or fifth best team in the SELC, so that is not looking like the quality win that it once did either. Things are not looking good for the LSA at all. You will get your chance when you play Lindenwood in a couple weeks, but for now, your time might be better served pounding on the wall instead of the keyboard.

[benji]

onpoint, no doubt that the LSA this year might seem a little more diluted compared to years passed. My point was that slapping the LSA with a badge of unworthiness is both presumptuous and ill-conceived. Bumps in the road aside, whether or not Tech, UT, or TAMU (or any other LSA team for that matter) is ranked, they will continue to play like Top 25 contenders. We all have Blaine in our eyes and it will be a hard-fought battle until the end of the season.

The polls are dictated by the opinions of many. As I'm sure you can tell, even in this forum, most opinions regarding talent are based upon another's perspective. Scores do not lie, and I am well aware. However, as I'm sure you've seen, several posters have predicted New Hampshire to jump to the #19 spot in the second season poll. Both TAMU and TTU lost very close games to this team in overtime (in horrible playing conditions I might add). How can you support the idea that these teams, at the bare minimum, are not at least worthy of Top 25 contention? Its foolish to base such an opinion off of a game versus a team like CSU, who just so happened to recently defeated a DIII NCAA team. Oakland University came to Texas and brought a very talented squad. I think the LSA teams faired rather well against them in some very nice games (including a one goal difference between Oakland and Texas). To say that LSA clubs can have a good games (once again in terrible conditions) against a highly ranked team such as Oakland and flat out not receive consideration for the next poll is simply wrong in my opinion.

TAMU has had a very difficult OOC schedule thus far which I believe they've handled very well for such a young squad. We'll have our chance next week in St. Louis to hopefully prove you wrong. So, until then ...

EDIT: p.s. My wall gets plenty of time, but right now its warmer in here by the compy.

[Bentiss]

whether or not Tech, UT, or TAMU (or any other LSA team for that matter) is ranked, they will continue to play like Top 25 contenders.

Is that a promise? And you have to HAVE PLAYED like a Top 25 contender to CONTINUE TO PLAY like a Top 25 contender...

[benji]

whether or not Tech, UT, or TAMU (or any other LSA team for that matter) is ranked, they will continue to play like Top 25 contenders.

Is that a promise? And you have to HAVE PLAYED like a Top 25 contender to CONTINUE TO PLAY like a Top 25 contender...

If you're going to dissect every word, try reading the post for its intended message, and don't dwell on verb agreement (I'm in class enough as it is).