4/18/07 Division B Poll is out!

[scooter]

absolutely not....I believe UVSC to be a quality team, and would be surprised if they don't make it to nationals. However, other teams, In My Opinion seem to be playing better and I feel deserve to be ranked higher.

[ktrost58]

I think its pretty obvious that it is YOUR OPINION, you have mentioned it every time you post, I was just asking if you were mad at UVSC for some reason. Since we are on the topic, a couple of questions for you...have you ever seen UVSC play? What team do you represent, or at least have affiliation with? Honestly, are you mad at UVSC?

[scooter]

no, none....NIU, no

[Sonny]

Debate the topic please, not the poster.

[btriley01]

Scooter, did someone on UVSC do something to you that you want to talk about? I've never seen someone trying so hard to get a team out of the top 10 than you are. UVSC is a good team. I played with them a couple fo years ago, but i've seen them play this year and they are good. They have played a lot of good teams, have won some and lost some, but they have played a very tough Schedule, at least much tougher than many in your top 10. I'm curious to see where you would rank them...#15, #40, I'm sure the loss to WWU (who is a very good team) could justify them dropping out of the top 25 in your eyes, right?

Scooter is just wondering, like others of us, why teams that don't lose drop down the polls and teams that lose stay above. Doesn't make much sense. And don't tell me anything about quality losses...

[Kyle Berggren]

Scooter is just wondering, like others of us, why teams that don't lose drop down the polls and teams that lose stay above. Doesn't make much sense. And don't tell me anything about quality losses...[/quote]

You guys have to figure out that at some point, simply winning the games you play isn't going to keep you in top 5. Scheduling tough opponents, winning those games &/or not getting blown out in those games will keep you toward the top of the pack.

Brendan, I suspect voters didn't feel Harding had done enough recently to have them ahead of Montana or UVSC in the poll.

For instance, while Harding has a very impressive 9-1 record they've only played 4 teams with winning records. The OOC games they've won were against quality teams, but not teams believed to currently be in the top 5. To get the respect you feel you deserve you're going to have to prove it in Dallas this year, which I'm sure you're very excited to get the chance. Use it all as motivation. SFU had the same problem in years past. They were among the elite teams in the now MCLA, but played in what was positively not among the strongest conferences at the time (PNCLL). It was very difficult for them to move up as Canadian money doesn't spend well in states, & no one would travel to them. Simply coasting through the PNCLL didn't get them much respect just as playing sub .500 opponents for the majority of your season isn't going to keep a team in the top 5.

UVSC is an interesting team in the polls. They're 1-0 against teams ranked ahead of them & 2-2 against the ranked teams behind them. They're game against Westminster will be huge for both of the teams & is pretty necessary for the poll. They've played a brutal schedule & should be ready for Dallas assuming they make it.

Until the guys discussing the polls take the time to maintain a poll for the season (justifying to themselves how you moved a team week by week), you won't truly understand what it takes to do it. It's not as simple as Wins & Losses, teams falter. It's interesting to see the quick top 10's some folks post here. I love it because I get to see if teams are completely off my radar, but interesting because the same people that complain about the polls often have many problems in their own top 10.

[ktrost58]

I'm not trying to start a fire here, I just think its funny that uvsc is 2-2 against teams in scooters 10 list, (not to mention a win against montana st.) but he argues that there is no way UVSC should be in his top 10.
Also, I havn't said a word about a "quality loss" ever, and i don't think there is such a thing. I do think there is such a thing as a tough schedule and a soft schedule. I would tend to reward a team who plays a tough schedule and wins some big games over a team that beats a bunch of O.K. teams and has to tell us in forums how good there team actually is.

Take UNC, if you look at the record, not so great, but I respect them for playing the schedule they have and i think they should be in the top 10.

[btriley01]

The problem with these thoughts is you guys don't put dates in there. UVSC just lost to WWU at the end of march, two polls ago. That game was conveniently not reported anywhere until the poll had been posted on hte 7th. No one had any idea of this. I therefore believe that the loss should have been reflected on this poll. It wasn't, considering they stayed at 4th, where they whould have been ranked behind WWU at 9 (on the 4/07 poll). Why did they not fall behind WWU on either polls? Just a thought...

[shocker P]

Maybe UVSC did not fall because they Beat #5Montana and Montana St in the same weekend WW loss to Montana St. That could be hard for the pollsters to determine. so when they did learn of this loss they voted UVSC #6...

Maybe the same reason #5Minn- Duluth did not fall below #13Utah when Duluth lost.

A collective vote of many pollsters had UVSC at #6 why argue.

[ktrost58]

I think it is funny that you would use the word "conveniently". I'm sure it was UVSC's intent to hide that loss from the pollsters hoping to stay in the top 5.
Here is the point...Upsets happen when a team plays a tough schedule. Perhaps UVSC stayed ranked above WWU because they beat a very good montana team and Montana st.
Not that I feel like i need to prove this point, but when ASU beat two #1s in a week, they did not jump into the #1 spot, nor did either of the #1s fall behind ASU in the polls.
my point...teams who play other good teams will lose some games, but their wins are more impressive.

[btriley01]

Obviously it bothers you, since you decided to prove it anyways. My point is that you have to take these polls week by week. Yeah, they may have beaten those teams, but who's to say those teams are not as good as WWU? WWU played a tight game to westminster and montana. They're obviously legit. It is plain to see that theres a jumble between those teams, so we have to take these week by week. And since UVSC lost to WWU at the end of march (and it WAS NOT shown before the poll came out), I don't believe they should be ranked above WWU. Its just my lowly opinion, don't get all ruffled up about it. And, just one more time i'll say this:

We'll know whos the best come nationals. I know I can't wait.

[Ryan Jackson]

Something is wrong with this poll. Unless I’m mistaken, 15 of the top 25 teams have voters in the poll.... There are eight votes among the top ten teams alone. What concerns me more, however, is the five voters from teams ranked 20-25! Gvlax made a valid point when he mentioned that Ferris isn’t in the top 25 and N. Michigan is. The score of that that game was 12-7, with one of NMU’s goals coming off a referee error. Ferris was beating Calvin 4-0 at halftime in their game until a slew of ‘penalties’ allowed Calvin to take it back 8-6, Calvin is ranked at 13 and that was Ferris’ game to lose (no offense Andy). With so many voters in the bottom of the poll, it’s hard to get valid teams into the 25, and if we aren’t in the 25, no one votes for us and we don’t move up the list. With 5 at large bids this year, the poll does mean something, and some of these bottom tier teams need to stop thinking they’re better than they actually are. Also, the voters are not evenly spread out among conferences… unless everyone is traveling to the GRLC for their OOC games, they don’t need 6 of the 26 voters within their conference.

Then again, we played both our OOC games in the GRLC…

[Kyle Berggren]

To vote in the B division, you need to be qualified & to apply. The voters that applied can't be put to blame because other conferences don't have qualified people willing to take the hours out of their week to vote.

Brendan, you continue to put that no one knew about the UVSC vs. WWU game. I remember in another thread you posted your top 10 without knowing it. The Linfield College club folded 2 weeks prior to the game & WWU filled in for them. The MCLA site did not get updated, & therefore this site's scores section did not get updated until after the game was played & probably after the poll. However, it was discussed in the PNCLL forum, the RMLC forum, & the poll voters forum. Many voters were aware, but many probably were not.

WWU is a good team & they would have faired well in Dallas last year. They are improved & will hopefully get their shot this year. A few problems I see with voters moving them ahead of UVSC is the loss to MSU, as well as Montana. It's just not as clean as we'd like. After WWU beats UVSC, UVSC won over MSU with the biggest score of the weekend (13-7 I believe). UVSC finished 2-1, WWU 1-1, MSU 2-1. Ranking those teams wasn't fun. What probably hurts them more is the close game they played against us (UPS, unranked). We were/have been getting back to healthy, & our record/performance hasn't shown even the potential we had at the start of the season. It's definately a sore spot on their record. I'll spare you guys all the details, but WWU was up 5-0 midway through the first. After some yelling, we played the best 3+ quarters we had all season to make it close.

We do know that the RMLC tournament will either solidify teams spots with more 'upsets' or allow teams to prove they belong. If UVSC beats MSU or UNC again, or avenges their loss to Fort to make the championship, there's no doubt they belong where their at. It's tough to get too upset about the 5-12 rankings at this point when so many teams have beaten each other & vice versa in that group. They're playing tough schedules & showing how much parity is in the MCLA B.

[Andy Sharp]

Voters/Rankings by Conference


Rankings/Points by Conference

[Sonny]

I'm not sure what exactly that was all about Andy.

But you have way too much time on your hands.