|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 26, 2019 11:48:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Nov 26, 2019 12:55:20 GMT -8
The AP poll is is determined by a bunch of guys like Steve Gress, who follow women's hoops and many, many other sports. The coaches poll is determined by a bunch of guys like Scott Rueck, who do women's hoops year round for a living.
I don't know if either of them even has a vote, but the point is: Which group do you think would have the most overall knowledge and provide the most accurate result? Seems a no brainer in favor of the coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 26, 2019 13:24:26 GMT -8
The AP poll is is determined by a bunch of guys like Steve Gress, who follow women's hoops and many, many other sports. The coaches poll is determined by a bunch of guys like Scott Rueck, who do women's hoops year round for a living. I don't know if either of them even has a vote, but the point is: Which group do you think would have the most overall knowledge and provide the most accurate result? Seems a no brainer in favor of the coaches. I get your point, but actually neither! Unless you've studied a program, who's returning, seen the recruits play in person, watched them play multiple times in their current form... it's all just hearsay and reputation. No writer has the time or willingness, and coaches certainly don't have the time. It's why polls are fodder for fans and why any ranking system based on said polls is a waste of time. I know it's not really possible, but why hoops is the better sport over football in that regard, the tourney settles it all. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Nov 26, 2019 13:52:15 GMT -8
Just because both suck doesn't mean that they suck equally hard.
The Coaches Poll is notably friendlier to mid-majors and "non-traditional powers". Missouri State is unranked in the AP, #19 in the Coaches. Arizona is #24 AP, #22 Coaches. Tennessee is #20 AP, #25 Coaches.
All in all, the Coaches poll seems more in-tune with current events. And yes, the coaches all delegate their voting - usually to some grad assistant type - but to someone who is immersed in WBB. Very, very few AP writers spend more than a sliver of their time covering *local* WBB, let alone the national scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Nov 26, 2019 13:56:22 GMT -8
baseba111 writes: "It's why polls are fodder for fans and why any ranking system based on said polls is a waste of time."
Polls aren't perfect predictors. No one claims they are. But to claim they are a waste of time carries its own ignorance.
Tell you what baseba1111: since polls are a waste of time I'll bet you $1,000 that Oregon, Baylor or Stanford will win the National Championship if you wager $1,000 that DePaul, Miami or Arizona will win it....That these teams are at different end of the polls shouldn't matter to you since polls are a waste of time.
Sound good to you? I'm in if you are.....
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by newduke2 on Nov 26, 2019 14:02:34 GMT -8
SR pays some attention to rankings...I've heard a few comments from him over time. I'd guess he uses it sometimes for motivation?
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 26, 2019 14:05:35 GMT -8
baseba111 writes: "It's why polls are fodder for fans and why any ranking system based on said polls is a waste of time." Polls aren't perfect predictors. No one claims they are. But to claim they are a waste of time carries its own ignorance. Tell you what baseba1111: since polls are a waste of time I'll bet you $1,000 that Oregon, Baylor or Stanford will win the National Championship if you wager $1,000 that DePaul, Miami or Arizona will win it....That these teams are at different end of the polls shouldn't matter to you since polls are a waste of time. Sound good to you? I'm in if you are..... GO BEAVS !! First, there was never a mention of exact predictor. However, WBB is very top heavy in terms of the obvious top seeds getting to the FF. Second, you're betting how good the team is... you're not counting on pure polling. If so pick #1 today and let's see if a) they remain #1;(b) they win the NC. $1000 on each? And, a poll is in its entirety not cherry picking teams that are well known to be superior... reputation and results. That's pretty lame reply to the initial fact that neither are that accurate nor mean much, other than to fans. Polls are media creations to satisfy the need to order things. So, are polls nice? Used as motivation? Used as recruiting tools? Have some semblance of accuracy? Sure. But, the polls indeed change, sometimes drastically because of new info. And, don't neccessarily reflect the actual tourney seeding and results? So, does the current poll truly mean much if it changes as the season progresses and isn't neccessarily related (actually not much since top 25 and not an entire field) to actual seeding and tourney results? Other than those cherry picked teams want to lay $1000 on significant polling changes and poll vs seeding vs results? Like OSU being and staying #5, then would be the first 2 seed, and would progress to the E8, and lose... tied for 5th with 3 other teams. Is that a push then? |
|
|
|
Post by 411500 on Nov 26, 2019 14:25:10 GMT -8
Well, baseba1111 I'm not sure how much I learned about polls reading your post. But I sure got a better understanding of circumloquacious.
GO BEAVS !!
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 26, 2019 15:38:38 GMT -8
Well, baseba1111 I'm not sure how much I learned about polls reading your post. But I sure got a better understanding of circumloquacious. GO BEAVS !! Well... you mean "circumloquacious" as in introducing polls as an exact science? While my reply simply referred to writers and coaches not having the time or resources to really create a poll with much legitimacy? You/others may deem polls important as a fan. I'm not in that category as they typically lead to the nonsensical discussions and arguments of... who beat who and should be ranked higher... better conferences... conferences favored... who got screwed by NCAA seeding... and the ever popular EC bias. Polls are generally click bait with very little research or reasoning behind them. At least some stats dig and some decent reasoning at play. But, again your bet wasn't that at all, just a hurried attempt to somehow justify polling accuracy? I guess. Point is... if all the polls disappeared nothing would change... except the clicks on fan sites. Same discussions (without the polls interpreted as fact) and the tourney deciding who's better. But, even with all that fans will detail how a team got screwed, or the one and done favors certain teams, or "if" injuries didn't happen... If you/others feel different, super. But, things like "highest preseason ranking ever" is reputation, not how good a team ends up being. I do enjoy how fans in different sports succeeding at different levels view polls, rankings. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Nov 26, 2019 20:36:50 GMT -8
The AP poll is is determined by a bunch of guys like Steve Gress, who follow women's hoops and many, many other sports. The coaches poll is determined by a bunch of guys like Scott Rueck, who do women's hoops year round for a living. I don't know if either of them even has a vote, but the point is: Which group do you think would have the most overall knowledge and provide the most accurate result? Seems a no brainer in favor of the coaches. I get your point, but actually neither! Unless you've studied a program, who's returning, seen the recruits play in person, watched them play multiple times in their current form... it's all just hearsay and reputation. No writer has the time or willingness, and coaches certainly don't have the time. It's why polls are fodder for fans and why any ranking system based on said polls is a waste of time. I know it's not really possible, but why hoops is the better sport over football in that regard, the tourney settles it all. I get your point, but, in the admittedly imperfect world of polling, who would have been more likely to have studied other programs, Scott Rueck and his staff, or Steve Gress and the other guys at the GT? Who might have seen them play in high school, Scott and staff or Steve and the guys? Who might be more likely to know player strengths and weaknesses, or whether someone was a head case? Who might have watched film of them? Talked over the phone to other coaches who have competed against them? Who talks every day with players on his team who competed with or against those other girls in AAU ball? On the flip side, which group would spend 99.5% of their time between early April and mid October doing things not remotely connected to women's hoops? And, twixt mid October and early April, who would be more likely to be devoting a ton of time to college football, the NFL, the NHL, the NBA, men's college basketball, and local high school sports? Hearsay much of it may be, but the hearsay is more likely to be accurate at the coaches level than in the newspaper office, as the assessment of the hearsay is much more professional. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Nov 26, 2019 20:43:01 GMT -8
I get your point, but actually neither! Unless you've studied a program, who's returning, seen the recruits play in person, watched them play multiple times in their current form... it's all just hearsay and reputation. No writer has the time or willingness, and coaches certainly don't have the time. It's why polls are fodder for fans and why any ranking system based on said polls is a waste of time. I know it's not really possible, but why hoops is the better sport over football in that regard, the tourney settles it all. I get your point, but, in the admittedly imperfect world of polling, who would have been more likely to have studied other programs, Scott Rueck and his staff, or Steve Gress and the other guys at the GT? Who might have seen them play in high school, Scott and staff or Steve and the guys? Who might be more likely to know player strengths and weaknesses, or whether someone was a head case? Who might have watched film of them? Talked over the phone to other coaches who have competed against them? Who talks every day with players on his team who competed with or against those other girls in AAU ball? On the flip side, which group would spend 99.5% of their time between early April and mid October doing things not remotely connected to women's hoops? And, twixt mid October and early April, who would be more likely to be devoting a ton of time to college football, the NFL, the NHL, the NBA, men's college basketball, and local high school sports? Hearsay much of it may be, but the hearsay is more likely to be accurate at the coaches level than in the newspaper office, as the assessment of the hearsay is much more professional. However, many/most coaches admit they don't vote. A staff member, often not senior even GAs fill out that duty. Also some coaches hold grudges and/or play politics with votes. Same things go on when all league, poy, etc. votes happen. But, as you state, trust coaches over sports writers... who also have favs, play politics. |
|
