New Poll Out UConn Number 1 Baylor 3 Number 1 Votes

[dannykuconn]

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/rankings

 

[RadyLady]

only CT and Baylor received #1 votes. Stanford drops to 4 and Duke moves up to 3...no big surprise

 

[Plumber Luigi]

Duke #3??? Sport writers are idiots.

 

[jplotinus]

Baylor 3 #1 votes? That should be bulletin board material for UCONN. Baylor deserves 0 #1 votes!
:-/

 

[triaddukefan]

Duke #3??? Sport writers are idiots.

 

[alexrgct]

I have a feeling both Baylor and UConn will be up for the game on 2/18 regardless.

 

[Kevin G]

Baylor 3 #1 votes? That should be bulletin board material for UCONN. Baylor deserves 0 #1 votes!
:-/

It's probably the same 3 voters who continued to vote for Baylor even after the Stanford loss. Unbiased?!

 

[willtalk]

Duke #3??? Sport writers are idiots.

I assume you are calling them Idiots because they voted Duke # 3. Unless the question of Duke is totally unrelated to your definition of sports writers, it would follow that anyone who would put Duke at # 3 is also an Idiot. Now according to you I along with some others who have stated that same opinion would be Idiots. Now as an Idiot you could do me a great favor by bringing me out of the darkness. As I have already made a so somewhat feeble attempt by posting a partial rational for my opinion, I would really appreciate if you could help me out by sharing your enlightened perspective with those of us that are by far your intellectual inferiors.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I have no issue with Duke leapfrogging to #3. They're undefeated, Stanford got stomped (and exposed). what's your reasoning for them not going up, Luigi?

 

[ed4ourgirls]

I don't find it unreasonable that Baylor should garner some first place
votes. It's not at all clear that UConn is better than Baylor. I may think so,
but I'm not an unbiased observer. Feb 18 and then in the final four will
be a bit more definitive.

 

[jplotinus]

I don't find it unreasonable that Baylor should garner some first place
votes. It's not at all clear that UConn is better than Baylor. I may think so,
but I'm not an unbiased observer. Feb 18 and then in the final four will
be a bit more definitive.

Absent head-to-head competition, it seems arbitrary to vote a 1-loss Baylor team as #1 just after uconn crushed the team Baylor lost to. The votes for Baylor also seem dismissive of the current reality. What makes the votes arbitrary is that saying one isnt sure uconn is better than Baylor is the same as saying one isn't sure baylor is better than uconn. That remains (until 2/18) to be seen. After that, both teams might get a chance for a rubber match. We shall see.

That is in the future. Back in the present, the available information says UCONN is #1.

Would you agree the votes for Baylor appear a bit disrespectful of the actual results to date?
Isn't the ranking based on outcomes and not on speculation?

 

[Plumber Luigi]

While Stanford had a poor game against us, Duke on the other had has played nobody of significance EXCEPT Cali which they did win.

Lets compare them shall we.

On one hand Duke. Record 11-0. SOS rank so far of 152 according to Sagarin. 1-0 against top 25 and 2-0 against to 50.

On the other Stanford. Record 11-1. SOS rank of 2. 3-1 Vs top 25, 5-1 Vs top 50.

How can anyone say Duke is a better overall team of the two. They have yet to proven themselves this year. While the California win at home by 14 was an impressive feet. Stanford beat Baylor at a neutral court and Tennessee and South Carolina on their courts. While the loss Vs UConn could be viewed as embarrassing, sometimes you just have a real bad day and when it happens against a very good team, that's the kind of score you get.

The only consolation I get out of the poll is that they are only separated by 5 points out of around 900. It's essentially a toss up.

Edit: For comparison sake. Colorado also matches Duke's 11-0 record and one win VS top 25 and two VS top 50. Only difference is their SOS is even lower than Duke's at 202.

 

[diggerfoot]

People seem to have short memories. Before the season started the general consensus was: Baylor and UConn in a class by themselves, then Duke a notch below because of all the talent they bring back, then Stanford decidedly below them because of the talent they were losing. Two things altered that equation a bit: Duke has had injuries and Stanford beat Baylor.

Yet Duke continues to win despite injuries, and took care of business in the manner that they should against the only top ten team they faced. If Stanford did not exist, or lost to Baylor, Duke would never have moved down in the polls because they have performed as expected, weak schedule or not. Stanford performed beyond expectations by beating Baylor, but that performance is greatly tempered by Sims going down and now being stomped by UConn. In other words, Stanford's rise due to exceeding expectations easily can be viewed by coaches and sportswriters as a fluke, while steady-as-she-goes Duke (so far) is merely maintaining the expectations that were there from the beginning.

I have no problem with Stanford at 4. If we jumped back before the season started this is where sportswriters, coaches, etc. expected we would be (except that we now provide strong evidence for being #1 ) .

 

[ed4ourgirls]

. . .

Would you agree the votes for Baylor appear a bit disrespectful of the actual results to date?
Isn't the ranking based on outcomes and not on speculation?

I don't know what the ranking is based on, but imo it should be based on who
you think is better. Results can sometimes be misleading. When the Lady Vols
lost their first game most people thought that they shouldn't be ranked, but
others knew that they had too much talent not to be a top 15 team, and so it now
seems to be. As for Baylor's loss, I would say that if Sims isn't playing, then
you're not playing Baylor. When Sims is playing, I think one could be forgiven
for voting for Baylor.

 

[cardfan]

I have no issue with Duke leapfrogging to #3. They're undefeated, Stanford got stomped (and exposed). what's your reasoning for them not going up, Luigi?

ouch. Exposed by not shooting well (FG, FT and 3s), not attacking the press when we had 3 on 2?

So does Baylor game mean nada because Sims was out?

I don't care about rankings now. As I stated here a few weeks ago, I think Stanford will lose 3-4 conference games.

I have no problem with Duke at 3.

 

[freekimchee]

I get Duke at 3. What I don't get are the 3 votes Baylor got. Guess we'll just have to beat them twice (Feb. 18 & NC)

 

[Plumber Luigi]

Duke has been perpetually overrated. Often a pick for the final four yet the last time they got there was 2006.

Let's look at the last 10 years.

2003 - Final Four, lose semifinal
2004- lose regional final
2005 - lose regional final
2006 - Final Four, lose championship game
2007 - lose regional semifinal
2008 - lose regional semifinal
2009 - lose 2nd round
2010 - lose regional final
2011 - lose regional final
2012 - lose regional final

At some point they need to stop being the bridesmaid. You can't crow about being THE best program (well that was during GG's reign) or one of the best programs when you only get to the FF 2 out of 7 tries in 10 years.

I admit that they are a top 10 program but last year's showing, losing to "surprise!" Stanford in the regional final, doesn't lend any credence to them starting the season ranked #3. Duke is a darling among AP sports writers since forever (men's program rubbed off) while Stanford is that team way over there that don't play enough big games east of the Mississippi to properly judge if they're any good. At least any games past the New Year in a season.

Stanford's loss of NO isn't enough for me lower my opinion of them, not as long as their record remains strong. Duke on the other hand, hasn't shown me anything in recent history or this season to say they deserve #3. Nothing.

 

[diggerfoot]

Duke has been perpetually overrated. Often a pick for the final four yet the last time they got there was 2006.

Let's look at the last 10 years.

2003 - Final Four, lose semifinal
2004- lose regional final
2005 - lose regional final
2006 - Final Four, lose championship game
2007 - lose regional semifinal
2008 - lose regional semifinal
2009 - lose 2nd round
2010 - lose regional final
2011 - lose regional final
2012 - lose regional final

At some point they need to stop being the bridesmaid. You can't crow about being THE best program (well that was during GG's reign) or one of the best programs when you only get to the FF 2 out of 7 tries in 10 years.

I admit that they are a top 10 program but last year's showing, losing to "surprise!" Stanford in the regional final, doesn't lend any credence to them starting the season ranked #3. Duke is a darling among AP sports writers since forever (men's program rubbed off) while Stanford is that team way over there that don't play enough big games east of the Mississippi to properly judge if they're any good. At least any games past the New Year in a season.

Stanford's loss of NO isn't enough for me lower my opinion of them, not as long as their record remains strong. Duke on the other hand, hasn't shown me anything in recent history or this season to say they deserve #3. Nothing.

After 2009 Duke did as expected in the tournament, at least for most people, though perhaps you expected them to beat UConn or Stanford. Now after three years of always doing as expected they bring back major talent, particularly Williams, while Stanford loses the undisputed best player in that class. At the start of the season it was quite logical to expect Duke to be better than Stanford. It's also logical to view the Baylor game as a fluke, whether it was or not.

You provide a reason for being a skeptic, that if you go back before 2010 Duke underperforms in the tournament. Fine. I have no problem with that being your reason. You don't stop there, though. You claim an opposing view to be idiotic (actually, I believe that was where you started, a dogmatic claim without supporting logic). I doubt many clear thinking people would judge the reason you provide for skepticism to be so strong as to render the opposing view based on recent events idiotic.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Will Parchman Waco Tribune has voted Baylor #1 and has since they beat ND Link *
Patrick Ochs Oxford Eagle, Miss.
Jayda Evans Seattle Times

* Article from Dec 20th but he did vote Baylor #1 this week, so I presume his rational is the same.

AP Voters - Link Not all votes are shown.

 

[UConn990411]

ouch. Exposed by not shooting well (FG, FT and 3s), not attacking the press when we had 3 on 2?

So does Baylor game mean nada because Sims was out?

I don't care about rankings now. As I stated here a few weeks ago, I think Stanford will lose 3-4 conference games.

I have no problem with Duke at 3.

I'm not sure what your definition of exposed is, but losing by 26 on your own court should fit the bill.

Apparently you don't think UConn's defense had anything to do with Stanford shooting its worst percentage in team history. But considering you think Tara is Geno's equal (laughable), that isn't too surprising.

 

[jplotinus]

Will Parchman Waco Tribune has voted Baylor #1 and has since they beat ND Link *
Patrick Ochs Oxford Eagle, Miss.
Jayda Evans Seattle Times

* Article from Dec 20th but he did vote Baylor #1 this week, so I presume his rational is the same.

AP Voters - Link Not all votes are shown.

Very impressive post and link. Thank you for posting it.

I'm in hog heaven over this as it allows me to argue with Will Parchman and not with posters. Therefore, when I finish accusing Will Parchman of being under the thumb of his holy roller, Bible Belt constituency, I won't be as easily accused of being condescending as otherwise I might.

To tell the truth, Parchman's perspective offends my sensibilities.

Here, in one sentence, is the crux of what rubs me the wrong way:

"The problem with that logic is that it rips the soul out of the vote."

That sentence sums up Parchman's approach of basing ranking on instinct and emotion, or, as he calls it "gut feeling." He acknowledges coaches don't do it that way. He does not acknowledge the effect of bias on "gut feeling" and draws no clue from the evidence of regional prejudice. He's from Waco, afterall. One of the two remaining votes for Baylor comes from Mississippi.

But, I digress. Equating the "soul" with the " gut" or with instinct and emotion is metaphysically inappropriate. The soul is not at all equivalent to gut feeling or to religious dogma requiring faith, where faith is a willingness to suspend disbelief and to accept as true things that are not properly evidenced, let alone proven.

Or, as I've said before, Mr Parchman, it allows ranking on the basis of arbitrary factors.

Ranking on the basis of gut feeling is arbitrary.

 

[Plumber Luigi]

After 2009 Duke did as expected in the tournament, at least for most people, though perhaps you expected them to beat UConn or Stanford. Now after three years of always doing as expected they bring back major talent, particularly Williams, while Stanford loses the undisputed best player in that class. At the start of the season it was quite logical to expect Duke to be better than Stanford. It's also logical to view the Baylor game as a fluke, whether it was or not.

You provide a reason for being a skeptic, that if you go back before 2010 Duke underperforms in the tournament. Fine. I have no problem with that being your reason. You don't stop there, though. You claim an opposing view to be idiotic (actually, I believe that was where you started, a dogmatic claim without supporting logic). I doubt many clear thinking people would judge the reason you provide for skepticism to be so strong as to render the opposing view based on recent events idiotic.

Let me try again.

My position is that sport writers are bias toward Duke, regardless of purely objective data just as they are bias against Stanford because they are "over there" in the PAC-12. This bias toward Duke is displayed in the AP Poll as well as picks for who will be in the Final Four over the last few years.

It is my opinion that the margin of victory or loss isn't as important as the current position in the poll of that team relative to you. There is always someone who is the rock to your scissors or if you prefer, some days everything/nothing goes right. As a data point it's an outlier, an exception, far outside the normal range of data. What is important is that you won or loss against a team that's X above or bellow you in the poll and that should be the only criteria used to determine how far up or down you should go.

As for Duke's preseason ranking, since they never got past the regional final in the last 3 years would cause me to rank them somewhere in the 5 to 8 range. Certainly not a #3. Yes past performance isn't indicative to future ones but you need some set of objective criteria to initially rank them.

Now I don't follow the other top 25 teams close enough to judge the effect of who they lost to graduation and who they gained as Freshmen. I don't follow who's coming in until they signed a LOI in their senior year of high school. Some times incoming Freshmen are as great as their accolades say they are, sometimes they aren't. We lost four exceptional players in 2002, let we still won the NC for the next two years (in that year we did have a group of Freshmen who performed as expected). That's why I think having a subjective "gut" feeling on how good a particular team should be is questionable at best and I dismiss that as an reasonable argument favoring a purely objective approach where and when possible.

 

[triaddukefan]

Let me try again.

My position is that sport writers are bias toward Duke, regardless of purely objective data just as they are bias against Stanford because they are "over there" in the PAC-12. This bias toward Duke is displayed in the AP Poll as well as picks for who will be in the Final Four over the last few years.


.

I havent seen anyone in the media pick Duke to be in the final 4 since probably 2006. Not sure where you are getting that from.

 

[diggerfoot]

Let me try again.

.........

That's why I think having a subjective "gut" feeling on how good a particular team should be is questionable at best and I dismiss that as an reasonable argument favoring a purely objective approach where and when possible.

Now let me try again.

I have no problem with your reasons for thinking Stanford should be ranked higher, not once out of the multiple times you presented them. It's simply not "idiotic" to have a difference in that opinion. Sagarin and other measurements are objective. You could also come up with an objective measure of talent gained and lost and devise a neat little algorithm to use this objective data to adjust poll position based on tournament performance last year by these teams. I'm quite sure that objective exercise would favor Duke, and it's purely a subjective exercise for you to say Sagarin, SOS or some other objective measurement should be superior to that.

However, objectivity is not the end all of empirical evidence, validity and reliability are, and those are what work in your favor. Is being objective about talent lost and gained or using something like Sagarin valid when coaching and so many other variables which escape objective measurement need to be considered? Your position would imply not and I actually agree with that. It's still not idiotic to think otherwise from you and the main reason why, ironically, is because objective criteria can be used that supports Duke at #3.

 

[Plumber Luigi]

I havent seen anyone in the media pick Duke to be in the final 4 since probably 2006. Not sure where you are getting that from.

You're right, at least with ESPN's experts. Nobody picked Duke last year (only 4 people picked) and only Rebecca Lobo picked Duke the year before (out of six people). Unfortunately that's as far back as Wayback Machine goes.