RebKell's Junkie Boards

[PalaceAthena]

Thanks to women's hoops for posting this on the blog. I can't believe I missed this. In her most recent column, USA TODAY.com's Kate Smith has an item about George Washington. It's the second item here:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/columnist/katesmith/2006-01-19-smith-cowher_x.htm

In it, GW coach Joe McKeown expresses his frustration with the polls, saying, "It's political…some of it's a joke," the George Washington coach said last week. "The power conferences start ganging up on everybody. A team gets beat twice and they keep voting to keep each other in."

Now this isn't a new sentiment for coach Joe, but he raises some interesting points both about GW, the power conferences and the polls. For the sake of full disclosure, I should note that I am a GW alum. But I'd like to believe I'd feel the same way if another coach from another school had said the same thing. As Smith notes, "McKeown had every right to be frustrated with the rankings. Until this week, George Washington wasn't in either Top 25, despite playing the eighth-toughest schedule in the country and having the 13th-best RPI, according to collegerpi.com."

Now, it's not like GW being good is a new phenomenon. The Colonials have consistently been the best team in the A10 pretty much since McKeown took over the program 15 years ago. Based on win-loss records alone, the GW women are the most successful program in the Washington D.C. metro area, and that includes the Maryland men (national championship not withstanding). GW has made the NCAA tournament almost every year for the past decade, usually winning a round, and in 1997 made the Elite Eight. So you'd think that GW would get the benefit of its rep.

Which brings me back to the power conferences. Many on this board were wondering, questioning, complaining why it took so long for Texas Tech and Texas to drop out of the polls and why Notre Dame was ranked this week (prior to the Irish's win over DePaul which occurred after the polls were released this week). It seems that the power conference schools get the benefit of reputation, both their own and the conference(s). But this doesn't seem to apply to the non-power conference schools. Even if smaller conference schools play tougher schedules or get bigger wins. For instance, prior to the win over DePaul, Notre Dame's biggest win was over Southern Cal, while GW's biggest win was over No. 11 Purdue, the team currently sitting atop the Big 10. And Notre Dame can lose 4 out of it's last 5 games (again prior to DePaul) and still remain top 25. Is that because Notre Dame is a former national champion, because they play in the Big East, or both? Does GW not get ranked because they play in the A10, even though it is the only non-power conference to have two different teams reach the Elite 8 in the past decade (GW in 97, Xavier in 2001)?


If reputation is going to count in the polls, shouldn't consistently good teams get the benefit of reputation regardless of what conference they're in? That is, if they are playing tough schedules, beating good teams, beating ranked teams, and not taking any bad losses? I'd like to think that teams like Louisiana Tech, UCSB (this year not withstanding), Missouri State (aka Jackie Stiles Univ.), New Mexico, Utah, Xavier and GW, and whoever else might fit into this category, have established themselves enough over the past decade to get a little love. That if they do all the things that the tournament committee says they're supposed to do, that they'd get some acknowledgement.

Now some may think I'm just complaining as a GW alum and fan, but I think I'm more wondering out loud. There's been talk over the past couple of years about parity, but even if the results deem that to be the case, do the pollsters really acknowledge it? If a "little" school beats a "big" school, do the pollsters deem it a fluke? If a "big" school loses to a couple of unranked schools, is that also considered a fluke, and thus not necessary to drop them in the polls?

Thoughts, conspiracy theories, pearls of wisdom, or even evidence to the contrary are encouraged. I'd love to know what the junkies think on this subject.

[Carol Anne]

[beknighted]

Well, polls are strange, for one thing. GW is exactly the kind of program that ought to get some notice from the voters - a pretty consistent NCAA team that's won some games in the tourney, generally at or near the top of a conference that gets multiple bids.

If you want my opinion, GW got hurt by having a tough first three weeks of the season. The Colonials were 2-3 after the Tennessee game. Sure, they played very well against the Lady Vols, but there just aren't a lot of 2-3 teams in the poll, and it takes a long time to recover.

The Notre Dame comparison is apt. The Irish have been stickier than they should be. Some of that is being Notre Dame (which matters more than being a BEast team), and some of that is that they started off pretty high in the polls. And yet, here's a team with 5 losses, 3 to unranked teams, and that just beat Georgetown by a whopping 2 points, ranked above GW in both polls.

I suppose the good news for GW et al. is that the tournament committee seems to pay very little attention to the polls. Somewhat ironically, I recall the Jackie Stiles U. folks complaining bitterly about getting a 5 seed in 2001, and pointing to the polls to show the committee was wrong. I doubt anyone on the committee cared.

[Keegan]

UMass beat GW by two today. McKeown certainly had a strong argument before but its relevance with regards to GW has just dropped significantly...

_________________
Beware of snarky monotremes...

[bballfan2005]

[Keegan]

[bballfan2005]

[PUmatty]

Being ranked is important in terms of media coverage. The Associated Press sends a reporter and, I think, a photographer to games involving a ranked team. Many papers run snippets on all of those games. That can make a difference in terms of exposure.

[Keegan]

[beknighted]

I once tried to predict seedings with the polls as a factor and it didn't work particularly well. Of course, I'm not particularly good at predicting seeds in the first place. The schools that don't do as well as their ranks tend to be from lower-ranked conferences (La Tech and ODU come to mind, and I seem to recall Temple getting a seed that was one slot lower than its ranking would have justified last year), but the correlation is more to RPI than to conference.

[Jimi3]

I would be more interested in how well the polls corelate to NCAA tourney performance than seedings but I am way too lazy and too disrespectfull of polls to do the homework.

_________________
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers

[PalaceAthena]

Can someone help me remove my foot from my mouth?

Oh, yeah, Joe McKeown could use some assistance as well.

The general question about polls is still relevant though. How much does politics and reputation play a roll in the voting? And the Notre Dame example is still a relevant one. I mean, they almost lost to Georgetown. Wouldn't have been as bad as losing to UMass, but it would have been close. Meanwhile, GW deserved to drop out of the top 25 after that horrific loss.

[beknighted]

I would guess there's a fair chance that the Irish will drop out of the polls now.

Hey, PA, any chance you might find your way to McDonough on Saturday afternoon for RU-Georgetown? It's a nice, convenient 3:00 pm start.

[PalaceAthena]

I forgot Rutgers was going to be in town this weekend. That could be fun watching RU put the beatdown on the Hoyas. And I haven't seen Cappie play in person since she was playing high school ball in Chicago. I assume you are going BeK? And should I also assume that the game is general admission? PM me with details and maybe we can figure out a way to meet up before the game.