NUMP talk
There have been some questions about the rationale behind the latest women's NUMP poll results. In addition to starting more of a discussion about what should play into changes in the rankings from week to week, I'd also like to discuss what the qualifications should be of being on the NUMP.
Some of the major changes between the pre-season poll and this week's poll were the direct result of last weekend's Santa Barbara Invite. UCLA and UC-Davis made it into the poll (after previously being unranked) based on their finals and semifinals appearances, respectively. After coming in second in its pool to UC-San Diego and then losing to UCLA in quarters, UC-Berkeley went down a couple notches in the poll, and UCSD moved up a spot.
As AJ pointed out in his previous comment, it is interesting that UC-Davis remains below both UC-Berkeley and UCLA, despite the fact that the team finished higher at the tournament than UC-Berkeley and actually beat UCLA by one in pool play. I can't speak to the Davis-Berkeley order, because it does't make sense to me either, but perhaps I can offer a little insight into the UCLA-Davis order as I saw both teams play during the weekend in their games against Stanford.
Of note is that both games against Stanford had a score of 11-6, Stanford, at some point in time. The semis were then capped at this score, while the finals had no cap and UCLA was able to mount two runs to bring the final score to 15-13. While it's impossible to say whether Davis would have been able to have the same type of comeback given the time, I give a lot of credit to the fact that UCLA did outscore Stanford in the second half. I think it speaks to the depth of the team that UCLA was still able to run hard, play tough D, and convert on offense late in a game that was late in the tournament. Personally, I also thought UCLA's offense was slightly more polished than Davis', but maybe that's just the bias that comes from seeing them score more points. Perhaps other voters who weren't in Santa Barbara simply based their rankings on the tournament finishes of the two teams and their scores against their common opponent.
Other major changes to the poll's rankings involved the demotion of Cornell, Iowa, and MIT. Iowa and MIT in particular lost a lot of ground, but my conjecture is that those two teams were ranked too highly to begin with in the pre-season poll. I don't know how much information all the voters had on all the teams before the pre-season poll, but it could very well be the case that people didn't know all that much about roster changes and simply based much of their voting on finishes at last year's nationals. As more information about teams was unearthed, the panelists adjusted their picks accordingly.
Of course, most of the teams on the poll haven't even played a game this season, so the rankings have to be taken with a major grain of salt. I imagine that as more tournaments happen, the panelists will have a more accurate sense of how teams stack up against each other and the poll's rankings will be more valid as a result.
The poll's accuracy could also be enhanced by having more than 7 people voting!
I think that many people are hesitant to join the NUMP because they haven't seen all that many teams and would have a hard time ranking teams from across the nation. However, no one has seen every team or teams from every region yet. I think that especially coaches who accurately know the intra-region competition and are expecting to travel to a couple tournaments with inter-region play should consider voting on the panel. It's up to the panelists from different geographic areas to share information about teams and tournaments and for people to make their best informed guesses.
Wow, this was meant to be a quick post as a study break. Procrastination let me get carried away again...
Some of the major changes between the pre-season poll and this week's poll were the direct result of last weekend's Santa Barbara Invite. UCLA and UC-Davis made it into the poll (after previously being unranked) based on their finals and semifinals appearances, respectively. After coming in second in its pool to UC-San Diego and then losing to UCLA in quarters, UC-Berkeley went down a couple notches in the poll, and UCSD moved up a spot.
As AJ pointed out in his previous comment, it is interesting that UC-Davis remains below both UC-Berkeley and UCLA, despite the fact that the team finished higher at the tournament than UC-Berkeley and actually beat UCLA by one in pool play. I can't speak to the Davis-Berkeley order, because it does't make sense to me either, but perhaps I can offer a little insight into the UCLA-Davis order as I saw both teams play during the weekend in their games against Stanford.
Of note is that both games against Stanford had a score of 11-6, Stanford, at some point in time. The semis were then capped at this score, while the finals had no cap and UCLA was able to mount two runs to bring the final score to 15-13. While it's impossible to say whether Davis would have been able to have the same type of comeback given the time, I give a lot of credit to the fact that UCLA did outscore Stanford in the second half. I think it speaks to the depth of the team that UCLA was still able to run hard, play tough D, and convert on offense late in a game that was late in the tournament. Personally, I also thought UCLA's offense was slightly more polished than Davis', but maybe that's just the bias that comes from seeing them score more points. Perhaps other voters who weren't in Santa Barbara simply based their rankings on the tournament finishes of the two teams and their scores against their common opponent.
Other major changes to the poll's rankings involved the demotion of Cornell, Iowa, and MIT. Iowa and MIT in particular lost a lot of ground, but my conjecture is that those two teams were ranked too highly to begin with in the pre-season poll. I don't know how much information all the voters had on all the teams before the pre-season poll, but it could very well be the case that people didn't know all that much about roster changes and simply based much of their voting on finishes at last year's nationals. As more information about teams was unearthed, the panelists adjusted their picks accordingly.
Of course, most of the teams on the poll haven't even played a game this season, so the rankings have to be taken with a major grain of salt. I imagine that as more tournaments happen, the panelists will have a more accurate sense of how teams stack up against each other and the poll's rankings will be more valid as a result.
The poll's accuracy could also be enhanced by having more than 7 people voting!
I think that many people are hesitant to join the NUMP because they haven't seen all that many teams and would have a hard time ranking teams from across the nation. However, no one has seen every team or teams from every region yet. I think that especially coaches who accurately know the intra-region competition and are expecting to travel to a couple tournaments with inter-region play should consider voting on the panel. It's up to the panelists from different geographic areas to share information about teams and tournaments and for people to make their best informed guesses.
Wow, this was meant to be a quick post as a study break. Procrastination let me get carried away again...
posted by Gambler at 4:33 PM
7 Comments:
Thanks. where can i sign up to become a nump voter?
aj
At this point, I think that all you have to do is send your contact information to either me or Cyle Van Auken (remember to remove the NOSPAM element in the e-mail addresses).
Right now there really isn't much of a process for deciding whether someone is or is not qualified enough to be on the poll at this point. I think that ideally the current NUMP members would vote on anyone wanting to join, and simple majority wins.
Hey Gwen,
I haven't voted yet this year because it feel like the process is much more undefined than last. I am not sure how many teams I am supposed to rank, and I am getting the notification about the due date at the last minute.
I haven't checked out the latest poll yet, but I am pretty sure that Brown should not be in the top 25. I mean no disrespect, but they just lost so many players last year.
-George
My first poll was essentially based on last year's Nationals results, at least the top 8. The other 4 spots were based on the fall season - but I don't like to use that in general, because the best college players tend to be playing club in the fall.
In the second poll, UCLA got bumped up but I kept nearly everyone else in the same positions. The exceptions were UW and Berkeley. Berkeley lost in quarters at Santa Barbara so they were penalized (yes, dumb tournament format, but UCLA would have been similarly penalized had they lost that game). I dropped UW down because I don't think they will be as strong this year as they were last year, due to personnel losses. And after reading Lindsey's comments about the AC, I dropped Florida out in favor of Emory.
I am comfortable right now with my rankings of NW and SW teams, and not very comfortable with the rest of the country. Vegas will make things a whole lot clearer.
just out of curiousity, what did i say about florida that would make you drop them behind emory?
also, i am having troubles with this blog thing...did anyone have a comment of mine appear on saturday the 5th of feb about NUMP voting? where i commented on how i feel about fall results compared to last year's...blah, blah, blah
Lindsey: Regional preview. Emory sounds stronger from what you wrote. But honestly, I feel like my ballot is a total crapshoot right now. Give it a weekend. As for the other thing, never saw post about NUMP voting.
Post a Comment
<< Home