[JK37]

I’ve always thought of it as the 25 best teams in the country. And I used to vote in one of these things.

“25 best seasons” bring success relative to expectations into the equation, and I don’t believe that it should be part of this particular calculation.

[Kricket]

I’ve always thought of it as the 25 best teams in the country. And I used to vote in one of these things.

“25 best seasons” bring success relative to expectations into the equation, and I don’t believe that it should be part of this particular calculation.

Best season is probably said better as "best resume". Nobody should be voting based on expectations.

Best team is way more subjective than best resume.

[JK37]

It’s a poll with human voters. It is inherently subjective and always will be.

For totally objective rankings, we have the computers.

[Kricket]

It’s a poll with human voters. It is inherently subjective and always will be.

For totally objective rankings, we have the computers.

Yes, but what criteria would you be basing your voting off of if not resume?

[flameshaw]

As I mentioned earlier in another thread(?) All you have to do, is see that ASU will end up in the top 20 in football to know that polls are totally useless and pretty much a waste of time. CCU always used to be rated way too high in the FCS poll as well. Like the way FCS does their playoff deal.
Merry Christmas to all.

[JK37]

It’s a poll with human voters. It is inherently subjective and always will be.

For totally objective rankings, we have the computers.

Yes, but what criteria would you be basing your voting off of if not resume?

I always used a combination of best teams of the ones I had seen live or on tape, and best “resume” as you out it. But I don’t believe even saying “best resume” eliminates much subjectivity.

Some things on a resume are going to be more important to voters than others. Things like conference affiliation and SOS carry heavier weight with some voters than others. For that matter, computer-based formulas we’re still created by - you got it! - humans! There’s absolutely no objective way to select a Top 25.

And for kicks, I don’t believe LU belongs in the Top 25.m based on any results. So certainly not by resume. Undefeated? So what?! Who have they beaten? They’ve won every game they were supposed to win.

If anyone is going to put LU in their Top 25 poll, it can’t be about resume. Our resume is what kills us. It has to be based on watching LU and comparing subjectively to other teams that have also been watched. In that regards we look much better.

[jinxy]

However, there are very few teams that have won “ all the games they were supposed to win”. Should we not receive any credit for that? For the record i think were about where we should be, maybe a couple spots too low if i review the resumes of teams around them but close.

The funny part is the same people arguing we shouldnt be ranked because of our resume are arguing how good app state is in football when their resume is very comparable to our mbb resume. App beat a down p5 and beat midling sunbelt teams and even lost to a southern team we beat yet. Zero chance app is a top 25 team. I would even argue with parody and the one and done rule in mbb our mbb team is much closer to a top 25 team than app is in football.

This is puzzling to me how our own fan base wants to belittle our programs accomplishments. There has been plenty to criticize over the years. However right now all 3 main programs are winning and growing.

[Kricket]

JK, your response is exactly why I personally prefer computers. At least teams would know the logic their dealing with and could attempt to schedule accordingly. It's not to say your response is bad, just that it's very convoluted.

The logic that we're not worthy to be top 25 because we've only beaten teams we were supposed to best is a very flawed one. If we were favored to win our games at 51 percent likelihood to win each game, we would have a 0.008% chance of being here today. We would have to have an average likelihood of winning each game of over 95% each game to give us a 50% chance of being 14-0. The computer understands statistics and that Liberty is probably a better team than we originally thought based on resume. Kentucky losing to Evansville and the 5 top teams are perfect examples of why beating teams that you're supposed to beat matters. Not only does it demonstrate consistency but it also shows your team is better. We couldn't be just marginal favorites against our oppnents and be where we are today. The number of times you can beat a poor team demonstrates strength.

People keep saying our resume isn't good enough but computers put Liberty in the top 25 based on our resume. The NET and the SOR on ESPNs BPI. You know why? The computers are programmed to take into account probabilities and statistics. Here's the SOR on ESPN that has us at 11.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... iew/resume

The NET we know has us at 17th.

It's your eyes that are telling you we aren't a top 25 team, not our resume.

[JK37]

However, there are very few teams that have won “ all the games they were supposed to win”. Should we not receive any credit for that? For the record i think were about where we should be, maybe a couple spots too low if i review the resumes of teams around them but close.

The funny part is the same people arguing we shouldnt be ranked because of our resume are arguing how good app state is in football when their resume is very comparable to our mbb resume. App beat a down p5 and beat midling sunbelt teams and even lost to a southern team we beat yet. Zero chance app is a top 25 team. I would even argue with parody and the one and done rule in mbb our mbb team is much closer to a top 25 team than app is in football.

This is puzzling to me how our own fan base wants to belittle our programs accomplishments. There has been plenty to criticize over the years. However right now all 3 main programs are winning and growing.

I don’t give a tip about App State football. I like to compare my apples to other apples.

I’m not criticizing anything. I’m simply not elevating this team’s accomplishments thus far as highly as you and Kricket and others are elevating them.

This LU MBB team is sneaky good. I do believe they could be worthy of Top 25 by the end of the year, if not soon. (Let’s talk after LSU.) I think it is laudable that they have won every game they were supposed to. Which is every one of they have played. Because they haven’t played a very tough schedule yet. I have watched this team struggle for long stretches against teams who (Let’s use your criteria, Kricket) have far inferior resumes and much lower computer ratings. It’s great they won! It could even be a sign of impending worthiness to a Top 25 ranking in a poll somewhere sometime soon. Just not mine. Yet.

I watch how they have played. All season. HOW a team plays is my biggest factor for Top 25. And they have struggled too much against inferior teams to be deserving of a Top 25 ranking yet in my book.

And Jinxy, just so you don’t think I forgot about you: that’s not diminishing any accomplishments. That’s simply being more...OBJECTIVE...and REALISTIC...than most fanatics - “fans” for short.

[thepostman]

I think it is wise to look at multiple computer ranking. NET has at 17 and kenpom has us at 58. It would seem to be somewhere in the middle is where we fall and is just about even with what the polls have us at.

[JK37]

JK, your response is exactly why I personally prefer computers. At least teams would know the logic their dealing with and could attempt to schedule accordingly. It's not to say your response is bad, just that it's very convoluted.

.....

It's your eyes that are telling you we aren't a top 25 team, not our resume.

You are right. You want the computers to be right because they’re telling you right now what you want to hear. Ok, fine. Why give a rip then about the polls?

Meanwhile, in general I don’t believe the computers can tell us definitively who is better than whom. It’s one good tool among many. And those tools don’t work in opposition of each other. Except in your mind, where you only want to use the ones telling you things you like.

[JK37]

I think it is wise to look at multiple computer ranking. NET has at 17 and kenpom has us at 58. It would seem to be somewhere in the middle is where we fall and is just about even with what the polls have us at.

Huh. That sounds kinda smart.

[Jonathan Carone]

I think the App comparison could be a strong one if you change the context just a bit. There are only 130 teams to choose from in football while there's 300+ in basketball. With that context, top 25 in football is the equivalent of top 50-60ish in basketball. I definitely think we're a top 50 basketball team right now, probably even top 40.

[jinxy]

Who has dominated every game all game?? That hasnt happened in years and were talking about top 25 not number 1 team. The lower end of top 25 is filled with inconsistency.

The other team shows up with a target on us for the last 4 or 5 games to knock us off. Defending that is something. Again, i think were about where we should be. I still think the logic and standard several of you guys are applying is brutal and wont hold water against other comparable teams in that range.

Theyve won every game. Overcome losing homesley for a couple weeks and they are getting better. We look like a top 30 team to me with a big chance to keep climbing this weekend.

Jon. Thats fair but its that eye test that in talking about. APP doesnt pass it anymore than we do imho. They both have beaten the team on their schedule and given where they are both were solid achievements.

[Jonathan Carone]

Was App ranked before they beat South Carolina? If I'm not mistaken, they had to get the two P5 wins before they were ranked. I could be off on that timeline.

Either way, I think if we beat LSU (a second P5), we might crack it.

[JK37]

Who has dominated every game all game?

When you say this, you bring comparison of schedule back into the equation. You don’t want to go there with this Liberty team.

[Kricket]

You are right. You want the computers to be right because they’re telling you right now what you want to hear. Ok, fine. Why give a rip then about the polls?

You're very incorrect. I've tracked computer rankings for years and have had the same stance on football as well. I mean, I've had a thread tracking the BPI for years.

The NET carries the most weight as it is supposed to be a guide for seeding.

And I already explained why the polls matter, but I can tell you're not really reading so I'll save my energy.

[Kricket]

I think it is wise to look at multiple computer ranking. NET has at 17 and kenpom has us at 58. It would seem to be somewhere in the middle is where we fall and is just about even with what the polls have us at.

Huh. That sounds kinda smart.

What are Ken Pomeroy’s credentials to be considered in rankings? He's a guy who started his own website. If I start a website putting Liberty at number 1 should that be considered?

I'm sure you guys know this already, but KenPom uses preseason rankings in his equation until late January. How should that be used for ranking this year's team?

https://kenpom.com/contact.php

For the record, ESPNs BPI does as well, which is probably why the NET has us higher than other computer rankings because they don't use prior years in the equation as far as I know.

There's a huge difference between the NET and KenPom. The NET was invented to be predictive of NCAA tournament success based on prior seasons. It's the official tool of the NCAA. You guys are acting like it's a Liberty fan site.

[Kricket]

KenPom and BPI both are predictive and don't really attempt to rank this year's resume only. They take prior years into consideration.

From my understanding ESPNs SOR and NET is solely based on this year. This is why I referenced them. It's not cherry picked, I'm trying to make the point that our resume is good. It's perception from prior years that is hurting us.

That's why understanding what rankings are based on is important. I think it's unfair to use prior years on this year's rankings, but as a fan site like KenPom I get why it's done.

We are much higher when only this year's resume is considered, which is why we are 11 and 17 in those rankings and higher in BPI and KenPom. Its obvious to me that many don't understand the difference but it's important to understand for this conversation.

[jinxy]

Agreed jon. I keep saying i dont disagree with where we are and if we get lsu we should be.

I disagree with jk on this one almost entirely but thats what message boards are for.

[JK37]

I already explained why the polls matter.

I must’ve missed it, but I’m genuinely curious now. To someone who leans so heavily on computer ratings, why do polls matter?

[JK37]

The NET was invented to be predictive of NCAA tournament success based on prior seasons.

NET is solely based on this year.

Now, you’ve lost me. Which one is it?

[Kricket]

The NET was invented to be predictive of NCAA tournament success based on prior seasons.

NET is solely based on this year.

Now, you’ve lost me. Which one is it?

I could've clarified that better. The NET used all teams that we're successful in tournament to generate their equation.

It doesn't use individual teams success in prior years to determine their ranking this year. What I mean by that is only games played this year affect our current ranking.

[Kricket]

I already explained why the polls matter.

I must’ve missed it, but I’m genuinely curious now. To someone who leans so heavily on computer ratings, why do polls matter?

The polls matter to me because they matter to the casual fan. For example, my wife is not a fan of sports at all, but she knows a team is good if there's a number by their name. That's good publicity for the school.

I've also had times when I'm flicking through channels and I'll casually watch the game a ranked team is in mostly out of laziness. ESPN defaults to showing scores and schedules of top 25 teams, again drawing more attention to the school. Polls indicate the program is getting attention, which draws attention to the school and our faith.

If ESPN started showing NET rankings instead of the AP poll, the AP poll would lose almost all of its importance. As silly as it is, getting more attention is the point of the polls, in my opinion. Considering the Great Commission, I think it's important that we attempt to use every tool we can to share our faith. In a small way, being ranked helps with that.

Just like being on the bracket during the tournament. People start to ask me about Liberty and what the school is about. I live in Wisconsin so most people know nothing about Liberty, so things like that are important to raise the profile of the school.

Hopefully I'm making sense. Sometimes it's hard to make a detailed point typing on a phone.

[Geraldos Mustache]

[/quote]
The polls matter to me because they matter to the casual fan.

ESPN defaults to showing scores and schedules of top 25 teams, again drawing more attention to the school. Polls indicate the program is getting attention, which draws attention to the school and our faith.
[/quote]

Actually - very good point...