Poll Watch, 2012-13 Edition

[ShockerFever]

No Shockers on Seth Davis' ballot.

But Akron and freaking Louisiana Tech are there. Akron I can maybe see, but Louisiana Tech?

It's ok though. We'll get our respect back in due time.

[shox1989]

Seth Davis disappoints me. I expected better from him.

[DUShock]

It is the time of year when rankings matter little as teams truly are master's of their own fate.

[MadaboutWu]

It is the time of year when rankings matter little as teams truly are master's of their own fate.

Seeding in the tourney is vitally important no matter if your ambition is to win a game, go to the sweet sixteen or go all the way. Once the seeds are announced I agree ranks cease to matter, but not yet.

[Cdizzle]

It is the time of year when rankings matter little as teams truly are master's of their own fate.

When was the last time a ranked team was left out of the tournament? Rankings matter. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

[RoyalShock]

Until a voting member of the AP or ESPN poll is on the selection committee (which will never happen), rankings don't and won't influence seeding. But they are fun and the publicity is nice.

[SubGod22]

When was the last time a ranked team was left out of the tournament? Rankings matter. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

Happened to Utah State I believe 10-15 years ago. I believe they were ranked 22nd.

[MadaboutWu]

Until a voting member of the AP or ESPN poll is on the selection committee (which will never happen), rankings don't and won't influence seeding. But they are fun and the publicity is nice.

Publicity is good for a lot of reasons. I disagree about it effecting seeding. Just look at CU this year. They should be squarely on the bubble but all the publicity around SoW is likely to help their case. Bracketologists aren't on the selection commitee either, but I think they are right in this case and that the pub around SoW is a good insurance policy for CU. If they end the season losing three straight the pub won't matter...

[garylee]

i hope we play them in the mvc tournament finals and we BOTH make it in. i still
believe they are a very dangerous team. after us, i'll be rooting for them

[RoyalShock]

Publicity is good for a lot of reasons. I disagree about it effecting seeding. Just look at CU this year. They should be squarely on the bubble but all the publicity around SoW is likely to help their case. Bracketologists aren't on the selection commitee either, but I think they are right in this case and that the pub around SoW is a good insurance policy for CU. If they end the season losing three straight the pub won't matter...

How can you use CU this year to justify your assertion? Selections/seeding hasn't even been done yet. You'll have to show me evidence, such as quotes from committee members, that they pay attention to polls and use it during selection and seeding. Bracketologists, as far as I can tell, don't use polls to produce their brackets either. I've yet to read a bracketologist mention a team's AP ranking as a reason they put them 6th instead of 7th, for example. But I do see them use record against segments of the RPI, road/neutral performance, etc.

[GoShockers89]

#29 in the AP Poll w/35 votes.

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

[MadaboutWu]

How can you use CU this year to justify your assertion? Selections/seeding hasn't even been done yet. You'll have to show me evidence, such as quotes from committee members, that they pay attention to polls and use it during selection and seeding. Bracketologists, as far as I can tell, don't use polls to produce their brackets either. I've yet to read a bracketologist mention a team's AP ranking as a reason they put them 6th instead of 7th, for example. But I do see them use record against segments of the RPI, road/neutral performance, etc.

Fair enough about CU. Without remembering specifics I feel like analogous teams from previous years have gotten an undeserved bump from having a superstar/media darling--was it USC a couple of years back? Maybe K-State too at one point?

In terms of selection committee members publicly stating they go by polls, there obviously isn't going to be that kind of proof. In fact, the committee works very hard to project the exact opposite image, that they are objective, nearly scientific, and immune from outside influence. So my point has to remain a deduction from circumstantial evidence about how schools have been treated. It really is just a hunch as I haven't seen breakdowns of how top 25 schools fare. However, a very comparable situation is the the BCS-bias which we discuss at length every year here (and which I definitely agree with and is broken down in the media). BCS-bias is partly an effect of media attention; it's the schools the committee hears the most about, see the most clips of. I assume the committee tries hard to be fair, but imo it is very difficult not to show some bias towards schools that are continually trumpeted in the media.

[MadaboutWu]

Gonzaga got a vote for first and is ranked #2. I wonder when the last time a non-bcs school had that happen. Love to see it.

[wsushox1]

Gonzaga got a vote for first and is ranked #2. I wonder when the last time a non-bcs school had that happen. Love to see it.

Memphis under Calipari.

[Cdizzle]

Fair enough about CU. Without remembering specifics I feel like analogous teams from previous years have gotten an undeserved bump from having a superstar/media darling--was it USC a couple of years back? Maybe K-State too at one point?

In terms of selection committee members publicly stating they go by polls, there obviously isn't going to be that kind of proof. In fact, the committee works very hard to project the exact opposite image, that they are objective, nearly scientific, and immune from outside influence. So my point has to remain a deduction from circumstantial evidence about how schools have been treated. It really is just a hunch as I haven't seen breakdowns of how top 25 schools fare. However, a very comparable situation is the the BCS-bias which we discuss at length every year here (and which I definitely agree with and is broken down in the media). BCS-bias is partly an effect of media attention; it's the schools the committee hears the most about, see the most clips of. I assume the committee tries hard to be fair, but imo it is very difficult not to show some bias towards schools that are continually trumpeted in the media.

USC's inclusion in the field and matchup with KState was based solely on their desire for the Mayo-Beasley matchup.