Top 25 Poll for Div. III

Forums General General Top 25 Poll for Div. III

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 32 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #12913
      Swmr46
      Member

      The top 25 poll just came today and I was appaulled to see where teams were ranked for both men and women. I think what Greg is doing great for Division III but the coaches who are voting for these polls aren’t looking at the criteria closely. I think some coaches rank there team higher then they really are. That way they can say there team is ranked in the top 25.

      Men
      1 Denison 680
      2 Kenyon 672
      3 Johns Hopkins 638
      4 Emory 605
      5 Williams 527
      6 Washington University 517
      7 St. Olaf 468
      8 Washington & Lee 433
      9 De Pauw 413
      10 Carthage 343
      11 Gustavus Adolphus 327
      12 Kalamazoo 319
      13 UW-Stevens Point 282
      14 Carnegie Mellon 271
      15 M. I. T. 270
      16 New York University 264
      17 Amherst 229
      18 Wabash College 221
      19 Grove City 173
      20 The College of New Jersey 156
      21 UC Santa Cruz 155
      22 Middlebury College 145
      23 Hope 143
      24 Chicago 107
      25 Wheaton (IL) 61

      The College of New Jersey is ranked 20th! They beat NYU at ECAC by a decent margin. No knock on Grove City but I don’t think they could beat the college of new jersey in a dual meet! They would win the sprint events and that is about it. Hope is ranked 23rd? Yeah they shaved and taper for the Wheaton Invitation but you are telling me that Chicago is just good as them. I know Chicago doesn’t shave and taper for a invitational but they aren’t the 24th best team in the country right now. Look at teams like Lacrosee, Luther, Wooster, Westminster, and F & M. I think some of though teams are better then the ones listed.

      Women
      1 Kenyon 598.00
      2 Emory 562.00
      3 Denison 551.00
      4 Amherst 490.00
      5 Williams 443.00
      6 Middlebury College 419.00
      7 Johns Hopkins 404.00
      8 Wheaton (IL) 376.00
      9 Washington University 370.00
      10 Calvin College 355.00
      11 Hope 322.00
      12 C-M-S 254.00
      13 Carnegie Mellon 246.00
      14 De Pauw 226.00
      15 Mary Washington 217.00
      16 Washington & Jefferson 182.00
      17 UW-Stevens Point 177.00
      18 New York University 156.00
      19 UW-La Crosse 133.00
      20 M. I. T. 127.00
      21 UC Santa Cruz 97.00
      22 Colby College 71.00
      23 Carthage 66.00
      24 Gustavus Adolphus 62.00
      25 SUNY-New Paltz 49.00

      Even some of the women rankings I question, W & J at 16th? You think W & J can beat NYU in a dual meet?

      Here is the criteria for the rankings. http://www.collegeswimming.com/media/documents/DivisionIII-December.pdf

      Come up with your own poll and see how it compares to the recent Div III poll posted.

    • #42317

      W& J women’s team has one good swimmer — Kaitlyn Orstein. Without her, they are nothing, they should definitely not be ranked that high!

    • #42318

      ALSO, looking at Wheaton, no way should they be above WashU and a few others…………

    • #42319

      Eh! Don’t worry about rankings to much. This isn’t DI football. Everything important is decieded in competition.

    • #42320
      Colbybr
      Member

      Also no way the Colby women are in the top 25, even though it pains me to say it. They have one great swimmer, Kelly Norsworthy, and the drop off is significant after that.

    • #42321
      trout3
      Member

      swmr46 said:

      The College of New Jersey is ranked 20th! They beat NYU at ECAC by a decent margin.

      Dual meets are different than invites that include 18 teams. It was closer than you think. Did a quick calc on ECAC meet and converted TCNJ vs NYU head to head as if it were a dual meet. After individual events including diving NYU would have been ahead by 5 points in dual meet format/scoring. Would come down to relays. TCNJ swept NYU there but by the following margins:

      200fr – .28
      400fr – .13
      800fr – 1.56
      200mr – .23
      400mr – 3.43

      3 of those relays could go either way… In a dual meet, throw out the 800fr and one of the medleys. I would bet the 400mr would be thrown out. Bottom line….That dual meet will be worth watching…. PS – I’m with you… TCNJ and NYU should have slightly better rankings. Overall, it’s not a perfect system….

    • #42322

      We can complain forever, but it must be admitted that these rankings are 100 times closer than when coaches submitted those sheets and many teams were left off completely.

    • #42323
      Swmr46
      Member

      I disagree with your statement, if the Div III coaches poll isn’t going to be accurate then it is pretty much useless. At least with the power rankings system you take all the subjectivity out. But the reason why we are going to a coaches poll is because teams like Kenyon never send in there dual meet power point entries to Greg. Then when the power point poll comes out, EVERYONE complains when NYU is ranked 2nd. Don’t penalized teams that are doing the right things. How hard is it to send in your best dual meet line up?

      The Div. 1 has a panel of 16 Head and Asst. Coaches for their poll. I think the Div. 3 Coaches Poll should have a panel or committee. Have select number of coaches from each region of the country vote.

      I think Greg is doing a fantastic job with the poll but there needs to be some objectivity to the poll too. W & J on the women side is not the 16th best team in the country. Teams like Gettysburg and SUNY Geneseo can beat W & J, Colby, and Gustavus in a dual meet and they aren’t even ranked! TCJN is not the 20th best team in the country. Do a mock dual meet with TCJN and GCC, Amherst and Wabash. TCJN can beat all these teams in a dual meet. NYU and TCJN are about the same, when I did the rankings I had TCJN 15th and NYU 16th.

      In all seriousness, do a poll and see what you come up with. Then compare it to the Div III Coaches Poll.

    • #42324
      polarbear
      Member

      Bowdoin women beat MIT handily and aren’t even in there. Where are the Tufts women?

    • #42325
      griz
      Member

      even though the ranking is a dual meet ranking, you have to wonder how each team’s past performance at ncaa’s affects the voting. the colby women, for instance, has had solid performances at nationals for the past 5-6 years, placing in the top 20 for most of those years. that said, it only takes one good swimmer to get into the top 20 at nationals, so this fact is not representative of who wins a dual meet.

      the other huge dilemma with the poll is that teams are at different places in their seasons. with the exception of some schools and some swimmers, most nescac schools do not shave and taper for any mid-season meets. so can you compare a team who tapered and one who didn’t (and started november 1)? no. i think a better way to rank teams would be based by conference instead of nationally.

    • #42326
      ag
      Member

      ^^^ But than you have slow conferences vs. fast ones! You have one team that dominates a conference, but could be week in other conf.

      Here’s a fairly good try to a more objective system:
      http://www.collegeswimming.tv/viewtopic.php?p=42695#42695

      (see post by wethorn)

    • #42327
      2000swimmer
      Member

      One thing we need to keep in mind is that the poll only went our to those who have paid their CSCAA dues. All votes by non paying members did not count.

      Who are the most UNDERrated teams? My choices are LaCrosse, Luther, and F & M. Im pretty sure that those three teams would easily give the bottom half of the poll a good run for their money.

    • #42328

      I think that the poll should reflect National Rankings, and that it does fairly acurately. Having a dual meet poll is stupid. People don’t always swim their best lineups at dual meets, and in my opinion, a dual meet record doesn’t mean anything. The only time winning and losing should matter in swimming is at the Conference and NCAA meets when people are shaved and tapered and have a full season of training under their belt.

    • #42329
      99 Red
      Member

      People don’t always swim their best lineups at dual meets, and in my opinion, a dual meet record doesn’t mean anything.

      Do you ever think a coach has intentionally thrown a dual meet? Sure, in swimming people do not pile on, that is why you’ll see coaches scratching swims from scoring when the meet is decided. And most of the time dual meets aren’t close in any case. But I think the people filing these ballots know that, and they aren’t squaring people off in an imaginary head to head super tournament.

      Just knowing that one team finished 4-5 and another finished 8-2 doesn’t tell you anything, but every one of those meets meant something to the people swimming in them. There is a hell of a lot more to a swimming season than the last few days, and if the early season swims don’t mean anything to you, then the swims at the end of the line aren’t going to be as good as they could have been.

      DIII swimming has been Kenyon and then everybody else for a long time now. I like these rankings because they help focus attention on the everybody else. TCNJ has produced some damn good teams, they deserve some attention. National rankings are good for the top 6 or so teams, but then they stop reflecting who the good teams actually are. A top 8 team at nationals can be 6 guys, but 6 guys aren’t a swim team. These rankings help remind us of that.

    • #42330
      Swmr46
      Member

      @99 Red wrote:

      Do you ever think a coach has intentionally thrown a dual meet? Sure, in swimming people do not pile on, that is why you’ll see coaches scratching swims from scoring when the meet is decided. And most of the time dual meets aren’t close in any case. But I think the people filing these ballots know that, and they aren’t squaring people off in an imaginary head to head super tournament.

      Just knowing that one team finished 4-5 and another finished 8-2 doesn’t tell you anything, but every one of those meets meant something to the people swimming in them. There is a hell of a lot more to a swimming season than the last few days, and if the early season swims don’t mean anything to you, then the swims at the end of the line aren’t going to be as good as they could have been.

      DIII swimming has been Kenyon and then everybody else for a long time now. I like these rankings because they help focus attention on the everybody else. TCNJ has produced some damn good teams, they deserve some attention. National rankings are good for the top 6 or so teams, but then they stop reflecting who the good teams actually are. A top 8 team at nationals can be 6 guys, but 6 guys aren’t a swim team. These rankings help remind us of that.

      Thanks Red, you hit the nail on the head. It meant a lot to me and the team when we beat a conference rival or great Div III team in a dual meet. If you think the Conference Championship and NCAAs are they only that matters in a season, you are wrong my friend. You think the Hope vs. K-zoo, St. Olaf vs. Gustavus, Denison vs. Kenyon, GCC vs Westminster, dual meet mean nothing to the swimmers, coaches, and alumni? Just get rid of dual meets, swim for 6 months straight. You think in anyone in there right mind would love to do that? Just swim for 6 months without any dual meets or invitations until there Conference Championships. Heck No!

      I think coaches vote based on team reputations at NCAAs. There are a lot of unknown great teams out that deserved to be ranked. I be first to admit that I don’t know all the Div III teams out there. I never heard of Luther College until I saw there name on the coaching ballot. Judging from there mid season times, they are a pretty good Div III team and deserved to be ranked.

      1. Luther College
      200 Free Relay 1:25.94
      400 Free Relay 3:13.93
      400 Medley Relay 3:33.90
      Pettengil 58.91 and 2:11.44 (100 and 200 Breastroke)
      Robbins 52.13 and 1:55.61 (100 and 200 Fly)
      Webb 47.76, 1:44.33, 4:50.13 (100, 200, and 500 Free)
      Perrott 54.22 and 1:57.33 (100 and 200 Back)
      Nelson 22.13 and 48.58 (50 and 100 Free)

      I just hope in the future these rankings get better.

    • #42331

      To all that complained their team wasn’t represented in the last team digest sent out before the last poll, here’s your shot. Tell your coach that they need to do so by today. If you’re interested in compiling your team, e-mail me and I’ll send you the link. We’re still waiting on the following schools that polled in the top 40 (plus any others that feel deserving).

      Women:
      Calvin
      Claremont Mudd Scripps
      Hope
      Washington & Jefferson
      UW Stevens Point
      UW-LaCrosse
      MIT
      NYU
      Gustavus Adolphus
      Case Western
      Franklin & Marshall
      Wittenberg
      UC Santa Cruz
      Wooster
      Trinity (TX)
      Whitworth
      Springfield
      Carleton
      SUNY-New Paltz
      SUNY-Geneseo

      MEN
      St Olaf
      Gustavus Adolphus
      DePauw
      Kalamazoo
      MIT
      UW-Stevens Point
      Hope
      UC Santa Cruz
      UW-LaCrosse
      Rowan
      Case Western
      Wooster
      Olivet
      WPI

    • #42332
      Monkey Boy
      Member

      Heh. Thanks for the advanced notice.

    • #42333
      The Treat
      Member

      @Swmr46 wrote:

      @99 Red wrote:

      Do you ever think a coach has intentionally thrown a dual meet? Sure, in swimming people do not pile on, that is why you’ll see coaches scratching swims from scoring when the meet is decided. And most of the time dual meets aren’t close in any case. But I think the people filing these ballots know that, and they aren’t squaring people off in an imaginary head to head super tournament.

      Just knowing that one team finished 4-5 and another finished 8-2 doesn’t tell you anything, but every one of those meets meant something to the people swimming in them. There is a hell of a lot more to a swimming season than the last few days, and if the early season swims don’t mean anything to you, then the swims at the end of the line aren’t going to be as good as they could have been.

      DIII swimming has been Kenyon and then everybody else for a long time now. I like these rankings because they help focus attention on the everybody else. TCNJ has produced some damn good teams, they deserve some attention. National rankings are good for the top 6 or so teams, but then they stop reflecting who the good teams actually are. A top 8 team at nationals can be 6 guys, but 6 guys aren’t a swim team. These rankings help remind us of that.

      Thanks Red, you hit the nail on the head. It meant a lot to me and the team when we beat a conference rival or great Div III team in a dual meet. If you think the Conference Championship and NCAAs are they only that matters in a season, you are wrong my friend. You think the Hope vs. K-zoo, St. Olaf vs. Gustavus, Denison vs. Kenyon, GCC vs Westminster, dual meet mean nothing to the swimmers, coaches, and alumni? Just get rid of dual meets, swim for 6 months straight. You think in anyone in there right mind would love to do that? Just swim for 6 months without any dual meets or invitations until there Conference Championships. Heck No!

      I think coaches vote based on team reputations at NCAAs. There are a lot of unknown great teams out that deserved to be ranked. I be first to admit that I don’t know all the Div III teams out there. I never heard of Luther College until I saw there name on the coaching ballot. Judging from there mid season times, they are a pretty good Div III team and deserved to be ranked.

      1. Luther College
      200 Free Relay 1:25.94
      400 Free Relay 3:13.93
      400 Medley Relay 3:33.90
      Pettengil 58.91 and 2:11.44 (100 and 200 Breastroke)
      Robbins 52.13 and 1:55.61 (100 and 200 Fly)
      Webb 47.76, 1:44.33, 4:50.13 (100, 200, and 500 Free)
      Perrott 54.22 and 1:57.33 (100 and 200 Back)
      Nelson 22.13 and 48.58 (50 and 100 Free)

      I just hope in the future these rankings get better.

      unless those are un-tapered times, they dont deserve to be ranked. not a single one would make nationals (or come close). i know making nats isnt everything, but it’s an easy to way to make a quick judgment about a team.

    • #42334
      2000swimmer
      Member

      Treat,
      Watch your tongue…those are unrested times. In fact they have become faster since…still unrested.

    • #42335
      The Treat
      Member

      @2000swimmer wrote:

      Treat,
      Watch your tongue…those are unrested times. In fact they have become faster since…still unrested.

      i dont have to watch my tongue if i preface my statement with a qualifier like, “unless those times are unrested”.

    • #42336
      skutbe01
      Member

      This is my first post on the site, and I found this thread to be a little more interesting than others. I am a senior from Luther College and just wanted to bring a voice from our school onto the issue of the rankings system. No one cares. We all understand the different variables that come into play during the rankings. We feel like we would have a stronger duel meet team than championship team. We understand that those times wouldn’t get us to nationals. We just are happy that our name is brought up in discussions like this. We are fast. Not the fastest by any means. But being a part of this program for the last 4 years has given me more to be proud of than any other athletics I have been involved in. Not necessarily for our times or performances in the pool, but more about in the classroom and community. Does anyone have the list of Academic All-American teams over the years? That is the type of thing that should be the focus in division three, no matter what sport. We are in a system where we get no scholarships for how fast we are, rather we get them for showing excellent marks in academics or service to others. That is just the attitude here at Luther. Anyone else share that?

    • #42337
      The Treat
      Member

      @skutbe01 wrote:

      This is my first post on the site, and I found this thread to be a little more interesting than others. I am a senior from Luther College and just wanted to bring a voice from our school onto the issue of the rankings system. No one cares. We all understand the different variables that come into play during the rankings. We feel like we would have a stronger duel meet team than championship team. We understand that those times wouldn’t get us to nationals. We just are happy that our name is brought up in discussions like this. We are fast. Not the fastest by any means. But being a part of this program for the last 4 years has given me more to be proud of than any other athletics I have been involved in. Not necessarily for our times or performances in the pool, but more about in the classroom and community. Does anyone have the list of Academic All-American teams over the years? That is the type of thing that should be the focus in division three, no matter what sport. We are in a system where we get no scholarships for how fast we are, rather we get them for showing excellent marks in academics or service to others. That is just the attitude here at Luther. Anyone else share that?

      and that’s the attitude you should have. i never really cared about the rankings when i was swimming, but it gives us something to discuss on here.

      as far as an academic all-american list, i dont know if there is a site that has all the lists in one place, but they do publish them every year. you can check collegeswimming.com. they’ll be on there for sure. they also publish the teams w/ the top GPA’s. one of our team goals every year was to be the top gpa in the nation.

    • #42338

      Not to sound like a jerk, but all D3 teams are the way that you have described them. Swimmers swim because they want to. They aren’t getting paid. Kids at Hopkins, Denison, Emory etc all work just as hard just for the intrinsic value. If you’re looking for a pat on the back on this forum just because you swim and go to school and don’t get paid to do it, I would suggest looking elsewhere.

    • #42339
      skutbe01
      Member

      @screeeeeeeeech wrote:

      Not to sound like a jerk, but all D3 teams are the way that you have described them. Swimmers swim because they want to. They aren’t getting paid. Kids at Hopkins, Denison, Emory etc all work just as hard just for the intrinsic value. If you’re looking for a pat on the back on this forum just because you swim and go to school and don’t get paid to do it, I would suggest looking elsewhere.

      I would stick to loving Zach Morris and not reading too deep into comments. I was just trying to bring insight into the discussion about teams who should maybe be in the top 25. I know all schools in this division are that way, and it was kind of a pat on the back to everyone in this forum that is or was in my position. It is hard to balance everything and I just thought that we should acknowledge that because there are no ‘Top 25 Best Balanced Swim Teams’ lists out there. Right?

    • #42340
      Derek
      Member

      Hi Ben,

      I think you bring up a really great point – Academic All-Americans should receive more recognition.

      There are a bunch of things that I want to develop for the main area of this website, and I think this should go on the list of things to do. We can only re-publish what CSCAA publishes, but it should be included on this site in a more prominent manner. Thank you for bringing up this point.

    • #42341

      @The Treat wrote:

      1. Luther College
      200 Free Relay 1:25.94
      400 Free Relay 3:13.93
      400 Medley Relay 3:33.90
      Pettengil 58.91 and 2:11.44 (100 and 200 Breastroke)
      Robbins 52.13 and 1:55.61 (100 and 200 Fly)
      Webb 47.76, 1:44.33, 4:50.13 (100, 200, and 500 Free)
      Perrott 54.22 and 1:57.33 (100 and 200 Back)
      Nelson 22.13 and 48.58 (50 and 100 Free)

      unless those are un-tapered times, they dont deserve to be ranked. not a single one would make nationals (or come close). i know making nats isnt everything, but it’s an easy to way to make a quick judgment about a team.

      Well, they just time trialled a 1:23.19. Is that good enough now?

    • #42342
      2000swimmer
      Member

      That will definitely put them in. They are having an amazing meet! 400 Med R was fast too…prob not in though.

    • #42343
      Swmr46
      Member

      I don’t see it anywhere in the results that they went 1:23.19 in a time trial.

    • #42344
      skutbe01
      Member

      We did, trust me. I think the more impressive swims are on our women’s side though. Can’t remember the times off the top of my head (bad teammate, i know) but their 2Free relay made the B by a 1.5 seconds and Elissa Schmidt popped off a pretty solid 50 (23.9 I believe). That is her third even though, so more is sure to come tonight.

    • #42345
      The Treat
      Member

      @Mister Obvious wrote:

      @The Treat wrote:

      1. Luther College
      200 Free Relay 1:25.94
      400 Free Relay 3:13.93
      400 Medley Relay 3:33.90
      Pettengil 58.91 and 2:11.44 (100 and 200 Breastroke)
      Robbins 52.13 and 1:55.61 (100 and 200 Fly)
      Webb 47.76, 1:44.33, 4:50.13 (100, 200, and 500 Free)
      Perrott 54.22 and 1:57.33 (100 and 200 Back)
      Nelson 22.13 and 48.58 (50 and 100 Free)

      unless those are un-tapered times, they dont deserve to be ranked. not a single one would make nationals (or come close). i know making nats isnt everything, but it’s an easy to way to make a quick judgment about a team.

      Well, they just time trialled a 1:23.19. Is that good enough now?

      yep. that’ll put them at about 7th after this weekend’s results (unless I’m missing something). w/ pretty much just nescac’s next weekend, they’ll be safe. congrats!

    • #42346
      Swmr46
      Member

      I wasn’t doubting that they went that time, I just couldn’t find any results for it. Congratulations, should make the meet but there is still one week of conferences to go. No relay is safe unless you made an A-cut or pretty close to it.

    • #42347
      2000swimmer
      Member

      Luther’s Elissa Schmidt 1:51.25 in 200 free…puts her at #1. 800 Free Relay 7:41 #4! Where did they come from? WOW!

    • #42348
      skutbe01
      Member

      @2000swimmer wrote:

      Luther’s Elissa Schmidt 1:51.25 in 200 free…puts her at #1. 800 Free Relay 7:41 #4! Where did they come from? WOW!

      She always had the physical ability, it was just a classic case of needing the mental game to go along with it.

Viewing 32 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.