Re: Poll Questions Answered

> 3. What is to be done about this? 
>
Diverse viewpoints to some extent are useful, 
>
and the new tabulation system muffles joke, 
>
protest, or other extreme outlying ballots to 
>
some extent - their effect on the poll results >
were not generally significant. However, I 
>
cannot help but feel as if some individuals are 
>
intentionally sabotaging the efforts of myself 
> and
others to provide a source of 
> news/information
to the AC community. 

Intentional sabotage?
That's pretty harsh. 

Compare to this:

-
refusing to acknowledge the viability of non-US buzzer
bowl teams, disparaging tournaments featuring
international content, and refusing to acknowledge the results
of these tournaments, and refusing to accept that US
content skews buzzer games in favour of us
players.

I don't think either was intentional, but in the
battle of the bands, the poll loses to ten new buzzer
bowl programs that came a long way to be
here.

> 4. What about Canada? 
> Hmmm....Canada
probably needs its own poll. 
> Though I have heard
of most of the Canadian 
> universities
listed, I imagine neither I nor 
> most voters from
south of the border are aware > of even the
existence of QB programs from the 
> bulk of them. It
would seem silly to ban 
> Canadian programs (or
British ones, for that 
> matter) from being
mentioned, but at the same 
> time there is little if
any basis for 
> comparison in most cases. This
may change in 
> the future, as more activity
takes place up 
> there and/or people in the USA
hear more about > it. 

I agree that there is
little opportunity for comparison. But at the same time,
teams in different parts of the US have no better an
opportunity to evaluate talent in other parts.

In case
anyone forgot, Imperial College came and placed tenth in
a national tournament not too long ago. Queen's had
a pretty good team a few years ago, and Western
probably has a good one right now, though Canada is
forever hampered by the lack of nth year graduate
students.

Basically, no non-US team, regardless of its performance,
has ever slipped into the top 25 in the poll. But a
number of teams that are about even-odds to beat these
foreign teams are in the top 25 consistently. So who's
making the nonsense vote? The dude who puts some team
he's never seen play in the top 25 because it was
there last time, or the dude who looks at the records
of teams 20-25 and checks if they beat the next 25
teams consistently before voting?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST