CWPA vs MPSF ranking disparity

[socalpolo24]

2013 VARSITY TOP 20 (PRESEASON)
1 University of Southern California 100
2 University of California-Los Angeles 91
3 Stanford University 88
4 University of California 87
5 University of the Pacific 84
6 Long Beach State University 74
7 University of California-Santa Barbara 72
8 Pepperdine University 64
9 University of California-Irvine 60
10 St. Francis College Brooklyn 55


MPSF Men's Varsity Preseason Ranking
1 USC 61 (5)
2 Stanford 60 (4)
3 Pacific 47
T4 UCLA 41
T4 California 41
6 UC Santa Barbara 28
7 Long Beach State 23
8 UC Irvine 12
9 Pepperdine 11


So I saw that the MPSF and CWPA Preseason rankings came out and I was wondering why there was so much difference between them? In the MPSF rankings, Pepp is 9 and UCI is 8 while they are flipped in CWPA. Also, this occurs with LBSU and UCSB with LB being 7 and SB 6 in MPSF and flipped in CWPA. While these position changes are only 1 spot, the biggest impact to me was where they ranked Pacific in CWPA compared to MPSF. Pacifc is ranked 3rd by the MPSF and 5th in CWPA.

Is there that much disagreement between the 2 voting polls? Does anyone know who votes and what their criteria is?

[calbears415]

I too saw this and was a bit shocked. Although I am ecstatic that Cal (Go Bears) got a higher rank, there does seem to be a bit of a difference between the 2 preseason rankings.

I think that CWPA gets their ranking from the coaches of all NCAA while MPSF ranking are tabulated by the MPSF coaches. The difference between the two could easily be how East Coast and WWPA coaches view each team. I think that while teams, like UCI, UCSB and Pacific, have had been hurt by the process, it does not play into that much considering how early in the season it is. Also, teams like SC, Stanford, UCLA and Cal have previously had a lot of success in previous years and most likely the non-MPSF teams might take that into consideration.

[Doc]

Hey Guys,

Comparing the CWPA to the MPF ranking is similar to comparing oranges with apples. The CWPA ranking involves all NCAA men’s teams and the MPSF involves only MPSF men’s teams? What you need to do is compare the CWPA with the WPP ranking because they both rank all NCAA men’s teams. Only the WPP uses fans to make their ranking and I think the CWPA uses coaches, AD’s, and SID’s to make their rankings.

Doc

[WPSTATS]

I think the question is who would know better how to rank teams in a conference better than the coaches in that conference? Odd

[retiredguy]

The great thing about preseason rankings is they don't matter one bit. As we have learned in NCAA football, the pollsters really have no clue who the good teams are until the games are played. 3 years ago, Auburn wasn't ranked to start the year and they won the national championship, last year USC was ranked #1 in football to start the year and they finished 7-6 unranked.

Even better, in NCAA water polo all the top teams usually play each other more than once throughout the year so we really get to learn who the best teams are during the year. Then on top of all that, we get a 4 team playoff at the end of the year, so there is no mystery as to who the best team is!

[deepwater]

UCSB is ranked 6th/7th: I've heard that they've had a recent exodus of starter, what's up with that? True | False?

Bueller... Bueller?

[Doru Roll]

The great thing about preseason rankings is they don't matter one bit. As we have learned in NCAA football, the pollsters really have no clue who the good teams are until the games are played. 3 years ago, Auburn wasn't ranked to start the year and they won the national championship, last year USC was ranked #1 in football to start the year and they finished 7-6 unranked.

Even better, in NCAA water polo all the top teams usually play each other more than once throughout the year so we really get to learn who the best teams are during the year. Then on top of all that, we get a 4 team playoff at the end of the year, so there is no mystery as to who the best team is!

From a logical standpoint you are 100% correct: none of these polls really matter, save for the bragging rights if one guessed right. But they're fun to do and talk about, just like rotisserie league baseball.

Peace.

[socalpolo24]

To some extent, I understand that the preseason polls do not really matter but don't these early season rankings matter for early season tournaments like the NorCal tournament?

By having a higher ranking in the CWPA preseason poll, your seed in the NorCal tournament will be affect (pending no pre-tournament loses).

For instance, UCLA is currently ranked 2 in CWPA but 4 in MPSF. Their route to the championship game has a dramatic difference at the 2 seed compared to the 4 seed. Most of the MPSF teams (outside of UCSB, Pepp and UCLA who are playing in the UCLA invite) have given themselves lower seeded games in the week prior to the tournament. This means there should not be too many dramatic shifts in ranking and therefore having a dramatic effect on the tournament seeding.

My big concern and response to Doc's comment, "CWPA uses coaches, AD’s, and SID’s to make their rankings," is that shouldn't you think that there would be a greater commonality in the rankings between the 2 polls? If all of the NCAA coaches, AD's and SID's are ranking the teams, should these 2 be more equal? I understand that CWPA includes all the NCAA teams, but the top 9 are all MPSF teams. Shouldn't these top 9 assimilate more than they do?

[Trevor]

To some extent, I understand that the preseason polls do not really matter but don't these early season rankings matter for early season tournaments like the NorCal tournament?

By having a higher ranking in the CWPA preseason poll, your seed in the NorCal tournament will be affect (pending no pre-tournament loses).

For instance, UCLA is currently ranked 2 in CWPA but 4 in MPSF. Their route to the championship game has a dramatic difference at the 2 seed compared to the 4 seed. Most of the MPSF teams (outside of UCSB, Pepp and UCLA who are playing in the UCLA invite) have given themselves lower seeded games in the week prior to the tournament. This means there should not be too many dramatic shifts in ranking and therefore having a dramatic effect on the tournament seeding.

My big concern and response to Doc's comment, "CWPA uses coaches, AD’s, and SID’s to make their rankings," is that shouldn't you think that there would be a greater commonality in the rankings between the 2 polls? If all of the NCAA coaches, AD's and SID's are ranking the teams, should these 2 be more equal? I understand that CWPA includes all the NCAA teams, but the top 9 are all MPSF teams. Shouldn't these top 9 assimilate more than they do?

You are correct. I was going to post something similar. These rankings are a tool used for seeding tournaments. Not to sound biased, but I think the WPP and MPSF polls do a far better job of ordering the top ten.