National Ultimate Media Panels Womens Top 20

[ager...@yahoo.com]

Below you will find the National Ultimate Media Panels Collegiate
Womens Top 20 for the weeks beginning Jan 26, 2009.

7 different teams earned 1st place votes!

Stanford made a big leap to join the usual suspects in the Top 5.

rank team pts
1 British Columbia(5) 385
2 Stanford(4) 368
3 Wisconsin(2) 361
4 UC Santa Barbara(3) 334
5 Washington(4) 313
6 Michigan(2) 312
7 Oregon(2) 266
8 Cal Berkeley 257
9 UCLA 245
10 Ottawa 242
11 North Carolina 188
12 Carleton 187
13 Wake Forest 169
14 Southern Cal 159
15 Colorado 151
16 Wisconsin Eau Claire 117
17 Texas 104
18 Northeastern 90
19 UNC Wilmington 60
20 Illinois 42

Other teams earning votes included....
Maryland 39, St Louis 32, Michigan State 27, Claremont 24 and Arizona
19

[ellebu...@gmail.com]

If 5 of the top 10 are from the NW why did we only get 1 strength bid?

[jesshill]

On Jan 29, 1:47 am, "elleburst...@gmail.com" <elleburst...@gmail.com>
wrote:

'Cause strength bids aren't based on the NUMP poll.

[ager...@yahoo.com]

strength bids aren't based on the NUMP poll.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

......YET!

[purple.leisure]

I actually think that using a NUMP poll would be a somewhat great idea
in picking playoffs teams. Well I think it would be interesting if the
UPA would take the NUMP poll into consideration but not in choosing
strength bids. Get rid of that stupid thing. Make it like college
basketball and have bubble teams and the NUMP poll would act like a
little bit of reasoning when some type of group picks the bubble
teams. Not that the UPA would do something smart.

[tyler kinley]

What about using regular season results of this year to determine
strength bids?

That would create a meaningful regular season, add to the drama of the
entire year, heighten inter-regional games' importance and intensity,
and allow strength bids to be determined based on this season/year's
team's strength, rather than a previous year, and not advantage/
disadvantage this year's teams through last year's [different] teams'
performance.

[Matt.Pa...@gmail.com]

- If 5 of the top 10 are from the NW why did we only get 1 strength
bid?

Compare your lot to 2003 when 9 of the top 16 teams in the country
were in the NW and we got 1 bid total. I think 3 will be enough.

[MrP...@gmail.com]

The elite teams travel and play each other, so you'd have head-to-head
info on them, but the elite teams are going to get bids anyway.

The marginal teams (the ones fighting over "first out" and "last in"
status) are probably going to be less well-traveled. Is there going
to be a head-to-head between the 5th place central team and the 4th
place NW team? Probably not. Season record isn't any good since
teams play different numbers of games, and against different
competition. So we basically end up with some version of "rank all
teams by RRI, and take the top 20." Or perhaps, take 2 per region,
then take the rest based on RRI. That second option is basically how
the NCAA basketball tourney is run - half from conference champs, half
at-large (basically, but not exactly, RPI comparisons).

It's certainly worth thinking about.

~p