OK, so many of you know where I work 5 days a week, so I'm coming from the perspective as someone who has to do a top-10 ranking 40 weeks out of the year and have 18,000 people call, e-mail and yell to me in person that I'm wrong/right. It's my job to do a ranking for my work.
I've told Danny a lot of what I'm going to say already, and he agreed/disagreed with parts.
Before I begin, I want to say that the ranking system needs to be weekly. OK, so we all know THAT ain't happenin anytime soon.
But why does it need to be weekly (or even bi-weekly) IMO? It's easier to move people. If it's weekly, you're taking into account a person participating in as many as two tournaments. But since it's every month, you're taking into account as many as eight tournaments, and it's harder to move people.
I'll give an example. Four years ago, there was one volleyball team (Team A) CLEARLY BY FAR the best in the area. They were No. 1. Their rival (Team B) was a good second, nothing to brag about. But then the rival stunned the No. 1 team. So I did the obvious thing, move the top team down to No. 2. I received a SHIYET-LOAD of backlash. The coach even called me and went 20 MINUTES begging me to write a correction. She broke it down by stats, wins, players, point differential! She even went through the victory ladder (this team, who beat that team, who beat that team, who beat the No. 2 team; but said team never lost to us). I told the coach, "Sorry, but you're going to have to live with it. I'm a 'what have you done for me lately' kind of guy."
And the funny part is, two other publications did the same thing I did.
So what happened? Team A went 2-0 the following week, while Team B went (1-1). So, of course, I moved Team A back to No. 1, and they remained that way for the final five weeks of the season.
Now imagine if my rankings were monthly. Team A would have never moved from No. 1 because they went 8-1 that month, while Team B was 7-2.
Again, I KNOW there's no chance of a weekly ranking, but I'm just telling you why.
The other thing too is, what is the purpose of the ranking? I do a ranking for my newspaper because it's to give people an idea of who are the 10 hottest teams, and to stir some debate. Is this ranking here to stir debate or just tell people who are the top 25 players in six people's eyes, or both?
And another thing is, are the panelists worried they're going to lose friends (or Isaiah's frendship) because of this? If they are, then don't do it, or give the reins to someone else. Another example: my alma mater was fifth in my volleyball rankings at one point five years ago. Then they lost two in a row and I dropped them all the way to 10th. Then they went 1-1, the loss being to a scrub team. So I dropped them from the ranking and parents were pissed. Parents and alum were calling me saying "How dare you drop us, and YOU WENT TO OUR SCHOOL! Show some love for your own school!" I told them, the team has to beat more than a scrub team. The team went 3-0 the next week and they were back in, at 10th.
One newspaper in Santa Barbara started a top-five ranking but had a few people pissed at them, that they stopped, even though the rankings were OK. They had no backbone.
Now, I see that someone mentioned team competition, and it is great that Isaiah totals people in teams. Maybe it's time to account team competition. That, again is up to the panelists.
So, as far as Isaiah is concerned, I should say I really don't care either way, and I'll go 51 percent to leave him there. You leave him there, there's no question. You take him out, you create debate until the next listing is up.
However, if the panelists leave him at No. 1 with no means to EVER move him down, even if he never "does well" in another tournament, him being No. 1 is like a glass ceiling for the rest of Northern California. How many wins will ss or king need to overtake isaiah? 50? 100? 1,000?
btw, king with the best words so far.
--GCII
