2014-15 National Rankings

[ShockerPrez]

I want to be ranked as high as we can. But after the MVC starts, all we can really do is go undefeated and hope schools in front tank. Beating UNI will help, but we won't get a huge bump by winning. And if we lose, we probably fall as much as if we lost to Evansville.

We have to remember that we are in the top, what, 5% of all teams?

Its always easier to raise your stature from the bottom. Much more difficult the higher you are.

We have to just start compiling MVC titles and NCAA tourney runs. we have really only been on the scene for 3 years. Just keep eating whats being served and sooner or later, our ass will be too big to move outta the scene.

[Ricardo del Rio]

I usually wait, until mid-March, before weighing in on these arguments.

I must admit that the foregoing arguments are interesting, penetrating, powerful, logical, illogical, intellectual, funny and so forth.

I wish I was smart enough to join in the discussion, but I am not. Here is the proof. I do not understand the following.

UNI beats MSU by 14 and improves two notches in the poll. WSU waxes UE by 20 and moves down one notch.

[im4wsu]

Voters can do stupid things at times. That does not mean their stupidity is justified.

For example, any voter who continued to give 06-07 WSU credit for beating #6 LSU, despite the fact that LSU quickly proved to be nothing more than a borderline top 50 team, well, that voter was just a fool. Anyone doing rankings of any real value acknowledges that the rank of an opponent at the time of the game is of significantly less value than the current rank of an opponent.

Yet another strawman from you, sir. There is no "voter" mentioned in my post. My post dealt with "perception" and used KenPom rankings.

[shocktheheart]

ESPN's power rankings are out for this week. We stay at #15 and have WV and OU jump us. Breakdown of voting:
Brennan: 16
C.L Brown: 14
Farnham: 15
Gassaway: 19
*******: 17
Grennburg: 15
Katz: 18
Lunardi: 15
Medcalf: 16
O'neil: 15

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask.../powerrankings

We stay at #15 this week again. Nobody jumped us this week. First rank is last week, next is this week.

Brennan: 16, 13
C.L Brown: 14, 13
Farnham: 15, 14
Gassaway: 19, 18
*******: 17, 16
Grennburg: 15, 15
Katz: 18, 14
Lunardi: 15, 15
Medcalf: 16, 16
O'neil: 15, 14

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings

[MadaboutWu]

I usually wait, until mid-March, before weighing in on these arguments.
I do not understand the following.

UNI beats MSU by 14 and improves two notches in the poll. WSU waxes UE by 20 and moves down one notch.

Basically I think we have been unlucky with where the losses in the top 25 have fallen the last couple of weeks. 15-25 have been a bloodbath and some losses have happened in the top 10 but relatively few 8-13.

[Rlh04d]

I usually wait, until mid-March, before weighing in on these arguments.

I must admit that the foregoing arguments are interesting, penetrating, powerful, logical, illogical, intellectual, funny and so forth.

I wish I was smart enough to join in the discussion, but I am not. Here is the proof. I do not understand the following.

UNI beats MSU by 14 and improves two notches in the poll. WSU waxes UE by 20 and moves down one notch.

Rankings don't matter so much as votes. We received more votes in this poll than in the last one ... saying that we lost a spot seems like we were punished. We were rewarded, it's just that others were rewarded more.

As for UNI, like @ShockerPrez: just said, "Its always easier to raise your stature from the bottom. Much more difficult the higher you are." The teams that were ahead of UNI all lost, the teams ahead of us (directly) all won.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Yet another strawman from you, sir. There is no "voter" mentioned in my post. My post dealt with "perception" and used KenPom rankings.

Oh please. I mentioned the voters because they are the people who actually give us their "perception" of each basketball team in the form of weekly rankings. Substitute "John Doe" or "people" instead of "voters" in my post and nothing substantial changes about the point I was making.

Any "person" who tries to evaluate teams and form a "perception" of them, good or bad, should be smart enough to use current rankings (KenPom or otherwise), not rankings at the time a game was played. Failure to do so is a failure by that person to make a good evaluation.

This is exactly why I stopped our PM conversation. im4wsu, it is almost impossible to have a conversation with you because of all the irrelevant technicalities you throw out. You seem to constantly sabotage the conversation with rabbit trails that simply do not affect the larger discussion.

[im4wsu]

Oh please. I mentioned the voters because they are the people who actually give us their "perception" of each basketball team in the form of weekly rankings. Substitute "John Doe" or "people" instead of "voters" in my post and nothing substantial changes about the point I was making.

Any "person" who tries to evaluate teams and form a "perception" of them, good or bad, should be smart enough to use current rankings (KenPom or otherwise), not rankings at the time a game was played. Failure to do so is a failure by that person to make a good evaluation.

This is exactly why I stopped our PM conversation. im4wsu, it is almost impossible to have a conversation with you because of all the irrelevant technicalities you throw out. You seem to constantly sabotage the conversation with rabbit trails that simply do not affect the larger discussion.

Pot calling kettle! Nice distraction!

[DUShock]

All of this back & forth reminds me a classic Tarantino movie.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I have never thought of im4wsu as a troll until recently. Can anyone else actually interpret what he is saying as something with substance? I'm willing to listen if he's being serious, so if I'm just missing something, please help me understand what he's trying to get at.

[WstateU]

All of this back & forth reminds me a classic Tarantino movie.

Here's an underrated scene from another classic Quentin Tarantino movie... oops, sorry; might have the wrong thread. :)

[shoxtop]

What argument could there possibly have been for ranking WSU ahead of Nova in yesterday's poll?

Villanova had:
better KenPom ranking
better RPI ranking
better W/L record
better SOS
better quality wins

Villanova was a road OT loss to a top 50 team away from being undefeated when the voters submitted their ballots.

San Diego State and Iowa is a fair comparison. I'll admit that fair minded folks could go either way there. Like I said, I didn't necessarily agree Iowa should have been top 25, but it is at least a defensible position to take. Saying WSU should have been above Villanova is 100 times less defensible.

I never tried to make the argument that wsu should be ahead of them. I simply said there isn't much separating the two. The neutral vcu win is the only thing that puts them ahead of us in my eyes. After the loss to the hoyas I'd say it's about a wash as of now. Yes I know that has no bearing on this weeks poll but I would be surprised to see them drop past 10 next week.

[Steeleshocker]

Oh please. I mentioned the voters because they are the people who actually give us their "perception" of each basketball team in the form of weekly rankings. Substitute "John Doe" or "people" instead of "voters" in my post and nothing substantial changes about the point I was making.

Any "person" who tries to evaluate teams and form a "perception" of them, good or bad, should be smart enough to use current rankings (KenPom or otherwise), not rankings at the time a game was played. Failure to do so is a failure by that person to make a good evaluation.

This is exactly why I stopped our PM conversation. im4wsu, it is almost impossible to have a conversation with you because of all the irrelevant technicalities you throw out. You seem to constantly sabotage the conversation with rabbit trails that simply do not affect the larger discussion.

Not that i want to get in the middle of this, but an informed voter should also consider injuries. For example, WSU drubbed a full strength Seton Hall team.

My point is that there are circumstances where the teams current ranking does not reflect the quality of the team at the time they both played. Likewise, beating a team when they are missing some starters is not as impressive, either.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Not that i want to get in the middle of this, but an informed voter should also consider injuries. For example, WSU drubbed a full strength Seton Hall team.

My point is that there are circumstances where the teams current ranking does not reflect the quality of the team at the time they both played. Likewise, beating a team when they are missing some starters is not as impressive, either.

Those are exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. We can always make unique exceptions as needed, but it only makes sense to start from a point of view that more games played equals a better sample to evaluate from. If special adjustments then need to be made due to major changes in the make-up of a team, I'm fine with that.

[Blackmag]

The very first rankings of the year always starts out with the previous years sucess and who is coming back, and what teams have the highest so called recruits, aka. Mcdonald All- Americans so on so forth. What league you play in gets you more points, say the power five and yes the blue bloods are all going to be ranked high every year starting out. Then the season starts, blue bloods play one anotheir on neutral floors, worst thing that can happen is a quality loss.Quality teams not in the power five hit the road for hopefully getting quality wins, or hopefully getting in tourneys that have teams from the power five in them, and hopefully doing well and getting some street cred and votes in the polls. Much longer walk to get to the top 25 for these teams and sometimes years to build up a reputation that keeps you relevant. Much easier for a team in the bottom or middle of the pack in a power 5 conference to accend to the top 25 because they will be playing 4-6 teams in their so-called power conference twice a year and just winning a few of those games will more than likely get them in the Big Dance. Much easier road, they usually play an inferior non.-con. schedual because they know the league will save them, aka. ksu. I always like to wait till the end of the year to evaluate teams whole body of work. Every year the mighty who are bestowed these lofty rankings will slide down the rankings, it usually takes about 8-10 losses, albeit quality losses to see them fall from the top 25. There is a bias even though they try to say their isnt, but you see it every year. Now we know the Valley isnt the greatest conference out there but it wasnt that long ago that MSU was shafted big time with a top 25 rpi and were left out, so dont tell me there isnt any bias out there.