2014-15 National Rankings

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

There is always going to be a double standard on this board, just like there is on every single board out there. Because they are all filled with fans. It is actually a great irony that you expect otherwise in such settings.

I am a huge WSU fan. I also hate double standards.
I could go to the KU board and explain to them how they have double standards in favor of their Jayhawks.
I could go to the UNC board and do the same.
I'm not on those boards, I'm here.

I am only asking of others what I already do myself. Nothing more. The excuse "well everyone else is doing it" just doesn't fly with me. Be better than "everyone else".

[1972Shocker]

I was watching sports on various Wichita news stations last night and they were all talking about the rankings and they all sounded surprised that K-State wasn't ranked. Their reasoning was basically they were at the top of the Big 12 standings, which they said was the toughest conference in the country. I guess they failed to overlook the bad non-conference losses of KSU or the fact that maybe some of the teams in the Big 12 are overrated. However, if KSU can beat Iowa State tonight in Ames I imagine they may get some votes next week.

Nor have they taken into account that the 5 teams they have played so far in the Big XII currently make up the bottom half of the conference and none have a winning record in the conference. OU has the best conference record at 3-3, OSU and BU are 2-3, TCU is 1-4 and TTU is 0-5. Three of their 4 wins are at home. However, I will give Bruce Weber some credit in that he has pulled this team together after it seemed like it might be falling apart a few weeks back.

I agree that if they beat Iowa State on the road tonight they could move into the rankings. But their schedule is definitely back end loaded as 6 of their final 10 games are on the road and include both home and road games with Kansas and Texas. I think KSU will do very well this year if they finish at 0.500 in the Big XII.

[Rlh04d]

Prior to that stretch, UNC was 0-4 against the RPI Top 50. It's not that the recent wins don't matter, it was the failure to adequately punish the Heels for their repeated failures early in the season. The fact that they were still ranked in the top 20 at the time with an 0-4 record against quality opponents (their best win to that point had been a neutral court victory over Davidson) speaks volumes about the benefit of the doubt they were receiving from AP voters.

Sometimes, teams do get a little extra bump because of the name on their jersey. Duke's top 10 streak was utterly incredible, but there were certainly weeks during that period where almost any other team not named Duke would have fallen further and dropped out of the top ten.

There is always going to be a double standard on this board, just like there is on every single board out there. Because they are all filled with fans. It is actually a great irony that you expect otherwise in such settings.

To be fair, Utah is 1-3 against the RPI Top 50 right now ... is the win over us the difference between #11/12 and unranked? It's obviously not the name that's keeping them ranked, and I'm fairly certain they'd still be ranked if we had won and they were currently 0-4.

[Play Angry]

I am a huge WSU fan. I also hate double standards.
I could go to the KU board and explain to them how they have double standards in favor of their Jayhawks.
I could go to the UNC board and do the same.
I'm not on those boards, I'm here.

I am only asking of others what I already do myself. Nothing more. The excuse "well everyone else is doing it" just doesn't fly with me. Be better than "everyone else".

I get what you are saying, but expecting consistent rationality and cold logic in a setting where it is unequivocally never going to exist is, ahem, not logical. That is what I'm getting at and where the irony peaks.

I generally enjoy many of your posts when they are not of the neverending feud variety, particularly your insights on all things tournament/seeding FWIW.

[Play Angry]

To be fair, Utah is 1-3 against the RPI Top 50 right now ... is the win over us the difference between #11/12 and unranked? It's obviously not the name that's keeping them ranked, and I'm fairly certain they'd still be ranked if we had won and they were currently 0-4.

I have them at 2-3 per WarrenNolan (us and #47 BYU). Not pristine by any means but significantly better than 0-4.

That said, point taken and there will always definitely be exceptions.

[DUShock]

HCGM has said in previous years that "polls matter" because it greatly benefits recruiting and recruiting opportunities.

Go Shocks!

[Rlh04d]

I have them at 2-3 per WarrenNolan (us and #47 BYU). Not pristine by any means but significantly better than 0-4.

That said, point taken and there will always definitely be exceptions.

True. BYU's close enough that they'll be top 50 by some sites and not by others.

I think there's just more to the rankings than top 50 wins. If BYU was #51 instead of #47, does Utah become a significantly worse team? Ultimately they've played a top 25 SOS and have eight wins over top 150 RPI teams, with all three losses on the road to top 30 RPI teams. Whether they were 0-3 against the top 50 RPI or not wouldn't stop that team from being ranked, regardless of the name on the jersey.

But you're right, the name on the jersey definitely does help. I think we're all living proof of that right now ... we've gotten far more respect this year based on the name on the jersey than we have in past years. Maybe it's less pro-us than it was anti-us in the past, but still ... we drop two games in the noncon in some past years and we'd be struggling to get votes in the AP at all right now.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Prior to that stretch, UNC was 0-4 against the RPI Top 50. It's not that the recent wins don't matter, it was the failure to adequately punish the Heels for their repeated failures early in the season. The fact that they were still ranked in the top 20 at the time with an 0-4 record against quality opponents (their best win to that point had been a neutral court victory over Davidson) speaks volumes about the benefit of the doubt they were receiving from AP voters.

Just FYI, UNC was pre-season #6 but did indeed eventually fall outside the top 20 for a week or two back in mid-December. They haven't been higher than 15th ever since.

Here are KenPom's ranking of UNC's best wins prior to the last 10 days:
#84 NC Central
#45 Davison (Neutral)
#54 UCLA (Neutral)
#25 Florida (Neutral)
#22 Ohio State (Neutral)

Going back to my comments about WSU fans having a double standard, to say that UNC was 0-4 against "quality opponents" at the same time that fans on this board are repeatedly talking up WSU's wins over Loyola and Evansville... that just makes me laugh. UNC was 0-4 against the toughest of the tough, and that was a fair point of criticism at the time, but they did have some good wins that needed to be accounted for. Every team in the 10-20 range has flaws, but I think UNC had plenty of positive items on its resume to warrant being included in that group. Ranking them #1 would have been stupid, but top 20 was very fair, IMO.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

But you're right, the name on the jersey definitely does help. I think we're all living proof of that right now ... we've gotten far more respect this year based on the name on the jersey than we have in past years. Maybe it's less pro-us than it was anti-us in the past, but still ... we drop two games in the noncon in some past years and we'd be struggling to get votes in the AP at all right now.

It has been more than a decade since WSU had a non-conf SOS as good as this year's. None of the recent success under Turg or Marshall included non-conf schedules that were this tough.

I don't think it is a new respect. It is a better performance than previous years where the losses were to weaker opponents and/or the wins were lacking as many quality opponents. That is why this year's 2 loss team is ranked and previous year's 2 loss teams weren't.

Just look at 2006-2007. WSU reached #8 in the polls with a mere 3 wins against top 100 teams. I just don't buy the argument that WSU is getting a newfound respect in the polls that didn't exist in recent years.

[ShockerFever]

I generally enjoy many of your posts when they are not of the neverending feud variety, particularly your insights on all things tournament/seeding FWIW.

Yep, he was a much better contributor when he only posted a couple weeks out of the year in early March.

He'd be better off during the remainder of the time just talking to himself in his blog, but that doesn't trip his attention-getting wires like things do here.

[Rlh04d]

It has been more than a decade since WSU had a non-conf SOS as good as this year's. None of the recent success under Turg or Marshall included non-conf schedules that were this tough.

I don't think it is a new respect. It is a better performance than previous years where the losses were to weaker opponents and/or the wins were lacking as many quality opponents. That is why this year's 2 loss team is ranked and previous year's 2 loss teams weren't.

Just look at 2006-2007. WSU reached #8 in the polls with a mere 3 wins against top 100 teams. I just don't buy the argument that WSU is getting a newfound respect in the polls that didn't exist in recent years.

Except that 2006-2007 was coming off of our Sweet 16 run. We then began the next season in the top 25, almost entirely because of that NCAA tournament run.

I understand and agree with your point, but a lot of it is also based on where you begin the year in the rankings (or if you're ranked at all), and that is based on previous success/respect. We would be ranked this year regardless, based entirely on this year's team ... we would not have been ranked to start the year without past success.

Although you're right ... maybe UNI is more the beneficiary of our past success than we are in terms of rankings this year. Or of the dreaded "quality loss" argument so many here hate -- the "quality loss" @ VCU is really the only thing that keeps UNI from being in Old Dominion's boat, barely receiving votes.

[im4wsu]

Maybe I should have said "last 10 days" instead of "last 2 weeks". I was just intending to point out that they are "playing well" having won their last 3 with 2 being impressive wins.
Sorry for the lack of clarity.

I know wins at Loyola and Evansville are nice, but neither is a top 100 KenPom team.

So maybe you should be more specific with regard to this last quote as well.

As of this morning, you are correct about Loyola (112) and Evansville (109), but last Wednesday they were 93 and 100, respectively. When talking about "perception," it ie highly unlikely that most people will track the difference week-to-week. When WSU played them, each was a top-100 team, and when we played them is the time that most people would look at and remember their ranking.

Also, those teams were the same, identical teams one minute before we played them and one minute after the game, but the loss to WSU surely affected their ranking. So which team did we beat?

[Rlh04d]

So maybe you should be more specific with regard to this last quote as well.

As of this morning, you are correct about Loyola (112) and Evansville (109), but last Wednesday they were 93 and 100, respectively. When talking about "perception," it ie highly unlikely that most people will track the difference week-to-week. When WSU played them, each was a top-100 team, and when we played them is the time that most people would look at and remember their ranking.

Also, those teams were the same, identical teams one minute before we played them and one minute after the game, but the loss to WSU surely affected their ranking. So which team did we beat?

That's why arguing over the week-to-week rankings is inherently insane: these numbers only truly matter at the end of the season, when the NCAA selection committee is deciding teams/seeds.

Everything until then is just ranking for the sake of ranking.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Also, those teams were the same, identical teams one minute before we played them and one minute after the game, but the loss to WSU surely affected their ranking. So which team did we beat?

A very easy question. Always use the most current ranking as it is based on the most data. Loyola didn't necessarily change before or after the game vs WSU, but our available database of information on them grew with a new result being added into the mix. Rankings, especially early on in the season, are difficult because of the small sample size. More games equals more data which equals more accurate rankings for the most part.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

As of this morning, you are correct about Loyola (112) and Evansville (109), but last Wednesday they were 93 and 100, respectively. When talking about "perception," it ie highly unlikely that most people will track the difference week-to-week. When WSU played them, each was a top-100 team, and when we played them is the time that most people would look at and remember their ranking.

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.