2017-18 National Rankings

[another shocker]

Frank McGuire versus Phog Allen, I hate to defend anything Beaker but I would take Allen over McGuire every day of the week.

Regards mentoring Dean Smith, Smith played for Phog Allen at KU for four years and served on Allen's coaching staff after graduation. Smith did replace McGuire when UNC forced McGuire out due to a point shaving fiasco. UNC's President Aycock promoted Smith to the job telling him that the integrity of the school was more important than winning basketball games. Of course we all are familiar with the academic boondoggle in place at UNC during the last decade of Smith's coaching career.

yep, a bit of a sham. hey, when you have the ncaa in your back pocket.. literally.. johnson county.. all sytems go.

dean smith hired dick harp as an assistant in the '80's btw. keep it in the family tradition.

has anybody heard anything lately about the "ku/unc" way, that old, old, old tradition, going on in chapel hill? the major academic joke thing? is roy williams gonna' skate after keeping up the tradition?

[jocoshock]

BIGG difference between success at a Valley school and success at Winthrop. Those of us on this board who have followed college ball for 40+ years, some much longer, probably don't recall there even being a Wintrhrop in D1. His last team there was better than Turgeon's at WSU. Easily.

I remember Winthrop. Every selection Sunday, year after year. 14,15,16 seed. I remember thinking, man it must suck to be Winthrop, getting screwed every year with a low seed.

[ShockingButTrue]

I remember Winthrop. Every selection Sunday, year after year. 14,15,16 seed. I remember thinking, man it must suck to be Winthrop, getting screwed every year with a low seed.

The funny thing is that a self-professed hoops junkie like me didn't even know there was a Winthrop! That's what's amazing. GGG made WINTHROP a legit top 20 program.

[ShockTalk]

From 2004-2016, there have been 25 teams awarded a #1 seed. They have played 234 games, 16 of which wre against another #1 seed.
Of the remaining 218 games where a #1 seed has played a 2-16 seed, the #1 seed has compiled a record of 179-39, 82.1%.
Here are the records by team:

Team	Win	Loss	Percent
Illinois	5	0	100.0%
UCLA	4	0	100.0%
Wisconsin	4	0	100.0%
UNC	31	3	91.2%
Florida	9	1	90.0%
Louisville	9	1	90.0%
Memphis	8	1	88.9%
Kentucky	14	2	87.5%
Ohio State	7	1	87.5%
Gonzage	6	1	85.7%
Duke	21	4	84.0%
Kansas	19	6	76.0%
Arizona	3	1	75.0%
Uconn	6	2	75.0%
Oregon	3	1	75.0%
St. Joseph's	3	1	75.0%
Syracuse	5	2	71.4%
Virginia	5	2	71.4%
Indiana	2	1	66.7%
Michigan St	2	1	66.7%
Pittsburgh	4	2	66.7%
Washington	2	1	66.7%
Villanova	5	3	62.5%
Stanford	1	1	50.0%
Wichita State	1	1	50.0%
Total	179	39	82.1%

Given that the average is 82.1%, there is a pretty distinct line between the better than average vs the below average performance as 1 seeds vs non 1 seeds. KU is the only team below the line with a large number of opportunities (25 games) to prove their worthiness, or not. Next most is UConn and Villanova with 8.

Above the line, there are 3 teams (UNC, UK, Duke) with a high number of opportunities along with 4 more teams with 8 or more games (Florida, Louisville, Memphis, Ohio St). In all fairness, KU was the highest team below the line and Duke was the lowest team above the line. Of course, that was some of Coach K's least worthy period.

[Jes'Me]

From 2004-2016, there have been 25 teams awarded a #1 seed. They have played 234 games, 16 of which wre against another #1 seed.
Of the remaining 218 games where a #1 seed has played a 2-16 seed, the #1 seed has compiled a record of 179-39, 82.1%.
Here are the records by team:

Team	Win	Loss	Percent
Illinois	5	0	100.0%
UCLA	4	0	100.0%
Wisconsin	4	0	100.0%
UNC	31	3	91.2%
Florida	9	1	90.0%
Louisville	9	1	90.0%
Memphis	8	1	88.9%
Kentucky	14	2	87.5%
Ohio State	7	1	87.5%
Gonzage	6	1	85.7%
Duke	21	4	84.0%
Kansas	19	6	76.0%
Arizona	3	1	75.0%
Uconn	6	2	75.0%
Oregon	3	1	75.0%
St. Joseph's	3	1	75.0%
Syracuse	5	2	71.4%
Virginia	5	2	71.4%
Indiana	2	1	66.7%
Michigan St	2	1	66.7%
Pittsburgh	4	2	66.7%
Washington	2	1	66.7%
Villanova	5	3	62.5%
Stanford	1	1	50.0%
Wichita State	1	1	50.0%
Total	179	39	82.1%

Interesting. While the shockers are way down at the bottom, they're also the reason Gonzaga isn't on top at 7-0. Not that you can get anything useful from sample sizes that small.

[atlwsu]

Based on historical results, 1 seeds average 3.36 wins, 2 seeds average 2.38, etc.

http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html

Last 14 years
KU - Expected wins 37.4, Actual 33
Duke - Expected wins 36.5, Actual 31
Marshall (WSU/Winthrop) - Ex 8, Actual 11

It will be interesting to follow this as Gregg Marshall's sample size gets larger, and as many of us expect, the seeding improves and thus, the expected wins/yr improves. Personally, I think the analysis above is favorable to Marshall because he has had some good teams get underseeded. That makes it easier to outperform expected wins based on seed. A string of seasons with single digits seeds in the coming years could make that much tougher.

On the other end of the spectrum, if KU is routinely overseeded, as many here claim, then they haven't really underperformed relative to their actual ability, but rather, just relative to the constant 1 and 2 seeds they've been given. Change some 1s and 2s to 2s and 3s, and you would soon see KU's expected win total fall right in line with their 33 actual wins.

Whar would this look like using Kenpom?

[MadaboutWu]

Based on historical results, 1 seeds average 3.36 wins, 2 seeds average 2.38, etc.

http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/seedadv.html

Last 14 years
KU - Expected wins 37.4, Actual 33
Duke - Expected wins 36.5, Actual 31
Marshall (WSU/Winthrop) - Ex 8, Actual 11

It will be interesting to follow this as Gregg Marshall's sample size gets larger, and as many of us expect, the seeding improves and thus, the expected wins/yr improves. Personally, I think the analysis above is favorable to Marshall because he has had some good teams get underseeded. That makes it easier to outperform expected wins based on seed. A string of seasons with single digits seeds in the coming years could make that much tougher.

On the other end of the spectrum, if KU is routinely overseeded, as many here claim, then they haven't really underperformed relative to their actual ability, but rather, just relative to the constant 1 and 2 seeds they've been given. Change some 1s and 2s to 2s and 3s, and you would soon see KU's expected win total fall right in line with their 33 actual wins.

I wouldn't bring over or underseeding into it. I think much of the expected wins comes about from quality of the opponents opposite (and a lot of variance of how upsets play out). One could make a case we hit underseeded opponents in Pitt, Kentucky, and VCU but probably best to ignore that question because hard to see how to adjust objectively the information along with the team's own fairness of seeding.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The funny thing is that a self-professed hoops junkie like me didn't even know there was a Winthrop! That's what's amazing. GGG made WINTHROP a legit top 20 program.

There is soooo much wrong with this post.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I remember Winthrop. Every selection Sunday, year after year. 14,15,16 seed. I remember thinking, man it must suck to be Winthrop, getting screwed every year with a low seed.

Which year did Winthrop get screwed?

2002, KenPom #216 = 16 seed
2005, KenPom #111 = 14 seed
2006, KenPom #81 = 15 seed
2007, KenPom #50 = 11 seed

[Cdizzle]

Not quite sure where to put this. But the NCAA is changing their team sheets, in what should be a very positive direction.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-men-s-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

Of note:

"There still will be four separate columns, with the first column consisting of home games against teams ranked 1-30, neutral-site games against teams ranked in the top 50 and road games against opponents ranked in the top 75. The second column will include home games against teams ranked 31-75, neutral-site games versus teams ranked 51-100 and road games against teams ranked 76-135.The third column will consist of home games played against competition ranked 76-160, games played on a neutral court versus teams ranked 101-200 and games on the road against teams ranked 136-240. The fourth column will include home games against teams ranked 161-351, neutral-site games played against teams ranked 201-351 and road games versus opponents ranked 241-351."

[lemuel777]

Cdizzle I believe that article should have it's own thread.

[ShockCrazy]

Not quite sure where to put this. But the NCAA is changing their team sheets, in what should be a very positive direction.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-men-s-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

Of note:

"There still will be four separate columns, with the first column consisting of home games against teams ranked 1-30, neutral-site games against teams ranked in the top 50 and road games against opponents ranked in the top 75. The second column will include home games against teams ranked 31-75, neutral-site games versus teams ranked 51-100 and road games against teams ranked 76-135.The third column will consist of home games played against competition ranked 76-160, games played on a neutral court versus teams ranked 101-200 and games on the road against teams ranked 136-240. The fourth column will include home games against teams ranked 161-351, neutral-site games played against teams ranked 201-351 and road games versus opponents ranked 241-351."

Here is a summary of changes to the WSU teams resumes for 2010 to now(NCAA relevant teams). These are the Selection Sunday resumes. Interesting stuff. Not nearly the impact I expected. Would have hurt 2016 for sure, but really shows how under sold 2012 was.

Grouping	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Top 50	1-4	0-5	2-3	3-2	3-0	2-2	1-2	2-4
Top 100	8-1	3-1	6-1	5-3	8-0	5-2	3-5	1-0
New Col 1	1-4	0-3	4-3	4-2	4-0	2-2	2-3	2-3
New Col 2	5-3	2-3	7-2	4-4	8-0	5-2	1-5	1-1

[Cdizzle]

One of my favorite things about this move, is that it seems to be very closely derived from kenPom's game rating system. The more they move in that direction, the better.

I'm still not sold that using additional analytics is a good thing for the selection committee. Cynical me says it just gives them more data sets to cherry-pick from to make sure Syracuse gets in.

[WSUwatcher]

This is good news in a couple of ways: for one, WSU will have more "Column 1 and 2" games in the American than it did in the Valley (and many fewer "Column 3 and 4"); for another, WSU's excellence on the road, while it will be tested more sternly than it was in the Valley, should give them more "Column 1 and 2" road wins than in the past.

Despite the improvement, though, one glaring flaw that remains is that all of the rankings are still based on RPI, which everyone knows to be bogus. And until RPI is banished altogether, there's always going to be a garbage-in, garbage-out aspect to the team sheets, and the P5 shills (including those on the selection committee) will always have an excuse to overrate teams who play a lot of "good RPI" games.

[ShockCrazy]

This is good news in a couple of ways: for one, WSU will have more "Column 1 and 2" games in the American than it did in the Valley (and many fewer "Column 3 and 4"); for another, WSU's excellence on the road, while it will be tested more sternly than it was in the Valley, should give them more "Column 1 and 2" road wins than in the past.

Despite the improvement, though, one glaring flaw that remains is that all of the rankings are still based on RPI, which everyone knows to be bogus. And until RPI is banished altogether, there's always going to be a garbage-in, garbage-out aspect to the team sheets, and the P5 shills (including those on the selection committee) will always have an excuse to overrate teams who play a lot of "good RPI" games.

While RPI is a bit simplistic and the focus on a teams RPI wins rather than that team's actual RPI rank is derpy, it can be a useful tool. The reason it is useful is because it is strictly results oriented, I love KenPom, Sagarin, and even don't think BPI is as awful as some would claim, but here's the thing: these rankings aren't trying to tell you how good a team has performed or tell you who has a better resume, they are trying to predict who is better on a neutral court. Now that may seem like semantics, but it matters, ultimately you have to reward teams for winning games(now RPI isn't necessarily the best at this, but that's what it's TRYING to do), not reward them for style or performance in games from a metrics stand point.