Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
philliken

2018-2019 #25 Rankings

Recommended Posts

Various computer rankings have us all over the place. T-Rank's regular tempo free has us at 60 and T-Rank's ELO has us at 41.  Sonny Moore has us at 181.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated for the week.  No surprise, we are not receiving votes this week after our loss to Pitt.  Davidson receiving one vote.  Future opponent Florida St checks in at #15.

AP Top 25
RK TEAM RECORD PTS
1 Gonzaga (32) 6-0 1,590
2 Kansas (31) 5-0 1,584
3 Duke (1) 5-1 1,486
4 Virginia (1) 6-0 1,396
5 Nevada 6-0 1,329
6 Tennessee 4-1 1,284
7 Michigan 6-0 1,213
8 Auburn 5-1 1,129
9 Michigan State 5-1 1,111
10 Kentucky 5-1 1,022
11 North Carolina 6-1 943
12 Kansas State 6-0 936
13 Virginia Tech 5-0 921
14 Iowa 5-0 599
15 Florida State 5-1 581
16 Ohio State 6-0 511
17 Texas 5-1 486
18 Oregon 4-1 439
19 Purdue 5-1 387
20 Texas Tech 6-0 380
21 Buffalo 5-0 351
22 Wisconsin 5-1 253
23 Villanova 5-2 217
24 Maryland 6-0 170
25 Mississippi State 4-1 161
  • Others receiving votes: Arizona State 156, Clemson 135, Furman 72, Creighton 65, LSU 41, Indiana 35, UCLA 30, Iowa State 22, St. John's 19, Minnesota 17, Miami 10, Syracuse 8, TCU 8, Nebraska 6, Arkansas 6, Notre Dame 4, UConn 4, Florida 3, UCF 3, Davidson 1, Houston 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll post this here:

 

NCAA "Net" ranking aka RPI

 

They have us at #62.  Whats strange is they have Pitt at #23.  I really hope Pitts start wasnt a fluke,  them having an ok year is big for us.

 

Butler at 45th

florida st at 44th

the Dukes at 40th

Houston at 18th

 

 

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, wgstl said:

I'll post this here:

 

NCAA "Net" ranking aka RPI

 

They have us at #62.  Whats strange is they have Pitt at #23.  I really hope Pitts start wasnt a fluke,  them having an ok year is big for us.

 

Butler at 45th

florida st at 44th

the Dukes at 40th

Houston at 18th

 

 

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

I'm not a big fan of the NET rankings at this point because the NCAA did a horrible job of explaining exactly how it is calculated and providing backdated rankings to show how past years would have looked.

But as bad as that roll-out over the summer was, they probably did it more of a disservice to release it this early in the year. All you are going to get is confused fans wondering how Loyola Maramount can be ranked 10th, Kentuck at 61, etc. They should have waited another few weeks at minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, philliken said:

Updated for the week.  No surprise, we are not receiving votes this week after our loss to Pitt.  Davidson receiving one vote.  Future opponent Florida St checks in at #15.

AP Top 25
RK TEAM RECORD PTS
1 Gonzaga (32) 6-0 1,590
2 Kansas (31) 5-0 1,584
3 Duke (1) 5-1 1,486
4 Virginia (1) 6-0 1,396
5 Nevada 6-0 1,329
6 Tennessee 4-1 1,284
7 Michigan 6-0 1,213
8 Auburn 5-1 1,129
9 Michigan State 5-1 1,111
10 Kentucky 5-1 1,022
11 North Carolina 6-1 943
12 Kansas State 6-0 936
13 Virginia Tech 5-0 921
14 Iowa 5-0 599
15 Florida State 5-1 581
16 Ohio State 6-0 511
17 Texas 5-1 486
18 Oregon 4-1 439
19 Purdue 5-1 387
20 Texas Tech 6-0 380
21 Buffalo 5-0 351
22 Wisconsin 5-1 253
23 Villanova 5-2 217
24 Maryland 6-0 170
25 Mississippi State 4-1 161
  • Others receiving votes: Arizona State 156, Clemson 135, Furman 72, Creighton 65, LSU 41, Indiana 35, UCLA 30, Iowa State 22, St. John's 19, Minnesota 17, Miami 10, Syracuse 8, TCU 8, Nebraska 6, Arkansas 6, Notre Dame 4, UConn 4, Florida 3, UCF 3, Davidson 1, Houston 1

Man Furman at 28th must be high water mark for that program. I really have no idea but don't remember them ever getting votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I'm not a big fan of the NET rankings at this point because the NCAA did a horrible job of explaining exactly how it is calculated and providing backdated rankings to show how past years would have looked.

But as bad as that roll-out over the summer was, they probably did it more of a disservice to release it this early in the year. All you are going to get is confused fans wondering how Loyola Maramount can be ranked 10th, Kentuck at 61, etc. They should have waited another few weeks at minimum.

Whenever anyone criticizes the RPI or the NET or whatever new systems comes into place for computer ranking of teams, I always understand their complaints and feel that they have valid points.  However, remember that a computer based system like the one they us in any particular year is typically the only thing standing between the committee and its desire to use the "eye test" to put in all power conference teams.  Fans of teams like SLU should be very careful with their criticism of the computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, almaman said:

Man Furman at 28th must be high water mark for that program. I really have no idea but don't remember them ever getting votes.

well with wins vs villanova and florida state they are very deserving.  

selfishly though, that's all we need is a desparate p'd off florida state.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billiken_roy said:

well with wins vs villanova and florida state they are very deserving.  

selfishly though, that's all we need is a desparate p'd off florida state.  

The Bills have played better basketball against better teams. 

Maybe a pissed off FSU team can meet a pissed off SLU team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billiken_roy said:

well with wins vs villanova and florida state they are very deserving.  

selfishly though, that's all we need is a desparate p'd off florida state.  

Don't think Furman has a win versus FSU this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Don't think Furman has a win versus FSU this year.

no, Villanova recently defeated Florida State...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Whenever anyone criticizes the RPI or the NET or whatever new systems comes into place for computer ranking of teams, I always understand their complaints and feel that they have valid points.  However, remember that a computer based system like the one they us in any particular year is typically the only thing standing between the committee and its desire to use the "eye test" to put in all power conference teams.  Fans of teams like SLU should be very careful with their criticism of the computers.

I've got no problem with a computer being a large part of the calculus, in fact I generally like it.

BUT, I do think the computer program should be understood and verifiable. I also think the current system of allowing the committee to take a computer program and then move teams in and out of the dance simply because of the eye test is the worst of all systems.

Basically the NCAA has said, let's build a computer program that highly values simply playing good teams (which requires being in a good conference), but that's not enough so let's put extra weight on beating good teams (which requires being in a good conference so that you get multiple opportunities to beat good teams) and then let's add an extra layer with the selection process where we can randomly choose which teams to move up or down in the computer ranking based on whatever qualitative factors we want to focus on that particular year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I've got no problem with a computer being a large part of the calculus, in fact I generally like it.

BUT, I do think the computer program should be understood and verifiable. I also think the current system of allowing the committee to take a computer program and then move teams in and out of the dance simply because of the eye test is the worst of all systems.

Basically the NCAA has said, let's build a computer program that highly values simply playing good teams (which requires being in a good conference), but that's not enough so let's put extra weight on beating good teams (which requires being in a good conference so that you get multiple opportunities to beat good teams) and then let's add an extra layer with the selection process where we can randomly choose which teams to move up or down in the computer ranking based on whatever qualitative factors we want to focus on that particular year.

Now this I agree with.  Often, those that criticize simply are complaining about having a computer system being involved in the process without realizing the implications that not having a computer system would have.  Now, if we want to pick apart how the computer system uses the data it is given, I have no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kshoe said:

I've got no problem with a computer being a large part of the calculus, in fact I generally like it.

BUT, I do think the computer program should be understood and verifiable. I also think the current system of allowing the committee to take a computer program and then move teams in and out of the dance simply because of the eye test is the worst of all systems.

Basically the NCAA has said, let's build a computer program that highly values simply playing good teams (which requires being in a good conference), but that's not enough so let's put extra weight on beating good teams (which requires being in a good conference so that you get multiple opportunities to beat good teams) and then let's add an extra layer with the selection process where we can randomly choose which teams to move up or down in the computer ranking based on whatever qualitative factors we want to focus on that particular year.

-well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NET ranking, for what it is worth, is interesting. We are at #62 in this ranking. Two other teams from A10 are ranked higher than us: Duquesne #40 and VCU #56. Interpret this any way you  want. I do not think Duqesne should be ranked ahead of us, this is NET the new system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this new system is going to be accurate until conferencee play starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, drkelsey55 said:

I don't think this new system is going to be accurate until conferencee play starts.

They always said the old RPI wasn't really meant to be accurate until the end of the season.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kshoe said:

I'm not a big fan of the NET rankings at this point because the NCAA did a horrible job of explaining exactly how it is calculated and providing backdated rankings to show how past years would have looked.

But as bad as that roll-out over the summer was, they probably did it more of a disservice to release it this early in the year. All you are going to get is confused fans wondering how Loyola Maramount can be ranked 10th, Kentuck at 61, etc. They should have waited another few weeks at minimum.

Like wait for at least 8 games....The perils of posting with small sample sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old guy said:

The NET ranking, for what it is worth, is interesting. We are at #62 in this ranking. Two other teams from A10 are ranked higher than us: Duquesne #40 and VCU #56. Interpret this any way you  want. I do not think Duqesne should be ranked ahead of us, this is NET the new system.

I'm not going to do a deep dive, but Duquesne's only loss is to Notre Dame, #19, and they have a win over Radford, #22. Our big win is over Seton Hall, who is ranked 85.   My guess is that our wins over bottom dwellers might not be as high as Duquesne 'buy wins'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post, kshoe.  Well said.

Win the autobid and who cares what fuoking computer says what.  Just win baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregon, #18, lost Monday night to Texas Southern, 1-4, at home.  It's early, anything can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 6 games in the books, SLU is tied for 27th nationally in blocked shots per game at 5.3.  Fordham, yes that Fordham, is 19th at 5.7.  We're sitting at 317th (of 351) in FT%. Richmond is actually worse, sitting at 321.

Rebound margin sees the Bills today at 43rd with a +7.8. Upcoming foe Butler is 192nd at +1.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

With 6 games in the books, SLU is tied for 27th nationally in blocked shots per game at 5.3.  Fordham, yes that Fordham, is 19th at 5.7.  We're sitting at 317th (of 351) in FT%. Richmond is actually worse, sitting at 321.

Rebound margin sees the Bills today at 43rd with a +7.8. Upcoming foe Butler is 192nd at +1.0.

-as a point of reference, for last season we were +4.1 in rebounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

With 6 games in the books, SLU is tied for 27th nationally in blocked shots per game at 5.3.  Fordham, yes that Fordham, is 19th at 5.7.  We're sitting at 317th (of 351) in FT%. Richmond is actually worse, sitting at 321.

Rebound margin sees the Bills today at 43rd with a +7.8. Upcoming foe Butler is 192nd at +1.0.

 

11 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-as a point of reference, for last season we were +4.1 in rebounds

We rank 29th in team rebound rate this season compared to 48th last.  Over the last 3 games we rank 7th.

We rank 16th in block percentage this season compared to 23rd last.  Over the last 3 games we rank 6th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While getting rebounds is always an important factor in winning, against Butler we sure as hell better defend the perimeter and stop the dribble drive penetration. Not sure their PG is much of a dribble drive guy. But against Pitt and C.Ark their PG's had their way with us on dashes to the hoops. We didn't seem to have an answer for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×