PDA

View Full Version : Up in the rankings!!!



DavidBenAkiva
11-25-2007, 12:39 AM
Indiana, Louisville, and Tennessee all lost this week, so we should definitely be in the top ten in both polls, assuming we beat E. Kentucky. Yeah!

Do you think that Duke is a top-ten team or is this a question to ask in a few months?

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana

dukie8
11-25-2007, 12:44 AM
Indiana, Louisville, and Tennessee all lost this week, so we should definitely be in the top ten in both polls, assuming we beat E. Kentucky. Yeah!

Do you think that Duke is a top-ten team or is this a question to ask in a few months?

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana

rankings in november? yawn. do you remember where uconn was ranked last nov/dec?

Taco
11-25-2007, 02:44 AM
In my opinion ranking isn't too much to get excited about no matter what month it is.

Wander
11-25-2007, 09:53 AM
I would personally still have us outside the top 10, behind teams like Butler, Texas A&M, and Southern Illinois.

CatfiveCane
11-25-2007, 10:16 AM
I think Duke deserves to be in the top ten given their recent play.

Now for those of you who don't think ranking are important: whatever.
You think ESPN and CBS would continue to show Duke games if we were always a top 50 team? You think recruits would be less or more interested.

So it's better to ranked higher than lower... even in November.

dukie8
11-25-2007, 10:29 AM
Now for those of you who don't think ranking are important: whatever.

thanks for the profound analysis. rankings in general, nevermind in november, mean next to nothing. ask k what he thinks of november rankings.

captmojo
11-25-2007, 10:31 AM
thanks for the profound analysis. rankings in general, nevermind in november, mean next to nothing. ask k what he thinks of november rankings.

True, but the point about exposure is quite valid.

dukie8
11-25-2007, 10:48 AM
True, but the point about exposure is quite valid.

do you actually think that espn/cbs will yank our games if we "only" are ranked 20th versus top 10? it's irrelevant and, quite honestly, i think k would prefer to be ranked 20th right now and fly under the radar for as long as possible.

Olympic Fan
11-25-2007, 10:53 AM
The original idea of the rankings was to help the wire services determine which teams to cover on a national basis. For years, national roundups from the Associated Press and/or United Press International would focus on the top 20 or top 25 teams in the rankings. If you weren't ranked, you rarely got mentioned -- maybe when your coach won his 500th game or when you played a ranked team.

Now, we have so many sources of info, that we get a lot of coverage of unranked teams, so it's not as big a deal. I understand Catsfive's concern -- and a long-term departure from the top 10 would represent a serious blow to Duke's national appeal and presitige. But I think what some others have suggested is that it would be nice to fly under the radar a little bit longer.

But I don't think that's possible after Maui and the exposure ESPN gave that championship. The polls are what they are -- and wishing for higher or lower rankings don't mean much.

How much will Duke move up (assuming a win today)?

Duke is No. 13 in the AP -- amazingly, six of the seven teams ahead of Duke lost this week No. 12 Oregon; No. 11 Marquette; No. 10 Michigan State; No. 8 Indiana; No. 7 Tennessee and No. 6 Louisville. Only No. 9 Washington State survived (and they didn't play anybody).

Duke is 10 in the USA Today/ESPN Poll -- No. 9 Washington State won, but No. 8 Indaian, No. 7 Tennessee and No. 6 Louisville all won.

With a win today, I'd expect Duke to move up to about 7 or 8 in both polls. We'll see.

PS Duke is now 9 in the RPI. Of course, Sam Houston State is No. 1, followed by Bucknell, UCLA and Miami of Florida. So take it for what it's worth.

YmoBeThere
11-25-2007, 11:03 AM
Duke is No. 13 in the AP -- amazingly, six of the seven teams ahead of Duke lost this week No. 12 Oregon; No. 11 Marquette; No. 10 Michigan State; No. 8 Indiana; No. 7 Tennessee and No. 6 Louisville. Only No. 9 Washington State survived (and they didn't play anybody).



There is generally some level of chaos in the basketball rankings, but any think we could have a year similar to NCAA Div I football?

Turtleboy
11-25-2007, 11:18 AM
do you actually think that espn/cbs will yank our games if we "only" are ranked 20th versus top 10? it's irrelevant and, quite honestly, i think k would prefer to be ranked 20th right now and fly under the radar for as long as possible.That's not what he said though, is it? He said always top 50, and his point was a good one. How many other teams ranked around 50 play as many TV games as Duke? Or half as many, for that matter?

dukie8
11-25-2007, 11:29 AM
That's not what he said though, is it? He said always top 50, and his point was a good one. How many other teams ranked around 50 play as many TV games as Duke? Or half as many, for that matter?

what he actually stated makes no sense:


I think Duke deserves to be in the top ten given their recent play.

Now for those of you who don't think ranking are important: whatever.
You think ESPN and CBS would continue to show Duke games if we were always a top 50 team? You think recruits would be less or more interested.

So it's better to ranked higher than lower... even in November.

following his highly useful "whatever" comment, he then proceeded to ask if espn/cbs would continue to show duke games if we were always a top 50 team. um, me thinks so.

he then followed that up claiming that "it's better to ranked [sic] higher than lower... even in November." that, i disagree with, as do other posters. it's not where you are ranked in november that matters. that comes in march.

mapei
11-25-2007, 11:31 AM
I like rankings. Sports are a form of entertainment, and rankings add to the entertainment value for me.

I also think it is ridiculous to judge an entire season by what happens in a single-elimination tournament in March. For me, the enjoyment is in the entire journey.

captmojo
11-25-2007, 11:35 AM
Don't ever think that TV programmers consider anything other than ratings. These weasels won't schedule "Little Sisters of the Poor" If they don't have an appeal to the viewers related to either rankings or a mass appeal. Not on the major channel of their network anyway.

cajundevil74
11-25-2007, 03:46 PM
Rankings are important for exposure sake, if nothing else. The rankings determine when your highlights are shown in Sportscenter, what games are televised, etc.

If Duke was no. 20, then Duke would not recieve as much positive attention as they will at no. 10.

In addition, beating a highly-ranked team in November will still help your quality wins total for tourney seed consideration come March - even if that team is no longer considered world beaters.

So rankings do matter in November.

dukie8
11-25-2007, 04:14 PM
In addition, beating a highly-ranked team in November will still help your quality wins total for tourney seed consideration come March - even if that team is no longer considered world beaters.

please provide a source for this new seeding factor.

tbyers11
11-25-2007, 04:52 PM
Rankings are important for exposure sake, if nothing else. The rankings determine when your highlights are shown in Sportscenter, what games are televised, etc.

If Duke was no. 20, then Duke would not recieve as much positive attention as they will at no. 10.

In addition, beating a highly-ranked team in November will still help your quality wins total for tourney seed consideration come March - even if that team is no longer considered world beaters.

So rankings do matter in November.

Rankings from year-to-year matter in TV exposure only in terms of the ratings that a certain team draws, but November rankings mean absolutely nothing with regards to what games are televised later in the year. ESPN's (and ABC and CBS) schedule has been set for quite awhile now. If we have a huge losing streak and drop out of the rankings they are still going to show our games in February. Conversely, if Clemson is 20-2 and ranked #3 come February their games aren't going to be shown more frequently.

I also disagree with your second point. How a team played in November means nothing compared to its overall profile in the RPI (a "quality win" metric) come March.

Jarhead
11-25-2007, 05:04 PM
You are correct about the appearances on TV. Those are contracts from before the season starts, mostly. On the other point, I would add that a quality win in November will still carry weight if the losing team maintains its standings through the season. For example, if Marquette holds on near to it's #10 position into March, we will benefit from that, I would guess.

dukie8
11-25-2007, 05:18 PM
You are correct about the appearances on TV. Those are contracts from before the season starts, mostly. On the other point, I would add that a quality win in November will still carry weight if the losing team maintains its standings through the season. For example, if Marquette holds on near to it's #10 position into March, we will benefit from that, I would guess.

no. it has value if marquette is ranked 10 when the seeding committee meets. the fact that marquette was 1 or 10 or 100 when you beat them in november is irrelevant. all those first few defeats of uconn last year when uconn was still ranked were meaningless with respect to seedings.

sagegrouse
11-25-2007, 05:30 PM
Rankings are very popular, which is one reason we have so many of them. They serve the fans interest and, if favorable, the economics of the ranked school.

The web sports sites, the news services and the newspapers seem to cover mostly just the ranked teams, although for a national program like Duke, we may get coverage anyway. I'd just as soon stay in the top 25 (or higher) and forget the experiment.

My view is, I want to be one of the top teams (ergo, have a high ranking) even though the rankings per se are meaningless.

sagegrouse

cajundevil74
11-25-2007, 06:34 PM
November rankings matter, imo - exposure from highlight shows, and positive stories resulting from high rankings are an important source of fodder for recruiting/PR, etc.

TV argument - you guys are probably right, however, if we were to lose every game between now and February, I doubt we would get many games televised - execs do have a way of televising games that matter.

I think there is a psychological argument to be made. Many may disagree, but the lower you are ranked to start the season, the longer it takes to climb the rankings and the quicker you are to fall from the top of the rankings. I think this is less of a factor at a legendary program - Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc., than it is at a lesser program. However, the public's perception is that a team isn't really that good - or they would have been ranked higher to begin the year.

dukie8
11-25-2007, 06:38 PM
November rankings matter, imo - exposure from highlight shows, and positive stories resulting from high rankings are an important source of fodder for recruiting/PR, etc.

TV argument - you guys are probably right, however, if we were to lose every game between now and February, I doubt we would get many games televised - execs do have a way of televising games that matter.

I think there is a psychological argument to be made. Many may disagree, but the lower you are ranked to start the season, the longer it takes to climb the rankings and the quicker you are to fall from the top of the rankings. I think this is less of a factor at a legendary program - Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc., than it is at a lesser program. However, the public's perception is that a team isn't really that good - or they would have been ranked higher to begin the year.

do you honestly believe that duke using rankings as a tool in recruiting? like k is going to whip out his wildcard -- the fact that duke was ranked in the top 10 in november of the prior year -- when a top recruit seems to be leaning towards unc or kentucky.

regarding my earlier post, rankings are 100% irrelevant with respect to seedings -- even end of year rankings. the committee repeatedly has said that. when you understand how ridiculously off rankings are, it makes sense.

darthur
11-25-2007, 07:14 PM
do you honestly believe that duke using rankings as a tool in recruiting? like k is going to whip out his wildcard -- the fact that duke was ranked in the top 10 in november of the prior year -- when a top recruit seems to be leaning towards unc or kentucky.


He doesn't have to. Recruits notice that Duke is ranked top 10 almost every week of every year. You think they don't consider that kind of thing? That's not to say a single week's ranking matters, but November rankings are not irrelevant to recruiting. It's also just nice to be doing well in rankings, just like it's nice to beat UNC even if it doesn't affect title chances.

cajundevil74
11-25-2007, 07:25 PM
When other coaches - e.g., Billy Donovan, and others - are using Duke's first round loss to VCU, and a 22-11 record as evidence of a program in decline, then being ranked among the top 5 or so makes that argument utter nonsense.

I'm not saying that Duke or any other major basketball program uses early season rankings as their recruiting trump card, however, it could be a factor. Again, we are dealing with 17 yr old kids and who knows what will be important when they make their decision. To dismiss early season rankings as utterly irrelevant is losing sight of the bigger picture and resulting potential opportunities.

tbyers11
11-25-2007, 07:57 PM
When other coaches - e.g., Billy Donovan, and others - are using Duke's first round loss to VCU, and a 22-11 record as evidence of a program in decline, then being ranked among the top 5 or so makes that argument utter nonsense.

I'm not saying that Duke or any other major basketball program uses early season rankings as their recruiting trump card, however, it could be a factor. Again, we are dealing with 17 yr old kids and who knows what will be important when they make their decision. To dismiss early season rankings as utterly irrelevant is losing sight of the bigger picture and resulting potential opportunities.

FWIW, I don't think early season rankings are irrelevant. I agree that a higher ranking increases exposure which normally leads to good things. I just said that they have no effect on TV schedules and very little to no effect on seedings

CatfiveCane
11-25-2007, 08:48 PM
While I understand what Dukie8 is saying, I just don't think he see the "big" picture. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

As only one example someone brought up a great point: I'm sure UK, UF, UNC are using Duke's "demise" last year as a recruiting tool. Kinda hard to do when the player sees Duke in the top 10. And I'm sure there are tons of stuff like this. And while ESPN schedules are pretty much set, that doesn't guarantee next year's schedule or regional games. Or what about tournament games. All these things add up. And while a November ranking doesn't mean Duke will still be a top team in march... Like I said before... it's good to be ranked high even in November.

heath_harshman4
11-25-2007, 11:47 PM
do you actually think that espn/cbs will yank our games if we "only" are ranked 20th versus top 10? it's irrelevant and, quite honestly, i think k would prefer to be ranked 20th right now and fly under the radar for as long as possible.

fly under the radar? given Duke is who it is, I highly doubt Duke could fly under the radar whether they are ranked 10 or 20.

SilkyJ
11-26-2007, 01:56 PM
I would personally still have us outside the top 10, behind teams like Butler, Texas A&M, and Southern Illinois.

WHAT?!?! The the salukis maybe, but we are way better then those other two teams. Butler is not way different from marquette, except they are LESS athletic in the backcourt, which is how marquette is so good. I think we'd beat butler by 10 and it wouldn't be that tough.

the saluks are legit though its tough to say whether they are better or worse than us, definitely more experienced though...


do you actually think that espn/cbs will yank our games if we "only" are ranked 20th versus top 10? it's irrelevant and, quite honestly, i think k would prefer to be ranked 20th right now and fly under the radar for as long as possible.

yes i do think they would yank some of them, and since i live on the west coast now games are at more of a premium so I dont want to jeopardize anything. CLIMB THOSE RANKINGS BABY!!!

also, i dont think K gives a damn really. "fly under the radar" do you mean from other teams or the media? Either way i think its a silly point b/c K has trained our players to tune out the media whether we are ranked 1 or 100. And b/c our jerseys say "duke," that means other teams will give us their best shot every night, again, regardless of whether we are ranked 1 or 100.

Also, being ranked 20 or anything outside of 10-15 for that matter just gives the media fodder to duke bash and say we are having a bad year. "under the radar" doesn't exist for duke basketball.

JasonEvans
11-26-2007, 02:03 PM
Wow, you people can argue about anything ;)

--Jason "as long as there are gonna be rankings, I want to be highly ranked" Evans

JasonEvans
11-26-2007, 02:19 PM
The ESPN/Coach's poll (http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/rankings?poll=2&year=2008&week=4)is out.

We are #7.

Carolina is #2, despite getting 1 more first-place vote than UCLA.

Clemson is the only other ranked ACC team at #18. NC State just missed out and is #26. Virginia got enough votes to be #30. Miami (FL) is #33 and Fla State is #40 (thanks to that win over Florida).

Of note-- UConn remains unranked as they have been for a while now. I eagerly await the article on how Jim Calhoun's program is in total disarray. I am sure it is due out any day now ;)

--Jason "I cannot decide if we are over-rated at this point-- aside from a few studs at the top, feels like a lot of decent but not great teams in College hoops this year" Evans

mph
11-26-2007, 02:46 PM
The higher your ranking the more likely your opponent is to give you their best game. This may matter less for programs like Duke and Carolina than for programs like Maryland and Wake, but it's reasonable to think that teams are more motivated to beat a top-10 Duke team than an unranked Duke team.

I like the idea that we get each opponent's best shot, and to the degree a high ranking has anything to do with that, I'll take higher over lower. No "flying under the radar" for me.

JasonEvans
11-26-2007, 03:44 PM
I just got the AP poll and we are #7 in that poll as well. Carolina is #1 there and Clemson is #18. NC State checks in at #24 in the AP poll. Miami, Virginia, and BC all got significant "also receiving votes" support.

As an aside, the AP women's poll came out and we fell a little bit. Here is an interesting line that shows how strong our women's program has been lately:


Duke moved down to No. 11. It's the first time the Blue Devils aren't in the Top 10 since Dec. 31, 2001, a span of 107 straight weeks. Only Tennessee has been in the Top 10 longer.

--Jason "Wisconsin is ranked just in time to face us-- they come in at #20" Evans

Wander
11-26-2007, 04:08 PM
WHAT?!?! The the salukis maybe, but we are way better then those other two teams. Butler is not way different from marquette, except they are LESS athletic in the backcourt, which is how marquette is so good. I think we'd beat butler by 10 and it wouldn't be that tough.

the saluks are legit though its tough to say whether they are better or worse than us, definitely more experienced though...


Southern Illinois just made both of us look stupid by getting blasted by USC.

You're underestimating Butler. They're very, very, very good. They were far superior to us last year, and returned their two most important players. They haven't yet stumbled this year. They are the best team in the entire country at not turning the ball over. I think they deserve to be ranked ahead of us right now.

Cameron
11-26-2007, 05:32 PM
I like rankings. I hope we can have a 1 vs. 2 Rivalry in Blue matchup this season. Or at least a meeting with both of us ranked in the top five (now that doesn't mean I'm still not hoping Carolina loses every game, because I was cheering like hell for Ty Detmer U the other night:)). The exposure ESPN would give that game all week long would be amazing, and would thus create that much more of an incredible atmosphere surrounding the game. That's good not only for entertainment value for fans but for our basketball program as well, especially in positive recruiting, as others have mentioned above.

Do the rankings mean a whole lot? Certainly not. But I still want to be there, ranked in the elite. I like being D-U-K-E, not a chameleon. And Duke belongs in the top ten.

mgtr
11-26-2007, 05:44 PM
If you look at the rankings, in both polls Marquette dropped only 1 or 2 positions. That speaks volumes for the quality of the Marquette team, and the quality of the Duke win.

SilkyJ
11-26-2007, 05:55 PM
Wow, you people can argue about anything ;)

--Jason "as long as there are gonna be rankings, I want to be highly ranked" Evans

don't get high and mighty on us now. u've been known to participate in some silly discussions ;)


Southern Illinois just made both of us look stupid by getting blasted by USC.

You're underestimating Butler. They're very, very, very good. They were far superior to us last year, and returned their two most important players. They haven't yet stumbled this year. They are the best team in the entire country at not turning the ball over. I think they deserve to be ranked ahead of us right now.

haha, yea they did. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually very bullish on butler this year, especially come tourney time, but I think head to head we are definitely better, and considering the quality wins we just put up, I don't see how you can rank them ahead of us. of course, its very subjective right now, and we're dealing with a small sample size, so really neither one of us is right or wrong...we just have our opinions.

BD80
11-26-2007, 05:56 PM
ESPN and most local sports newscasts show highlights of the top-ranked teams. A higher ranking means more exposure, more highlights for recruits to see. This is particularly good this year with Hendo's alley-oop highlights; every high school kid can picture himself on ESPN making the same dunk.

It also helps that the recruits continuously see Duke with a high ranking as scores or rankings are flashed on the screen. Ask anyone in advertising if less is more.

I doubt Coach K uses rankings in recruiting, but they help.

Being ranked early probably raises the competition we face, which improves the learning experience for our team. The danger is the team believing it is that good. I doubt that is an issue with our coaching staff.

loran16
11-26-2007, 06:14 PM
ESPN and most local sports newscasts show highlights of the top-ranked teams. A higher ranking means more exposure, more highlights for recruits to see. This is particularly good this year with Hendo's alley-oop highlights; every high school kid can picture himself on ESPN making the same dunk.

It also helps that the recruits continuously see Duke with a high ranking as scores or rankings are flashed on the screen. Ask anyone in advertising if less is more.

I doubt Coach K uses rankings in recruiting, but they help.

Being ranked early probably raises the competition we face, which improves the learning experience for our team. The danger is the team believing it is that good. I doubt that is an issue with our coaching staff.

Yep, that's the truth. At the moment, Duke's reputation probably means that rankings dont hurt/help that much, except maybe with big men (who seem averse to coming here lately). But for a school like southern illinois...by staying ranked 3 years in a row they ensure that they'll get some quality recruits and thus will remain a competitive bball team.

Besides, rankings make games fun. You know they do.

feldspar
11-26-2007, 06:24 PM
--Jason "Wisconsin is ranked just in time to face us-- they come in at #20" Evans

Which should help our SOS, or at least the perception of it.

We'll end up having played three ranked teams (assuming Pitt doesn't do a free-fall between now and Dec. 20) before we kick off ACC play. That's not too shabby of a non-conference draw, if you ask me, and definitely not the cupcake that SI was alluding to.

jaytoc
11-26-2007, 06:25 PM
College Basketball Things that Matter (to me):

National Championships
ACC Championships
Regular Season ACC Won-Lost Record
Final Fours
Regular Season Overall Record
Post Season Record

College Basketball Things that don't Mean Squat:

Polls/Rankings

If the team takes care of the first group, the rankings will take care of themselves, for whatever they're worth, and all those tangible and intangible considerations (television face time, impact on impressionable teenage ballers, fans' bragging rights, etc., even tournament seeding) will be taken care of, too. I submit that if/where Duke is ranked in a poll any time up to early April is essentially meaningless. As far as rankings go, just tell me how it all works out in the end (of course the journey matters, but only in terms of watching and enjoying the games, not the rankings). If you really care and want to "root" for a high ranking in November, knock yourselves out. I think it has the significance and value of a warm bucket of spit.

feldspar
11-26-2007, 06:29 PM
I submit that if/where Duke is ranked in a poll any time up to early April is essentially meaningless.
This is just simply untrue. When necessary, the tournament selection committee will many times take rankings into account.

Wander
11-26-2007, 06:33 PM
haha, yea they did. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually very bullish on butler this year, especially come tourney time, but I think head to head we are definitely better, and considering the quality wins we just put up, I don't see how you can rank them ahead of us. of course, its very subjective right now, and we're dealing with a small sample size, so really neither one of us is right or wrong...we just have our opinions.

Oh yeah, it's definately a personal call right now. If we were to go completely by current resumes, Duke would be ahead because of Maui, but for me it's too early in the season to omit preseason perceptions from rankings, so I give Butler the nod for now because they were one of the 15 best teams in the country last year.

jaytoc
11-26-2007, 06:49 PM
Feldspar, I think you'll agree that if the team takes care of regular season wins, ACC championships, et al, the tournament selection committee will have no need to refer to poll rankings for seeding purposes, which I though was implicit in my post.

But even were it not, I'll posit something more radical than my view that rankings don't matter in response to your comment: seedings don't matter either. Let me in your tournament and roll the ball out. The first team to win six in a row takes the brass ring. Don't whine about tough match ups, or unfair, rocky roads to the Final Four. Just win six in a row in March/April. Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

ice-9
11-27-2007, 01:27 AM
I prefer reaching the Final Four than winning the ACC Championship. Both take four rounds to win but the former is comprised of national teams whereas the latter is conference teams only--getting to the Final Four (and thus winning the regional) seems like a better barometer for season success than winning the ACC Championship. Plus, reaching the Final Four feels more prestigious and definitely brings more national exposure.

ice-9
11-27-2007, 01:28 AM
Oops, wrong subject title. I guess playing for the NC game is second only to winning the NC game. Getting to the FF would be third. :)

feldspar
11-27-2007, 01:33 AM
Feldspar, I think you'll agree that if the team takes care of regular season wins, ACC championships, et al, the tournament selection committee will have no need to refer to poll rankings for seeding purposes, which I though was implicit in my post.

Sure they would. What if Duke takes care of regular season wins, ACC Championship, etc, but Kentucky, or some other SEC team does the same? Or some other Pac-10 team? Or some other Big Televen team? Sometimes rankings come into play. Sometimes they don't, but I don't think we can accurately say that they never make any difference in the seeding process.


But even were it not, I'll posit something more radical than my view that rankings don't matter in response to your comment: seedings don't matter either. Let me in your tournament and roll the ball out. The first team to win six in a row takes the brass ring. Don't whine about tough match ups, or unfair, rocky roads to the Final Four. Just win six in a row in March/April. Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Well then why do seeding anyway? If we're a #1 seed, why not just stick us against another #2 seed in the first round while a #2 seed battles it out with a #16 seed in the first round. You're saying you'd be okay with that?

throatybeard
11-27-2007, 08:36 AM
Dovetailing with what Feldspar said, the AP rankings have been a better predictor of seed than the RPI has, at least down through about the 5 seeds.

jaytoc
11-27-2007, 09:23 AM
Feldspar asks:

"Well then why do seeding anyway? If we're a #1 seed, why not just stick us against another #2 seed in the first round while a #2 seed battles it out with a #16 seed in the first round. You're saying you'd be okay with that?"*

Yes.

Take 64 or 65 teams. Randomly bracket them off (flip coins, draw names from a hat) and play. Six wins, you're the tourney champs. It's not about fair, it's about fun.

Oh, sure, we'd be deprived of all the talking heads' and bulletin board teeth nashers' endless, enlightening, annual complaints about the Committee's work, the conspiracy theorists' bitterness over the location or seeding of their favorites. But you could still worry about the relative merits of the regions, and think of the stories you'd tell your grandchildren after the (bad)luck of the draw required the Devils to fight their way to consecutive victories over UCLA, Memphis, Indiana, UConn, Kansas, and Carolina on the way to the 2008 Championship. And some day you might even get a long shot champion from a weak region. Now that's entertainment!

I really don't have strong feelings about any of this. My initial point was merely that worrying about ratings, especially in November, is silly. To your point that ratings may affect seedings, sure, indirectly they may, although to believe the Committee it is strength of schedule, won-loss record, conference record, et al that have the most impact. You can worry about that stuff if you'd like. To me, the only things that matter about college bball are decided on the floor, as they should be, not in a reporter's brain or via computer.

*Apology for inability to properly quote from prior post.

Indoor66
11-27-2007, 09:25 AM
Feldspar asks:

"Well then why do seeding anyway? If we're a #1 seed, why not just stick us against another #2 seed in the first round while a #2 seed battles it out with a #16 seed in the first round. You're saying you'd be okay with that?"*

Yes.

Take 64 or 65 teams. Randomly bracket them off (flip coins, draw names from a hat) and play. Six wins, you're the tourney champs. It's not about fair, it's about fun.

Oh, sure, we'd be deprived of all the talking heads' and bulletin board teeth nashers' endless, enlightening, annual complaints about the Committee's work, the conspiracy theorists' bitterness over the location or seeding of their favorites. But you could still worry about the relative merits of the regions, and think of the stories you'd tell your grandchildren after the (bad)luck of the draw required the Devils to fight their way to consecutive victories over UCLA, Memphis, Indiana, UConn, Kansas, and Carolina on the way to the 2008 Championship. And some day you might even get a long shot champion from a weak region. Now that's entertainment!

I really don't have strong feelings about any of this. My initial point was merely that worrying about ratings, especially in November, is silly. To your point that ratings may affect seedings, sure, indirectly they may, although to believe the Committee it is strength of schedule, won-loss record, conference record, et al that have the most impact. You can worry about that stuff if you'd like. To me, the only things that matter about college bball are decided on the floor, as they should be, not in a reporter's brain or via computer.

*Apology for inability to properly quote from prior post.

Hear, hear and applause.

Wander
11-27-2007, 10:01 AM
But even were it not, I'll posit something more radical than my view that rankings don't matter in response to your comment: seedings don't matter either.

There's being radical and then there's being wrong. This is in the "wrong" category.

whereinthehellami
11-27-2007, 10:29 AM
it's irrelevant and, quite honestly, i think k would prefer to be ranked 20th right now and fly under the radar for as long as possible.

That doesn't sound like Coach K to me. He has always embraced higher expectations and challenged his guys to be better. How can you strive to be the best if you're trying to slide by people? As a matter of fact, I think Coach K has been pretty vocal about liking this team this year, which seems like more praise than he usually doles out at this time of year.

RepoMan
11-27-2007, 12:17 PM
seedings don't matter either.

my bad

JasonEvans
11-27-2007, 05:57 PM
Dovetailing with what Feldspar said, the AP rankings have been a better predictor of seed than the RPI has, at least down through about the 5 seeds.

I just want to repeat this statement as it is 100% true. Jerry Palm, who is essentially the guru of the RPI and the guy who really brought it to the masses with his CollegeRPI.com, has said as much in blogs and interviews on the subject.

Now, I am sure some would say that this fact only means that rankings matter in March but do not matter in November and there is certainly some logic to that-- however it is much easier to be highly ranked in March if you started the season highly ranked in November. Teams who behind you in the rankings generally need you to lose for them to move ahead of you. What's more, a team that is highly ranked takes longer to fall out of the rankings.

These statements are obvious but are worth considering when you poo-poo the value of being ranked #7 at this point in the season.

--Jason "I won't be even a little surprised if Duke is ranked in the top 5 some time in the next month" Evans

JasonEvans
11-27-2007, 06:08 PM
"Never give an inch." Henry Stamper, Sometimes a Great Notion

I really should not do this, but every time I see your sig it makes me think of:

http://www.film.org.pl/images/armageddon/armageddon_7.jpg
Harry Stamper: The United States Government just asked us to save the world. Anyone wanna say no?

--Jason "can you say OFF-TOPIC!??!" Evans

weezie
11-27-2007, 06:16 PM
Boy, that is a funny picture!

Dar95
11-27-2007, 07:13 PM
Dovetailing with what Feldspar said, the AP rankings have been a better predictor of seed than the RPI has, at least down through about the 5 seeds.

While this is indeed true, it doesn't imply that the polls have anything to do in the selection committee process (while the polls are one of the pieces of information provided to the committees, they have generally indicated that they are not really used). It simply makes sense - both the AP voters and the selection committee are attempting to rank the best teams at the end of the conference tournaments, while the RPI is doing its own thing without the human interaction of either of those bodies.