AP Top 25 (11/27)

[Orangutan]

ND's win sees them jump from 6 to 3. SCar falls 3 to 5. UCLA drop 5 to 7 after losing to UConn

 

[JordyG]

????

 

[Orangutan]

????

Something troubling you?

 

[Plebe]

No major argument from me. I'm a little disappointed to see UCLA dropped behind Mississippi State just for losing to UConn. I will never understand the notion that you should be penalized in the rankings for losing a team that you were *supposed* to lose to. SMH

Same thing with Ohio State moving ahead of Baylor. Just because they beat a lower-ranked Stanford team in overtime? Again, how does that result prove that Ohio State needs to be moved up in the rankings?

 

[JordyG]

Something troubling you?

Yeah. I've UCLA at 5 and better than Walz on a neutral court. Texas has played no one and, as usual (like Baylor) very little outside of the State of Texas.

 

[Orangutan]

No major argument from me. I'm a little disappointed to see UCLA dropped behind Mississippi State just for losing to UConn. I will never understand the notion that you should be penalized in the rankings for losing a team that you were *supposed* to lose to. SMH

There is basically no separation between #5 and #7. UCLA is just two points behind South Carolina.

 

[Plebe]

There is basically no separation between #5 and #7. UCLA is just two points behind South Carolina.

View attachment 26469

Wow, yeah, that's about as close as it gets.

 

[BostonCanuck]

No major argument from me. I'm a little disappointed to see UCLA dropped behind Mississippi State just for losing to UConn. I will never understand the notion that you should be penalized in the rankings for losing a team that you were *supposed* to lose to. SMH

I think part of it too is Mississippi State playing their way up with three wins in three days at the Cancun Challenge.

 

[Plebe]

I think part of it too is Mississippi State playing their way up with three wins in three days at the Cancun Challenge.

But again, all they did was beat teams that were unranked or barely ranked.

 

[UcMiami]

No major argument from me. I'm a little disappointed to see UCLA dropped behind Mississippi State just for losing to UConn. I will never understand the notion that you should be penalized in the rankings for losing a team that you were *supposed* to lose to. SMH

Same thing with Ohio State moving ahead of Baylor. Just because they beat a lower-ranked Stanford team in overtime? Again, how does that result prove that Ohio State needs to be moved up in the rankings?

I think it gets down to the fact there are so few real measuring stick games for the top 25 teams during the OOC season so a blow out loss even to Uconn is seen as a negative. Pretty much everyone is guess for the first 8 weeks of the season because there are too many games against the Lamars and Niagaras of the WCBB world.
TX is #2 because ...? They were able to thump Stetson, McNeese, UTSA, and two bottom feeders from P5 conferences and that is all voters have to go on. Louisville and ND have much more impressive resumes.

 

[stwainfan]

I think being no. 12 is fine for now with this young team. Beating a good Marquette team. Texas game coming up soon.

 

[Plebe]

I think it gets down to the fact there are so few real measuring stick games for the top 25 teams during the OOC season so a blow out loss even to Uconn is seen as a negative. Pretty much everyone is guess for the first 8 weeks of the season because there are too many games against the Lamars and Niagaras of the WCBB world.
TX is #2 because ...? They were able to thump Stetson, McNeese, UTSA, and two bottom feeders from P5 conferences and that is all voters have to go on. Louisville and ND have much more impressive resumes.

Preseason rankings are necessarily speculative. The rankings only very gradually and unevenly become more resume-based over the course of the season. But if a voter thought Texas was #2 before the season started, there's no real logical reason to bump them just because Notre Dame and Louisville have played better teams in the first 2 weeks of the season.

My issue, again, is with the notion that "chalk" results, which would seemingly only confirm the *validity* of the rankings as they are, should then prompt a change in the rankings.

 

[Orangutan]

Why exactly was Texas ranked #2 preseason to start with?

That's what I don't get. They didn't win the Big 12 last year (regular season or tournament). They lost in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA tourney. I'm sure this was tossed around endlessly in the preseason. I never really cared much about the preseason rankings. But the more I think about it now the more it puzzles me that they were put in that spot.

 

[j66kicker]

Why exactly was Texas ranked #2 preseason to start with?

That's what I don't get. They didn't win the Big 12 last year (regular season or tournament). They lost in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA tourney. I'm sure this was tossed around endlessly in the preseason. I never really cared much about the preseason rankings. But the more I think about it now the more it puzzles me that they were put in that spot.

??? Congrats on moving up, BTW. I think ND should be #2.

 

[Plebe]

Why exactly was Texas ranked #2 preseason to start with?

That's what I don't get. They didn't win the Big 12 last year (regular season or tournament). They lost in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA tourney. I'm sure this was tossed around endlessly in the preseason. I never really cared much about the preseason rankings. But the more I think about it now the more it puzzles me that they were put in that spot.

Eh, I can't speak for the voters, but I'm guessing they were looking at the fact that Texas suffered less significant graduation losses (only Lang and Turner, IIRC) than most of the other top teams. Maybe that combined with their highly touted freshman and sophomore classes. Who knows. FWIW the vote margin was pretty narrow, only a 13-point difference between #2 Texas and #3 Baylor.

I wouldn't have ranked them #2, but I'm not even sure who should have been.

 

[willtalk]

The problem with preseason rankings is that perception usually trumps reality. The only sure placing this season was Uconn. The other rankings were purely speculative and there would be nothing wrong with that except that those rankings are taken too seriously for subsequent weeks. Once teams are locked into their initial rankings it often takes too many wins or loses to change the initial perception. This is why a team ranked high yet playing nothing but cupcakes has a distinct advantage. It is always assumed that a team has to lose to drop in the rankings. This only makes sense if the initial ranking was based on actual merit.

It is harder to change an existing perception than to create one from scratch. While the season over time tends to correct the initial mistakes it never really does so completely. The initial mistakes tend to have residual effects even into the NCAA playoff. This is because not everyone plays the same schedule and some leagues are weaker than others. If say a number of teams in a league were initially over rated that would in effect overrate the league. So then rather than the remainder of those teams games correcting that overrating it would tend to reinforce it, because all wins and loses would be reflective of the competitions inflated strength.

To really be fair the ratings should be delayed at least for three weeks but preferably till league actually started. But this the media would certainly never do, because fans love ratings and this sells papers or internet hits. It wouldn't really matter at all except the NCAA seedings are influenced by ratings. How far a team goes often depends on being seeded in the right bracket. When you play a number of games the odds of you advancing increases the less you are challenged by the opposition.

If your team has an off shooting day it can escape with a win to a lesser team, but a hot team closer in talent would give them a loss. Basketball isn't always about talent but rather timing and match ups. What would have been the outcome if SC had faced Miss.st first and played Uconn in the Championship. Miss st. was hot but cooled off over time. The same thing happened in respect to Louisvilles upset of Baylor. The were hot against Baylor but then cooled off in the final four. Cal could have beaten them if they would not have focused on stopping Schimmel. Schimmel was a streak shooter and she had cooled off so she was not going to hurt them. It was the player that they ignored because of all the defensive focus directed at Shone that killed them. Louisville , though a lesser team, had both the timing ( shooters got hot) and the right match ups ( 3pt shooting team ) to beat Baylor. Again Timing and match ups influenced the outcome.

 

[Orangutan]

Eh, I can't speak for the voters, but I'm guessing they were looking at the fact that Texas suffered less significant graduation losses (only Lang and Turner, IIRC) than most of the other top teams. Maybe that combined with their highly touted freshman and sophomore classes. Who knows. FWIW the vote margin was pretty narrow, only a 13-point difference between #2 Texas and #3 Baylor.

I wouldn't have ranked them #2, but I'm not even sure who should have been.

Yeah, I guess there was no clear answer as preseason #2 and two of the most popular alternatives (SCar and Baylor) have already lost.

It's just funny that the justification would be that they got everyone back. Yes, they got everything back from a team that accomplished functionally nothing! But I think you're right that that was the reasoning.

It's still very early to put much stock into the computer rankings. I do note, however, that Texas is 7 in Sagarin and 9 in Massey. Sagarin has Louisville #2. Massey has ND #2.

 

[bags27]

Do you really think Notre Dame deserves to be in the top 25, let alone at 3? Don't you think this is just another ESPN scheme to drive up TV ratings for a UConn game?

Seriously, that was an awesome, richly-deserved win last night. Great match-up next Sunday.

 

[mhshuskies]

There is basically no separation between #5 and #7. UCLA is just two points behind South Carolina.

View attachment 26469

The only significant separation is between #1 and everyone else.

 

[TWG236]

This makes the 220th week UCONN has been ranked #1. Their record when ranked #1 is 419-16. Their record vs other Top 25 teams is 248-62. Record against Top 10 ranked teams is 116-47. Finally their record when they are ranked #1 or #2 against the other #1 or #2 ranked team is 20-3. Their domination continues.

 

[Kaizen]

Wow ... Villanova is back in the Top 25 for the first time in 13 years.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Apropos of almost nothing, but the old Big East accounts for three of the top four and seven of the top 25. I miss that conference.

 

[bballnut90]

Yeah, I guess there was no clear answer as preseason #2 and two of the most popular alternatives (SCar and Baylor) have already lost.

It's just funny that the justification would be that they got everyone back. Yes, they got everything back from a team that accomplished functionally nothing! But I think you're right that that was the reasoning.

It's still very early to put much stock into the computer rankings. I do note, however, that Texas is 7 in Sagarin and 9 in Massey. Sagarin has Louisville #2. Massey has ND #2.

Preseason rankings always overhype teams that have a lot coming back or appear to be better on paper than they were the previous year. Every single year the voters underrate Notre Dame, and every year Notre Dame has been the perennial #2 or #3 in the country. This year I finally believed they wouldn't be as formidable since they lost Turner and had Boley transfer out, but it appears they may be a top team again. Young is significantly improved and the unexpected addition of Shepard is paying dividends.

This year is a bit different though IMO because the gap between Connecticut and everyone else may be the greatest it has ever been. Most traditional powers are less imposing than they were a year ago (ex. South Carolina, Baylor, Notre Dame, Stanford), and UCONN might have its most loaded roster ever, so I don't see anyone being able to hang with UCONN past the 3rd quarter.

 

[Plebe]

Preseason rankings always overhype teams that have a lot coming back or appear to be better on paper than they were the previous year. Every single year the voters underrate Notre Dame, and every year Notre Dame has been the perennial #2 or #3 in the country. This year I finally believed they wouldn't be as formidable since they lost Turner and had Boley transfer out, but it appears they may be a top team again. Young is significantly improved and the unexpected addition of Shepard is paying dividends.

All of this is true, but I suspect the voters would have placed Notre Dame a bit higher if they'd known at the time that Shepard would be available.

 

[HuskyFan1125]

Looks right to me. Texas “should” be good this season and i think that’s why they start so high. Although i need to see them play some quality opponents.