Are teams ranked based on reputation or performance?

[Rooster C.]

I understand before a season starts that teams are ranked based on a combination of factors such as coach,number/quality of returning players,number/quality of incoming players(recruits/transfers) and so on. After 10 games played however, shouldn't rankings be based more on performance?

Below are some stats of 5 teams with identical win/loss records. Two are ranked in the Top-25, one was formerly ranked but is now out, and two have never been ranked.

Team #1 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR (Top-40) p5 school with a combined record of 39 - 41; 2 road losses to Top-10 teams(one by <10 and one by >20), one home loss to UR (Top-30) non-p5 school (by <10)

Team #2 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR (Top-50) p5 school with a combined record of 40 - 44; 1 road loss to Top-20 team(by <10), one road loss to UR (Top-30) p5 school (by >10), and one home loss to UR non-p5 school (by <5)

Team #3 7 wins over non-p5 schools with a combined record of 32 - 41; one loss on neutral court to Top-15 team(by <10), one loss to UR (Top-30) p5 school (by <5), and one road loss to UR non-p5 school (by <5)

Team #4 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR p5 school with a combined record of 28 - 43; one loss on neutral court to UR (Top-40) non-p5 school (by <10), 2 home losses to UR (Top-30) non-p5 school (by >25) and UR non-p5 school (by >10)

Team #5 7 wins over non-p5 schools with a combined record of 32 - 44; one loss on neutral court to Top-5 team (by <5), one road loss to Top-10 team (by <10), and one neutral court loss to UR (Top-40) p5 school (by >10)

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I understand before a season starts that teams are ranked based on a combination of factors such as coach,number/quality of returning players,number/quality of incoming players(recruits/transfers) and so on. After 10 games played however, shouldn't rankings be based more on performance?

Below are some stats of 5 teams with identical win/loss records. Two are ranked in the Top-25, one was formerly ranked but is now out, and two have never been ranked.

Team #1 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR (Top-40) p5 school with a combined record of 39 - 41; 2 road losses to Top-10 teams(one by <10 and one by >20), one home loss to UR (Top-30) non-p5 school (by <10)

Team #2 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR (Top-50) p5 school with a combined record of 40 - 44; 1 road loss to Top-20 team(by <10), one road loss to UR (Top-30) p5 school (by >10), and one home loss to UR non-p5 school (by <5)

Team #3 7 wins over non-p5 schools with a combined record of 32 - 41; one loss on neutral court to Top-15 team(by <10), one loss to UR (Top-30) p5 school (by <5), and one road loss to UR non-p5 school (by <5)

Team #4 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR p5 school with a combined record of 28 - 43; one loss on neutral court to UR (Top-40) non-p5 school (by <10), 2 home losses to UR (Top-30) non-p5 school (by >25) and UR non-p5 school (by >10)

Team #5 7 wins over non-p5 schools with a combined record of 32 - 44; one loss on neutral court to Top-5 team (by <5), one road loss to Top-10 team (by <10), and one neutral court loss to UR (Top-40) p5 school (by >10)

No offense, but you have a lot going on here. A chart or table might be a better presentation of your findings, your conclusion, etc. You also haven't clearly defined...performance ..good or bad. Hint...it's not as easy as wins and losses. In fact, it's not a science in many instances. You also stated all the teams had the identical record and it's clear, that's not the case. Don't be surprised if the responses are all over the place....because in large part, especially with covid and parity...ranking just became even harder and blurrier. My answer is...generally yes. The problem is everyone has different definitions of good and bad performance.

 

[visitingcock]

If you are talking about human pollsters, I would say that they rank teams according to a varying combination of:
1. Reputation
2. Performance to date x vague SOS considerations.
3. Eyeball test by AP & Boneyard voters. Not so much by coaches except on opponents
4. Expected future performance

If you are talking about computer algorithms the combination changes to:

1. Reputation: strong during the first ten games and remains a factor put diminishing as the season plays out to almost a non- factor by season’s end.

2. Performance to date x more concrete SOS calculation along with the stupid MOV factor

 

[LoTrader]

The pre season ranking and rankings before conference play are based more on reputation than anything else. Covid confuses, but once conference play begins, performance seems to take over in the rankings. I can cite Oregon State as a perfect example. Didn't deserve the pre season ranking(s). Perhaps Oregon State will end up deserving their pre season ranking when this season concludes, but certainly don't deserve to be ranked in the TOP 20 at this time.

 

[Rooster C.]

You also stated all the teams had the identical record and it's clear, that's not the case.

They do. At the time I posted it all had identical records of 7 - 3

 

[Rooster C.]

The pre season ranking and rankings before conference play are based more on reputation than anything else. Covid confuses, but once conference play begins, performance seems to take over in the rankings. I can cite Oregon State as a perfect example. Didn't deserve the pre season ranking(s). Perhaps Oregon State will end up deserving their pre season ranking when this season concludes, but certainly don't deserve to be ranked in the TOP 20 at this time.

Funny you should say that. Oregon State is Team #3 !

 

[Rooster C.]

You also haven't clearly defined...performance ..good or bad.

No I did not. I wanted people to make their own evaluation based on the information provided. If they all have identical W/L records and very similar wins against mostly non-p5 schools with an average win percentage of around 40%, then the remaining criteria would be quality of losses - to ranked or un-ranked teams, road/home/neutral location, and margin of loss. All factors being (reasonably) equal, from my perspective a team that loses on the road to a Top-10 team by less than 10 would rank higher than a team losing a road game to a UR Top-30 team by more than 10

 

[LwrcasefaN]

They do. At the time I posted it all had identical records of 7 - 3

ok...but I just went by what you posted...stating 3 of them had 6 wins. I have no idea who THEY were. In any case...ranking teams in this craziness is a tossup after SC being #1. Usually...I would say the tournament will clear it all up, BUT at this rate there won't be a tournament or a quality one anyway. Nothing about wcbb feels familiar right now.

 

[LoboDays]

The human polls will be always be subjective. The algorithms are created by humans. We can debate them from now to the time I miss a Happy Hour and it will never be resolved.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

No I did not. I wanted people to make their own evaluation based on the information provided. If they all have identical W/L records and very similar wins against mostly non-p5 schools with an average win percentage of around 40%, then the remaining criteria would be quality of losses - to ranked or un-ranked teams, road/home/neutral location, and margin of loss. All factors being (reasonably) equal, from my perspective a team that loses on the road to a Top-10 team by less than 10 would rank higher than a team losing a road game to a UR Top-30 team by more than 10

Yea...that's kind of my point about ranking. All these variables you list carry different weight to these different ranking services...thus on a occasion you get these head scratchers. Everyone wondered why Georgia wasn't ranked earlier. I personally wondered why Duke and North Carolina weren't ranked. Most years....I think after 5 or 7...the rest in the "top 25" are more or less the same...and matter very little. I'm not big on ranking. The reality is...the National Champion is the team that can string together 6 wins when it counts. Usually....it's one of the better teams, but I'm not sure who those teams are this year and no ranking is going to solve that puzzle. Whoever stays healthy will probably have the best shot, but that doesn't mean they were the best.

 

[Kaizen]

A very good post and thank you to post it. But reading the #3 team I forget what is the #1 team, and then reading #5 I forget all #1 to #4 teams already. I think I am getting old.

 

[Plebe]

The cultish obsession with identifying teams as either "p5" or "non-p5" is quite close to meaningless for the stated purposes.

Virginia is a freakin' "power 5" team, for cryin' out loud. Not to mention multiple other p5 teams that are inferior to many — including "unranked" — non-p5 teams.

 

[UCFKnights]

Using the Net Quadrant system here's UCF's record

Quad 1		Quad 2		Quad 3		Quad 4
W	L	W	L	W	L	W	L
1​	2​	5​	0​	2​	0​	1​	0​

and USF's Record

Quad 1		Quad 2		Quad 3		Quad 4
W	L	W	L	W	L	W	L
3​	3​	2​	1​	1​	0​	5​	0​

Obviously USF has two great wins but they've feasted on a lot of bad teams as well. Not saying UCF should be ranked but I'm continually perplexed that they haven't received a single vote in the AP poll to this point.

 

[visitingcock]

I understand before a season starts that teams are ranked based on a combination of factors such as coach,number/quality of returning players,number/quality of incoming players(recruits/transfers) and so on. After 10 games played however, shouldn't rankings be based more on performance?

Below are some stats of 5 teams with identical win/loss records. Two are ranked in the Top-25, one was formerly ranked but is now out, and two have never been ranked.

Team #1 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR (Top-40) p5 school with a combined record of 39 - 41; 2 road losses to Top-10 teams(one by <10 and one by >20), one home loss to UR (Top-30) non-p5 school (by <10)

Team #2 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR (Top-50) p5 school with a combined record of 40 - 44; 1 road loss to Top-20 team(by <10), one road loss to UR (Top-30) p5 school (by >10), and one home loss to UR non-p5 school (by <5)

Team #3 7 wins over non-p5 schools with a combined record of 32 - 41; one loss on neutral court to Top-15 team(by <10), one loss to UR (Top-30) p5 school (by <5), and one road loss to UR non-p5 school (by <5)

Team #4 6 wins over non-p5 schools, 1 win over UR p5 school with a combined record of 28 - 43; one loss on neutral court to UR (Top-40) non-p5 school (by <10), 2 home losses to UR (Top-30) non-p5 school (by >25) and UR non-p5 school (by >10)

Team #5 7 wins over non-p5 schools with a combined record of 32 - 44; one loss on neutral court to Top-5 team (by <5), one road loss to Top-10 team (by <10), and one neutral court loss to UR (Top-40) p5 school (by >10)

Forget "P-5." look at the NET quadrants.

Example 2022 North Carolina State Women's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com

 

[cancontent]

Yea...that's kind of my point about ranking. All these variables you list carry different weight to these different ranking services...thus on a occasion you get these head scratchers. Everyone wondered why Georgia wasn't ranked earlier. I personally wondered why Duke and North Carolina weren't ranked. Most years....I think after 5 or 7...the rest in the "top 25" are more or less the same...and matter very little. I'm not big on ranking. The reality is...the National Champion is the team that can string together 6 wins when it counts. Usually....it's one of the better teams, but I'm not sure who those teams are this year and no ranking is going to solve that puzzle. Whoever stays healthy will probably have the best shot, but that doesn't mean they were the best.

I agree regarding Georgia. From my perspective, I was okay with Duke not being ranked pre-season as they hadn't played last year and their roster was a complete rebuild. Should they have been ranked sooner once they started playing, maybe but they're getting the credit they deserve now.

I'm still trying to figure out North Carolina. They were undefeated, sure, but similar to Nebraska of the BIG10, people were skeptical because of the opponents they've played. To Nebraska's credit, they have a solid win over a ranked opponent now with their victory over Michigan this past week. That kind of dulls the sting of their loss to Mich State. We'll have to see how North Carolina fares during the rest of conference play.

 

[Rooster C.]

The cultish obsession with identifying teams as either "p5" or "non-p5" is quite close to meaningless for the stated purposes.

Virginia is a freakin' "power 5" team, for cryin' out loud. Not to mention multiple other p5 teams that are inferior to many — including "unranked" — non-p5 teams.

There is no "cultish obsession". I was merely giving people information that most would fine useful in making a determination. I think losing by less than 10 at Maryland is different than losing by more than 10 to DePaul at home.

You really need to lighten up. I have advocated including more smaller conference teams in the tournament. As I have stated (barring an injury to a major talent like a Caitlin Clark as an example) that no "bubble teams" should be P5 teams - they have no business being in the tournament as 9 or 10 seeds!

 

[Rooster C.]

ok...but I just went by what you posted...stating 3 of them had 6 wins.

Actually, it clearly shows all 5 teams had 7 wins. But I get it. A chart of some kind would have been far easier to read. My bad.

 

[Plebe]

There is no "cultish obsession". I was merely giving people information that most would fine useful in making a determination. I think losing by less than 10 at Maryland is different than losing by more than 10 to DePaul at home.

Good idea, poor execution. Said information is not even remotely useful for the stated purposes.

Maryland is not representative of Clemson or Illinois or Washington or Wisconsin. Nor is DePaul representative of High Point or North Carolina A&T.

Next compare the worth of a win over DePaul to a win over Virginia.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Good idea, poor execution. Said information is not even remotely useful for the stated purposes.

Maryland is not representative of Clemson or Illinois or Washington or Wisconsin. Nor is DePaul representative of High Point or North Carolina A&T.

Next compare the worth of a win over DePaul to a win over Virginia.

I tend to use the difference between P5 and non-P5 in certain ways, I certainly wouldn't use it as a replacement for the more accurate metrics.

But simplistically, for example, I give credit when looking at team's OOC schedules for playing another P5 team in lieu of a non-P5 team. On average, and yes there are exceptions, and the Big East is certainly one, most P5 teams should not lose to a non-P5 team.

But when an actual comparison between teams is needed, yes, it matters who you played, and how good they are, regardless of their conference affiliation.

 

[Rooster C.]

Update on the 5 P5 teams at the top of this thread. All were 7 - 3 at the time but have since started playing conference games. One is from the SEC, one is from the Big Ten, two from the Pac-12, and one from the ACC.

Btw I didn't purposely exclude non-P5 teams but was trying to make a comparison between what is considered similar teams and why some are ranked and others are not and they had to have identical records for proper comparison. It's rare to get more than a very few non-P5 teams ranked so that would not have worked for the comparison I was trying to make.

All teams were 7 - 3

Team #1 is now 8 -7/1 - 4 and will probably fall out of the rankings when they are released tomorrow.

Team #2 is now 12 - 4/6 - 1 and fell out of the rankings briefly but is back in and probably on the way up.

Team #3 is now 9 - 4/2 - 1 they had just recently fallen out of the rankings and continued to receive votes but are no longer.

Team #4 is now 9 - 7/2 - 4 and although they did upset a top-four team they have since continued to lose. They have never been ranked or even close.

Team #5 is now 10 - 7/3 - 4 and have never been ranked or received votes.

Keep in mind I was strictly referring to how teams are ranked for the AP/ESPN and Coaches poll and why some teams are "favored" over others without objectively considering who they've played and where, and other factors. What some have proposed on here (using Net Quadrants or some other metric) would certainly be a far better aid in determining rankings.

 

[Rooster C.]

Using Net Quadrant System (Net) :

	Quad 1	Quad 2	Quad 3	Quad 4
Team#1	1 - 5	1 - 2	0 - 0	6 - 0
Team#2	4 - 2	3 - 1	0 - 1	5 - 0
Team#3	1 - 3	2 - 1	2 - 0	4 - 0
Team#4	1 - 3	0 - 3	4 - 1	4 - 0
Team#5	2 - 4	1 - 2	2 - 1	5 - 0

So Team #2 is clearly the best at this point and deserves to be ranked. Who else on here would you rank if any?

 

[Plebe]

But simplistically, for example, I give credit when looking at team's OOC schedules for playing another P5 team in lieu of a non-P5 team. On average, and yes there are exceptions, and the Big East is certainly one, most P5 teams should not lose to a non-P5 team.

Simplistic is putting it nicely. A nonconference schedule consisting of Washington, Cal, Illinois, Wisconsin, Rutgers, Penn State, Virginia, Clemson, TCU, Oklahoma State and Auburn would not be a good schedule at all.

It's just a horribly lazy substitute for a meaningful assessment of quality. But I get it. Out of pure self-interest, the fans of teams belonging to so-called "power" conferences just love to perpetuate the cultish worship of said conferences, as if mere membership conferred some special powers.

 

[bballnut90]

Using Net Quadrant System (Net) :

	Quad 1	Quad 2	Quad 3	Quad 4
Team#1	1 - 5	1 - 2	0 - 0	6 - 0
Team#2	4 - 2	3 - 1	0 - 1	5 - 0
Team#3	1 - 3	2 - 1	2 - 0	4 - 0
Team#4	1 - 3	0 - 3	4 - 1	4 - 0
Team#5	2 - 4	1 - 2	2 - 1	5 - 0

So Team #2 is clearly the best at this point and deserves to be ranked. Who else on here would you rank if any?

I like that the NCAA is trying to come up with a methodical approach to picking NCAA teams, but quad rankings are so flawed IMO since the top 75 teams count as quad 1 for a road game. This means beating Vandy (#75) on the road is the equivalent of beating NC State (#1) on the road. There isn't enough parity to use such big quadrants since the quality of play from a top 10 time is markedly different than quality of play from a 50-75 team.

 

[triaddukefan]

Good idea, poor execution. Said information is not even remotely useful for the stated purposes.

Maryland is not representative of Clemson or Illinois or Washington or Wisconsin. Nor is DePaul representative of High Point or North Carolina A&T.

Next compare the worth of a win over DePaul to a win over Virginia.

If I didn't know any better, I would say that Plebe is trying to get my goat.

 

[billybud]

Some teams come together during the season as freshman learn to play within the season...but the early losses hurt ratings.

And the NET doesn't value wins as much as it values differential in scores...win close games and you do not rate as well.

Example in Men's...FSU just upset Duke and Miami in their last two games, both games won in the last second...and dropped in NET

Iowa...net #22...14-5....0-4 Quad 1...4-1 Quad 2

FSU...net #58....13-5...2-3 Quad 1...4-2 Quad 2

Iowa looks comfortably "in" while FSU is fighting the bubble....yet that Net snapshot isn't that far apart.