Preseason rankings VS Week of Feb 20

[Cheriehoop]

Preseason AP Top 25 Feb 20 AP Top 25
RK TEAM RECORD PTS RK TEAM RECORD PTS Pt Diff
1 North Carolina (62) 0-0 1,620 1 Kentucky (63) 26-1 1623 122
2 Kentucky 0-0 1,501 2 Syracuse (2) 27-1 1559 221
3 Ohio State (1) 0-0 1,482 3 Missouri 25-2 1498 1359
4 Connecticut (2) 0-0 1,433 4 Kansas 22-5 1377 622
5 Syracuse 0-0 1,338 5 Duke 23-4 1359 58
6 Duke 0-0 1,301 6 Michigan State 22-5 1317 1317
7 Vanderbilt 0-0 1,120 7 North Carolina 23-4 1261 (359)
8 Florida 0-0 1,086 8 Ohio State 22-5 1139 (343)
9 Louisville 0-0 1,055 9 Georgetown 20-5 1085 1085
10 Pittsburgh 0-0 1,027 10 Marquette 22-5 1013 678
11 Memphis 0-0 997 11 Michigan 20-7 869 468
12 Baylor 0-0 892 12 Florida 21-6 860 (226)
13 Kansas 0-0 755 13 Baylor 22-5 859 (33)
14 Xavier 0-0 747 14 Murray State 26-1 765 765
15 Wisconsin 0-0 720 15 Florida State 19-7 620 620
16 Arizona 0-0 616 16 Wisconsin 20-7 615 (105)
17 UCLA 0-0 404 17 Louisville 21-6 495 (560)
18 Michigan 0-0 401 18 New Mexico 22-4 469 469
19 Alabama 0-0 395 19 Wichita State 24-4 467 467
20 Texas A&M 0-0 357 20 Notre Dame 19-8 457 457
21 Cincinnati 0-0 353 21 UNLV 22-6 325 325
22 Marquette 0-0 335 22 Temple 21-5 281 281
23 Gonzaga 0-0 283 23 Indiana 20-7 246 246
24 California 0-0 230 24 San Diego State 20-6 176 176
25 Missouri 0-0 139 25 Virginia 20-6 153 153




Currently 12 teams that the experts deemed preseason 25 teams are not currently ranked. So that's about 48% of the teams that had high expectations which have had them lowered by actually playing the games. I highlighted the teams (hope i did it right) that are no longer ranked at all. Another 7 teams (point differential) are still ranked this week but lower than preseason. We are not one of those teams despite our initial optimistic preseason ranking of #5.

We are one of 7 teams that have increased our expectations throughout the season by our play(the teams whose point differentials are in red rank lower than they did preseason). I certainly acknowledge this is only one way of measuring a teams' season vs preseason expectations, but I hope it's generally representative.

What else could it mean? Could the NCAA's be that more interesting with 12 teams who were deemed talented, experienced, well coached enough to be ranked preseason to start meeting some of those expectations during NCAA's? I was too lazy to compare the past few years to see how many teams in those years ranked highly preseason were still ranked by this time of the season and then the NCAA's. Does it mean that the "experts" have no more idea than you or I how teams will compete? Is it all a crapshoot? Just some random crazy thoughts as we head into the back stretch. Bottom line - GO SU!

 

[Marsh01]

Good stuff Cherie. UCLA was pre season ranked? Wow forgot about that.

 

[CusefanATL]

just wanted to toss out there that i called uconn the obvious choice for overrated and jeremy lamb for 1st team aa was laughable.

told ya so

 

[EastCoast2]

Just goes to show pollsters feel the need to have a quota on conferences, it helps create nationwide buzz. They must say,

we need
5 teams from BE
4 from B10
3 from B12
3 from SEC
2 from Pac-10
4 from ACC
4 mid-majors

 

[Cheriehoop]

Frustrating, I can't get the data to separate into 2 colums - preseason rankings vs Feb 20th rankings nor get the highlighting to work. Sorry. The 11 teams no longer ranked are Connecticut( 4), Vanderbilt (7), Pitt (10), Memphis (11), Xavier (14), Arizona (16), UCLA (17), Alabama (19), Texas A&M (20), Cincinnatti (21), Gonzaga (23), California (24). It's actually 12 teams out of 25 no longer ranked.

 

[texascpa]

Good stuff Cherie. UCLA was pre season ranked? Wow forgot about that.

Yeah, the fact that there were 3 PAC-12 teams ranked in the preseason just shows how desperate the media is to get the PAC-12 some positive coverage. That or the voters were just plain stupid. PAC-12 hasn't been good in years.

 

[texascpa]

Frustrating, I can't get the data to separate into 2 colums - preseason rankings vs Feb 20th rankings nor get the highlighting to work. Sorry. The 11 teams no longer ranked are Connecticut( 4), Vanderbilt (7), Pitt (10), Memphis (11), Xavier (14), Arizona (16), UCLA (17), Alabama (19), Texas A&M (20), Cincinnatti (21), Gonzaga (23), California (24). It's actually 12 teams out of 25 no longer ranked.

Well, you could drop the text file in Excel and use the "Text to Columns" function, then import the file to Word, save it, then insert the word file as an image. But, that's a lot of work.

 

[CorduroyG]

Well, you could drop the text file in Excel and use the "Text to Columns" function, then import the file to Word, save it, then insert the word file as an image. But, that's a lot of work.

 

[All4SU]

And three of those teams who have failed to live up to preseason billing are BE teams.

 

[CusefanATL]

And three of those teams who have failed to live up to preseason billing are BE teams.

Not sure your point here, b/c gtown, marquette, and ND take up the slack.

Nobody helps in the pac 10.

 

[BuffOrange]

Does it mean that the "experts" have no more idea than you or I how teams will compete?

Maybe, the findings in this article I read last yr might surprise you though:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/

Although we all like to make fun of sportswriters, these predictions are actually pretty decent. Since 2003, the team ranked higher in the A.P. preseason poll (excluding cases where neither team received at least 5 votes) has won 72 percent of tournament games. That’s exactly the same number, 72 percent, as the fraction of games won by the better seed. And it’s a little better than the 71 percent won by teams with the superior Ratings Percentage Index, the statistical formula that the seeding committee prefers. (More sophisticated statistical ratings, like Ken Pomeroy’s, do only a little better, with a 73 percent success rate.)
What’s going on here? It’s almost certainly a case of reversion to the mean.

 

[ar inj]

Intersting artice about poll overachievers and there lack of success in March, but the article is wrong when it states that none of the overachievers have ever reached the Final Four. Obviously, the Orangemen were poll overachievers in 2003.

The link will show Syracuse's slow movement into and then up the poll

http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/motion/AP?season=2002-2003

 

[orange2win]

Nice reflection Cheriehoop. It is always an elusive subject.

For example, consider Wisconsin. They have now lost 7 games, but are still ranked #15 in the Coaches Poll. Ken Pom had them as #1 when we were ranked #1. He still has them ranked #7 and SU ranked #5. What does it all mean? Will Wisconsin prove the polsters right in the NCAAs? Even if Wisconsin loses in the 1st round of the NCAA, it would not surprise me if Ken Poms algorisms still place them near the top.

I don't think too many people here will remember who was ranked #1 and #2 in country this time next year. There is only one BEST that matters for the humble folks. It's who wins the Big Dance in March - well actually it's April this year.

 

[BuffOrange]

Intersting artice about poll overachievers and there lack of success in March, but the article is wrong when it states that none of the overachievers have ever reached the Final Four. Obviously, the Orangemen were poll overachievers in 2003.

The link will show Syracuse's slow movement into and then up the poll

http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/motion/AP?season=2002-2003

Well the other qualifier was entering the tournament in the AP Top 10. SU was not.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Maybe, the findings in this article I read last yr might surprise you though:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/

Interesting and just what I was thinking of and wondering about when I compared this years' preseason to current pol. I certainly imagine it's like everything else that nothing is ever close to an absolute. (but an interesting thought when filling out brackets).

 

[HoustonCuse]

just wanted to toss out there that i called uconn the obvious choice for overrated and jeremy lamb for 1st team aa was laughable.

told ya so

I was there too. Got mixed reaction but generally people thought it was bad call and then some yukon people joined the thread and it went to pot. Still doesn't mean tomorrow won't be a very tough game though.