Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="pfister1, post: 897549, member: 285"]
The problem I have with any of these rankings discussions is that you have to establish how you are ranking teams.   Body of work or strength of team as of ranking.

Most of our discussions tend to be based on body of work, we want to compare results.  This team has such and such a record and they beat this other team in December by x points while this other team lost to them.

Then we turn around and use the rankings to compare two teams in a current matchup.   #2 Syracuse had too much trouble at home with a #22 Pitt team.     Well is Pitt really playing like only the #22 team in the nation right now??

The whole idea of rankings is screwy.    When talking about ranking it implies that you are talking about a current ranking.    If we matched up these 25 teams today what order would they be likely to finish in.    That clearly isn't how the rankings are arrived at, although some of that thinking creeps into the voting.

So could a 4 loss KU who lost to Nova be ahead of Nova in a true ranking.   Absolutely, KU is a young team that is starting to gel.    They have more individual talent than Nova does no doubt.    If the light bulb has gone on for Wiggins and Embid etc. since the early season losses, including the one to Nova, and Nova hasn't been really tested since the game against SU why couldn't/shouldn't Kansas be ranked ahead of Nova.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?