What SHOULD the rankings truly measure?

[PoppyHart]

Preseason rankings are clearly a prediction of ultimate success at year's end.

Postseason rankings are essentially a summary of/reward for prior success, with a heavy tilt toward tournament success.

But in the middle, there's a vast gulf. Should in-season rankings continue to be a prediction, should it be a snapshot (e.g. a Balance Sheet) which says how good you are playing on that day, or should it be a reward for prior success? If it's a combination of any of the above, how would you allocate the factors?

When discussions and disagreements arise over rankings, I'd be inclined to assume that the gap is at least in part attributable to different beliefs in what rankings are meant to reflect.

 

[moqui]

obviously, they are supposed to represent the maximum possible valuation of Syracuse and the minimal possible valuation of all our rivals.

anything else is a clear sign of bias.

 

[pfister1]

When discussions and disagreements arise over rankings, I'd be inclined to assume that the gap is at least in part attributable to different beliefs in what rankings are meant to reflect.

Agree with that statement 100%. My personal opinion is that the rankings should attempt to be a ranking of the team's current strength and how they might finish is some form of playoff as of the moment of the ranking.

 

[Frozen]

Height?

 

[Orangezoo]

Ranking college basketball teams is a monumental task turned simple the way we do it now. Having power conferences allows the media to do it using those conferences as a starting point also using recruiting rankings, previous season results etc etc. Having over 300 teams in D-1 when in reality about 100 at the most are vetted for the purpose of a possible ranking creates a number of questions regarding how we rank teams in terms of the purpose and method. The amazing thing is that this supposed blasphemy of a situation that figures to really penalize so many teams is fixed simply due to march madness. The glory for a team to win their conference tourney and make it to march offers every one of those 300 plus and their fans something to shoot for and get excited about.

So as to what rankings should be I think a combination of both perceived standing in the nation coupled with expected result is a sound way to rank. It utilizes the eye test alongside comparative results. For the outliers they still have an opportunity to get into the conversation through long undefeated runs or 1 or 2 loss seasons. Its as fair as it ever could be. Once you start going into these detailed algorithms you begin to muddy the water too much and essentially eliminate the fact that how good a team is will always be an interpretation as opposed to science. Results can be forecasted as possibilities but never guaranteed.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Number of message board toughguys in the fanbase.

 

[cto]

They're a snapshot. SU wins... Zona loses... Click, flash, here's your picture for this week.

 

[Orangezoo]

They're a snapshot. SU wins... Zona loses... Click, flash, here's your picture for this week.

I would say they are a bit more than that. While they do change every week they generally hold in the consensus top 30-40 teams. Considering tourney seeding they typically represent well for the range that can be expected for a team to be seeded. Not something you can perfectly fit to the curve but fairly close. They also are important for perception and getting attention for the program. Therefore being ranked even if its a snapshot one week and gone the next is not something lost in the wind.

 

[Waltdods]

Preseason rankings are clearly a prediction of ultimate success at year's end.

Postseason rankings are essentially a summary of/reward for prior success, with a heavy tilt toward tournament success.

But in the middle, there's a vast gulf. Should in-season rankings continue to be a prediction, should it be a snapshot (e.g. a Balance Sheet) which says how good you are playing on that day, or should it be a reward for prior success? If it's a combination of any of the above, how would you allocate the factors?

When discussions and disagreements arise over rankings, I'd be inclined to assume that the gap is at least in part attributable to different beliefs in what rankings are meant to reflect.

We all know what in-season rankings are, as a descriptive matter: a ladder that teams go up and down according to pretty predictable rules.

And really I don't think that's half bad. It gives them an odd sort of objectivity. It also gives teams and fans something to shoot for, and little accomplishments during the regular season.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

obviously, they are supposed to represent the maximum possible valuation of Syracuse and the minimal possible valuation of all our rivals.

anything else is a clear sign of bias.

I susbscribe to this fully.