I thought they improved the rankings logic, but how does this make any sense:

My North Carolina Central team made the final four last season and only lost ONE player, who wasn't even the best player on our team.

So we return 11 players, coming off of a FINAL FOUR run and we're NOT RANKED in the preseason polls.

How does this make any sense logically?

Have your starters been reinstated by your athletic director? Or, are they still awaiting sentencing?

Likewise, my Kentucky St. team won the NT last season, returns 10 players and is ranked #13. That is lower than we would've been under the old ranking system but it may be more realistic. We were a #5 seed last season and overacheived in the NT.

seble has said there'll be more volatility in the rankings, especially early on. I'm sure it'll all work out by season's end.

I haven't looked at it in depth but previously the top 25 (preseason anyway) was basically based on history and youre best 8.

Now I'm not sure if it considers history and if other teams have a better top 8 (with worse coaches) it won't be reflected until a few games in.

New Top 25 rankings logic
* uses a combination of player talent and game results
* talent is weighted less and game results weighted more as the season moves along
* accounts for the strength of each opponent, whether you won or lost, and the margin
* will be updated after each game cycle


The above means to me that they are looking more at the player ratings at the beginning of the season, then actual games when the season starts. Some coaches do more with less talent and they would come up short in this new ranking system.

They would come up short at the beginning of the year. .by the end(WHich is all that matters) they wouldn't.

To clarify, the new system does not at all consider past season results or the coach. It also won't be nearly as hard to crack the top 25 if you're unranked as it was at times in the old system. If you have a worthy season you'll be up there by the end of the year.

Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 5/19/2010They would come up short at the beginning of the year. .by the end(WHich is all that matters) they wouldn't.

Right ... exactly what I meant.