Compiled Rankings

Much to my surprise, Massey’s compiled rankings are not in the same order each week or have the same individual rankings each week. I have them listed here in alphabetical order.

style='width:344.85pt;margin-left:5.4pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:
0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>

Games Thru: 
2/12/2006

width=235 colspan=6>

 

Composite Rank: 
15

width=235 colspan=6>

 

NC State’s Record:   19-5 (8-3)

width=235 colspan=6>

 

 

Rank

r

 

Rank

r

AccuRatings

13

-2

Pigskin

23

4

AP

21

-5

Pomeroy

17

-1

Bihl

15

1

Rishi

17

0

Bobcat

22

0

Rohde

18

-1

Cheong

19

0

Rothman

15

-3

Colley

19

-1

Sagarin

15

-2

Dance Card

15

-5

Sagarin-Elo

15

-3

Dokter

16

-2

SAP

18

2

Dolphin

18

-4

Score Card

29

-2

Greenfield

15

-3

Self

18

0

JCI

12

1

Simpson

19

17

Kirkpatrick

15

-3

USA Today

18

-3

Lynch

8

3

Whitlock

17

0

Massey BCS

15

-3

Wobus

15

-4

Moore

17

-4

Wolfe

15

-2

Pickle

11

3

 

 

 

-r = Lower Rank (Higher No.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/5/06

 

2/12/06

 

Best

10

 

Best

8

 

Worst

36

 

Worst

29

 

Composite Rank

14

 

Composite Rank

15

 

Mean

16.11

 

Mean

16.79

 

Median

14

 

Median

17

 

Rankings that I’ve heard of.

 

 

 

There were two rankings in last week’s summary that are not in this week’s. One was abnormally high and the other abnormally low, so I don’t think that their absence had much effect on State’s composite ranking.

I specifically double-checked the “Simpson� ranking. Last week it had State ranked 37. By going 1-1 last week, State improved 17 spots in this poll. I suspect that there is a problem somewhere either in the Simpson formula, its ranking, or in the compilation at Massey’s.

- Isn’t it interesting that the RPI is not listed?
- What do you think? Is there any value in this type of compilation?
- Can anyone say something good about some of the rankings that I’ve never heard of?
- Which would you rather have…this type of weekly look or a look at the RPI after every game?
- Would you rather just have an RPI update weekly?

Let me know what you think.

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

General NCS Basketball

19 Responses to Compiled Rankings

  1. Fish 02/14/2006 at 9:39 PM #

    I think the ranking of about 36 is accurate and lower if you consider our play and win-loss record since December 30, 2005.

    What would also be interesting is how ACC teams that we have played have faired before us and then after us including margin of defeat or win.

  2. VaWolf82 02/14/2006 at 10:43 PM #

    I don’t follow you. Here’s State’s schedule and record. The score of each game is included. Each opponent’s name links to their schedule and record.

    http://www.kenpom.com/sked.php?&y=2006&team=North%20Carolina%20St.

  3. Sammy Kent 02/15/2006 at 10:24 AM #

    I like the number of numbers. Post ‘em all. The value is that it keeps you busy, young, and happy. ;>)

  4. Mr O 02/15/2006 at 11:50 AM #

    36th or lower is accurate?

    There isn’t any real evidence that suggests we are the 36th or worse team in the country. Lots of teams lose games.

  5. Mr O 02/15/2006 at 12:12 PM #

    Also, I think it is great seeing all the rankings.

  6. staugiedoggie 02/15/2006 at 12:53 PM #

    too many numbers, too many rankings. just let them play it out on the court. i really don’t concern myself with anything but writers and coaches polls. the rpi helps some, but as evidence by this post, there are many ways to skew numbers

  7. BJD95 02/15/2006 at 12:53 PM #

    I would say we are in the 20-25 range. There’s jmust not alot of really good teams this season. You could really see a Cinderella and/or a mid-major make noise this year, as long as they avoid the Big 4/5 of UConn, Duke, Texas, Villanova, and MAYBE Memphis.

    As O said, pretty much everybody else is struggling/losing games similar to us.

  8. Jim 02/15/2006 at 1:08 PM #

    There is something wrong with a ranking index system in which you can win a game and go down. It just makes no sense to me at all. Conversly, there is some team out west (Arizona maybe) that has a bad record yet a high RPI because they are apparently losing to “good” teams.

    Compounding this is the fact that we have a small subset of fans (nobody on here of course) that howls about how much we suck whenever we lose a game, no matter how good a season we are having.

  9. VaWolf82 02/15/2006 at 1:28 PM #

    WHO you lose to doesn’t affect the RPI. Who you play and what your record is are two of the three things that make up the RPI calculation.

    Arizona is ranked 19th with a 15-9 (8-5) record.
    Overall SOS……..4
    W/L record broken down by opponents RPI:
    1-50………3-5
    51-100……4-1
    101-200….8-3
    201+……..0-0

    Arizona played no real cupcakes and are reaping the benefit….even though they have a few more losses than State does. As we saw with GT, there is a real difference in playing teams 100+ compared to 200+.

    If anyone wants a more detailed explanation of the RPI, Ken Pomeroy has one here:
    http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/rpi_help/

    At the bottom of this page, he has links to a three-part series on defending the RPI.

    i really don’t concern myself with anything but writers and coaches polls.

    Let’s send out a big welcome to a George Washington fan!……. ;-)

  10. JeremyHyatt 02/15/2006 at 1:33 PM #

    based on no statistical evidence whatsoever it seems to me that state got hit hard in the AP/Coaches after the GT loss, harder than teams in the Big Ten and Big East fall in the ranks after a loss to a conference foe. because the ACC is down? interesting to see how far WV falls after the loss to Seton Hall as compared to NC State in the same seat. Also i don’t understsand GW’s bloated ranking considering their abysmal SOS, (they don’t just enjoy cupcakes, they buy the mix and make them in large quantities). Their conference just isnt strong. Nevertheless, good for them, GW is a good school.

    I don’t know if the ACC is down this year, I don’t care. What is more relevant is that the ACC is still one of the top three conferences and should at least get 5 teams into the tournment this year. At least. My guess is duke, nc state, bc, carolina (virginia|maryland|fsu).

    NC State is being listed by many as a lock for the NCAA tournment. So with pressure off their backs unlike previous years, the ball is in their court, literally and figuratively, and all they need to do is put out the effort, polish off this magical season, and be all business come Greensboro and beyond. Oh, and work Brackman back into the system.

  11. BJD95 02/15/2006 at 2:16 PM #

    I think FSU or VA would need 9 ACC wins to get in. MD maybe gets in with 8, but I don’t think they get to 8.

  12. Nate Johnson 02/15/2006 at 2:27 PM #

    I think the idea of this composite ranking does have some merit. I see an analogue in how meteorologists use computer model ensembles to make a dozen or more various forecasts, each with slightly varied initial conditions, to estimate a range of what the atmosphere will do in a given time. Small errors that can creep into one ensemble member are washed out by the more correct handling of the other members.

    Another way to look at it is to assume that each of these rating schemes has its share of strengths and weaknesses. If we take a composite of all of these rankings, the result would average out the weaknesses and hopefully build on the strengths of each. (The assumptions are that a) each of these ranking systems has strengths that outweigh its weaknesses on the whole and b) the various ranking systems aren’t all strong in just one situation — in other words, that some systems are better in some situations, and others are better at others.)

    Back to the meteorological analogue for a minute, computer model ensembles have long been viewed as a very good tool to use in forecasting. Additionally, the idea of “compositing” model output statistics was shown in a study published late last year of having significant skill over using just one batch of numbers exclusively or even switching based on the situation. My suspicion is that these composite rankings would be a valuable tool in ranking everyone, and I appreciate your taking the time to show us the composites.

  13. Jim 02/15/2006 at 3:10 PM #

    So Arizona has a losing record in the top 50 and has lost 3 games to teams over 100 and yet they are RPI #19? I don’t get it. I would take our season over theirs right now every day of the week.

    If we had Arizona’s resume’ people would be talking about how much we sucked, even more than they already are. I have no doubt about that in my mind.

    All these formulae are interesting tools. Once you start using them too heavily to start “proving points” they turn to folly IMO. But I do like looking at them now and then for some general guidance.

  14. VaWolf82 02/15/2006 at 3:12 PM #

    I think FSU or VA would need 9 ACC wins to get in. MD maybe gets in with 8, but I don’t think they get to 8.

    Interesting that you should say that. I was wandering down this same path earlier today. Here’s a little history that might be pertinent to the ACC bubble teams this year:

    In 2003, the ACC was the third-ranked conference…just like this year.
    There were 8 teams selected with RPI’s 36+ (1 less than “average”).
    State was the lowest-ranked team selected that year at 53.

    This was State’s resume:
    9-7 conference record.
    Overall SOS…..45
    Record break-down per opponents RPI
    1-50……..2-8
    51-100….8-3
    101-200…3-0
    201+…….5-1
    ACCT record 2-1, beating #1 Seed WF (RPI #7)

    I think that ACC bubble teams want the following MINIMUMS on their resume:
    9-7 conference record
    RPI rank no worse than 55
    Win on Thursday in ACCT

    OR

    8-8 conference record
    RPI >55
    ACCT wins on Thursday and Friday

    ACCT wins against the top four in the conference are very, very good. Beating an upset winner from a previous round is probably not worth as much…..

    In 2003, Duke got a 3-seed with a #12 ranking and a ACCT title. They wins against #80 UVa, #52 UNC, and #53 NC State evidently didn’t overly impress the Selection Committee when it came time for seeding. The same logic should also apply to selecting bubble teams.

  15. Trout 02/15/2006 at 3:27 PM #

    Va Wolf: How far back does RPI data go? What is the first year RPI numbers became “available” to the public.

    Can you find out what our RPI was in 1985? That year NC State was 9-5 in the ACC, and 22-10 overall. We were a #3 seed. I’m sure the ACC was, at worst, the #2 conference that year.

  16. Trout 02/15/2006 at 3:38 PM #

    “In 2003, Duke got a 3-seed with a #12 ranking and a ACCT title.”

    That was the year for NC State to win the ACCT. That was not an overly strong Duke team.

  17. VaWolf82 02/15/2006 at 4:18 PM #

    Va Wolf: How far back does RPI data go? What is the first year RPI numbers became “available� to the public.

    Kenpom’s archives only go back to 1999. I do not subscribe to Jerry Palm’s collegerpi.com, but I have been told that his archives go back much farther than anything I have been able to find. Maybe someone that subscribes to that site can speak up and fill us in.

    One other piece of info that I would interested in knowing is how many times has the RPI formula been tweaked over the years. Before I start making comparisons to the distant past, I want to make sure that we are making an apples-to-apples comparison.

    That was not an overly strong Duke team.

    Unfortunately, neither was State.

  18. Trout 02/16/2006 at 8:12 AM #

    ^ True.

    I’m not trying to compare this team to the 1985 team. I was shocked that a 19-9 team entering the NCAAT would be worthy of a 3 seed back in 1985. Our SOS must have been very strong.

  19. Sammy Kent 02/17/2006 at 3:59 PM #

    In 1985 we benefitted from an incredibly strong ACC. State, Carolina, and Tech all finished tied for first at 9-5. Those three plus Dook and Maryland all ended the season in the top 20, Maryland being the lowest ranked at 18. All eight schools played in the postseason…the first five in the NCAAs (State, Carolina, and Tech all in the Elite Eight), and Clemson, Virginia, and Wake Forest in the NIT.

    An interesting and ironic footnote to the 1985 season: for all the parity, it was the first and is still the only year the higher seed won every game in the ACC Tournament. (Except for an opening game “upset”, the 1995 Tournament had the same result. The only lower seeded team to win a game that season was #9 Dook beating #8 NC State in the LRI.)

Leave a Reply