So....What are we ranked on Monday - 1/6/2025?

[MU82]

Could quibble with a spot or two, but 8 is fine. Have to earn our way back up.

Already have wins over this week's #2 on a neutral court and #20 on the road, as well as a last-possession loss to #4 on a neutral court.

Play #12 in two days at home, and #10 at the end of the month at home. Plenty of opportunities to get back into the top 5.

[MuggsyB]

No biggie but I disagree.  Kentucky loses at home to UNCW and only falls 4 while we fall 5?  b-ass. 

[Uncle Rico]

Where is Oklahoma rated?

[MU82]

No biggie but I disagree.  Kentucky loses at home to UNCW and only falls 4 while we fall 5?  b-ass.

Yeah, I thought Kentucky might fall 10 spots or more. That's the one that really surprises me in this poll.

[Coleman]

8 is fair.

We will have plenty of opportunities to get back into the Top 5. The loss at UW sucks, but just keep grinding. We need to take care of business against Texas.

[Mu8891]

Great ... MU gets A$$ kicked by UW and they move into top 25.  Infuriating

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

7 or 8 is my best guess.

1. Arizona
2. Kansas
3. Houston
4. UConn
5. Baylor
6. Purdue
7. Marquette
8. Gonzaga
9. North Carolina
10. Creighton (assuming a win tomorrow)
11. FAU
12. Texas
13. Colorado St.
14. BYU
15. Miami (FL)

Purdue didn't fall as far as I thought. Gonzaga ended up edging us out by 12 votes. Otherwise, exact match.

[Coleman]

Great ... MU gets A$$ kicked by UW and they move into top 25.  Infuriating

If you put aside your hatred for UW (believe me, I get it), having losses to ranked teams is not a bad thing. You want your losses to be to quality teams.

I want MU to succeed more than I want UW to fail.

The way I look at their upcoming game against Arizona, there are no bad outcomes: Either we lost to a team that will likely be in the top 10 after that game (if they win) or UW loses.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Where is Oklahoma rated?

Voters too woke

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, I thought Kentucky might fall 10 spots or more. That's the one that really surprises me in this poll.

The question is, who do you put above them?

4-3 Tennessee? (Personally I would but understand why not)
James Madison?
Oklahoma? (Who has 4 wins against sub-300 opponents, 1 win against Texas St, and 2 close wins over possible bubble teams)
Illinois? (Who has 1 win against a top 145 opponent...and they aren't a likely tourney team)
TAMU?
Duke? (Who just lost twice?)
Wisconsin? Clemson? San Diego State? (None of whom were ranked last week, UW wasn't even receiving votes).

Last week was brutal for the top 25. #1, #3, #4, #7, #8, #10, #12, #14, #18, #21, #23 and 2/3 of the top others receiving votes all lost at least one and some of them were losses to brutal teams.

[HowardsWorld]

Duke being ranked still @22 in borderline criminal.

[MU82]

The question is, who do you put above them?

4-3 Tennessee? (Personally I would but understand why not)
James Madison?
Oklahoma? (Who has 4 wins against sub-300 opponents, 1 win against Texas St, and 2 close wins over possible bubble teams)
Illinois? (Who has 1 win against a top 145 opponent...and they aren't a likely tourney team)
TAMU?
Duke? (Who just lost twice?)
Wisconsin? Clemson? San Diego State? (None of whom were ranked last week, UW wasn't even receiving votes).

Last week was brutal for the top 25. #1, #3, #4, #7, #8, #10, #12, #14, #18, #21, #23 and 2/3 of the top others receiving votes all lost at least one and some of them were losses to brutal teams.

Excellent point.

Really though, did any ranked team sustain a loss like that - at home to a CAA team that had lost by 30 to App State? It's probably the worst loss of the season for any ranked team right now, and I think a pretty solid argument could be made that Kentucky shouldn't be ranked at all.

But you're right ... none of this is done in a vacuum. And there was lots of losing in the ranks behind Kentucky.

[IL Warrior]

Excellent point.

Really though, did any ranked team sustain a loss like that - at home to a CAA team that had lost by 30 to App State? It's probably the worst loss of the season for any ranked team right now, and I think a pretty solid argument could be made that Kentucky shouldn't be ranked at all.

But you're right ... none of this is done in a vacuum. And there was lots of losing in the ranks behind Kentucky.

FAU's home loss to Bryant says hello. Bryant's other wins:
Howard (Kenpom #212)
Brown (Kenpom #252)
NAIA Fisher College
D-III Springfield College

Bryant is also the proud owner of losses to Kenpom #269 Boston University and Kenpom #322 Manhattan.

FAU at #11 right now is absurd.

[romey]

#8 in the AP:

https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-pol

This weeks schedules of teams ahead of us:

1. Arizona: vs Badgers
2. Kansas: vs Kansas City, vs Missouri
3. Houston: vs Rice, vs Jackson St
4. Purdue: vs Iowa, vs Alabama
5. UCONN: vs UNC, vs pine bluff
6. Baylor: vs Seton Hall, @mich state
7. Gonzaga: vs pine bluff, @washington

Huge opportunity this week for Arkansas Pine Bluff to knock off #5 and #7 and move into the top 20

[MU82]

FAU's home loss to Bryant says hello. Bryant's other wins:
Howard (Kenpom #212)
Brown (Kenpom #252)
NAIA Fisher College
D-III Springfield College

Bryant is also the proud owner of losses to Kenpom #269 Boston University and Kenpom #322 Manhattan.

FAU at #11 right now is absurd.

That's fair.

[CountryRoads]

FAU's home loss to Bryant says hello. Bryant's other wins:
Howard (Kenpom #212)
Brown (Kenpom #252)
NAIA Fisher College
D-III Springfield College

Bryant is also the proud owner of losses to Kenpom #269 Boston University and Kenpom #322 Manhattan.

FAU at #11 right now is absurd.

NET formula should be open sourced.

[brewcity77]

NET formula should be open sourced.

Definitely not. Once RPI became public (or at least a close enough approximation) it was quickly broken and easy to game. The NET is close enough to that, but the cheat is to run up efficiency margins, which is still challenging (as opposed to just scheduling the right teams). Either way, if they make it easier, that will just necessitate a replacement sooner rather than later.

[CountryRoads]

Definitely not. Once RPI became public (or at least a close enough approximation) it was quickly broken and easy to game. The NET is close enough to that, but the cheat is to run up efficiency margins, which is still challenging (as opposed to just scheduling the right teams). Either way, if they make it easier, that will just necessitate a replacement sooner rather than later.

I guess I was under the impression that coaches weren't naive and already knew how to game the system for the most part as you alluded to.

[brewcity77]

I guess I was under the impression that coaches weren't naive and already knew how to game the system for the most part as you alluded to.

General idea is one thing, but RPI pretty much collapsed once the formula was known. I'd rather have some mystery than risk the whole thing having to be redone.

[Jay Bee]

General idea is one thing, but RPI pretty much collapsed once the formula was known. I'd rather have some mystery than risk the whole thing having to be redone.

"There will be a prominent measure placed on you, but we're not going to tell you what it is. We may change the measurement from time to time, but again, we don't need to tell you about such changes."

It's odd to me

[Coleman]

"There will be a prominent measure placed on you, but we're it going to tell you what it is. We may change the measurement from time to time, but again, we don't need to tell you about such changes."

It's odd to me

Agreed. Transparency is a good thing.

[brewcity77]

"There will be a prominent measure placed on you, but we're it going to tell you what it is. We may change the measurement from time to time, but again, we don't need to tell you about such changes."

It's odd to me

Why is it odd? kenpom, KPI, BPI, and SOR are all on the team sheet and none of their formulas are public. Sagarin was on the team sheets until this year and not public. No one knows the details of T-Rank, EvanMiya, or Haslametrics yet various people cite them as evaluation sources. NET is similar to those in that regard. Making it public would only increase the likelihood of teams being able to game the system like they did with RPI.

Look at 2018, Xavier was #14 in kenpom (pre-tourney) but earned a 1-seed because of their RPI rank of 3. Kansas was also overseeded based on the predictives while Gonzaga, West Virginia, and Butler were all notably underseeded based on RPI. St. Mary's (#28 kenpom, #40 RPI), Notre Dame (#31 kenpom, #70 RPI), and Penn State (#30 kenpom, #77 RPI) were all likely left out because of that broken system. We saw a ton of problems that became more pronounced the longer the system was both in place and known.

I understand why people want transparency, but having seen the issues it creates in the past and the overall acceptance of no transparency in the other metrics, it just seems unnecessary.

[Dr. Blackheart]

USNWR

[Jay Bee]

Odd because 1. It's the most prominent ranking (it is THE ranking of team sheets) and 2. It's the NCAA's metric, not a third party's.

[Jay Bee]

Odd because 1. It's the most prominent ranking (it is THE ranking of team sheets) and 2. It's the NCAA's metric, not a third party's.

In addition, I should note that multiple times I found errors in the RPI calculations, reported them to the NCAA, and they corrected them. #TrustIssues