Every week I am more and more confused by ESPN's rankings, so this week I finally decided to put in writing the imperfections of this week's rankings (Well, just the ten biggest ones at least) - #10 - Mississippi State is ranked - So what makes people think that Mississippi State is a ranked team? Is it the 0 wins against ranked teams, the 49 point loss to Mississippi State, the loss to Tennessee, or the 16-4 record? And let's examine that 16-4 record a little more closely. Mississippi State played Jacksonville State, Virginia Tech, Auburn, New Orleans, Mississippi, Birmingham Southern, Fairfield (4 point win), Xavier, St. Mary's, Missouri-Kansas City, Florida A&M, South Carolina, Arkansas State, Nichols State, and Southern Alabama. In fact, the only win that I'd consider half-way quality of theirs are against 14-5, unproven Arkansas. Plus, Mississippi State's best defensive player just got injured. So I ask you again, why are they ranked, especially over the likes of Iowa, Utah, and Pacific? #9 - Texas is ranked over Iowa - Something I will never understand is how Texas can lose to Iowa and then still be ranked over them this week. I would understand that decision if Iowa had a terrible record, if they hadn't beaten anyone legit, or even if Texas had faced a bunch of quality opponents. However, Iowa has the exact same record as Texas, 14-4. As for quality wins, Iowa has also beaten Louisville and has blown out some very solid ball clubs such as Texas Tech, Air Force, and Iowa State. As for quality opponents, Texas has played their fair share of them. They played both Oklahoma State and Wake Forest. However, Iowa has one up on them in that category as well. Iowa's schedule has included the likes of #3 North Carolina and #1 Illinois, who they took to overtime. Putting Texas over Iowa just defies logic. Good job ESPN. #8 - Georgia Tech is ranked - This is when ranking teams just because they had high expectations at the beginning of the season just gets out of control. So what if Georgia Tech was a final four team last year? So what if Georgia Tech potentially has six future NBA players on their roster? The fact of the matter is that they have an 11-5 record. No one with five losses should be ranked, especially if they haven't beaten a ranked opponent yet like Georgia Tech hasn't. Georgia Tech beat Michigan, Miami, and Air Force. However, they have little to show aside from that. Wins over Illinois-Chicago, Arkansas-Little Rock, Alabama State, James Madison, Char. Southern, Georgia, and Lafayette are not impressive. Not only has every ranked team they've played beaten them, but unranked North Carolina State blew them out and they recently just lost to Virginia Tech. So why the hell is Georgia Tech #21? #7 - Georgia Tech is ranked (over Gonzaga) - Yes, I could have put this under number eight, but I definitely feel that this deserves its own rank. As it currently stands, ESPN ranks Georgia Tech #21 and Gonzaga #23. Try to explain this after considering that when the two teams met up this year Gonzaga scorched Georgia Tech by twelve points. Gonzaga is really underappreciated. Sure, they lost to San Francisco, but people don't understand how good San Francisco is at home. They're the Wisconsin of the West. Not only did they beat Gonzaga, but they also blew out a solid Fresno State team earlier. Besides, teams slip up occasionally, that's NCAA basketball, but when teams like Georgia Tech slip up as many times as they have then they shouldn't be ranked. Anyway, before I stray too far off topic, I would also like to point out that it's not like Gonzaga has just played cupcakes outside of Georgia Tech. They have proven themselves with a win over #10 Washington. So why should 14-4 Gonzaga be ranked over 11-5 Georgia Tech even after they crushed them and have more quality wins? #6 - ESPN's major conference bias - It has taken Gonzaga at least a decade to gain the respect of ESPN, and in turn they've become their token "mid-major". However, I feel like there's many more teams out there that go unrecognized every year by ESPN. Only having one or two mid-majors in each week's rankings is definitely not enough (especially only having them in the bottom five of the top twenty-five). Why no love for the University of Pacific? They're 14-2 with their only losses coming to Kansas (#2 at the time) and San Francisco (who I told you about earlier in this post). Every other game that they've played has been a blowout (barring one nailbiter). Now both you and I know that if Maryland, Memphis, or Indiana had this same record then they'd be in the top fifteen or maybe even top ten. So why shouldn't the University of Pacific even be ranked? They even have an NBA prospect in Junior forward Christian Maraker. Pacific isn't the only mid-major college to not get any respect either. There's many out there. Wichita State, St. Mary's (CA), Nevada, Southern Illinois, UTEP, New Mexico, and Air Force all go underappreciated. At least three or four of those schools should be ranked. #5 - Connecticut is ranked over Pittsburgh - While I have spoken out in the past about how neither of these teams should be ranked, I've accepted the fact that ESPN will never take either team out of their rankings. So the least that ESPN could do is get their rankings right. Pittsburgh beat Connecticut very convincingly this weekend at Connecticut's own gym. So why should Connecticut be higher than Pittsburgh? They have more losses and less wins. The only thing that Connecticut has that Pittsburgh doesn't is a loss to Massachusetts. Yes, that's right, Massachusetts. Pittsburgh doesn't have any quality wins outside of their victory over Connecticut, but Connecticut doesn't have any either (unless you consider Buffalo quality). ESPN, face it. Okafor and Gordon are gone and they are never coming back. We can all get over the little five year dynasty that Connecticut attempted. #4 - Kentucky is ranked over Boston College - I'm becoming a Kentucky fan, but I think that having them #6 in the nation is just wrong, especially when you have Boston College #8. Let's not kid ourselves, Kentucky has a great young team that should develop into one of the nation's best down the road granted everyone stays on the team. However, right now they're still unproven in my mind. They've only played a bunch of cupcakes (beating Mississippi and South Carolina by an average of 3.5 points) and three real tests; North Carolina, Louisville, and Kansas. They were blown out by North Carolina and lost on their homecourt to Kansas. They escaped with a two point win against Louisville, but I think we all agree that it should take more than just a win over Louisville to become a top ten team. So how can you rank them over undefeated Boston College? This goes back to what I said earlier about teams just being ranked high because they were picked to finish well in the preseason. It's just bogus that they are being treated like ESPN treats mid-majors just because no one saw them coming. They beat #9 Connecticut and #24 West Virginia (by 20 points none the less), not to mention they beat Villanova just the other day (who I think should definitely be a ranked team by now; if I decided to make this "11 Reasons To Disregard ESPN's Rankings", then Villanova not being ranked would be #11). So with all this said about Boston College being elite and Kentucky really being unproven, why would you rank Kentucky over Boston College? #3 - Texas is ranked over Oklahoma - It is one thing for Texas to be ranked over Iowa, but is a much bigger abomination for Texas to be ranked over Oklahoma considering that Oklahoma has an even better record than Iowa and is coming off a win against Texas even more recently. I myself did not realize how good Oklahoma was until I did some research on them the other day, but then again I'm not on the Board of Coaches for the ESPN poll. For them to rank Oklahoma as low as they rank them is a disgrace to their rankings. Their only two losses have come against ranked teams, #2 Duke and #10 Washington. They've also beaten three ranked teams - Connecticut (blowout), Oklahoma State (blowout), and Texas. Yet somehow Texas still remains two spots ahead of Oklahoma even after losing to them, having less quality wins, and having more losses. What makes these kind of errors on the part of the poll voters worse is that they are the majority's opinion. The majority of ESPN's coaches actually put Texas over Oklahoma. #2 - Alabama is ranked over Wisconsin - This is one of the most outrageous ranking flaws I have ever seen. Wisconsin is obviously a better team than Alabama. Wisconsin crushed Alabama when they played, has an all-around more talented roster, and had the same amount of losses. Wisconsin hasn't padded their schedule with easy wins either. They beat #12 Maryland, #12 Michigan State, and of course #13 Alabama. On the other hand, Alabama has not beaten a single ranked team outside of Mississippi State, who was playing on the road without the player who many people consider to be their player and played nothing like a ranked team should play. They were also blown out by Vanderbilt. So why should anyone consider Alabama a better team than Wisconsin? I am beginning to think that there's a severe bias for the SEC in the rankings. The voters don't want to see there only be one or two SEC teams ranked, because it's obvious that Mississippi State shouldn't be ranked, and Kentucky as well as Alabama shouldn't be as high as they are. #1 - North Carolina over Wake Forest - You knew this was coming. Was I not the only person who was completely dumbfounded by this ranking? This is the Wake Forest team that was #1 in the nation up until December when they lost to the current #1 team in the nation. This is the Wake Forest team with seven victories over top twenty-five teams (George Washington, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Cincinnati, Texas, and Arizona). This is also the Wake Forest team that absolutely spanked North Carolina a few weeks ago infront of millions of viewers. They have the best player in all of college basketball in Chris Paul and overall the best backcourt in the nation. Their only losses have been to #1 Illinois and what most people consider a "fluke" loss to Florida State. What has North Carolina possibly done to prove that they are better than Wake Forest? Yes, they've beaten Iowa, Maryland, Georgia Tech, and Kentucky, but that's not impressive as what Wake Forest has done. Plus, North Carolina was blown out by Santa Clara. Most importantly though, they lost to Wake Forest, have the same record as Wake Forest, and yet are somehow ranked higher than Wake Forest. I'll let you figure that one out. As far as I am concerned, these ESPN rankings are complete crap.
Voodoo, great read my man! I have to agree with every point that you just stated. And I wish that you'd actually e-mail this to one of the ESPN writers. You may think since I'm a UK fan that I'm going to disagree with you on where you have them, but I couldn't agree much more with you. If UK would've beat either UNC or Kansas then I may disagree with you, but we didn't beat either one. Bama is the most overated team in all of College Basketball IMO. Beating Miss State is not a quality win, especially since they're beat "SHOOTER" was out. Maybe of Frazier would've been in there, then I'd call ot a good win, but he wasn't. Overall, this was pretty good, Voodoo!
AMEN brother. I agree with everything you mentioned and especially the bit on mid-majors. Rankings committees have always had bias on the big conferences and more specifically, big conferences in the East. Was it not last year that Nevada, Pacific, and Manhatten all impressed in the NCAA tournament? A lot of these smaller schools are legit and it's truely a shame that teams like UConn get automatic recognition for their play in the past while quality mid-majors that are winning this season get no recognition. That is also why Gonzaga gets ranked so low, because ranking committee members are too ignorant to realize that no matter how small a school, when you play a talented team at home it will be a challenge. If there is one thing i've learned from following the Zags, it is that if anything small schools have a greater homecourt advantage because they usually play in smaller gyms and the place gets packed and loud. Gonzaga had to build a new arena to fit all the fans in and it's still getting sold out. Also, Wake Forest below UNC is an injustice no matter how talented UNC is. The results this season speak for themselves and for ESPN to ignore that is ridiculous. Nice thread.
I do agree that, as of now, Wisconsin should be ahead of Alabama. However, I do disagree about saying Alabama has no quality wins. The game I point to is the 3OT classic we had against Charlotte in Charlotte. That is their only home loss and they have the same record as the Tide. Give Alabama that and I'll be happy.
Thanks for all of the positive feedback everyone! <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">After the Iowa game tonight.....I won't blame ESPN for having Texas over them personally.</div> Sure, Iowa looked pathetic, but these rankings came out well before that game when Iowa had the same exact record as Texas. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The game I point to is the 3OT classic we had against Charlotte in Charlotte. That is their only home loss and they have the same record as the Tide. Give Alabama that and I'll be happy.</div> It depends on what you consider quality. In general, I've been talking about quality wins as wins against ranked teams or teams tremendously close to be ranked. Charlotte is a good team and a solid team to beat, but not the kind of win that should put you in the rankings.
Great post. I don't see why anyone is surprised by ESPN's rankings nowadays though. I don't really put much stock into it. It's not a big deal, come tourney time, there idiotic mistakes mean nothing.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting mrj18:</div><div class="quote_post">It is GREAT to see you posting again STC!! </div> Come on. Post that mushy crap in the Members Union, a PM, or something like that. Besides, STC has been a consistant poster for a while. Not to speak for him, but he was online just last Sunday and was very active all through the holidays. I guess he's just more of a college basketball poster than a Knicks poster these days. Maybe you could follow his lead. : )
One of the best pieces of writing that I have read in a while. I agree I think ESPN has no love for the small conferences, even the small schools, I mean give me a reason why Kentucky should be ranked over undefeated Boston College. I would like to see Villanova get some love also. They only lost by 1 to Boston College, and they beat the number 2 team in the country in Kansas. Not to mention a nice win over West Virginia who was ranked number 23 at the time. They got a nice shooter in Allan Ray, also Curtis Sumpter has been playing well, and they got a nice rebounded in Jason Fraser. Nova' might be a team to look out for in the NCAA's, possibly upsetting a good seed or two. I don't even bother to look at their rankings anymore...
Great read, you never lost my attention throughout the whole thing. Although I do agree with their ranking of UConn above Pitt. I think UConn is a better team, and win loss doesn't tell verything at the half way point. I think UConn will progressively get better, and the front court of Rudy Gay, Josh Boone, and Charlie Villaneuva is going to be amazing in March. I don't think Pitt will go as far as UConn. Nice read.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting S.Livingston14:</div><div class="quote_post">Although I do agree with their ranking of UConn above Pitt. I think UConn is a better team, and win loss doesn't tell verything at the half way point. I think UConn will progressively get better, and the front court of Rudy Gay, Josh Boone, and Charlie Villaneuva is going to be amazing in March. I don't think Pitt will go as far as UConn. Nice read. </div> How can you possibly agree with that ranking at this point? If Connecticut gets better and eventually becomes a better team then good for them, they should be ranked high when they do that. However, the two played just last weekend and Pittsburgh blew them out. Not to mention that the game was at Connecticut. I just don't understand your opinion on this one.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting mrj18:</div><div class="quote_post">It is GREAT to see you posting again STC!! </div>Thanks. My computer has been broken, and I have been to lazy to fix it. So now, I just use my brothers computer whenever I can. I should be getting my comp back in a few days.
I sent in the question about Pittsburgh and Connecticut to an ESPN expert on an ESPN.Com chat. Here is what he had to say - <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Me: Could someone please tell me why Pittsburgh was ranked under Connecticut in ESPN's rankings this past week. Did Pittsburgh not just go into Connecticut and smash them? Do they not have a very similar record? What am I missing here? Buzzmaster: (7:51 PM ET ) Buzz was asking himself the same question until tonight's game with Syracyuse tipped off. But while the Panthers had some trouble with the zone early they are coming around, and with Chevy Troutman asserting himself in the paint there's always hope. </div> The guy was like a chat moderator who was also answering questions. I'm dissapointed that I didn't get Jay Bilas, Digger Phelps, or Andy Katz to answer that question. To be honest, I think I could do a better job of answering questions than "Buzzmaster". Besides, I sent a bunch of intelligent questions and only this one got in. Meanwhile, the following comment of some kid got in... Shotty (St.Cloud): NO WAY UNC WILL WIN BY 30 AT LEAST. I don't like ESPN.Com.
now <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">#5 - Connecticut is ranked over Pittsburgh - While I have spoken out in the past about how neither of these teams should be ranked, I've accepted the fact that ESPN will never take either team out of their rankings. So the least that ESPN could do is get their rankings right. Pittsburgh beat Connecticut very convincingly this weekend at Connecticut's own gym. So why should Connecticut be higher than Pittsburgh? They have more losses and less wins. The only thing that Connecticut has that Pittsburgh doesn't is a loss to Massachusetts. Yes, that's right, Massachusetts. Pittsburgh doesn't have any quality wins outside of their victory over Connecticut, but Connecticut doesn't have any either (unless you consider Buffalo quality). ESPN, face it. Okafor and Gordon are gone and they are never coming back. We can all get over the little five year dynasty that Connecticut attempted.</div> Hey Voodoo Child: do still say that conn should be lower than pitt after they beat them last week. You gotta realize that they have built up a strong base and will be a national power for years to come they wern't a flash in the pan. Gay, Boone, Charlie V, Rashad Anderson and Brown
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hey Voodoo Child: do still say that conn should be lower than pitt after they beat them last week. You gotta realize that they have built up a strong base and will be a national power for years to come they wern't a flash in the pan. Gay, Boone, Charlie V, Rashad Anderson and Brown</div> Way to reply a month after I posted this. It's been a long month and Pittsburgh has collapsed. I don't think this piece I wrote should be up for discussion anymore. It was written about the rankings of 1/25 or so.
oops <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">Way to reply a month after I posted this. It's been a long month and Pittsburgh has collapsed. I don't think this piece I wrote should be up for discussion anymore. It was written about the rankings of 1/25 or so.</div> ooops.... didnt look at the date
