MU #20

[chicagowarrior]

in ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll

[MarquetteDano]

Wow.  We have to go 1-1 this week just to stay in the Top 25.

[Dawson Rental]

Wow.  We have to go 1-1 this week just to stay in the Top 25.

That's what happens when you lose to two unranked teams.

[JTBMU7]

few things are less relevant than ESPN/AP rankings. It's nice to have a number by your name but really doesnt matter.

[San Diego Warrior]

Wisconsin should really be ranked lower than us - losing to Vanderbilt / LSU cannot even come close to the bad loss of losing to Iowa.

[Golden Avalanche]

Wisconsin should really be ranked lower than us - losing to Vanderbilt / LSU cannot even come close to the bad loss of losing to Iowa.

I think MU is right where they should be this time of year. Wisconsin ahead of them is laughable. Hell, even Andy Katz said the Badgers don't deserve to be ranked.

Another funny team is Louisville. They've been over-ranked all season but to drop nearly ten spots after losing to two top ten rated squads seems incongruous when looking at how other teams are judged.

More evidence these are useless beauty contests judged by ill-equipped arbiters.

[BCHoopster]

You play in front of a national audience and go down 31-5, what do you expect.  As Jimmy Dykes says MU does not pass the eye test right now, with Otule yes
without him, no chance, no depth.  After this week, MU will be hard pressed to be even in the Top 20.

[jsglow]

I'm not going to worry about the ranking.  We've got a very challenging run over the next two weeks.  Weather this storm above .500 and we'll be just fine.

[mr.MUskie]

You play in front of a national audience and go down 31-5, what do you expect.  As Jimmy Dykes says MU does not pass the eye test right now, with Otule yes
without him, no chance, no depth.  After this week, MU will be hard pressed to be even in the Top 20.

Good one.

[Tugg Speedman]

Wisconsin should really be ranked lower than us - losing to Vanderbilt / LSU cannot even come close to the bad loss of losing to Iowa.

I don't disagree with you but remind me again what effectively is the diference between 18 (wisc) and 20 (mu) in a jan 1 poll.

[MUMac]

I don't disagree with you but remind me again what effectively is the diference between 18 (wisc) and 20 (mu) in a jan 1 poll.

2 spots.  

I agree it is really no different.  I don't care where MU is ranked.  I just want them in the Top 25 to get the highlights on ESPN.  Not for me as much as for recruits.  Other than that, it doesn't matter much.

[MU82]

Always better to be ranked than not because they get more pub that way.

20 sounds about right, though I'm still scratching my head as to how a team we beat on their court can be ranked ahead of us when pretty much all else is equal.

[muhs03]

Our fanbase is the same as every other fanbase; we love it when we are ranked highly and find fault in the rankings when we think we are too low. We talk about how great the rankings are when we are rated favorably and downplay their significance when we are ranked low. There are so many threads on this site that support my claim.

[wadesworld]

Our fanbase is the same as every other fanbase; we love it when we are ranked highly and find fault in the rankings when we think we are too low. We talk about how great the rankings are when we are rated favorably and downplay their significance when we are ranked low. There are so many threads on this site that support my claim.

So you agree that a 3 loss team that we beat on their home court should be ranked above us, a 2 loss team?  OK...

I truly don't care.  The higher Wisconsin is ranked the better it is for us this year.  It just doesn't make sense.

[brewcity77]

So you agree that a 3 loss team that we beat on their home court should be ranked above us, a 2 loss team?  OK...

I truly don't care.  The higher Wisconsin is ranked the better it is for us this year.  It just doesn't make sense.

It's timing. I disagree with them being above us, but they got a big edge by dropping their first two games in the same week. It dropped them down, but by losing to a pair of top-15 teams, it didn't drop them far. We both lost this week, we also both got a win. While we had a better loss and better win, it's still 1-1 and neither team is ranked. I fully understand them not dropping below us.

[muhs03]

So you agree that a 3 loss team that we beat on their home court should be ranked above us, a 2 loss team?  OK...

I truly don't care.  The higher Wisconsin is ranked the better it is for us this year.  It just doesn't make sense.

You have very strange logic. I never mentioned anything about where we were ranked relative to Wisconsin (or any other team). In fact my post indicated, if anything, that I dont care. You clearly do; you laid out an argument about being ranked behind Wisco and then said "I truly dont care." Im guessing you actually do care. I dont.

[wadesworld]

You have very strange logic. I never mentioned anything about where we were ranked relative to Wisconsin (or any other team). In fact my post indicated, if anything, that I dont care. You clearly do; you laid out an argument about being ranked behind Wisco and then said "I truly dont care." Im guessing you actually do care. I dont.

Nope, I really don't.  It just logically doesn't make sense.  Would you agree or disagree with that?  And by answering that question, don't worry, I will not mistake it for you caring whether or not they are ranked higher than us.  Just logically speaking, team A beats team B on team B's home court.  Team A has 2 losses compared to team B's 3 loss.  Team A has lost to 2 high major teams, team B has losses to 3 high major teams.  Team B has the worst loss of the 2 teams (Iowa at home).  Team A has beaten more (potential) NCAA Tournament teams.  Logically, shouldn't team A be ranked above team B?  Has nothing to do with caring, just logic.

[muhs03]

Nope, I really don't.  It just logically doesn't make sense.  Would you agree or disagree with that?  And by answering that question, don't worry, I will not mistake it for you caring whether or not they are ranked higher than us.  Just logically speaking, team A beats team B on team B's home court.  Team A has 2 losses compared to team B's 3 loss.  Team A has lost to 2 high major teams, team B has losses to 3 high major teams.  Team B has the worst loss of the 2 teams (Iowa at home).  Team A has beaten more (potential) NCAA Tournament teams.  Logically, shouldn't team A be ranked above team B?  Has nothing to do with caring, just logic.

You identify one "issue" in the ranking (in one particular week). Since you made me look at the rankings, what about Vanderbilt's ranking? They were #20 while playing without their center. They absolutely blow us off the court and they are in the "also received votes" category this week? Is that ranking fair for them? Do you really think Duke is a top 5 team? Or Murray State a top 20 team? We would rock Murray State. Ranking are based off of one week's worth of work....one week at a time.

[wadesworld]

You identify one "issue" in the ranking (in one particular week). Since you made me look at the rankings, what about Vanderbilt's ranking? They were #20 while playing without their center. They absolutely blow us off the court and they are in the "also received votes" category this week? Is that ranking fair for them? Do you really think Duke is a top 5 team? Or Murray State a top 20 team? We would rock Murray State. Ranking are based off of one week's worth of work....one week at a time.

They are? That's news to me. So if DePaul had beaten Syracuse they would've been ranked first because that's what they did in that given week? Interesting.

[hoyasincebirth]

Like it or not most voters do not look at the whole picture. The way polls work is they take last weeks rankings and move teams up or down based off of what happened last week. Simple as that. If you look at the polls as trying to rank the best teams( which has a million ways of  defining that) then they do a terrible job. But if you take them for what they are more like stock reports then they're not so bad.