Do rankings matter? Seth Davis sure thinks so

[skianth16]

Seth Davis has a good article out this week in The Athletic about the importance of rankings along with some commentary about his ballot. I'll paraphrase since I know most people don't have a subscription. His primary points about why rankings matter revolve around getting people interested in/talking about college games. The four reasons he thinks rankings are important are:

1) They set the narrative - essentially, rankings help fans understand which matchups are important and which teams are at the top of the game. With more than 350 schools playing D1 basketball, this makes a lot of sense to me, especially for casual fans.

2) They lend historical context - we all know Kentucky and Duke have traditionally been successful, but it can be really meaningful for a school who cracks the top 25 for the first time ever. For MU fans, this has been a nice pat on the back this year to see that we're getting some recognition on a national level for the first time in a while.

3) They stir debate - "Anything that gets fans arguing is usually good for that sport. Arguments indicate interest. And I love the way a ballot squashes equivocation. You can’t get away with saying a team is “pretty good” or “underrated.” Put everyone in order, so we can see exactly where you stand. Then the fun can begin."

4) They generate attention for programs that need it - the national exposure for teams like Furman or Buffalo can be very meaningful for those programs. I whole-heartedly agree with this idea. Any additional exposure, especially national exposure, for these little schools is big for them. How many people would have known Buffalo is undefeated without the polls this year?

There have been at least a few people say that rankings don't matter, but I think Davis laid out a compelling argument that they do. If nothing else, they draw attention to the game and keep people talking. Does this change anyone's mind?

For those with a subscription - https://theathletic.com/703559/2018/12/10/hoop-thoughts-why-polls-matter-dunphys-farewell-troubles-at-uk-ku-and-iu-my-weekly-top-25-and-lots-more/

[bilsu]

They may matter most, because ESPN covers the top 25 games. Not being ranked leaves you out of the spotlight.

[Loose Cannon]

 Did he mention the impact on Recruiting if any?

[MUMountin]

For these reasons, I actually wonder if they should be expanded.  By my quick count, there were around 300 D1 teams in 1989 when the AP went from 20 to 25 schools.  With almost 350 now, I think they could easily make the case of going to 30 or even 35 (top 10%).  Gives a little more recognition in an increasingly tough environment. 

[Galway Eagle]

For these reasons, I actually wonder if they should be expanded.  By my quick count, there were around 300 D1 teams in 1989 when the AP went from 20 to 25 schools.  With almost 350 now, I think they could easily make the case of going to 30 or even 35 (top 10%).  Gives a little more recognition in an increasingly tough environment.

Most the voters barely do their job as is, expanding would allow for some absolutely ridiculous results

[MUBigDance]

For these reasons, I actually wonder if they should be expanded.  By my quick count, there were around 300 D1 teams in 1989 when the AP went from 20 to 25 schools.  With almost 350 now, I think they could easily make the case of going to 30 or even 35 (top 10%).  Gives a little more recognition in an increasingly tough environment.

I agree and wonder if the Bracketology guys like Lunardi fill a fan-need....to see beyond 25 and give Tourney context.

As my nic implies, I put events in the context of getting into that Big Dance and winning some games.

I realize that's not a wholistic perspective for a fan so I'm trying to appreciate other things too...reputation, rankings, place in BE, BETourney results, Big wins, even players staying at MU 4 years, graduating seniors (go Matt!), milestones, good stories about athletes doing good for the community...and the lack of bad stories...all of these things make a fan feel good.

The tourney is still the adrenaline sugar-rush at the end of the rainbow...but I think I'm appreciating more.

[Cheeks]

Preseason rankings are an absolute joke, about 50% don’t stick and I can’t remember the percentage that do not even qualify for the tournament.  The rankings start to matter around Early January.  The media hype is fine, alums get excited, the scroll at the bottom of the screen, and all the rest....but the actual value of the number in terms of accuracy is brutally flawed and based on perception, not data.  We still have SIDs and others voting that don’t even bother to pay attention.

[Galway Eagle]

Preseason rankings are an absolute joke, about 50% don’t stick and incan’t remember the percentage that doesn’t even qualify for the tournament.  The rankings start to matter around Early January.  The media hype is fine, slums get excited, the scroll at the bottom of the screen, and all the rest....but the actual value of the number in terms of accuracy is brutally flawed and based on perception, not data.  We still have SIDs and others voting that don’t even bother to pay attention.

I think it matters in gaining a casual following early in the season and hype for games. 

[Cheeks]

I think it matters in gaining a casual following early in the season and hype for games.

Agree, but the value of the number is fantasy land stuff.  Take a look over the years of a preseason top 25 vs end of season and how wrong it is.  Often profoundly wrong.

[Galway Eagle]

Agree, but the value of the number is fantasy land stuff.  Take a look over the years of a preseason top 25 vs end of season and how wrong it is.  Often profoundly wrong.

I agree, it's almost comical how different the polls look and yet the preseason is still taken so serious.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Rankings absolutely matta in terms of marketing and exposure.

In terms of judging how good a team actually is? Preseason they start out pretty much not mattaing at all. They get progressively more accurate as the season goes on. I would say they peak before Selection Sunday. The one that comes out after the tourney seems to weight the tourney games a little too much for my liking.

[MUMountin]

Preseason rankings are an absolute joke, about 50% don’t stick and incan’t remember the percentage that doesn’t even qualify for the tournament.  The rankings start to matter around Early January.  The media hype is fine, slums get excited, the scroll at the bottom of the screen, and all the rest....but the actual value of the number in terms of accuracy is brutally flawed and based on perception, not data.  We still have SIDs and others voting that don’t even bother to pay attention.

Just gonna put this here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/want-to-know-who-will-win-during-march-madness-go-back-to-the-preseason-polls/

[wadesworld]

Preseason polls are actually pretty typically very good.

[PGsHeroes32]

Preseason polls are actually pretty typically very good.

Definitely a mixed bag usually

[Nukem2]

Rankings absolutely matta in terms of marketing and exposure.

In terms of judging how good a team actually is? Preseason they start out pretty much not mattaing at all. They get progressively more accurate as the season goes on. I would say they peak before Selection Sunday. The one that comes out after the tourney seems to weight the tourney games a little too much for my liking.

Agreed. It’s mostly program exposure.

[Daniel]

Getting ranked is great, free publicity for the school, and the team.  There is no doubt when you do well in the tourneys and recognition is there, applications go up, and schools like Marqueete get to select from a better pool of students perhaps.  It is a great thing to be ranked.

[wadesworld]

Definitely a mixed bag usually

From what I remember hearing, the list of teams in the preseason top 25 is usually pretty accurate while the order may not be.

I think I saw somewhere the only 3 of last season's preseason top 25 teams didn't make the NCAA Tournament?  Could be totally off on that though.

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

For these reasons, I actually wonder if they should be expanded.  By my quick count, there were around 300 D1 teams in 1989 when the AP went from 20 to 25 schools.  With almost 350 now, I think they could easily make the case of going to 30 or even 35 (top 10%).  Gives a little more recognition in an increasingly tough environment.

Umm no, over the last 20-30 years 50 or so new programs have been added. How many of them have ever even been ranked?  Just adding teams  to the bottom end doesnt justify adding more big 6 teams to the rankings.

[brewcity77]

From what I remember hearing, the list of teams in the preseason top 25 is usually pretty accurate while the order may not be.

I think I saw somewhere the only 3 of last season's preseason top 25 teams didn't make the NCAA Tournament?  Could be totally off on that though.

Yeah, there's always some glaring misses, but they generally do pretty well. I think 2014 UConn was the only national champ that wasn't ranked in the preseason in a long time.

[skianth16]

Umm no, over the last 20-30 years 50 or so new programs have been added. How many of them have ever even been ranked?  Just adding teams  to the bottom end doesnt justify adding more big 6 teams to the rankings.

We basically have a top 35 each week already with the teams getting votes announced as well. I don't see anything wrong with putting numbers next to those names. The added exposure is never a bad thing, and ranking the top 10% of teams would still be a narrower list than what football does by ranking the top 25. There's no downside to expanding the rankings.

[MU82]

It's not AP's job to give teams "a little more recognition."

[Benny B]

Definitely a mixed bag usually

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/JY6RyRkl9uo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/JY6RyRkl9uo</a>

[Cheeks]

Just gonna put this here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/want-to-know-who-will-win-during-march-madness-go-back-to-the-preseason-polls/

Yes, aware...read 538 daily.  He’s talking about how teams do in tournament, I’m remarking on the validity of the accuracy of the rankings that early.  Case in point Kentucky highly ranked this year.  Wisconsin not ranked at all.  We did this here on Scoop a few years ago where about 1/2 of the preseason ranked teams aren’t even ranked end of year.  When you consider the top ten preseason teams short of massive injury should finish top 25 by end of year, that much of a miss is really bad for the rest of the programs.  How they do in the tournament, crapshoot. Who are they playing, where, style, so on and so forth.

[skianth16]

It's not AP's job to give teams "a little more recognition."

Isn't that exactly what the AP's job is? Isn't that the entire goal of sports writers?

I don't mean to trivialize or simplify the job, but why else would papers choose print stories about sports if not to give a little more recognition to the teams and players that have been playing well?

[skianth16]

Yes, aware...read 538 daily.  He’s talking about how teams do in tournament, I’m remarking on the validity of the accuracy of the rankings that early.  Case in point Kentucky highly ranked this year.  Wisconsin not ranked at all.  We did this here on Scoop a few years ago where about 1/2 of the preseason ranked teams aren’t even ranked end of year.  When you consider the top ten preseason teams short of massive injury should finish top 25 by end of year, that much of a miss is really bad for the rest of the programs.  How they do in the tournament, crapshoot. Who are they playing, where, style, so on and so forth.

Some of this validates the points that Davis made. The rankings get people talking, encourage a focus on teams that are collectively agreed to be good, and they stir debate. Even if they're not very accurate until later in the year, the game benefits overall from having rankings from the preseason through to the end of the year.