Composite Rankings (40+ ranking systems)

[Cheeks]

As stated earlier, too early in my opinion to be as valuable as they are later in season when more games are played, but for those interested a link to the composite rankings page of 41 ranking systems.

Marquette has a rating of 32 when aggregating them all.  A high of 17, a low in the 70's.  Not here to say one is better than another.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

[UWW2MU]

Luckily the "analyst" that has MU in the 70's also thinks they play at the BMO.  I'm sure that's the reason for being such an outlier and has nothing to do with a poor dataset or issues with their modeling.

[Galway Eagle]

Only seem to be three major outliers for low ranking. That 17 is out of the blue as well

[wadesworld]

"Too early to be as valuable as they are later in the season."

Lol. What a nut.

[Cheeks]

"Too early to be as valuable as they are later in the season."

Lol. What a nut.

Sagarin, Pomeroy, Massey and others....the inventors of their systems...are nuts for saying essentially the same thing.  Classic.


At any rate, for you bettors out there, some comparisons of Bovada, Sagarin and Pomeroy

https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/guides/strategy/kenpom-vs-sagarin/

[UWW2MU]

Only seem to be three major outliers for low ranking. That 17 is out of the blue as well

You're wrong!  David Wilson is the smartest of all the geniuses who ever geniused with basketball analytics.  He knows something no one else does and his system in flawless.   How DARE you?!

[Jay Bee]

"Hey coach Chicos, should we start stalling? We're up by 24 with 1:14 left."

"It's too early to stall"

"Ok, we won't stall the offense"

"Oh no, we should stall. I meant that stalling now is too early to be as valuable as stalling with 8 seconds left."

[wadesworld]

"I don't put any stock in this but here's a link to something I put no stock in just in case anybody else wants to know what the rankings are showing!"

PS Your statement will hold true through the final buzzer of the National Title game. The rankings will be their most "valuable" after every single game of the season has been played. So please refrain from using any ranking system here until every last game has been played. Just too early to be as valuable as the rankings will be come a week into April.

Lol.

[Elonsmusk]

Others of interest:

Maryland = 5
Purdue = 19
USC = 62
Davidson = 98
Kansas State 106

[Galway Eagle]

"I don't put any stock in this but here's a link to something I put no stock in just in case anybody else wants to know what the rankings are showing!"

PS Your statement will hold true through the final buzzer of the National Title game. The rankings will be their most "valuable" after every single game of the season has been played. So please refrain from using any ranking system here until every last game has been played. Just too early to be as valuable as the rankings will be come a week into April.

Lol.

No the tournaments a crap shoot so the rankings are useless

[Cheeks]

"Hey coach Chicos, should we start stalling? We're up by 24 with 1:14 left."

"It's too early to stall"

"Ok, we won't stall the offense"

"Oh no, we should stall. I meant that stalling now is too early to be as valuable as stalling with 8 seconds left."

Yeah, that's analogous.  Super tight

[Cheeks]

"I don't put any stock in this but here's a link to something I put no stock in just in case anybody else wants to know what the rankings are showing!"

PS Your statement will hold true through the final buzzer of the National Title game. The rankings will be their most "valuable" after every single game of the season has been played. So please refrain from using any ranking system here until every last game has been played. Just too early to be as valuable as the rankings will be come a week into April.

Lol.

Again, your willingness to go to the absurd is fully on display.  You forgot about the part where usually come sometime in January the movement is small and the data set more valuable.  Yes, it is most valuable at the end if you wish to be absurd, but using common sense (I know you can do it if you try or simply listen to the guys that created these) the usefulness improves after the population of data reaches a certain state. 

It's also why I said it is valuable now, but more valuable in January.  The incremental jumps in value are made Nov to Dec, Dec to Jan.  The improvements beyond that are small because the data set is robust enough.  I know you know this and you are just being you...so carry on.

[UWW2MU]

I realize I didn't exactly add anything of value to this conversation... but just gotta say you guys can suck the fun out of any topic.    You realize you all argued about this in 15 other threads, right?

[brewcity77]

I realize I didn't exactly add anything of value to this conversation... but just gotta say you guys can suck the fun out of any topic.    You realize you all argued about this in 15 other threads, right?

But that's what makes this thread so special, it was started for the express purpose of sucking the fun out of the topic!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I realize I didn't exactly add anything of value to this conversation... but just gotta say you guys can suck the fun out of any topic.    You realize you all argued about this in 15 other threads, right?

There is a common denominator.

[Small Orange Soda]

32 sounds about right.

[Slim]

There is a common denominator.

Thought every poster on every thread!

[Cheeks]

There is a common denominator.

Yup, the attackers who attack constantly....you nailed it.  Not what is said, but who says the what.

[wadesworld]

Yup, the attackers who attack constantly....you nailed it.  Not what is said, but who says the what.

Lol.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yup, the attackers who attack constantly....you nailed it.  Not what is said, but who says the what.

So true--it's everyone else's fault. Common Denominator is just a victim, always.

[Cheeks]

So true--it's everyone else's fault. Common Denominator is just a victim, always.

Always, never...lazy

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Ok, Common

[Cheeks]

Up slightly to number 31

[Cheeks]

Luckily the "analyst" that has MU in the 70's also thinks they play at the BMO.  I'm sure that's the reason for being such an outlier and has nothing to do with a poor dataset or issues with their modeling.

??

[UWW2MU]

??

I was inferring that if they can't even get the correct arena information how can we trust any of their data or analysis thereof.