Those Whacky Computerized Basketball Rankings

Well folks, it is that time of year when we have enough data points to begin considering computerized college basketball rankings.  Sure, we don't put a lot of stock in them just now because college teams play 30 or so games, and so far most have only played around five-to-seven games. 

Nevertheless, the recently issued "major polls," the USAToday Coaches' Poll and the AP Writers' Poll, pretty much cover the waterfront of good teams.  Fifty-four teams received votes in yesterday's coaches poll, and 57 attracted one or more votes in the writers' poll.  The results are quite similar.  For example, yesterday's polls had 23 teams in common in the top 25.

Another illustration of the similarities is that Kansas is first in both polls, Texas second in both, and Villanova third. 

Villanova is a work in progress, and its vaunted new big man, Mouphtaou Yarou, has a viral infection and is rumored to be out for the season.  Villanova may still be number three in March because they have huge firepower, especially at the guard positions, which for the Wildcats numbers three or four guards at a time.

So, this team, which the coaches and writers both rank at No. 3, might be a tiny bit over-ranked at the moment, but it will get there.  On the other hand, the computer rankings currently hint that No. 3 might be a stretch.  Villanova (6-0) is number 20 in the RPI (realtimerpi.com), No. 8 in the Sagarin rating (usatoday.com) and No. 11 in Team Rankings overall power ranking (teamrankings.com).

However, what really jumps out is Ken Pomery's ranking.  He has Villanova down at No. 48.  Seems a little low?  Wait it gets better. 

Kentucky (6-0) is fourth in the coaches' poll and fifth in the writers poll, but Mr. Pomeroy tells us that Kentucky is actually No. 70.  Yes, 70.

The 31 voting coaches think North Carolina (6-1) is No. 11, and the 65 voting sports writers think North Carolina is No. 10.  Yet Ken Pomeroy's system teaches us that North Carolina is merely No. 75.  Yes, 75.

It is too early in the season to expect much from computerized rankings.  The data points are few, and many of the strong teams haven't been tested much.  Also, as mentioned above, teams grow, and it remains to be seen which teams will gel between now and tournament time.

We will keep an eye on the computer rankings and update you from time to time on who seems to be tracking the development of the top teams versus who is turning the computer crank without much control over the output.