Rankings come in two varieties, those based on statistical metrics (e.g., the RPI, KenPom, Sagarin and Massey ratings systems) and those based on individual votes (e.g., the RTC, AP and USA Today/Coaches polls). Changes in specific rankings tend to follow certain patterns — the “numbers” rankings do not tend to change all that much with a single win or loss; the human polls tend to change weekly as a reflection of the voters’ reactions to the latest batch of wins and losses. This season’s plethora of upsets has already introduced an element of chaos to the rankings and each type of system has responded in ways that break with their historic patterns for dealing with upsets and overlooked teams.
The metrics-based systems have shuffled their top 10 to 25 teams radically, while the polling systems have resisted a common tendency to drop teams that lose below those that remain undefeated. Villanova’s treatment by each system can be viewed as this season’s Exhibit A. Both systems were consistent in the preseason on where Jay Wright’s Wildcats belonged. KenPom (which ranked his team around #11) as well as the AP and the USA Today/Coaches polls (#11 and #9, respectively) agreed that Villanova was very good but not among the elite handful of teams that the Selection Committee rewarded with top-two seeds during the last two NCAA Tournaments. Through the first two weeks of the season, however, the two ratings systems have diverged greatly on this squad. As of today, the trio of KenPom (#2), Sagarin (#1) and Massey (#4) all agree that Villanova is the working equivalent of a #1 seed, but the humans voting in the polls largely remain skeptical. The AP has moved Villanova up only three spots from preseason #11 to #8, while the USA Today/Coaches have kept the Wildcats in limbo at #9. Only RTC, which moved Villanova up five spots to #5 in its latest poll, seems to feel a promotion has been earned. Read the rest of this entry »