Our strength of schedule took a nose dive last night. Went from top 10 to 33. It will dive again Tuesday; ORU is terrible. It’s still not bad, and it will improve when conference play starts. My guess is keep winning, including beating Tennessee on the 30th, we’ll be ranked after NYD.
[/quote]What gets me about these various ratings is how we can have the same (or better) record than other teams who have a WORSE SOS than we do - and yet, they are ranked ahead of us. I see it all the time.
For example, in the current Sagarin ratings, we are the 5th highest team with 2 losses (all the teams have 9-11 wins). Our SOS is 62 (per Sagarin’s rating method - I know it’s better in RPi and some other places), and the other 4 two loss teams ranked ahead of us have SOS of 27,101, 95 and 300 (respectively, and in order from highest overall team ranking, to lowest).
The team that is 11-2 with a SOS of 27 - I get them being ranked higher. But the other 3?
And, again, you see this in RPI and other similar rating systems. I do know that each system also has other things that give “bonus” points, like having a good record against the Top 25 or 50 teams, etc. But in the Sagarin example above, our record vs. Top 25 is 1-1, 2-2 vs. Top 50. The “other guys” (in the same ranked order presented above) have Top 25/Top 50 records of (2-0, 4-1), (1-1, 2-1), (1-1, 3-2), and (0-1, 0-2). So, another team (Cincinnati) who is 10-2 (we are 9-2), has a SOS of 300 (to our 56), and is winless against the Top 50, while we are 2-2, with a 1-1 record vs. Top 25 . . . and yet, they are ranked ahead of us!
In the whole scheme of things, if we have a winning record in conference (especially this season, with the very strong non-conference record and RPI the SEC has compiled), we will present good metrics and have no trouble getting into the tournament with a seed that should be favorable (compared with other years). Still, it’s something I do notice.