Preseason College Basketball Rankings: A Tale of Two Systems

College basketball is returning, and with it, ‘CBB With Danny Z’ makes its comeback. While some fans eagerly anticipate the start of the season, others might not notice until the tournaments in spring.

Last season, a series was initiated comparing the preseason AP Top 25 with the KenPom rankings. It tracked how these disagreements evolved by revisiting the analysis in December, January, and March.

Vanderbilt Surprises and Missteps with Baylor

KenPom accurately ranked Vanderbilt 19th in the preseason compared to the AP’s 36th. Vanderbilt excelled, finishing 27-9 and winning a game in the NCAA Tournament. On the contrary, KenPom’s preseason ranking of Baylor at 17th didn’t hold as the Bears finished 17-17 and missed the tournament.

St. John’s and Creighton: Lessons Learned

St. John’s illustrates why it’s crucial not to declare a winner too early. They began with a 4-3 record, making KenPom’s ranking of 16th seem wise. However, they rallied to finish as a No. 5 seed in the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Creighton was overrated by AP voters, who ranked them 23rd, while KenPom put them at 41st. Creighton concluded the season at 16-18 and missed the NCAA Tournament.

New Entrants into the Rankings Comparison

This year introduces an expanded comparison. Alongside KenPom, TeamRankings’ predictive ratings, and the Coaches Poll are now part of the analysis. The analysis examines both agreements and disagreements among these rankings to assess which is more accurate over the season.

Kansas and Iowa State Garner Computer Confidence

Kansas is 17th in the AP Poll and tied for 18th in the Coaches Poll, but the analytics show more faith, placing them at fifth with KenPom and sixth at TeamRankings.

Iowa State, a No. 2 seed last tournament, appears 18th in the AP Poll, with KenPom ranking them sixth and TeamRankings 11th. The Cyclones’ projected strong defense by KenPom provides optimism.

Mixed Opinions on Alabama and Houston

Alabama and Houston present further disparities. The former ranks higher in analytics models than in human polls. KenPom places Alabama at ninth due to a projected powerful offense.

Houston is ranked seventh by TeamRankings and even higher at third by KenPom, citing their strong defense, while human polls rate them lower.

Human Poll Fans: Tennessee and USC

Voters favor USC and Tennessee over analytics rankings. The Trojans appear within the top 25 in human polls, yet they fall outside the top 35 in analytics.

Tennessee, rated eighth by the AP Poll, saw KenPom mark them lower at 22nd. This is a reversal from last year when analytics favored them more than voters.

BYU and St. John’s: Ranking Differences

BYU rounds out the human polls at 25th but falls outside the top 25 in analytics, hinting human voters value them more highly.

St. John’s mirrors this theme with a higher ranking from the AP voters compared to analytics. Last year, they faced a similar discrepancy in preseason evaluations.

Focus on Analytics: Nebraska and Ohio State

Nebraska’s performance last year was surprising as they improved significantly over the season. Currently, analytics place them prominently at 15th and 22nd, unlike voters who have them outside the top 25.

Ohio State is unranked in both human polls, yet KenPom sees potential by ranking them 18th, showing the variations that exist within analytic interpretations.

Vanderbilt and UConn: Preseason Divisions

Vanderbilt finds recognition in KenPom ranking them 12th, contrasting with human polls who hold them in the 20s. UConn, favored in human polls for their recent success, falls to 11th in KenPom.

Analytics diverge for Louisville as well, indicating smaller disparities between models and human rankings.

The season’s progress will reveal which ranking system proves more accurate in forecasting team performances. Insights gained from comparing human and computer predictions will add depth to college basketball analyses.