As many of us have noted, pre-season polls and rankings have tended to be noticeably biased or "weighted" toward the P5 teams and the Big East since the inception of the P5/G5 and AAC in 2013.

--The pre-season polls have shown this tendency most evidently, because, typically, no more than 2 or 3 AAC/G4 teams have been included in most pre-season top 25 polls.

--The inaccuracy of the pre-season polls, in this respect, has been demonstrated year after year, by the fact that the pre-season polls have consistently underestimated the actual performance of AAC/G4 teams during each regular season.

----For example, the number of AAC and G4 teams in mid- and late-season polls has consistently exceeded their number in the pre-season polls.

This has been an important concern to AAC football and basketball fans throughout the life of the conference, because pre-season polls and rankings may well have contributed to what is referred as a "ceiling effect" that may have made it particularly difficult for AAC teams to be ranked in the national top 10, 15, or 20 teams.

--This may be exemplified in the FB top 25 polls, which have ranked the top G4 and AAC teams tightly together in the five bottom slots in the current top 25 (Cincy 20 through Navy 25), although SMU, Memphis, or Boise got near the top 15 for a week or two.

--To the extent that there is a "ceiling effect," this may well have had an adverse and continuing impact on the scheduling of televised game times, the amount of exposure allotted to AAC/G4 teams, the number of AAC/G4 slots allocated to top bowl games and mid-season tournaments, media payment allocations to the conferences, etc.

Moreover, the same type of bias appears to have affected the other ratings and rankings systems (Ken Pom, Sagarin, etc.) that include ratings by sports "experts," which vary so considerably that they are clearly affected to some extent on the criteria used and inter-individual variation, orientation, or at times, subliminal or subjective biases.

============================================

Thus, the question arises: Which of the ratings systems provides the most fair, accurate, and informative information for the 12 AAC basketball teams?

--weekly polls? (e.g., top 25, other opinion polls)

--weekly bracketologies? (top 68 teams or including next/last 8 teams)

--periodic expert ratings (Ken Pom or Sagarin or other expert ratings)

--computational/statistical rankings (NET, RPI)

-[/size][/b]-In your view, is the NET or RPI most accurate, or are both of interest?


In the attached poll, PLEASE VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE POLL OPTION IF you prefer more than one of the listed options.

The NET has been found to have some significant limitations (see linked article):

-Due to the imperfections of the NET formulae, the 2019 NCAA selection committee was compelled to rely on other ratings and rankings systems.

-The NET mathematical formulae are not transparent and have not been publicly released, unlike the fully transparent and widely disseminated RPI formulae.

-No outside investigative or validating organizations have been able to evaluate the way that statistical data are weighted and combined into NET ratings.



https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...ch-madness

I don't how 75% of those but too early to tell. Wait until conference starts.