The AP Top 25. The USAToday Coaches Poll. The Sagarin. The RPI. Seemingly everywhere a college hoops fan turns, there’s a ranking system purporting to identify the best in the game. Well, UDPride has decided to join the crowd and throw our hat in the ring.

So why have we decided to join the fray? Well, in some perverted fashion it seemed like it might be fun. And honestly, it isn’t quite as much work as it seems. But mostly, we’ve decided to publish our own ranking system because of some level of dissatisfaction with the most popular system. So we have decided if we can do better, and remove some of the flaws.

What do we see wrong with the various systems? In some cases it is obvious. Both of the polls – the AP Top 25 and the ESPN/Coaches Top 25 are little more than popularity contests. Writers rarely see more than their hometown team and subsequent opponents on the schedule. With deadlines and the like they probably don’t see half of the teams they vote for each week. And while on the surface it would seem the coaches should be more informed because they are involved in the game every day — if truth be known — they are quite possibly less informed than the sports writers. Coaches are concerned first and foremost with their own team. Scouting opponents, developing game plans, practices, and recruiting leave very little time to wonder whether Gonzaga or Ball State deserve the 25th and final spot on their ballot, especially if those teams are not on their schedule or that of their opponents. As a result, both polls tend to be popularity contests. Teams starting the year outside the rankings, like Butler, require an exceptional run just to crack the polls.

Jeff Sagarin, a mathematician, created his own proprietary ranking system years ago. The drawback to the Sagarin system is that no one really understands exactly how the system works. Using game outcomes and location of the games, Sagarin employs a mathematical model to “link” all Division 1 teams, and determine that Butler should beat Gonzaga by 7 in Indianapolis, but lose to the Zags by 3 in Spokane. If there’s a bone to pick with the Sagarin system, it is a heavy reliance on game scores. Frankly, the final score all too often does not indicate the competitiveness of the game. Late treys or missed free throws can turn a 12-point game into a 6-point margin, while missed treys late in the contest and made free throws can turn that same 12-point game into a 20-point victory. Of course, over a full season these factors tend to cancel each other out, which is why the Sagarin system is probably the most fundamentally sound and accurate.

We have two major beefs with the RPI. First, the system overstates the importance of playing teams with high winning percentage. This has led teams to play the “RPI game”. That is, schedule a bunch of home games against inferior competition — preferably against overmatched teams that will do well in their conference seasons — in order to enter conference play with a great record. In other words, play 8-3 Central Connecticut, not 5-4 Indiana. In doing so, your team’s winning percentage is likely to be higher, as is that of your opponents. Those two factors comprise 75% of the RPI and because your opponents’ opponents will play approximately 900 games, there is little variability in the third factor anyway. The RPI game is particularly beneficial if fellow conference members play it with you. After all, your RPI will look better playing teams with good records built against teams like Central Connecticut rather than playing teams with .500 records built against Temple’s schedule.

Which brings us to our second beef with the RPI. Where the game is played is irrelevant. This is particularly troublesome because the teams outside the Elite 6 conferences have an extremely hard time getting home games against those perceived power conferences, yet they need wins against one or two of those teams to build a resume for an NCAA at-large bid. As a result, those games are likely to be played on the road or at a neutral site. The system not only fails to recognize that Central Connecticut is a far inferior opponent than Indiana, the system also fails to consider that you are playing Indiana in Bloomington, but Central Connecticut at home.

The beauty of the RPI is that it is easy to understand and replicate, and our UDPride Power Rankings will try to retain that beauty. Like the RPI, our system will rely on your winning percentage and that of your opponents, but we hope to tweak the system to correct the perceived flaws in other rankings. First, we will drop the third factor (the winning percentage of the teams you opponents have played). Your winning percentage will count for 38% of the ratings, and your opponent’s winning percentage for 62%. Relying on that factor to determine that Central Connecticut isn’t as good as Indiana just doesn’t get the job done. Instead, we will apply a weighting factor to the opponent’s winning percentage. Games scheduled against teams from the Elite 6 conferences will receive a bonus factor, teams against the mid-major conferences will be included at par, and those against the low-major conferences will receive a penalty. And finally, we will apply similar bonus points to away games and penalties to home games so beating Indiana in Bloomington will carry far more impact than beating Central Connecticut at home.

Look for the first of our weekly rankings to appear just before the start of conference play on January 5. If you have any comments on how we could tweak the rating system to make it better, drop us a note. We’ll work at improving the system over the course of the year.