I have combined them with T-Rank to create Tran-Pom. Here is the Tran-Pom top 100.
When Dan Hanner comes out with his ratings in SI on 11/4, I will create the final composite, which will be used as the initial basis for the T-Power ratings - Kenpom-style adjusted efficiency ratings.
You might ask: Kenpom already mastered efficiency ratings for college basketball, why waste your time?
There is no answer. I need help.
Help.
Anyhow, the Tran-Pom 100:
T-Pom | Team | TRANK | Kenpom | Diff |
1 | Louisville | 1 | 3 | 2 |
2 | Kansas | 2 | 4 | 2 |
3 | Duke | 6 | 1 | 5 |
4 | Kentucky | 7 | 2 | 5 |
5 | Arizona | 3 | 5 | 2 |
6 | Wisconsin | 4 | 6 | 2 |
7 | Florida | 11 | 7 | 4 |
8 | Virginia | 10 | 8 | 2 |
9 | Gonzaga | 5 | 18 | 13 |
10 | Michigan St. | 9 | 12 | 3 |
11 | Wichita St. | 12 | 10 | 2 |
12 | North Carolina | 8 | 20 | 12 |
13 | Villanova | 18 | 9 | 9 |
14 | Michigan | 15 | 15 | 0 |
15 | Ohio St. | 17 | 14 | 3 |
16 | Pittsburgh | 14 | 23 | 9 |
17 | Iowa St. | 13 | 25 | 12 |
18 | VCU | 21 | 17 | 4 |
19 | Texas | 19 | 19 | 0 |
20 | Syracuse | 24 | 11 | 13 |
21 | Oklahoma | 16 | 28 | 12 |
22 | Kansas St. | 20 | 31 | 11 |
23 | SMU | 23 | 36 | 13 |
24 | Connecticut | 40 | 16 | 24 |
25 | Iowa | 28 | 32 | 4 |
26 | UCLA | 45 | 13 | 32 |
27 | Baylor | 34 | 24 | 10 |
28 | San Diego St. | 32 | 29 | 3 |
29 | Minnesota | 27 | 37 | 10 |
30 | Indiana | 36 | 26 | 10 |
31 | Illinois | 31 | 38 | 7 |
32 | Utah | 25 | 42 | 17 |
33 | Oklahoma St. | 52 | 21 | 31 |
34 | Georgetown | 51 | 22 | 29 |
35 | Nebraska | 39 | 34 | 5 |
36 | Memphis | 44 | 27 | 17 |
37 | Mississippi | 22 | 88 | 66 |
38 | Harvard | 49 | 30 | 19 |
39 | Alabama | 29 | 58 | 29 |
40 | Colorado | 26 | 63 | 37 |
41 | BYU | 37 | 43 | 6 |
42 | North Carolina St. | 33 | 60 | 27 |
43 | Northern Iowa | 30 | 70 | 40 |
44 | Florida St. | 47 | 41 | 6 |
45 | Creighton | 42 | 47 | 5 |
46 | Notre Dame | 35 | 69 | 34 |
47 | Maryland | 71 | 33 | 38 |
48 | West Virginia | 43 | 55 | 12 |
49 | Stanford | 48 | 54 | 6 |
50 | Miami FL | 46 | 57 | 11 |
51 | Butler | 38 | 67 | 29 |
52 | Arkansas | 62 | 44 | 18 |
53 | Purdue | 69 | 40 | 29 |
54 | Cincinnati | 60 | 46 | 14 |
55 | Dayton | 58 | 50 | 8 |
56 | New Mexico | 63 | 52 | 11 |
57 | Washington | 56 | 59 | 3 |
58 | Tennessee | 57 | 61 | 4 |
59 | Richmond | 72 | 51 | 21 |
60 | Georgia | 80 | 48 | 32 |
61 | Oregon | 101 | 35 | 66 |
62 | Louisiana Tech | 81 | 49 | 32 |
63 | Tulsa | 85 | 45 | 40 |
64 | St. John's | 97 | 39 | 58 |
65 | California | 55 | 72 | 17 |
66 | Saint Mary's | 53 | 80 | 27 |
67 | George Washington | 76 | 62 | 14 |
68 | Green Bay | 61 | 76 | 15 |
69 | Boise St. | 74 | 64 | 10 |
70 | Georgia St. | 73 | 65 | 8 |
71 | Murray St. | 50 | 94 | 44 |
72 | LSU | 64 | 73 | 9 |
73 | Xavier | 78 | 66 | 12 |
74 | Penn St. | 98 | 56 | 42 |
75 | Massachusetts | 83 | 74 | 9 |
76 | New Mexico St. | 82 | 79 | 3 |
77 | Stephen F. Austin | 59 | 97 | 38 |
78 | Clemson | 88 | 75 | 13 |
79 | Iona | 90 | 71 | 19 |
80 | Colorado St. | 66 | 93 | 27 |
81 | Marquette | 79 | 86 | 7 |
82 | Saint Louis | 87 | 81 | 6 |
83 | Texas A&M | 96 | 68 | 28 |
84 | UTEP | 95 | 78 | 17 |
85 | Columbia | 41 | 135 | 94 |
86 | UNLV | 93 | 82 | 11 |
87 | Seton Hall | 92 | 85 | 7 |
88 | UC Irvine | 54 | 118 | 64 |
89 | La Salle | 70 | 101 | 31 |
90 | South Carolina | 94 | 87 | 7 |
91 | Providence | 121 | 53 | 68 |
92 | Belmont | 68 | 106 | 38 |
93 | Denver | 65 | 113 | 48 |
94 | Rhode Island | 86 | 105 | 19 |
95 | Toledo | 77 | 120 | 43 |
96 | Wyoming | 100 | 99 | 1 |
97 | Saint Joseph's | 107 | 90 | 17 |
98 | Boston College | 75 | 134 | 59 |
99 | Fresno St. | 91 | 114 | 23 |
100 | Arizona St. | 119 | 84 | 35 |
Tran-Pom sounds like a fictional beverage consumed on a Cinemax collaboration between Alan Ball and Jill Soloway. It also sounds delicious. Beyond that, it's a beautiful exercise in futility. Also, why are you riding the Columbia bandwagon so hard? Beat Generation bias?
ReplyDeleteYeah, T-Rank likes Columbia. They return 100% of their minutes from a team that got a lot of minutes from Sophs. and a Frosh who were decent, and T-Rank expects to improve. Also, they return 11 guys who played at least 10% of their minutes last year, which is unusual. T-Rank totally ignores returning players who played less than 10% of minutes (really just for data collection reasons, though this won't be necessary next year) and the four Columbia players who played between 12-17% of their minutes last year give them an unusual bump. Take that bump away and they drop to 59th.
DeleteIf you read Kenpom's post about his preseason ratings, he factors in conference strength (or "gravity"), which T-Rank does not - probably a good idea that I'll look into for next year.
But this is also a reason why I like Tran-Pom: there is reason to be skeptical about Columbia, but also reason to be pretty optimistic. Are they an NCAA at-large, at #41? No. But the Kenpom rating is on the low side. Overall, I think a rating in the 80s for them is pretty reasonable.
DeleteOne more comment on Columbia ...
DeleteThey were 21-13 last year, and finished #123 in the kenpom ratings, yet Kenpom projects them to finish lower this year, despite returning every player from that young team. Seems unlikely!