With four teams left in the NCAA tournament, I think now is as appropriate a time as any to revisit preseason predictions.

In doing so, I came across the preseason rankings and got to thinking — why do we have preseason rankings in the first place?

Why is probably the wrong question, however, because it is easy to answer. People love lists. They love numbers. They are easy to understand, easy to order. When I don’t know what to a write a column about, I make a list.

There is a problem with preseason rankings though, even though people look forward to them. Preseason rankings aren’t grounded in much of anything concrete, only last year’s results, players lost to the pros and graduation, and expectations for recruits (which are often far off). Consequently, the rankings often impact teams’ public perceptions. That last part is worst in football, where if a team is ranked No. 1 in the preseason, it will go to the National Championship Game if it doesn’t lose; even if two other teams don’t lose and are better than that No. 1, numero uno is going to the title game.

I’ve never been shy about voicing my dislike for rankings. Preseason rankings, though, are the worst. You simply cannot place values on groups of players that have not played a single game together. Let’s take a look at some of this year’s preseason rankings.

No. 2 Michigan State: went 19-15, 9-9 in the Big Ten. The Spartans squeaked into the NCAA tournament as a No. 10 seed and promptly lost to UCLA. Sure, they lost a few players over the course of the season, but this was not the second best team in the nation at any point in the year.

No. 3 Kansas State: went 23-11, 10-6 in the Big 12. The Wildcats needed a late-season run to guarantee a berth in the NCAA tournament. They were a No. 5 seed and lost in the second round.

No. 6 Villanova: went 21-12, 9-9 in the Big East. The Wildcats lost their last six games of the season and 11 of the last 15, including a first round exit as a No. 9 seed against George Mason.

No. 12 Gonzaga: went 25-10, 11-3 in the WAC. The Bulldogs likely would have missed the NCAA tournament altogether had they not won the WAC tournament title.

No. 14 Baylor and No. 23 Virginia Tech: went 18-13, 7-9 in the Big 12 and 22-12, 9-7 in the ACC, respectively. Both of these teams missed the NCAA tournament. Sure, the Hokies can say they were snubbed, but neither team deserved its preseason ranking.

Meanwhile, two of this year’s Final Four teams, including the highest seed remaining (Connecticut), weren’t ranked and didn’t even receive a single vote in the preseason rankings. Virginia Commonwealth is the other team that didn’t receive a single vote.

Do I think rankings affect the NCAA tournament field? Probably not. Virginia Commonwealth didn’t receive a single vote in the last rankings of the year either, neither did USC, and Alabama-Birmingham only received four votes. Yet all three got controversial bids to the NCAA tournament. Tournament snubs St. Mary’s, Boston College and Harvard did get votes in that last poll (11, three and one respectively).

A team like Utah State, on the other hand, only lost two games all season, but had absolutely zero preseason hype and only received a No. 12 seed, indicating the Aggies may not have made the tournament had they not won their conference tournament.

Maybe the preseason rankings don’t do a ton of damage (at least in basketball), or maybe they do, but it really is astonishing how off base they are. Which brings me back to my original question: are they really necessary?

 

Daniel forgot to tell you that these rules only apply when Kansas isn’t ranked No. 1. Send him your favorite VCU joke at bohmd “at” stanford.edu