
New FIBA World Rankings
It’s all too hard to judge down to absolute rankings when it all depends on who shows up for what tournament, and the different zones.
The USA proved to be just inside top 8 without their stars. But with their stars, they’re still beyond everyone else.
Cycling has a classification system for mountains. There are 5 categories of climbs. The Tour includes hors categorie (beyond classification) for a selection of climbs tougher than categorie 1. If a USA team includes their stars, they are really hors categorie, beyond classification by rankings. Without them, they can be brought right back to the pointy end of the field.

It’s not like tennis rankings or golf rankings, which are influenced by all tournaments played.
There are so many variables with player availability (we talk about A, B, C and even D teams) and the different strength of the zones. I take it as a fair guide, but you can always argue about a few rankings places here and there. The Boomers could be ranked 3-10th imho, and each number would be fair enough.

Anyone seen the list of European teams for the Olympic Qualifier tournament.
My god.
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Greece
Italy
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
Serbia
Slovenia
Turkey


Over 8 years
2011 - 2015 wasn't great
Plus we had the loss to Japan(would've dented our ranking )

Stacking up wins (with only one loss) in Asia from the cup and qualifiers, despite weightings, doesn't hurt either. Interesting fact about 20+ point wins rjd.

"It's over an eight year cycle so includes two 4ths plus our Asian title."
But the weightings reduce dramatically over that cycle, such that the most recent games are most influential. So games in the current year and prior year receives a full weighting of factor one, then the next two years are weighted by a factor of 0.75, then the next 2 years weighted 0.5, and the next two years 0.25. So we will see larger fluctuations in rankings now, especially in the World Cup year and the Olympic year.
Now every game that is used for rankings points, not the final placing in the tournament. Australia would've earned a lot of points in that 6-0 run to start the World Cup. France was also 6-2, but would've earned more for the bronze medal game win than Australia did for its win over France in the second round.
Since rankings are used to classify teams into pots for tournaments, every game matters. Teams earn more points when they win by 10-19 than 0-9. And even more if by 20+. So Australia should aim to always beat minnows by 20 or more, especially in major tournaments which have much higher weightings than Asian qualifiers.
http://www.fiba.basketball/documents/rankingmen/howitworks

Paul, that would be how it works but they changed the system where every match matters and so does the rank of the other team, if the match is home or away, the margin and what competition it is (Oceania matches are worth 70% of a EuroBasket match, since the change to the game by game format, Asian matches are worth 40%, back in the tournament format I think they were only worth 20% of EuroBasket), also matches from 6-7 years ago are worth 0.25 that of today's, to sum up it's stupidly complicated.

I'm just glad NZ has a respectable ranking again (24th) - being previously behind Korea, China and the Philippines in the world rankings made no sense.

Well France were 3rd beforehand and finished 3rd and dropped to 5th (I know it's game by game and who you play among other things now but still strange). I guess the time decay of the EuroBaskets between 4-8 years ago did a bit (France did pretty well at that level during that period).


Finish in 4th end up being 3rd in the world, makes sense. Anyway does this mean we're in Pot 1 with the US and Spain at the Olympics or does Japan get to avoid those teams, or a completely different system?


also called a kettle, 'black'
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2012/12/10/371794_sport.html
