So we finished 4th in Rio

How did we end up 11th?

Because FIBA designed the rankings system specifically to confuse you.

It's over an eight year cycle so includes two 4ths plus our Asian title.

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.

France lose their second place from 2011 Eurobasket in the rankings, Australia lose their first place at the Oceania Champs. The Eurobasket silver is worth way more ranking points, that's why the Aussies move past them.

"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

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.

Over 8 years

2011 - 2015 wasn't great

Plus we had the loss to Japan(would've dented our ranking )

In theory the higher our ranking the better the group we're in right?

"Paul, that would be how it works but they changed the system where every match matters"

If you think about the teams France beat on the way to Eurobasket silver in 2011 (including Turkey, Lithuania, Italy, Serbia, Greece and Russia), and how many games they won (9), compared to Australia beating NZ three times, the French had a lot more points to lose from that year.

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

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.

I think USA are number one, obviously, and after that there are five teams who are a little bit clear of the next bunch in recent times - Spain, Serbia, Australia, Argentina and France - while you could make a case that Lithuania could be in that bracket too despite some average results recently.

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.