Legit rankings without preseason ranking consideration

[TrollyMcTroller]

i dont trust any espn developed ranking system

Because you have some issue with the way in which they they've chosen to evaluate overall team strength, or are you just butthurt again because Syracuse isn't #1?

 

[john01992]

Because you have some issue with the way in which they they've chosen to evaluate overall team strength, or are you just butthurt again because Syracuse isn't #1?

cuz every ranking system espn comes up with always sucks ass. they are always trying to use "their" ranking system because they think they are the center of the sports world. even with RPI you can see just how different their rankings are


but anyways here are top 100 RPI wins for SU & zona

Arizona
Opponent ESPN Yahoo CBS Sports RealtimeRPI
Duke 36 30 29 30
SDSU 32 35 35 36
New Mexico St. 54 47 47 46
Michigan 93 75 75 75
UNLV 86 79 79 89
Drexel 89 88 87 92

Syracuse
Opponent ESPN Yahoo CBS Sports RealtimeRPI
Villanova 5 5 5 5
Baylor 14 10 10 10
Minnesota 26 29 28 27
Eastern Michigan 62 51 51 52
St. Johns 48 56 56 61
California 63 69 69 70
Indiana 75 89 90 96

its pretty obvious as to who has been more impressive so far (syracuse). and look at those 4 ranking systems espn is the least consistent

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

cuz every ranking system espn comes up with always sucks ass.

What other ranking systems has ESPN come up with? They have their "Power Rankings" which is just a handful of "experts" who rank the teams, similar to CBS's Top 25+1 and pretty much every other sprots outlet's Power Rankings.

they are always trying to use "their" ranking system because they think they are the center of the sports world.

Really? They don't show the BPI on their main Rankings page (only a link to it) and with the exceptin of Bilas I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention the BPI during a boradcast. They almost always reference the AP, occasionally the Coach's poll, sometimes the RPI, and that's about it.

even with RPI you can see just how different their rankings are

Actually the RPI is the statistical outlier. By a pretty wide margin. (which is no surprise as it is measuring something completely different than the rest)

but anyways here are top 100 RPI wins for SU & zona

Ahh... still obsessed with trying to prove Syracuse should be ranked ahead of Arizona I see... and failing miserably to do so.

its pretty obvious as to who has been more impressive so far (syracuse). and look at those 4 ranking systems espn is the least consistent

You didn't compare 4 rankings you halfwit, you compared the BPI to 3 versions of the same damn system. The RPI is a simple formula, and each site (CBS, Yahho, RealTime, ESPN, et al) uses the same formula. The only variations are due to when they update, and the occasional incorrect piece of data (sometime one site will list a game as home/away instead of neutral and CBS had the incorrect result for a Memphis game last season for the first 2/3 of the season... things like that)

So are you really this dumb, or are you trying to troll me? If you really are this dumb, just say so and I'll leave you alone.

 

[john01992]

What other ranking systems has ESPN come up with? They have their "Power Rankings" which is just a handful of "experts" who rank the teams, similar to CBS's Top 25+1 and pretty much every other sprots outlet's Power Rankings.



Really? They don't show the BPI on their main Rankings page (only a link to it) and with the exceptin of Bilas I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention the BPI during a boradcast. They almost always reference the AP, occasionally the Coach's poll, sometimes the RPI, and that's about it.



Actually the RPI is the statistical outlier. By a pretty wide margin. (which is no surprise as it is measuring something completely different than the rest)




Ahh... still obsessed with trying to prove Syracuse should be ranked ahead of Arizona I see... and failing miserably to do so.



You didn't compare 4 rankings you halfwit, you compared the BPI to 3 versions of the same damn system. The RPI is a simple formula, and each site (CBS, Yahho, RealTime, ESPN, et al) uses the same formula. The only variations are due to when they update, and the occasional incorrect piece of data (sometime one site will list a game as home/away instead of neutral and CBS had the incorrect result for a Memphis game last season for the first 2/3 of the season... things like that)

So are you really this dumb, or are you trying to troll me? If you really are this dumb, just say so and I'll leave you alone.

talk about dumb........

1. hey dimwit. espn has both RPI AND BPI rankings. I clearly used the RPI for ESPN. (all you gotta do is google it genius and thats their "daily" RPI list). NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings - ESPN <== as of this posting THAT is what espn says RPI is. they have sdsu higher than duke, baylor at 14, and IU about 15 spots higher than everyone else & mich about 15 spots lower than everyone else.
are you starting to see why i dont trust espn?

2. YOU mentioned zona/SU first and brought them into the conversation. so why blame me for talking about them? look in the mirror

3. espn has developed both QBR (the system that says aaron rodgers is worse than tebow) & BPI within the last few years. they are in fact trying to reinvent sports ranking systems because they think everyone should adapt to their ranking systems. my beef with espn is that they try to cram these ranking systems down our throats and act like they are flawless regardless of the feedback they get from them.

4. power rankings are polls not statistical ranking systems like bpi, rpi & qbr. i THOUGHT you were enough of a sports fan to know this.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

1. hey dimwit. espn has both RPI AND BPI rankings. I clearly used the RPI for ESPN. (all you gotta do is google it genius and thats their "daily" RPI list). NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings - ESPN <== as of this posting THAT is what espn says RPI is. they have sdsu higher than duke, baylor at 14, and IU about 15 spots higher than everyone else & mich about 15 spots lower than everyone else.
are you starting to see why i dont trust espn?

Ahhh... so instead of trying to address any fundamental flaws in the methodology of the BPI like I asked you, you went off on some irrelevant tangent about how their RPI stuff is off. My mistake, I thought you were actually trying to make a relevant point. Clearly I gave you too much credit once again.

2. YOU mentioned zona/SU first and brought them into the conversation. so why blame me for talking about them? look in the mirror

Yeah, I did bring it up, because I knew it was the reason you don't like the BPI. Thanks for confirming what everyone else already knew.

3. espn has developed both QBR (the system that says aaron rodgers is worse than tebow) & BPI within the last few years. they are in fact trying to reinvent sports ranking systems because they think everyone should adapt to their ranking systems. my beef with espn is that they try to cram these ranking systems down our throats and act like they are flawless regardless of the feedback they get from them.

The QBR doesn't say that Aaron Rogers is worse than Tebow. It doesn't make any comparisons between players at all. People do that, and really stupid ones do it between Aaron Rogers and Tim Tebow, and only the dumbest of the dumb, come to the conclusion that Rogers is worse than Tebow. Ignoring seasons when Rogers was a backup, his worst QBR (and NFL passer rating for that matter) is still better than Tebow's best so only some sort of mouth breathing, window licker could come to the conclusion that Tebow is better, or even suggest that the stats indicate such.

But I'm curious to know how you've come to the conclusion that they've crammed these stats down anyone's throat. I hear NFL Passer rating quoted much more often than QBR. I hardly ever see the BPI mentioned at all. I also would like to know what feedback you think they're ignoring.

4. power rankings are polls not statistical ranking systems like bpi, rpi & qbr. i THOUGHT you were enough of a sports fan to know this.

And I'm well aware of what a Power Ranking is. (perhaps you missed the part in my previous post where I explained what one is and why it wouldn't be relevant to the conversation)

Maybe you didn't notice where I quoted YOU in my response where YOU said "cuz every _______ ranking system espn comes up with always sucks ass." YOU didn't say anything about statistical ranking systems. You know how I know? Because that spot where the big space is, is where you DIDN'T say "statistical." YOU just said "rankings" which is what I addressed.

 

[jonvi]

A man's gotta know his limitation. Mine is ranking teams.

 

[john01992]

Yeah, I did bring it up, because I knew it was the reason you don't like the BPI. Thanks for confirming what everyone else already knew.

nah you just assumed that was why. I have been against BPI/QBR for quite some time & long before this season. when BPI first came out syracuse was 10-20 points lower in the BPI than the RPI in the first half of the regular season (when we went 18-1). however in the 2nd part of the regular season syracuse went 5-7 and actually jumped very high in the BPI and was at one point in the top 10. thats my biggest beef with BPI. I could never understand how a ranking system is legit when syracuse does its best in it when they are in their worst stretch of the season. it is totally useless when determining how good the teams are mid season. espn even admits this because they have said BPI is all about the tourny selection and it factors crap like "player injury" which kills any notion that this system can be used to judge teams based on week-week basis in the mid season.

then theres the whole margin of victory issue. margin of victory while it is something to factor when judging teams, putting it in a formula is stupid because every coach has a different style. some coaches opt to let their players eat clock, others play hard to the very end. fouling players at the end of the game inflates what the margin of victory in basketball. margin of victory is such a stupid concept to use in a formula that not even the BCS uses it.

player injury is something that should be an eyeball test thing, not statistical, same with margin of victory while we should use them to judge teams they are just two out of 10-20 different things that have major impacts of how good a team is other than RPI. i dont see why these two things should be considered extra special just because espn says so. who says how big of a factor missing players & margin of victory is should be the fans & the ncaa committee. basketball is a special sport where teams react differently to injury situations (ewing theory), margin of victory doesnt always give us an accurate portrayal of how close the game was. those two IMO can be just as important as team momentum, part of season, rivalry game, ranking at game time etc.

BPI uses "enhanced SOS information", but does not elaborate on that at all. they dont say what they use to factor SOS in this formula.

ESPN claims that BPI is not that different from RPI in determining tournament teams based on unpublished BPI stats from 2007-2011. ESPN claims that in those years BPI has a 74% success rate whereas RPI has a 72% success rate. a 2% difference means 1 extra team a year however last year (2013) RPI predicted 3 more teams than the BPI, the year before (2012) RPI predicted 2 more teams than BPI. this is where things get because ESPN claims that in all the unpublished years BPI > RPI however in the 2 years where BPI is available RPI beats it. which is hilarious because BPI is supposed to be designed with the purpose of predicting tourny teams.

then when you look at seeding the RPI is much better than the BPI. for example gtown last year was #16 in the BPI & Miami #12 in the BPI and yet both teams ended up with 2 seeds. florida was #2 in the BPI and ended up with a 3 seed. michigan was #8 in the BPI, and #21 in the RPI and ended up with a 4 seed.
<== it is starting to become obvious which ranking system the ncaa committee uses.

the RPI last year had all 1, 2, & 3 seeds in their top 13. (in other words they got just one team wrong and were as close to perfect as it gets without being perfect). meanwhile the BPI top 13 has just 9 of those seeds. plus theres the of 2 seed gtown at #16 and 3 seed MU at #20.

ESPN has an ego to themselves and they think that everyone has to conform to their ranking systems. they developed BPI & QBR to act as a replacement for passer rating & RPI not as something to compliment them. they pushed really hard when these two systems first came out to use them as their main ranking systems. they have obviously scaled back on that since then because they got a lot of backlash for it.

but lemme guess......my beef with BPI has only to do with arizona being higher than SU in that ranking and nothing else according to you dimwits

as for SU/zona. SU has a convincing win over #9 & total domination of #11. zona has convincing win over #7 & had a somewhat close game with #21. SU crushes zona in RPI & SOS ==> I think its pretty obvious as to who is better. zona fans can hold on to their crap BPI if it makes them feel better ==> but the real CBB fans know the truth.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Ahhhh... so your problem with the BPI is that it takes into account things that you think should be considered (MoV, injuries) you just don't think the BPI should account for them.

It accounts for too many things that should be accounted for.

And you don't like the QBR because you think it said that Tim Tebow was better than Aaron Rogers.

And ESPN publishes numbers and then rarely mentions them, and somehow you think that means that ESPN is trying to force them upon everyone? Interesting.

BTW, it isn't unusual for teams to lose games and still move up in the RPI. That isn't an anomaly unique to the BPI.

 

[jonvi]

I believe that no matter what ranking system you use, it becomes more accurate as the year wears on. Which then leads me to not care about them in Dec, Jan and Feb. For me, how teams match up is more important then the number of losses. And losses are how teams are moved up or down when ranking.

The reason is the human factor...players/teams can get hot and shoot a high percentage. On a given night, any of the top 25 can beat a top 5 team. But they can't do that every or even most games. Just because SU beats Nova or vice versa, it doesn't change the fact that as a team, SU is playing very well right now. If Nova had won that game, I would still be ok with SU because as long as Ennis and Cooney are not injured and playing well, the team will win most of their games. Just because Nova may have won that game, SU would still be a top 5 team in my opinion.

Coach Boeheim on the RPI....

When discussing his team’s strength of schedule after its 70-48 win over Eastern Michigan on Tuesday, Syracuse head coach Jim Boeheim veered his thoughts toward his distaste for the NCAA’s Ratings Percentage Index.

“It’s math people playing with numbers that don’t know anything about the game of basketball,” Boeheim said. “That’s what the RPI boils down to.”

“The other day before we played Villanova we were 15th in the RPI,” Boeheim said. “We played Villanova at home which you’re supposed to win even though it’s a tough game, we win that game and we go to one. We jumped 14 places? That doesn’t make any sense. The whole thing doesn’t make sense.”

Coach JB doesn't like rankings either.

 

[john01992]

Ahhhh... so your problem with the BPI is that it takes into account things that you think should be considered (MoV, injuries) you just don't think the BPI should account for them.

It accounts for too many things that should be accounted for.

And you don't like the QBR because you think it said that Tim Tebow was better than Aaron Rogers.

And ESPN publishes numbers and then rarely mentions them, and somehow you think that means that ESPN is trying to force them upon everyone? Interesting.

BTW, it isn't unusual for teams to lose games and still move up in the RPI. That isn't an anomaly unique to the BPI.

jeez you are dumb. after my total beatdown of you on the RPI issue and you pull the same bullshit with QBR. the tebow-rodgers controversy is just an example i cited. it was a game between the two where tebow had a total of 4 completions and rodgers 26. yet the QBR ranked tebow over rodgers for that one game & rodgers blasted the ranking when he heard about it in a post game interview.

the reason why i dont like QBR is because it doesnt factor in yards after the catch. for example if a QB on a play throws the ball 20 yards downfield to receiver X who gets immediately tackled, or on the same play the QB has the option to throw to receiver Y who is 15 yards down field wide-open and once he catches the ball he runs for another 20 yards because he is so open. a great QB like brady/manning would throw to receiver Y but QBR says receiver X is better. and in particular ESPN fashion they dont publish their formula and give little insight on how the process works.

ESPN in the past has had writers/anchors devote entire pieces where their opinion about a team/player is based entirely on their BPI/QBR. yes the have cut down on it but only because the fans hate it. these two systems have been a total failure and even espn knows it.

your reading comprehension sucks dude. my whole argument is that you simply cant incorporate stuff like injuries into a mathematical formula. as usual you come up with some BS line that is nothing close to what i said.

oh i love how you totally ignored my point about how terrible BPI's performance is in the ncaa tourny selection despite BPI being designed to do just that.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

jeez you are dumb. after my total beatdown of you on the RPI issue and you pull the same bullshit with QBR. the tebow-rodgers controversy is just an example i cited. it was a game between the two where tebow had a total of 4 completions and rodgers 26. yet the QBR ranked tebow over rodgers for that one game & rodgers blasted the ranking when he heard about it in a post game interview.

Ahhh... so because of a statistical anomaly, you think the whole thing is worthless?

The RPI currently has UMass at #3. You think UMass is 1 Seed right now? Or is this one of these things where you've arbitrarily decided what anomalies are ok, and which ones aren't?

the reason why i dont like QBR is because it doesnt factor in yards after the catch. for example if a QB on a play throws the ball 20 yards downfield to receiver X who gets immediately tackled, or on the same play the QB has the option to throw to receiver Y who is 15 yards down field wide-open and once he catches the ball he runs for another 20 yards because he is so open. a great QB like brady/manning would throw to receiver Y but QBR says receiver X is better. and in particular ESPN fashion they dont publish their formula and give little insight on how the process works.

So is that the reason that in a single game, Tebow rated better than Rogers? YAC Yards? So if it included YAC yards, you'd be okay with it?

ESPN in the past has had writers/anchors devote entire pieces where their opinion about a team/player is based entirely on their BPI/QBR. yes the have cut down on it but only because the fans hate it. these two systems have been a total failure and even espn knows it.

Sounds to me like you watch too much SportsCenter and not enough actual games.

your reading comprehension sucks dude. my whole argument is that you simply cant incorporate stuff like injuries into a mathematical formula. as usual you come up with some BS line that is nothing close to what i said.

Well, I think the problem here is that you can't do it. ESPN seems to have done it just fine.

oh i love how you totally ignored my point about how terrible BPI's performance is in the ncaa tourny selection despite BPI being designed to do just that.

I couldn't care less about the BPI's performance for picking teams in the tournament. Looking at tournament teams in December is utterly pointless, and I could train a monkey to do it on Selection Sunday. I don't need a damn formula to figure it out for me.

The RPI is what is primarily used by the selection committee for team selection and seeding. It's no big surprise that the primary tool used by the committee turns out to be the most accurate.

 

[jonvi]

Ahhh... so because of a statistical anomaly, you think the whole thing is worthless?

The RPI currently has UMass at #3. You think UMass is 1 Seed right now? Or is this one of these things where you've arbitrarily decided what anomalies are ok, and which ones aren't?



So is that the reason that in a single game, Tebow rated better than Rogers? YAC Yards? So if it included YAC yards, you'd be okay with it?



Sounds to me like you watch too much SportsCenter and not enough actual games.



Well, I think the problem here is that you can't do it. ESPN seems to have done it just fine.



I couldn't care less about the BPI's performance for picking teams in the tournament. Looking at tournament teams in December is utterly pointless, and I could train a monkey to do it on Selection Sunday. I don't need a damn formula to figure it out for me.

The RPI is what is primarily used by the selection committee for team selection and seeding. It's no big surprise that the primary tool used by the committee turns out to be the most accurate.

As far as I'm concerned, the system used by the selection committee works. If a team had a good season, is peaking in March, and has the athletes to perform, they will work up through the brackets from anywhere. With how lucky or unlucky a team can get, no system will ever predict who will win. But there is no doubt March Madness offers the very best event for awarding an NC.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Not to get the argument fired up again, but I just like BPI. I think that the factors that it accounts for that the RPI and others omit are more accurate, overall. I think that if a player is injured, or a more comprehensive SOS than just the opponents', etc., lead to a better depiction of who is better. I'm not saying it just because AZ is number one in it. I like it because it doesn't account for rankings (that's why it takes a while for them to post it; so that there are enough games to gain an accurate sense), and that it is basically the best of all worlds. I just cannot see how including more information to understand which team is more likely to be better is in any way a bad thing. As long as it is objective (doesn't include rankings), and as expansive as possible, I think the most inclusive of general statistical analysis, the better. I have always like the BPI. And from what I understand, they basically asked the committee what their criteria is for seeding and selection, and based the BPI on it. So it goes further than the RPI, and is more aligned with the factors considered by the committee. And besides, the BPI is more accurate than any other system in picking winners in the tourney, so you can't argue with that.

 

[john01992]

trolly- BPI has ISU 3rd & pitt 11th ==> it works both ways. both systems have a few outliers.

BPI is a dumb method. according to BPI arizona beating lil old new mexico st. (99.0) counts the same as syracuse beating a top 10 villanova (99.5)

oh and lemme just repeat ==> a ranking system called BPI designed specifically around predicting tournament teams in the two seasons that it has existed got crushed by RPI in tournament prediction.

and thats really all you need to know...........

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

trolly- BPI has ISU 3rd & pitt 11th ==> it works both ways. both systems have a few outliers.

I have no problem with outliers. You're the one that keeps pointing to them as if a few puzzling datapoints mean the whole system is invalid.

BPI is a dumb method. according to BPI arizona beating lil old new mexico st. (99.0) counts the same as syracuse beating a top 10 villanova (99.5)

Sigh. The RPI has the exact same problem.
Villanova @ Syracuse: 0.6816 * 0.6 = 0.40896
Arizona @ SDSU: 0.6081 * 1.4 = 0.85134

HOLY SHIT BALLS IT'S WORTH TWICE AS MUCH IN THE RPI!!!!11!!!1!

(RPI numbers approximated, because you're not worth the effort to manually calculate SDSU & Nova's OWP & OOWP and the point is the games are weighted because of location)

oh and lemme just repeat ==> a ranking system called BPI designed specifically around predicting tournament teams in the two seasons that it has existed got crushed by RPI in tournament prediction.

And let me repeat. I'm not surprised in the least that the tool used by the selection committee in March is more accurate at predicting the selection committee in March than a tool not used by the selection committee in March. And I couldn't care less.

and thats really all you need to know...........

Actually, that's not all I need to know. I also need to know if you'd be okay with the QBR if it included YAC yards. Let me remind you...

the reason why i dont like QBR is because it doesnt factor in yards after the catch.

 

[CatsTopPac]

According to both RPI and BPI, NMSU is not a bad team. They are actually ranked better in RPI. And AZ's worst performance was the 100-50 win against FDU, because even though we crushed them, we should have beaten them by more. So it can work against a team also. It goes both ways.

The point is, BPI takes more into consideration, and so it stands to be more accurate. And go back and look at it: the BPI was MUCH more accurate in picking last year's winner than the RPI. Not even close.

BPI:

Ville #1
Mich #8
Cuse #11
WSU #24

RPI:

Ville #3
Cuse #13
Mich #17
WSU #38

 

[john01992]

According to both RPI and BPI, NMSU is not a bad team. They are actually ranked better in RPI. And AZ's worst performance was the 100-50 win against FDU, because even though we crushed them, we should have beaten them by more. So it can work against a team also. It goes both ways.

The point is, BPI takes more into consideration, and so it stands to be more accurate. And go back and look at it: the BPI was MUCH more accurate in picking last year's winner than the RPI. Not even close.

BPI:

Ville #1
Mich #8
Cuse #11
WSU #24

RPI:

Ville #3
Cuse #13
Mich #17
WSU #38

you can say "well it takes MUCH MORE into consideration" ==> but that amounts to nothing but crap when what it is taking into consideration are things that have no business being used in a statistical formula. using player injury in a mathematical formula is about as stupid as it gets.

your point is not legitimate because BPI uses only a couple of extra stats, if it used a lot more stuff your point would be legitimate but it doesnt. a good formula needs to use either very little information (like RPI) or tons of information to work. BPI is somewhere in the middle between the two.

I use RPI just for body of work, using it to predict actual tournament success is just stupid because basketball wins are a combination of luck, team matchups, momentum, & team strength. I personally dont think any system can accurately predict a tournament like that.


^^^^
those numbers that you posted prove just how incapable both RPI & BPI are at predicting tourny success.

 

[john01992]

trolly.....

why are you so stupid?

sdsu was an away game for zona while villanova was a home game for SU. comparing them in the formula's and saying "look the problem exists here too" is total horseshit because they factor home/away.

beating #19 on the road vs beating #14 at home. a 12-1 vs an 11-1 ==> trying to argue that the RPI is totally wrong on that is a big stretch. controversial? maybe. but clearly wrong to the point where no one can defend it? Nope.

new mexico state & nova were both HOME games for SU & zona. zona is 12-1, NMSU is 11-5. and yet BPI counts them as having near identical value. <== I am smart enough to compare the same type of games with teams that are clearly on different levels of competition to point out a problem. You are too stupid to do that.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

your point is not legitimate because BPI uses only a couple of extra stats, if it used a lot more stuff your point would be legitimate but it doesnt. a good formula needs to use either very little information (like RPI) or tons of information to work. BPI is somewhere in the middle between the two.

And your basis for that is what, exactly? Your vast expertise in statistical analysis? Can you quote a source on that?

I use RPI just for body of work, using it to predict actual tournament success is just stupid because basketball wins are a combination of luck, team matchups, momentum, & team strength. I personally dont think any system can accurately predict a tournament like that.

Well, you're at least partly right for a change. Basketball has too much variance to be able to predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any given game, let alone an entire 67 game tournament. That being said, systems can predict outcomes with varying degrees of accuracy, and it is pretty clear that the BPI is more accurate than the RPI.

Oh, and I'm still curious to know if you'd be okay with the QBR if it included YAC yards. Let me remind you...

the reason why i dont like QBR is because it doesnt factor in yards after the catch.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Using player injury to devalue a win is not stupid. If key players are out and the better team loses, and then the players come back: that should be factored in...obviously. That's common sense, and RPI doesn't account for that. And BPI considers more that RPI, Sagarin, or Kenpom. It's the most comprehensive system there is. And of course nothing is going to can predict it accurately, but it did a much better job than RPI (up to and including the winner in both years, and all of the Final Four from 2012 was in the top 15). RPI hasn't picked the winner in either year, and the Final Four from 2012 was spread out all the way to #24.