Kerk didn’t have enough matches to get ranked the first time. My guess is some coaches didn’t rank him again because they only modified their first set and didn’t add anyone that got enough matches because they don’t hardly look at them. So Cass had an average from some rank 3s and some rank 2s. Where Kerk had an average from some rank 2s and some NRs.
If what you postulate is correct so much for credibility of these rankings.
I wish they were meaningless. Don’t these rankings have some sway over seeding criteria at NCAA’s or did I dream that?
I don’t recall any recent huge gaffes at D-1 seeding with any obvious over sites, but unless you closely follow the sport, you won’t know who the top guys are. Somehow Big Ton has a loss to Kerk and is ranked 9th. He beat Davidson head to head and is somehow ranked several spots behind him. Schultz has a number of losses but is ranked 4th. No rhyme or reason, it looks like they just randomly pulled names out of a hat.
I don't know for sure, but the NCAA seeds recently have been pretty decent other than a few outliers. If it does, I doubt it is more than 15% of the overall formula to seed them.
You were looking at the RPI. Scroll up. There’s two sets of rankings on that document. The first set is coaches rankings the second set is RPI.
There's another that comes out prior to conference tournaments that determines slot allocations.
Take a look at the link you provided on page 13 of 16, Comparison Examples.
