FIBA's full ranking pages:

Men
Women

Australia is better than #10 lol

I know it's only one competition, but I think the Boomers categorically showed they are better than 10th in the world, at Rio.

I would have guessed they would be ahead of every nation from Argentina down, and possibly higher than that.

Does anyone know if this is calculated, or do bigwigs at FIBA just sit down over a few bottles of vino rosso and make it up?

6th is more realistic.

I think it is based on all international results, including age groups WC's, but I may well be wrong.

Please don't guess.

Use the resources that are available.

http://www.fiba.com/rankingcombined

How it works
The combined ranking takes into account the points of all categories (Men, Women, Boys, Girls) in the given cycle.

http://www.fiba.com/rankingmen - 10th at 21/8/16
http://www.fiba.com/rankingwomen - 4th at 20/8/16
http://www.fiba.com/rankingboys - 11th at 7/11/15
http://www.fiba.com/rankinggirls - 11th at 23/8/15
http://www.fiba.com/rankingcombined - 4th at 7/11/15

http://www.fiba.com/rankingmen#how_it_worksZone
http://www.fiba.com/rankingwomen#how_it_worksZone
http://www.fiba.com/rankingboys#how_it_worksZone
http://www.fiba.com/rankinggirls#how_it_worksZone

Men - How it works
1. Event selection and weight

FIBA World Championships5
Olympic Basketball Tournaments5
FIBA Africa Championships0.2
FIBA Americas Championships0.8
FIBA Asia Championships0.3
Eurobasket Championships1
FIBA Oceania Championships0.1

2. Competition Ranking Scoring System

Gold50
Silver40
Bronze30
415
514
613
712
811
910
109
118
127
136
145
154
163
172
18 etc...1

3. Cycle
The ranking is calculated within the scope of a 2 Olympic Games cycle (including qualifying competitions at FIBA Zone level). Here are the number of competitions that are taken into account:

FIBA World Championships2
Olympic Basketball Tournaments2
FIBA Africa Championships4
FIBA Americas Championships4
FIBA Asia Championships4
Eurobasket Championships4
FIBA Oceania Championships4

Whenever a new championship is played the oldest championship of that category drops out. The FIBA Ranking is then recalculated.

Seriously disadvantaged by being is Oceania and when we move to Asia it is not much better. The weightings are 0.1 & 0.3 respectively.

The Mens, Womens, Boys and Girls rankings all seem to be similar.

Conducted over a two Olympic cycle, so that is 4 Oceania championships and two Olympics for Men & Women.

For Boys and Girls conducted over a two Olympic cycle, so that is 4 Oceania championships and FOUR World Championships.

So it looks like we have to have sustained success and have to perform well at Olympics or World championships to receive or maintain a good ranking.

So winning Oceania is equivalent to coming 14th in Europe or 4th in Asia? So same points from the regionals as Turkey or Japan. Seems really fair.

As if TURKEY are better than us! Put some goofy shoes and red noses on FIBA because they are GODDAMN CLOWNS

The unfortunate reality is we are a strong basketball nation playing in an extremely weak zone (Oceania).

I think FIBA have it right though as Europe's weighting is 1 whereas the Americas is 0.8.

That gives some idea as to the relative strengths of the various regions.

The amount of people who don't understand how rankings systems work astounds me... Get your head out the gutter people...

So those lead in matches pre Olympics weren't considered at all in The rankings ?

I'm pretty sure soccer includes all 'friendlies' too

Fair or not you can't move the location of Australia, ( even though they tried to get into Eurovision) the fact is Australia IS part of Oceania, i too think FIBA have it right re the allocation of points for zones,BUT I think allowing games that are played out of competition to be counted would give a far better indication as to where countries actually rank.
It might also encourage BA to expose Aussie players to a higher standard across the board.

New Zealand got equivalent to 15th in Europe or same as Georgia, so if Turkey and Georgia were in a region on their own (or close enough) would they deserve to be on the same level as Oceania?

Doesn't really matter because the Oceania tournaments are merging with Asia so it should be more fair for us.

What are these rankings used for?

Are they actually important in any discernible way?

Glad to know my thoughts were correct. I guess I should thank anonymous for proving me correct - so I will. :) Great work anonymous XOXOX

Very Old you were sort of right. The combined ranking is based on Men's, Women's, Boys & Girls results.

The individual rankings, which the OP posted, are separate to the Men's and Women's results and don't include the boys or girls results.

Realise that (if you didn't know) weighting for these rankings is based on FIBA World Cup and Olympic performance (1 point) and continental championship performance. In Australia and NZ's case, Oceania is weighted at 0.1 of a point (by memory Eurobasket is weighted at 0.9). Even with the move to FIBA Asia the weighting increases only to 0.3. Friendlies and other tournaments (Asian games etc) don't count. Long story short, it's nigh on impossible for Australia and NZ to climb the world rankings because of the continental imbalance.

The regional champs don't make a lot of sense.
So the best team in the Americas (ie USA) gets less points than the best in Europe???
And nomatter how good Australia is, Oceania is worth squat? We're obviously better than any team in Asia or Africa...

But obviously the Olympics and World champs dominate.

Since these rankings go back 2 Olympics and 2 W/Cs, obviously they are not a "current" ranking. I don't know exactly what these are used for, but presumably the calculation suits their purpose.

Boomers is about right
Opals is right to after the last 4 years of results

Yeah, can't argue with the Opals after their recent results. Not much to rejoyce about.

We know the Boomers are better than 10th, but that's just the system trying to smooth out anomalies, which is fair enough. Just means that more "upset" wins are in store for the guys.

Hey guys, seriously, if we have the second top number of NBA players and can get them all fit and playing at world champs etc... just take a look at the odds they give us and place your bets, sit tight for the ride and reap the rewards.

We love the underdog, so does the rest of the world, all good as far as I am concerned, can't wait to see our best team on court!

New World Rankings:

1. Appliances
2. Travel
3. Honda

daylight, 3 decades

4. Coles

Boomers are only good if the NBA guys play even then take a real look at the NBA guys.

Maker - Avg and big strong EU teams will beat him down
Delly - Solid at Int level (Doesn;t score alot)
Mills - Our best scorer
Ingles - Suits Int style and very good at this level (Doesn;t score)
Simmons- Dude is legit...shooting against zone is the issue in Int ball

Bogut - Old and want to see him no injured
Exum - Want to see him not inured and on the floor hasn;t been good in NBA and never been a great scorer.

We have lots of role players in the NBA expect Simmons and they don;t really fit well together.

Mills is the only natural scorer and Simmons needs a jump shot if we want to medal.