Stability is nice but not at the expense of on court proof. That ranking has undefeated Texas ranked below SCar and UCLA whom the Longhorns have defeated. It's a good site though, and does provide a lot of good data used by the algorithm.
masseyratings.com
Torvik's method doesn't rely heavily on the outcome of one game. I believe his methodology tries to give in-site to what would be the outcome if the teams played 100 times. In the games you mentioned, his system probably "thinks" that SCar and UCLA would still beat Texas maybe 51 times out of 100. Texas just happened to take the 1st actual game.
I look at most of the statistical sites, and like the one you referenced too, in particular their Plus/Minus rating per 100 possessions, adjusted for level of competition can be viewed for each player game by game, not just for the entire season.
I will say though that the top half of the BE are moving their way up the Massey rankings week by week. And even Xavier took a big jump by beating Cincy.
You can remove the preseason priors and get the ranking solely based on this seasons performance. Texas and UCLA are both ranked ahead SC in this version.
So i see, fellow number wonk (FNW).According to Massey’s site, their final 2025 ratings had UConn ahead of South Carolina, albeit by a very slim margin:
Massey Ratings - College Basketball Women's : NCAA D1 Ratings
Computer ratings and rankings for CBW (College Basketball Women's), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.
I must be a number wonk😉
Well, there are other great teams and players. The best big in the portal seems to have signed with South Carolina. Williams has really struggled, actually it's not clear what wrong. But, she hasn't showed a strong scoring touch and hasn't rebounded, she is often out of positions for rim protection. She is the smallest 6'4 player I've seen. Jana might be better in a big lineup and Sarah is way better for small ball. So the Post, once again is the weak link.
I agree. Outside of the first two games I truly don't understand the complaints of Serah. She is currently doing exactly what she is asked to as the 3rd/4th option and since those first two games she is putting up 16/9/3 per36 minutes on high efficiency (60%eFG). Her defense has been more than solid as well.
But it's a one year deal. I'm all for her but my eyes just don't see how she was so successful in the Big Ten. The post is tough to learn in Geno's system but using your hands to grab the ball is not a system issue.
Yes, it’s a one year deal and Geno brought her in to fill a specific role and she is doing it. Notice that she is a starter on what is almost certainly the best team in women’s college bb this year. She’s doing exactly what Geno “hired” her to do - in about 17 minutes per game .
I generally agree with your comments, but I think you are incorrect to suggest that Geno "favors mobility over strength" a priori, i.e. independent of the strengths and weaknesses of his roster in specific years. In recent years at least since Stef Dolson graduated, and even this year, UConn has not had a powerful 6-5 bruiser available for the center position, but has had exceptional talent at other positions. So Geno designed his offense around the abilities of his players. If A'ja, Aliyah Boston, or Cardoso had chosen to come to UConn (and they all had offers from Geno), Geno's offense might look more like Dawn's. And if Dawn had had Paige and Azzi among others, her offense might look more like UConn's.
I can’t disagree with that.
If you want to play full court which UConn apparently does then your back end must be able to move and cover the court. On offense I think Jana is pretty solid, rebounding Jana is really solid but her foot speed on the back half restricts her when pressing. I would add though that UConn has 10 players that would start for almost every other team in the country so talent is not an issue.
Why wouldn't a close call impact the numbers? Or am I thinking more like a Vegas bookey?
Scoring margin is part of the algorithm, yes. Perhaps I misread your post? It sounded like you were surprised at Massey’s decision about how the close call would affect the ranking. The algorithm makes no judgement about whether a close call is impressive or surprising; it just rolls the number into the calculation
Have to agree that its the end of the year that really matters, but this is one of the more interesting polls since it gives alot of additional info regarding each team. As an example, UCLA is one of the more balanced teams, ranking 9 for offense and 6 for defense. On the other hand, Oklahoma is ranked #3 in offense but 56 in defense. Tracking these throughout the year gives a good projection regarding which teams are on their way up or down and how we and other teams match up.
