Massey Conference Rankings

[DefenseBB]

I have to admit, I am becoming a junkie on this website. Does anyone offer counseling?

On today's Conference Ranking it went as follows (OOC record):
1. Big 12- 10 teams (83-28)
2. SEC- 14 teams (138-45)
3. ACC- 15 teams (152-45)
4. Pac 12- 12 teams (97-39)
5. Big 10- 14 teams (135-52)
6. Big East- 10 teams (72-39)
7. AAC- 12 teams (97-62)
8. MAC West-6 teams (77-39)

The good new for me is the Big 10 is at the bottom of the P5 as I find that whole lot of teams to be "meh".
The bad news is Massey has the Big 12 as #1. Really? I am confused by this. The ACC to me is the strongest of the bunch. It's OOC is the best, they have 3 top 10 teams and 3 more (NC State, Duke, Miami) I would seed higher than Ok State, the 3rd best Big12 team. After MSU, SC is "meh" as again, I take all 3 ACC teams over SC.

I added the #8 conference to show how much of gap the top 5 are from 6, 7, 8. The fact the AAC is closer to #8 should be telling...

I know it's not the top x teams but the whole conference that is evaluated. I prefer 5-8 really good teams and 3-5 really bad ones vs. 10/14 teams of .500.

My eye test says
#1 ACC
#2 Pac 12
#3 SEC
#4 Big 12
#5 Big 10.

Thoughts?

 

[ProSkeptic]

Are these rankings determined strictly by OOC records? If so, that’s definitely an imperfect system, in that teams have discretion over their opponents. The reason Baylor isn’t a #1 seed is their RPI, which reflects a laughable OOC slate of opponents. So teams (and conferences) are basically punished in thes rankings for scheduling tough opponents.

 

[LoTrader]

I have to admit, I am becoming a junkie on this website. Does anyone offer counseling?

On today's Conference Ranking it went as follows (OOC record):
1. Big 12- 10 teams (83-28)
2. SEC- 14 teams (138-45)
3. ACC- 15 teams (152-45)
4. Pac 12- 12 teams (97-39)
5. Big 10- 14 teams (135-52)
6. Big East- 10 teams (72-39)
7. AAC- 12 teams (97-62)
8. MAC West-6 teams (77-39)

The good new for me is the Big 10 is at the bottom of the P5 as I find that whole lot of teams to be "meh".
The bad news is Massey has the Big 12 as #1. Really? I am confused by this. The ACC to me is the strongest of the bunch. It's OOC is the best, they have 3 top 10 teams and 3 more (NC State, Duke, Miami) I would seed higher than Ok State, the 3rd best Big12 team. After MSU, SC is "meh" as again, I take all 3 ACC teams over SC.

I added the #8 conference to show how much of gap the top 5 are from 6, 7, 8. The fact the AAC is closer to #8 should be telling...

I know it's not the top x teams but the whole conference that is evaluated. I prefer 5-8 really good teams and 3-5 really bad ones vs. 10/14 teams of .500.

My eye test says
#1 ACC
#2 Pac 12
#3 SEC
#4 Big 12
#5 Big 10.

Thoughts?

We are in complete agreement. I might have listed BIG 12 and BIG10 as 4A & 4B.

 

[Oldbones]

I have to admit, I am becoming a junkie on this website. Does anyone offer counseling?

On today's Conference Ranking it went as follows (OOC record):
1. Big 12- 10 teams (83-28)
2. SEC- 14 teams (138-45)
3. ACC- 15 teams (152-45)
4. Pac 12- 12 teams (97-39)
5. Big 10- 14 teams (135-52)
6. Big East- 10 teams (72-39)
7. AAC- 12 teams (97-62)
8. MAC West-6 teams (77-39)

Thoughts?

My thoughts: To no one's surprise there are a lot of "Power" teams fattening up on some punching bag leagues that are collectively almost 500 games under .500.

At least UCONN's only two forays outside these 8 top-rated leagues were the two geographically convenient "Homecoming" Games: Nevada, Mountain West, and the very accommodating Duquesne, Atlantic Ten.

 

[Plebe]

I have to admit, I am becoming a junkie on this website. Does anyone offer counseling?

On today's Conference Ranking it went as follows (OOC record):
1. Big 12- 10 teams (83-28)
2. SEC- 14 teams (138-45)
3. ACC- 15 teams (152-45)
4. Pac 12- 12 teams (97-39)
5. Big 10- 14 teams (135-52)
6. Big East- 10 teams (72-39)
7. AAC- 12 teams (97-62)
8. MAC West-6 teams (77-39)

The good new for me is the Big 10 is at the bottom of the P5 as I find that whole lot of teams to be "meh".
The bad news is Massey has the Big 12 as #1. Really? I am confused by this. The ACC to me is the strongest of the bunch. It's OOC is the best, they have 3 top 10 teams and 3 more (NC State, Duke, Miami) I would seed higher than Ok State, the 3rd best Big12 team. After MSU, SC is "meh" as again, I take all 3 ACC teams over SC.

I added the #8 conference to show how much of gap the top 5 are from 6, 7, 8. The fact the AAC is closer to #8 should be telling...

I know it's not the top x teams but the whole conference that is evaluated. I prefer 5-8 really good teams and 3-5 really bad ones vs. 10/14 teams of .500.

My eye test says
#1 ACC
#2 Pac 12
#3 SEC
#4 Big 12
#5 Big 10.

Thoughts?

When most people try to size up relative conference strength, they tend to focus disproportionately on the top teams, which are the teams with the greatest media visibility.

Remember that when you're talking about the ACC, you're not just talking about Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State. You're also talking about Boston College and Clemson and Pittsburgh.

 

[LoTrader]

When most people try to size up relative conference strength, they tend to focus disproportionately on the top teams, which are the teams with the greatest media visibility.

Remember that when you're talking about the ACC, you're not just talking about Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State. You're also talking about Boston College and Clemson and Pittsburgh.

I feel the same way about the PAC12: Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon State, Arizona State, USC, & Cal (when they decide they want to compete)

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I feel the same way about the PAC12: Oregon, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon State, Arizona State, USC, & Cal (when they decide they want to compete)

Probably in large part why they are ranked so low by Massey's system. The bottom, including my own Wildcats, is fairly dreadful, although, to be fair, Washington is just fluxing. They will either return to being good or not. Washington State I don't care for the coaching. Colorado and Utah are, at least, trying and I predict a bright future for Arizona under Coach Barnes. But it will take a couple years.

 

[DefenseBB]

When most people try to size up relative conference strength, they tend to focus disproportionately on the top teams, which are the teams with the greatest media visibility.

Remember that when you're talking about the ACC, you're not just talking about Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State. You're also talking about Boston College and Clemson and Pittsburgh.

Plebe-thanks and yes, I am acutely aware of that and have noted I hope the committees take into consideration that the Big 12 really only has 4 teams worthy and if you follow Massey, maybe a 5th with WVa who has a sub .500 conference record at this point. While BC, Clemson, Wake For are truly terrible, the top half of the conference, similar to the SEC are all really good. Other than Baylor and Texas, The top 8 of the ACC and top 7 of the SEC would beat Ok St and Ok regularly on neutral floors, which for NCAA consideration is exactly what you're supposed to consider. You know my angst with the Big10 so I will spare both of us that.

 

[Bear11]

One thing I note is that just because the conference is stronger, does not mean the conference schedule is harder. In the 15 team ACC for instance, they only play a 16 game conference schedule. None of the top teams have to play each other twice. Louisville, as an example, plays the top 3 ACC teams at home, and the only conference teams they play twice are lowly Pitt and Virginia, games which should be no trouble. Oklahoma has to play 6 games against Baylor, Texas and Ok State, going 0-5 so far in generally competitive games. If they could drop a couple of those games and replace with them with Iowa State- quality opponents, their conference and overall record would look much better.

This is not to say that the Big 12 is better than the ACC, or that Oklahoma would necessarily be more successful in a different conference. I just find it interesting that conference schedules are so unbalanced. Notre Dame, for instance, will play 7 Massey top 50 opponents in ACC play, and Louisville plays 8. In SEC play, Mississippi State played just 6 top 50 opponents, while South Carolina played 8. All the top Big 12 teams have to play 10 games against top 50 teams in conference. The Big 12 may not have as much depth, but the nature of the schedule makes it more of a grind. The diluting effect of the mega-conferences can be helpful for those teams.

 

[shizam]

I have to admit, I am becoming a junkie on this website. Does anyone offer counseling?

On today's Conference Ranking it went as follows (OOC record):
1. Big 12- 10 teams (83-28)
2. SEC- 14 teams (138-45)
3. ACC- 15 teams (152-45)
4. Pac 12- 12 teams (97-39)
5. Big 10- 14 teams (135-52)
6. Big East- 10 teams (72-39)
7. AAC- 12 teams (97-62)
8. MAC West-6 teams (77-39)

The good new for me is the Big 10 is at the bottom of the P5 as I find that whole lot of teams to be "meh".
The bad news is Massey has the Big 12 as #1. Really? I am confused by this. The ACC to me is the strongest of the bunch. It's OOC is the best, they have 3 top 10 teams and 3 more (NC State, Duke, Miami) I would seed higher than Ok State, the 3rd best Big12 team. After MSU, SC is "meh" as again, I take all 3 ACC teams over SC.

I added the #8 conference to show how much of gap the top 5 are from 6, 7, 8. The fact the AAC is closer to #8 should be telling...

I know it's not the top x teams but the whole conference that is evaluated. I prefer 5-8 really good teams and 3-5 really bad ones vs. 10/14 teams of .500.

My eye test says
#1 ACC
#2 Pac 12
#3 SEC
#4 Big 12
#5 Big 10.

Thoughts?

I think ACC is over rated or all conferences are just down this year. ACC looks better on paper than the real product. I see all of them vs L’ville and haven’t been impressed with one team yet. Fl State is a mess and Duke is inconsistent though hit by injuries. That’s why a game like Oregon and UCLA last night is so much fun. ACC has had very few great conference games. Most ACC teams don’t have enough good players to play exciting ball and the overall coaching is very average. The PAC 12 games I’ve seen are much more exciting and competitive than ACC and I’m not a fan of a Pac 12 team.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Probably in large part why they are ranked so low by Massey's system. The bottom, including my own Wildcats, is fairly dreadful, although, to be fair, Washington is just fluxing. They will either return to being good or not. Washington State I don't care for the coaching. Colorado and Utah are, at least, trying and I predict a bright future for Arizona under Coach Barnes. But it will take a couple years.

Pretty well in agreement all the way around. I saw way too much of Daugherty's coaching close up when she was at UW, and I was never even slightly impressed. Her record at WSU is dismal.

I think Barnes is going to turn Arizona around. I look for them to make a big jump next year.

I feel like Wynn is doing as well as she can with what she has to work with, but she's got a mid major roster trying to compete in a P5 conference. And not even a good mid major roster. Not much reason for optimism that it's going to improve significantly next season. Neighbors maneuvered very well to benefit from McGuff's recruiting and then get out of town before his own lame recruiting caught up with him. Unless Strother returns next year fully healthy and miraculously blossoms into a dominant post player and several of this year's Fr. make a huge Fr. to Soph jump like Melgoza did, it's gonna be another long year. Maybe marginally better.

 

[shizam]

Probably in large part why they are ranked so low by Massey's system. The bottom, including my own Wildcats, is fairly dreadful, although, to be fair, Washington is just fluxing. They will either return to being good or not. Washington State I don't care for the coaching. Colorado and Utah are, at least, trying and I predict a bright future for Arizona under Coach Barnes. But it will take a couple years.

I like Utah’s coach. I like PAC 12 coaches as a whole over any other conference.

 

[Plebe]

Plebe-thanks and yes, I am acutely aware of that and have noted I hope the committees take into consideration that the Big 12 really only has 4 teams worthy and if you follow Massey, maybe a 5th with WVa who has a sub .500 conference record at this point. While BC, Clemson, Wake For are truly terrible, the top half of the conference, similar to the SEC are all really good. Other than Baylor and Texas, The top 8 of the ACC and top 7 of the SEC would beat Ok St and Ok regularly on neutral floors, which for NCAA consideration is exactly what you're supposed to consider. You know my angst with the Big10 so I will spare both of us that.

To put it mildly, I think there's some overstatement going on here.

According to Massey ratings (your preferred reference):

2. Baylor
6. Texas
18. Oklahoma St
33. Oklahoma
35. West Virginia
48. TCU​

Oklahoma State has a higher Massey rating than both Duke (19) and NC State (20), which are 4th and 5th among ACC teams.

It's hyperbolic to assert that Oklahoma State and Oklahoma would lose "regularly" to all of the top 8 of the ACC. The top 7 of the SEC is a higher bar, with all of those teams in the top 30 of Massey. But still, I wouldn't bet too heavily against Oklahoma State or Oklahoma against the likes of LSU and Texas A&M.

Speaking of A&M, lest we forget, they lost in the OOC to West Virginia — and that wasn't even on a neutral court.