Massey vs. RPI rating and commentary on UCF vs. UConn

[DefenseBB]

I was getting highly irritated listening to Antonelli drone on about whether UConn deserved a #1 seed as their RPI was well below others in consideration at either #37/39 (I forget which).
I looked at Massey (I know it’s not the end all be all but, it’s much better than RPI) and in using my eye test and who they have played and beaten, I was ready to curse her illogical out like a sailor who’s been left on shore leave for too long.
So I look to my more esteemed colleagues on the BY to explain or aid in my recovery how Massey has a #2 for SoS and #2 overall, yet Antonelli is spewing other “stuff”
Help!

 

[meyers7]

I was wondering what she was babbling about last night. Of course they are gonna get a #1 seed. As long as they continue the season this way. Now if we end up with a couple more losses, then yea look at it. But they'll still be a #2 at lowest. And they'll still want them in Albany. So it probably won't matter anyway.

 

[JoePgh]

Well, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that RPI is officially acknowledged as an input to NCAA seeding decisions, and Massey is not. And also, the fact that Massey considers margin of victory, and RPI intentionally does not.

Nonetheless, it is quite surprising to see that large a divergence between the two measures.

 

[huskeynut]

Antonelli also votes in the AP poll. Last week, if I remember correctly, she did not vote for UConn as either 1, 2 or 3.

 

[bbballfan23]

She voted UConn 3 this week. Clearly she is biased. She put Louisville ahead of us. Their only loss being ND on the road by 14, whom we beat by 18 on the road...I guess Thursday is all that matters for now. I’m sure she’ll still find a way to discredit UConn even in a W.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Well, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that RPI is officially acknowledged as an input to NCAA seeding decisions, and Massey is not. And also, the fact that Massey considers margin of victory, and RPI intentionally does not.

Nonetheless, it is quite surprising to see that large a divergence between the two measures.

Margin has to be part of it. But didn't someone explain (I don't really follow carefully) something about how Massey handles games against the "no contest" opponents, of which you are saddled with a bunch?

That's what's killing your RPI. The tourney against Vanderbilt, Ole MIss and St. John's didn't do you guys any RPI favors, and a glance at a couple other OOC opponents and some of the AAC tells the tale.

That's the problem with pure statistics - my old favorite, that if I put one foot in the freezer and one foot on the hot stove, on average I'm comfortable. RPI doesn't measure how good a team is, only a specific criteria about its schedule and its performance against that schedule.

 

[BostonCanuck]

I was getting highly irritated listening to Antonelli drone on about whether UConn deserved a #1 seed as their RPI was well below others in consideration at either #37/39 (I forget which).
I looked at Massey (I know it’s not the end all be all but, it’s much better than RPI) and in using my eye test and who they have played and beaten, I was ready to curse her illogical out like a sailor who’s been left on shore leave for too long.
So I look to my more esteemed colleagues on the BY to explain or aid in my recovery how Massey has a #2 for SoS and #2 overall, yet Antonelli is spewing other “stuff”
Help!

So was I, her comments on the matter were as absurd as they were oft repeated early in the game. She finally partially walked it back late in the game, so I suspect someone maybe back in the studio got in her ear about it.

Equally absurd, by the way, is the current reporting on ESPNW about how "Notre Dame's No. 1 Seed Isn't Up for Debate", not to mention the furious spin they are putting on this train wreck: "Tennessee's Holy Warlick Stands Her Ground, Stands by the Lady Vols". Oh ESPN, how far thou hast fallen.

So for me, it's Massey all the way, as Antonelli basically made a fool of herself to knowledgeble fans during that broadcast.

 

[Marbles90]

This was annoying me to no end yesterday. I get that she was just trying to add some drama to a blowout game, but as a "professional" I hope she knows that the RPI or any statistical comparison tool is just one factor in the seeding decision. Playing several games against low RPI teams significantly brings down your total where as playing several games against mid level RPI teams does not hurt your ranking as much but at the end of the day, beating the 125 RPI ranked team and beating the 250 RPI ranked team is basically the same.

The seeding will be based on who you beat and where you beat them. Win out and there is no way UConn is a 2 seed and Louisville and ND are 1's when UConn beat them both on their home court no matter what the RPI says...

 

[hussybulldog]

I was getting highly irritated listening to Antonelli drone on about whether UConn deserved a #1 seed as their RPI was well below others in consideration at either #37/39 (I forget which).
I looked at Massey (I know it’s not the end all be all but, it’s much better than RPI) and in using my eye test and who they have played and beaten, I was ready to curse her illogical out like a sailor who’s been left on shore leave for too long.
So I look to my more esteemed colleagues on the BY to explain or aid in my recovery how Massey has a #2 for SoS and #2 overall, yet Antonelli is spewing other “stuff”
Help!

Fake news!

 

[stamfordhusky]

I was getting highly irritated listening to Antonelli drone on about whether UConn deserved a #1 seed as their RPI was well below others in consideration at either #37/39 (I forget which).
I looked at Massey (I know it’s not the end all be all but, it’s much better than RPI) and in using my eye test and who they have played and beaten, I was ready to curse her illogical out like a sailor who’s been left on shore leave for too long.
So I look to my more esteemed colleagues on the BY to explain or aid in my recovery how Massey has a #2 for SoS and #2 overall, yet Antonelli is spewing other “stuff”
Help!

If she said UConn has an RPI in the 30's, then she was even more clueless than usual. Current UConn RPI is #7.

One big difference between RPI and models like Massey is, as others have pointed out, that the RPI only looks at whether you win or lose - not the margin of victory. In the RPI, a one-point win is the same as an 80-point win. Further, the RPI evaluates the strength of the teams you beat solely by their records, not by who they beat or lost to and by how much. Also a team gets less credit for its own wins than it does for the wins of its opponents. If a team had a W-L percentage of 0.0% (i.e. no wins for the entire season), played opponents with a W-L percentage of 75%, who in turn played opponents with a W-L percentage of 60%, its RPI (ignoring home/road factor) would be 52.5% - well above average.

In theory a team could have a record of 0-30 and lose every game by 50+ points, and end up ranked in the top 5 in the nation in RPI. It's not going to happen - but it could, if a team was able to put together a schedule that only included road games vs the seven or eight power-conference teams with the best W-L percentages.

 

[oldude]

Last night wasn’t the 1st time Antonelli sounded foolish talking about UConn WBB. A few weeks back she was prattling on about how unfair it was that UConn would end up in the Albany region, and their fans had already purchased most of the tickets.

What she ignored is that venues like Albany and Bridgeport bid on the Regionals for one reason: UConn’s historic excellence has developed an extremely loyal and supportive fan base with sufficient faith in their team to buy tickets well in advance. Other teams fans could do exactly the same thing, but they are just not consistent enough for their fans to make that leap of faith.

 

[LoTrader]

In the end, what really matters is the algorithm and methodology used to define the top 16 teams who get to host the first two (2) games in the NCAA Tournament. I am still surprised fromlast year when Tennessee was a #3 seed? Tennessee was terrible last year, and absolutely not deserving of a #3 seed. I'm sure there were other examples, but I wonder how much "tradition" of WCBB programs really plays in their seeding?

 

[huskeynut]

Antonelli voted Louisville for #1 in today's poll. That tells you ll you need to know.

 

[DEpup]

She voted UConn 3 this week. Clearly she is biased. She put Louisville ahead of us. Their only loss being ND on the road by 14, whom we beat by 18 on the road...I guess Thursday is all that matters for now. I’m sure she’ll still find a way to discredit UConn even in a W.

She is completely biased and she is also furthering her belief that there needs to be a change in the tournament format since she believes top teams get a leg up because organizers will want them close to home... She hates that we always know where we are going between Albany and Bridgeport and fill the seats....

 

[trisailin]

Bottom line: Smart people would use Massey to figure out who will win a game. Only the intelligence challenged at the NCAA would use RPI to set up a tournament.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Maybe I missed it, but why does Antonelli dislike UConn?

 

[mbr33ct]

But didn't she also say, she believes UConn has the best 5 starters in the nation?

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

Just a couple other comments on this:

- During the game Antonelli made the point that UCONN's RPI was #8 (at the start of Sunday)...and that NO #1 seed has been RPI worse than #7. She offered no specifics.
- After Sunday:
UCONN beat the #17 RPI Team in UCF... who stayed at #17 despite the loss. And incredibly they are among the "Last 4 in" for Charlie Creme's Bracketology ..... as the #17 RPI team. IF, as Debbie says RPI is so important, it would stand to reason for UCF to be the first 5 seed at this point...but they are NOT
UCONN's RPI went to #7 after beating UCF, so I guess Antonelli is happy now...????? (probably not )
ND was #1 RPI going into the game against #43 RPI UNC... but ND remains #1 RPI after the Loss.... UNC was UNRANKED at the time of their game...
After the game UNC jumped to #33 RPI.

Stanford {#4 RPI} LOST to Utah (#37 RPI) and actually rose to #3 RPI????

I just don't get it on these moves within RPI!!! BUT... None of this matters at this point...because there are still many games to play and a lot that can happen. Fortunately no computer program or talking heads locked in a room make the final decision on who wins the National Championship!!!

 

[reno tony]

Antonelli voted Louisville for #1 in today's poll. That tells you ll you need to know.

I guess we will see later this week how accurate that vote was.

 

[Boreifs]

RPI has always been, is, and always will be a hopelessly flawed stat. Massey is much more reliable.

 

[DefenseBB]

So...all of you reaffirmed by belief that Antonelli is a knucklehead, RPI is a severely flawed stat and if we take care of business, we have nothing to worry about.

One last point that Antonelli needs to realize:
WCBB is NO DIFFERENT than the rest of the NCAA Sports on how early rounds are conducted on the top seeds campuses. Softball and Baseball take it one step further and have the Superregional (16 to 8) also at the 1-8 seeds campus. Why? Because of attendance!
She’s delusional on her views of what WCBB is vs. the reality of what occurs come the Sweet 16 sites.
There are no “neutral courts” in the SouthEast or out West that either are close enough to their local WCBB elite team or are willing to bid to host.
Baylor has been sent to both Dallas and OKC and attendance was abysmal.
Sweet 16s usually aren’t on Campus except for Rupp Arena and attendance at both years of their hosting was the worst of the 4 sites and one year ND was there!
Can we send her and Adam Amin off to purgatory?

 

[stamfordhusky]

Stanford {#4 RPI} LOST to Utah (#37 RPI) and actually rose to #3 RPI????

I just don't get it on these moves within RPI!!!

As I mentioned in my previous post, RPI places twice as much consideration on the record of your opponent than it does on your own W-L records. So even though Stanford lost its game, it gained even more by adding a 17-1 team to its list of opponents.

As I also mentioned, hypothetically a team could go 0-30, losing every game by 50+ points and be a top 10 RPI team if it played the right schedule. Losing to teams like Utah is a boon to the RPI.

 

[Urshurak]

So...all of you reaffirmed by belief that Antonelli is a knucklehead, RPI is a severely flawed stat and if we take care of business, we have nothing to worry about.

One last point that Antonelli needs to realize:
WCBB is NO DIFFERENT than the rest of the NCAA Sports on how early rounds are conducted on the top seeds campuses. Softball and Baseball take it one step further and have the Superregional (16 to 8) also at the 1-8 seeds campus. Why? Because of attendance!
She’s delusional on her views of what WCBB is vs. the reality of what occurs come the Sweet 16 sites.
There are no “neutral courts” in the SouthEast or out West that either are close enough to their local WCBB elite team or are willing to bid to host.
Baylor has been sent to both Dallas and OKC and attendance was abysmal.
Sweet 16s usually aren’t on Campus except for Rupp Arena and attendance at both years of their hosting was the worst of the 4 sites and one year ND was there!
Can we send her and Adam Amin off to purgatory?

This times 1,000! Amin drives me nuts (I’m not a fan of Beth Mowins either....). During the Oklahoma game he must have said “they are doing this against the number 1 team in the country” about 30 times. I kid you not. Go back and watch it. It was 30 times. Annoying as explitive.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Do you guys know Ken Pomeroy or Kenpom, a rating system used in MCBB?

 

[DefenseBB]

This times 1,000! Amin drives me nuts (I’m not a fan of Beth Mowins either....). During the Oklahoma game he must have said “they are doing this against the number 1 team in the country” about 30 times. I kid you not. Go back and watch it. It was 30 times. Annoying as explitive.

AND he always says “she’s a true freshman” like so many WCBB Players redshirt each year! He’s a babbling faucet of drivel. The next thing he says that I actually learn something from will be the 1st time ever! But I am not holding my breath for that to happen...

I actually like Beth, most because it’s not Adam and because I like how she does softball...

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Antonelli is an ACC homer and an SEC syncophant and it poisons pretty much everything she touches. If I have to watch a game she's doing I hit the mute button quite frequently. If she's on the Louisville game it will be bad, very bad.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Do you guys know Ken Pomeroy or Kenpom, a rating system used in MCBB?

I know him well. Great site. I wish he also did his analysis for the women. I think he does a more accurate job than does Massey, and he also produces dozens of interesting analyses.

 

[buddy]

ESPN has to support the ACC members over UConn. They have invested a lot of money in that conference and they need it to succeed. Thus, the announcers must always try to promote ACC teams over anyone else.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

As I mentioned in my previous post, RPI places twice as much consideration on the record of your opponent than it does on your own W-L records. So even though Stanford lost its game, it gained even more by adding a 17-1 team to its list of opponents.

As I also mentioned, hypothetically a team could go 0-30, losing every game by 50+ points and be a top 10 RPI team if it played the right schedule. Losing to teams like Utah is a boon to the RPI.

Repeating doesn't make it completely true. If you went 0-30, by definition you would have a 0 RPI factor.

Oddly enough, the result of the single game you win has the greatest single effect on your raw RPI number. An opponent winning a single game (never mind diluting it to your opponents opponents which is 25% of your RPI score) is very diluted. It does make a difference who you played, but their individual wins / losses don't have a huge effect.

And as others said, Massey is predictive. RPI is not predictive on a game by game basis and is not intended to be. And no one in the business thinks it is.

Playing teams that have a good winning percentage always helps your RPI, but Stanford's change is probably due just as much to what others did around them than adding Utah to the mix.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Repeating doesn't make it completely true. If you went 0-30, by definition you would have a 0 RPI factor.

Oddly enough, the result of the single game you win has the greatest single effect on your raw RPI number. An opponent winning a single game (never mind diluting it to your opponents opponents which is 25% of your RPI score) is very diluted. It does make a difference who you played, but their individual wins / losses don't have a huge effect.

And as others said, Massey is predictive. RPI is not predictive on a game by game basis and is not intended to be. And no one in the business thinks it is.

Playing teams that have a good winning percentage always helps your RPI, but Stanford's change is probably due just as much to what others did around them than adding Utah to the mix.

In this case, I repeated because it IS true. From current teams' records, I could easily construct a scenario where a team could have lost every game by over 50 points and be ranked in the top 10 of RPI. That assumes a team is an independent and gets to make their own schedule. Going 0-30 by definition only produces a 0 RPI for 25% of a team's total RPI. The RPI for the other 75% in theory might be 80% - which would produce an overall RPI of 60%. Etc.

As for Stanford, I don't have time to do the math, but I'd be very surprised if adding a 17-1 record (Utah) to the overall record of its opponents - which counts for 50% of its RPI - wasn't a bigger factor than the random wins and losses its previous opponents had over a one or two day period.