RebKell's Junkie Boards

[SDHoops]

South Dakota State has a 37 RPI after their conference tourney loss, they were as high as 30 last week. Yet they never were in consideration on any bracket predictions for an at-large berth. The A-10 has a worse conference RPI but yet two teams are predicted to come out of there! The Summit as a whole was better with even ORU beating ranked Oklahoma this year. So why is SDSU not in the discussion? Yeah they lost Macy Miller to an ACL tear but they still won without her! They have teams in the low 40s predicted to make the NCAAs and they saw how two Summit teams went 7-1 in postseason last year (USD wnit champs, SDSU a basket away from Sweet Sixteen), yet still no love.

[Stonington_QB]

The teams haven't even been picked yet. Isn't it a little early to gripe about a tourney snub?

[Phil]

I doubt there is a reader of these boards who is unaware of the deficiencies in the RPI so I won't dwell on repeating those points.

A far better measure of the strength of a team is the Massey rating, and unfortunately for you, the Massey ranking is 54.

That's way outside bubble territory. Weaker than Auburn who isn't being considered for a spot and virtually identical to Penn State and Dayton neither of home are in the conversation.

Sorry

I know South Dakota State has had some good teams in the past and I've enjoyed watching them but this year isn't one of those years.

[SDHoops]

[SDHoops]

[purduefanatic]

Have they run out of valium in South Dakota? Good grief...

[Phil]

I don't understand your response.

On the one had you say "Massey ranking my foot." which suggests you are dismissing it out of hand, but then you say "Is this a new thing?" which suggests you aren't familiar with it.

Did I miss something, or are you actually dismissing something without knowing what it is?

It isn't new - it has been around for years, and is one of the best metrics for measuring team strength. You won't hear it mentioned on the selection committee shows, because they've made this irrational decision to ignore MOV and it includes MOV. I'll bet the committee members are aware of it, but that isn't even relevant. The only question is whether it is a better predictor of inclusion than the RPI, and I'll bet money it is.

[Phil]

[PUmatty]

And yet, I see no impressive wins on SDSU's schedule.

[SpaceJunkie]

[ArtBest23]

I don't see that Massey ratings have anything to do with the selections, or that they're a particularly good predictor.

But the committees - men's and women's - repeat year after year that they look for good wins. That showing you can beat top tournament teams is really important to them. The chair specifically cited that again for why they had NCSt in one of this year's "reveals". UVA might make it largely because of their win over FSU.

That said, I've said before that I don't understand Creme's fascination with GWU this year (and I'm even a GWU fan). I'll be surprised if they're in the field. And SDSt even beat GWU this year. But I would not be surprised to see Auburn with its wins over Drake and Tenn to get in before SDSt. SDSt just doesn't have an impressive win.

[summertime blues]

SDSU suffers from being a mid-major in flyover country. Sad, but true. If they were in a P5 conference, it would be different. Suppose they were to replace Nebraska in the B1G, for instance.....never happen, but just as a f'instance...... Of course Nebraska is a bigger school in a bigger city with a BFD football tradition, so there you have it.

_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

[Phil]

Here is why it's worth taking Massey seriously – let's examine some of last year's tournament upsets:

7 seed Washington defeated 2 Maryland. Sounds like a significant upset but Massey had Washington rated as the 10th best team and Maryland as the eighth best team so a tiny edge to Maryland but practically a push, so not the surprising upset the seeds would suggest.

Then 7 seed Washington beat 3 seed Kentucky, but Massey had Kentucky as the 16th best teams of this wasn't even upset per Massey.

Then 7 seed Washington beat 4 seed Stanford, but Massey had Stanford as the ninth best team so again this was almost a push per Massey not an upset.


7 see Tennessee "upset " 2 seed Arizona State, but Massey rated Tennessee as 19th best and Arizona's 13th best. While this still qualifies as an upset, if they had been seated according to Massey would be talking about a five seed versus a three seed, not much of an upset.

Tennessee went on to "upset" Ohio State, but Massey had Ohio State rated as 17th, so almost identical to Tennessee. Not much of an upset.

4 seed Syracuse "upset" one seed South Carolina, but Massey had South Carolina is the fifth best team so deserving of the two seed rather than a one and Syracuse as the seventh best team so a 2 seed rather than a four. That makes it an exceedingly minor upset.

2 seed Oregon State "upset" the 1 seed Baylor, but Massey had Baylor and Oregon State is the second and third best teams, with almost identical strength rating so this was practically a tossup.

I'm not sure I've covered all of the "upsets" but in each of the ones of identified, knowing the Massey rating you would be either predicting the "upset" or not surprised at all by a very minor upset.

[Fighting Artichoke]

[Fighting Artichoke]

By the way, I am an advocate of Massey!