Massey Ratings and Selection

The Massey Ratings have been in existence since 1995 although, I admit, I paid them no attention until last year. In the grand scheme of life, they are as important as any other ranking service, which means not very, but it should be pointed out that the AVCA actually mentions them as a resource to the coaches that vote in their poll. That’s right, the AVCA suggests that coaches look at the Massey Ratings before they vote on 7 teams from the New England Region where 5 are from your conference. You can find a link to the rankings on my left side (or pulldown depending on your device). If you want an understanding of what goes into the rankings then you can go here.

I mention the Massey Ratings because I thought it would be interesting to throw out the selection criteria for a day and compare the at-large teams that made it into the NCAA Tournament against who the Massey Ratings thought should be in. This is just another viewpoint that I thought would allow me to drill down into a few teams to see what value they had that the selection criteria might have missed.

Going through the at-large teams and comparing each against their rankings I found that the 5 lowest ranked teams per Massey were Birmingham-Southern (37), Washington-St. Louis (38), Carnegie Mellon (40), Wittenberg (42) and Randolph-Macon (74!). I need to point out that I’m looking at the rankings today so they include the NCAA Tournament results. I figured that would only help the teams that made it into the tournament so I believe these results are still valid.

The top 5 teams that didn’t receive an at-large bid were Chapman (21), Mary Hardin-Baylor (35), Heidelberg (36), Baldwin-Wallace (39) and Wartburg (41). I swear when I started this exercise that I didn’t know the top two “overlooked” teams would be from the West Region.

When comparing the two lists of teams, we can quickly determine that the Massey Ratings are saying that Carnegie Mellon, Wittenberg and Randolph-Macon should have stayed home while Chapman, Mary Hardin-Baylor and Heidelberg should have received a bid. Baldwin-Wallace and Wartburg are just edged out by BSC and WUSTL. Honestly, not too bad for a ranking system to only miss out on 3 teams when not considering the selection criteria in the same manner as the committee is supposed to do it.

Let’s start this exercise off by looking at the teams that Massey says shouldn’t have made the tournament (records are prior to the tournament against DIII opponents):

Carnegie Mellon – The Tartans went 21-7 on the season and finished as the #4 regionally ranked team out of the Mid-Atlantic Region. They were the last Mid-Atlantic team to receive an at-large bid. They had an excellent SOS and a good ranked wins record. They had quality wins against Ithaca, Juniata, Hope and Muskingum. When I was doing my at-large picks, I remembered being surprised that their selection resume was so strong and they were an early pick for me (6^th out of 20 teams). Throwing out the criteria, however, paints a slightly different picture. The Tartans dropped their last two matches of the season against Chicago and WUSTL, which isn’t anything to hang your head over but you can see why WUSTL was rated slightly higher than CMU at the end. Their best win in November was over Geneseo (if you care about regionally ranked teams) but it was probably NYU if you base it on the Massey Ratings (coming in at 75). Same story for October where the Tartans only played 5 matches with their best win again being over NYU. No, CMU made the tournament based on their September results where they went 10-3 picking up wins over Ithaca, Juniata, Hope and Muskingum over a two week stretch. Their worst loss was to Susquehanna who comes in at 33 on the Massey Ratings. With that loss and their mediocre stretch of results the final two months you can see how they received the 40^th spot despite beating teams ahead of them in the rankings. Basically, they didn’t follow it up while these other teams did. CMU made the tournament based on two weekends of play in mid-September while not doing anything drastic the rest of the way to hurt their chances. It’s not unusually at all for the selection criteria to reward this type of results while, obviously, the Massey Ratings were less impressed.

Wittenberg – They were a tough team to put in the tournament, but I had them going in as my 16^th team. I won’t rehash everything I said about them (it was a lot!), but you are free to go to my Selection Eve article and see all of my thoughts during the selection process. The Tigers were only 15-10 on the season but had a great SOS with a meh ranked wins percentage. They did have quality wins over Ohio Northern, Whitewater and Otterbein. They were the 7^th regionally ranked team out of the Great Lakes Region and were the last team from the region to be selected to the tournament. Moving away from the criteria what I see was a team that failed to win in November losing to Randolph-Macon, BSC, Emory and DePauw. They sprinkled in quality wins prior to that but played a tough schedule that resulted in a number of quality losses. One loss was to Heidelberg, a team we’ll look at shortly. With respect to Massey, you can see how the losses to Heidelberg, DePauw, BSC and Randolph-Macon could drop them to 42^nd overall. The Tigers made the tournament because of their SOS and some quality wins but I wouldn’t have had an issue if they had missed out. Their selection resume simply wasn’t complete but they were greatly helped that two of their losses were to teams in their region that were ultimately ranked behind them by the RAC so, in effect, they didn’t matter. It also heled them that both BSC and Randolph-Macon were selected as an at-large. One other item to mention is that Wittenberg didn’t have one of their best players early in the season although her return didn’t seem to change much towards the end. However, it’s conceivable the Tigers would have done better with a full season from her.

Randolph-Macon – The third team that made the tournament that Massey says shouldn’t have is interesting because I think Massey really missed on this ranking (74). As for their selection criteria they had a 24-8 record with a good SOS and an acceptable ranked wins percentage with quality wins over Juniata and Wittenberg. They were regionally ranked 4^th in the South and were the last team to receive an at-large from that region. I had them going in as the 14^th team, but let’s get Massey’s viewpoint now. The issue I see with the Yellow Jackets is that they had a couple of bad losses to Arcadia and Salisbury. I’m sure the rankings struggled to place them because of this even with some quality wins. On the flip side, they were the only team in 2019 to take 2 sets off of the eventual undefeated champions Johns Hopkins. They did have wins over Marymount (who would later knock them out of the tournament) and DePauw who were ranked ahead of them and got their two best wins (Juniata and Wittenberg) at the end of the season. This was a team that probably wasn’t going into the tournament until the Juniata win and then the Wittenberg win. If they don’t beat Juniata, I’d wager that neither them or Wittenberg makes it.

In summary, I think there is a real divergency between the selection criteria and the Massey Ratings with CMU. I’m not sure which is right and the truth is they probably both are to a degree. It shows how a really good selection criteria can be created in just a couple of weekends if you don’t slip up too bad the rest of the way. The same is true, in the reverse way, with Randolph-Macon. I think Massey had them too low for what their selection criteria really was. Maybe a case of the ranking system being too slow to react to late results? I think the Wittenberg results are about right.

Looking at the three teams Massey had ranked higher and we can kind of disregard the selection criteria. Chapman was on the bubble for most of the process whenever Colorado College got selected. Mary Hardin-Baylor was blocked by Chapman and Heidelberg wasn’t even regionally ranked. They were behind Mount Union who was behind Wittenberg. Chapman failed to get into the tournament because of their low SOS and limited regionally ranked opponents on the schedule despite their one win over CMS. Chapman was doomed when they couldn’t beat either St. Olaf or Augsburg in the first weekend of the year. But, enough of that, let’s see what Massey liked about these teams.

Chapman – The Panthers finished 23-5 with all of their losses coming to regionally ranked teams (Augsburg, St. Olaf, CMS twice and Cal Lu). Their worst Massey loss was to Cal Lutheran who was ranked 61, but it should be pointed out that Chapman beat Cal Lu twice on the season. Their best win was against CMS (10^th) but they also had two losses against them. What’s interesting about the Panthers is that they really didn’t play too many other Top 100 teams. They did have wins over La Verne (twice) and Pacific Lutheran but that’s basically it. Massey obviously saw something they liked in Chapman but their schedule certainly didn’t help them get that 21^st ranking. It’s really strange when you remember that Augsburg was ranked 23^rd despite beating Chapman in 4-sets. Without using the Massey criteria, I probably would have had them around 35 to 40, but I watched them a number of times and believe they were a much better team than that. In this case, I think the Massey Ratings were wrong about Chapman as they are just too high, but they were a team that probably deserved an at-large bid but were tripped up by their own scheduling.

Mary Hardin-Baylor – The Crusaders finished 24-8 and as mentioned above were never under consideration for an at-large bid. They are another interesting team as to why Massey had them ranked so high. They did have a win over UT-Dallas (28^th) but lost to them in the ASC title match to lose out on the automatic qualifier. They are the classic team with one good win, a bunch of quality losses and some Top 100 wins. I might have them 5 to 15 spots lower in the rankings but obviously Massey is considering other factors. As for their Top 100 wins they have Minnesota-Morris (69), Endicott (63), Christopher Newport (57), Concordia Texas twice (59) and Southwestern (83). Their losses were mainly to quality teams (Trinity, St. Ben, Berry, Transylvania, Ohio Northern and UT-Dallas) and maybe one victory here changes things for them. What probably sealed the deal in the West Region and had them regionally ranked behind Chapman was their late in the season loss at home against TLU (a team that lost to Chapman earlier in the year). So, not clear to me how they get to 35 in Massey. I can probably see them getting this as their highest possible spot but if you told me they came in at 50 I wouldn’t blink, either.

Heidelberg – The Student Princes finished 21-8 and were another team never under consideration but were a team I really liked going into the last week or two of the season. Heidelberg was 20-3 in mid-October and really needed a good record as their SOS wasn’t that strong. They did have wins over Aurora, Wittenberg and Baldwin-Wallace with all three of their losses coming to teams that would ultimately make the tournament. They would then go 1-5 with a good win over Mount Union but losses to John Carroll and then Baldwin-Wallace in the OAC Tournament sealed their fate. The Great Lakes RAC must have had a fun ride ranking Wittenberg, Mount Union and Heidelberg. As far as their Massey Ratings, I probably have them right behind Mary Hardin-Baylor (which is where they are) but their ranking (at 36) is probably as high as I can see them being. They are kind of the reverse of Randolph-Macon where they ended well but didn’t move up the rankings while Heidelberg finished poorly but weren’t moved down much.

Going through these six teams and there is no question that the selection committee got it right based on the selection criteria. I could probably revisit the Wittenberg placement in the Great Lakes but it’s not worth it in my mind. I do think the CMU and Randolph-Macon Massey Ratings are too low just like I think the Chapman, UMHB and Heidelberg rankings are probably too high. With all of that said, based on what I know (and have watched), I do think Chapman deserved to be in the tournament so I can understand how the Massey Ratings might have them as high as they are. If you asked me do I take Wittenberg or Chapman then based on the criteria I’ve already given you my answer (Wittenberg). If I factor in other things in addition to the selection criteria than I probably still take Wittenberg. The deal breaker for me for Chapman was their schedule. They simply didn’t put together a schedule that deserved an at-large bid. I’d rather reward a team like Wittenberg for trying than one that really didn’t. As for Mary Hardin-Baylor, they had the schedule but didn’t get that one extra quality win they needed to highlight their resume. It looks much different with a win (instead of a loss) over Trinity or St. Ben or Berry or etc. Heidelberg didn’t have the resume outside of record and really couldn’t seal the deal down the stretch. I actually considered them in my mock selection at the very end and didn’t pick them.

In the end, the Massey Ratings are another viewpoint into the process. I’m impressed that they do seem to get teams close to how I view them with the occasional question mark that all rankings seem to have. If we had thrown away the selection criteria in 2019 and made these three swaps based on the Massey Ratings, I think we would all be scratching our heads over the Carnegie Mellon slight and the choice of Heidelberg. Nothing is perfect, I guess.