Week 8 Massey Ratings 3a

[Pudlugger]

1 Giddings 7 0 0 2.392 51.97 ( 1) 48.93 ( 5) 24.74 ( 1) 29.64 ( 4) 3A III-23
2 Celina 7 0 0 2.165 48.63 ( 2) 49.86 ( 3) 20.47 ( 3) 18.74 ( 40) 3A II-9
3 Gilmer 6 0 0 2.135 47.76 ( 3) 56.58 ( 1) 12.88 ( 30) 17.55 ( 46) 3A II-15
4 Wimberley 6 1 0 1.997 43.05 ( 5) 48.24 ( 6) 16.50 ( 9) 30.82 ( 3) 3A IV-25
5 + 2 Decatur 7 0 0 1.964 41.84 ( 7) 46.78 ( 7) 16.76 ( 8) 23.92 ( 17) 3A I-8
6 Hutto 6 1 0 1.953 43.62 ( 4) 48.99 ( 4) 16.33 ( 10) 27.84 ( 6) 3A III-18
7 - 2 W Orange Stark 7 0 0 1.913 40.79 ( 8) 43.03 ( 9) 19.45 ( 4) 22.00 ( 24) 3A III-21
8 + 1 Liberty Hill 4 2 0 1.799 42.27 ( 6) 53.27 ( 2) 10.70 ( 42) 32.67 ( 2) 3A III-18
9 - 1 Cuero 8 0 0 1.774 37.15 ( 10) 43.06 ( 8) 15.79 ( 14) 16.37 ( 52) 3A IV-29
10 + 2 Palestine 6 1 0 1.713 38.24 ( 9) 43.02 ( 10) 16.92 ( 7) 23.70 ( 18) 3A III-19

Chng Team W L T Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

11 Sweetwater 7 1 0 1.672 36.00 ( 12) 42.78 ( 12) 14.92 ( 16) 23.09 ( 20) 3A I-7
12 + 2 Abilene Wylie 5 2 0 1.582 36.03 ( 11) 37.05 ( 30) 20.68 ( 2) 26.60 ( 9) 3A I-7
13 Gatesville 6 1 0 1.577 33.40 ( 14) 42.65 ( 13) 12.45 ( 32) 23.22 ( 19) 3A III-17
14 + 1 Burkburnett 6 1 0 1.562 31.74 ( 16) 34.39 ( 43) 19.04 ( 5) 24.83 ( 15) 3A I-6
15 + 4 Bellville 6 1 0 1.492 34.33 ( 13) 42.86 ( 11) 13.17 ( 27) 13.02 ( 75) 3A III-23
16 Dal Madison 6 0 0 1.484 30.95 ( 19) 38.49 ( 21) 14.16 ( 21) 13.08 ( 73) 3A II-11
17 + 1 Liberty Eylau 6 2 0 1.477 31.88 ( 15) 34.74 ( 41) 18.85 ( 6) 24.97 ( 14) 3A II-16
18 - 8 Carthage 6 1 0 1.464 31.67 ( 17) 38.62 ( 20) 14.75 ( 17) 21.10 ( 31) 3A III-20
19 + 1 China Spring 7 0 0 1.426 28.08 ( 23) 40.11 ( 16) 9.66 ( 50) 15.12 ( 58) 3A III-17
20 - 3 Robinson 5 2 0 1.418 31.10 ( 18) 39.74 ( 18) 13.06 ( 28) 25.79 ( 11) 3A III-17

Chng Team W L T Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

21 + 7 LaGrange 6 1 0 1.368 27.64 ( 25) 33.35 ( 47) 15.99 ( 13) 19.56 ( 38) 3A III-23
22 - 1 Yoe 5 3 0 1.300 30.60 ( 20) 38.49 ( 22) 13.81 ( 24) 25.33 ( 13) 3A III-18
23 + 2 Hondo 7 0 0 1.283 27.31 ( 26) 39.84 ( 17) 9.17 ( 55) 2.38 (126) 3A IV-28
24 + 3 La Vega 5 2 0 1.268 27.87 ( 24) 35.20 ( 35) 14.37 ( 19) 21.71 ( 27) 3A III-17
25 - 2 Silsbee 5 2 0 1.213 25.50 ( 29) 35.01 ( 36) 12.18 ( 34) 21.60 ( 29) 3A III-21
26 +14 Argyle 6 1 0 1.197 25.59 ( 28) 37.62 ( 26) 9.67 ( 49) 14.44 ( 62) 3A I-8
27 - 1 Caldwell 4 3 0 1.187 29.28 ( 21) 34.92 ( 40) 16.06 ( 12) 20.64 ( 32) 3A III-23
28 + 8 Monahans 6 1 0 1.175 25.60 ( 27) 37.44 ( 27) 9.85 ( 46) 11.87 ( 80) 3A I-1
29 + 3 Westwood-Pal 5 2 0 1.175 23.94 ( 38) 40.90 ( 14) 4.74 ( 88) 22.76 ( 21) 3A III-19
30 - 8 Greenwood 7 0 0 1.168 23.33 ( 41) 37.41 ( 28) 7.62 ( 64) 6.59 (114) 3A I-3

Chng Team W L T Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

31 + 7 Crockett 4 3 0 1.158 28.96 ( 22) 37.14 ( 29) 13.51 ( 25) 17.61 ( 45) 3A III-20
32 - 2 Breckenridge 6 1 0 1.156 23.65 ( 39) 31.31 ( 58) 14.04 ( 23) 14.69 ( 60) 3A I-7
33 - 4 Sanger 5 2 0 1.138 24.71 ( 31) 38.12 ( 25) 8.29 ( 63) 17.00 ( 49) 3A I-8
34 +14 Brownsboro 5 2 0 1.133 24.77 ( 30) 32.35 ( 51) 14.11 ( 22) 16.18 ( 53) 3A II-14
35 + 6 Iowa Park 5 3 0 1.123 24.18 ( 35) 33.48 ( 46) 12.40 ( 33) 21.81 ( 26) 3A I-6
36 - 1 Royse City 6 1 0 1.114 24.31 ( 32) 39.59 ( 19) 6.42 ( 72) 10.29 ( 91) 3A II-10
37 - 3 Kennedale 5 2 0 1.071 23.49 ( 40) 32.24 ( 52) 12.95 ( 29) 15.45 ( 57) 3A II-12
38 - 1 Devine 8 0 0 1.064 20.75 ( 46) 32.50 ( 50) 9.95 ( 45) 1.17 (130) 3A IV-28
39 +11 Snyder 4 3 0 1.031 24.19 ( 34) 29.57 ( 74) 16.31 ( 11) 18.41 ( 42) 3A I-3
40 + 2 Madisonville 5 2 0 1.006 22.45 ( 44) 34.57 ( 42) 9.57 ( 51) 14.70 ( 59) 3A III-19

Chng Team W L T Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

41 - 2 Rusk 4 3 0 1.005 22.88 ( 43) 40.45 ( 15) 4.13 ( 94) 19.81 ( 35) 3A III-20
42 +10 Kirbyville 5 2 0 0.999 21.23 ( 45) 38.29 ( 24) 4.63 ( 89) 13.97 ( 66) 3A III-21
43 -10 Canyon 5 2 0 0.997 24.19 ( 33) 36.82 ( 32) 9.07 ( 56) 10.07 ( 93) 3A I-5
44 +11 Prosper 6 1 0 0.971 18.50 ( 55) 29.06 ( 76) 11.14 ( 38) 10.64 ( 90) 3A II-9
45 + 2 Vernon 3 4 0 0.959 24.08 ( 37) 33.30 ( 48) 12.47 ( 31) 25.58 ( 12) 3A I-6
46 + 8 Atlanta 1 6 0 0.953 24.16 ( 36) 31.39 ( 57) 14.47 ( 18) 35.56 ( 1) 3A II-16
47 + 9 Rains 6 1 0 0.930 18.14 ( 57) 27.67 ( 87) 12.17 ( 35) 9.69 ( 96) 3A II-10
48 + 1 Wharton 5 2 0 0.906 17.05 ( 61) 34.15 ( 45) 4.60 ( 90) 15.92 ( 55) 3A III-24
49 +13 Dal Roosevelt 5 2 0 0.901 19.07 ( 53) 30.06 ( 69) 10.71 ( 41) 12.15 ( 78) 3A II-11
50 -19 Taylor 3 4 0 0.899 20.23 ( 48) 31.86 ( 54) 10.07 ( 44) 24.45 ( 16) 3A III-18

Chng Team W L T Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

51 - 5 Connally-Waco 2 5 0 0.884 23.01 ( 42) 29.66 ( 73) 15.05 ( 15) 26.18 ( 10) 3A III-17
52 - 8 Llano 5 2 0 0.884 19.12 ( 52) 31.11 ( 60) 9.71 ( 48) 11.11 ( 86) 3A IV-25
53 -10 Lake Worth 4 3 0 0.867 19.86 ( 49) 34.97 ( 38) 6.59 ( 70) 18.36 ( 43) 3A II-11
54 +13 Needville 6 1 0 0.861 17.32 ( 60) 30.27 ( 67) 8.75 ( 60) 6.74 (113) 3A III-24
55 + 3 La Vernia 5 2 0 0.852 19.81 ( 50) 28.33 ( 78) 13.17 ( 26) 12.48 ( 77) 3A IV-26
56 - 5 Perryton 5 2 0 0.847 20.37 ( 47) 30.31 ( 66) 11.76 ( 37) 8.93 (103) 3A I-5
57 +19 Rio Hondo 8 0 0 0.841 17.64 ( 59) 29.56 ( 75) 9.78 ( 47) -11.86 (169) 3A IV-32
58 + 1 Dalhart 7 0 0 0.838 15.63 ( 68) 28.08 ( 82) 9.25 ( 53) -0.49 (139) 3A I-5
59 +13 Sweeny 5 2 0 0.805 18.14 ( 56) 25.50 ( 99) 14.33 ( 20) 8.50 (107) 3A III-24
60 + 5 WF Hirschi 6 2 0 0.771 16.04 ( 65) 32.08 ( 53) 5.66 ( 79) 9.23 ( 99) 3A I-6

Chng Team W L T Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

61 +10 Bridge City 5 2 0 0.767 14.66 ( 72) 26.99 ( 93) 9.37 ( 52) 12.04 ( 79) 3A III-21
62 -38 Van 4 3 0 0.764 18.68 ( 54) 31.53 ( 56) 8.85 ( 59) 13.02 ( 76) 3A II-14
63 - 2 Rockdale 2 6 0 0.759 19.26 ( 51) 32.54 ( 49) 8.42 ( 62) 26.79 ( 8) 3A III-18
64 +17 Diboll 6 1 0 0.747 14.73 ( 71) 36.82 ( 31) -0.39 (125) 2.62 (125) 3A III-20
65 +19 Spring Hill 4 3 0 0.712 15.76 ( 66) 31.21 ( 59) 6.24 ( 76) 14.12 ( 64) 3A II-15
66 +22 Mexia 2 5 0 0.705 17.72 ( 58) 36.78 ( 33) 2.64 (105) 22.15 ( 23) 3A III-19
67 -14 Groesbeck 3 4 0 0.688 15.46 ( 69) 34.96 ( 39) 2.20 (109) 19.43 ( 39) 3A III-19
68 - 4 Bullard 4 3 0 0.672 16.19 ( 64) 30.69 ( 64) 7.19 ( 66) 9.80 ( 95) 3A II-14
69 -12 Graham 2 5 0 0.659 16.21 ( 63) 26.99 ( 92) 10.91 ( 40) 21.99 ( 25) 3A I-6
70 - 7 Columbia 3 4 0 0.656 16.93 ( 62) 31.05 ( 61) 7.58 ( 65) 16.10 ( 54) 3A III-24

[Pudlugger]

The Massey rating is getting very interesting now that teams are deep into their schedules. Since it is entirely a computer generated ranking all subjectivity is eliminated other than the built in assumptions regarding power.

Note that the Bellville vs La Grange matchup is betweeen numbers 15 and 21. Hutto vs. Liberty Hill is number 6 and 8. Two good matchups going down Friday I'd say.

[bulldogman06]

How did LH get in front of Cuero?? I know LH is good, but Cuero is undefeated, LH lost 2, one of which was to Cuero. this makes no sense to me

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by bulldogman06
How did LH get in front of Cuero?? I know LH is good, but Cuero is undefeated, LH lost 2, one of which was to Cuero. this makes no sense to me

It's all about the math. Cuero beat LH but only by 2 points I believe. Cuero's strength of schedule is 52nd while LH is 2nd. LH lost by two to Wimberley who is also highly rated. The sos favors LH over Cuero even though Cuero beat LH in a squeeker because of sos points scored defense etc. Win-lose is not as important as the point spreads and relative strength of the opponents. It is not subjective and in this particular case seems anti-intuitive, but it is a more reliable predictor of success particularly the deeper into the season when the numbers start adding up and gain significance. It is interesting that Cuero and LH fall together like this due to the numbers considering how close that game was.

Note: Atlanta is ranked #46 and are 1-6 but their sos is #1.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
The Massey rating is getting very interesting now that teams are deep into their schedules. Since it is entirely a computer generated ranking all subjectivity is eliminated other than the built in assumptions regarding power.

Note that the Bellville vs La Grange matchup is betweeen numbers 15 and 21. Hutto vs. Liberty Hill is number 6 and 8. Two good matchups going down Friday I'd say.

#11 Sweetwater vs #12 Abilene Wylie ;)

[Stownhorse]

You will be at the M&G addidas, right?

[wimbo_pro]

I say the Massey ratings are a VERY good indicator of a teams strengths and weaknesses, and their probability of beating teams rated lower than they are with all "measureable" things taken into account. What the Massey Ratings do not take into account are injuries, experience, heart and gameplan (though you would assume these things have already affected the ratings at this point in the season). But overall, they are (IMO) the most accurate system out there.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
I say the Massey ratings are a VERY good indicator of a teams strengths and weaknesses, and their probability of beating teams rated lower than they are with all "measureable" things taken into account. What the Massey Ratings do not take into account are injuries, experience, heart and gameplan (though you would assume these things have already affected the ratings at this point in the season). But overall, they are (IMO) the most accurate system out there.

Good point on predicitability. Last week La Grange was 21 and Caldwell was 22. They played last Friday and the score: La Grange 32 Caldwell 31. Pretty good predicter imo.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Stownhorse
You will be at the M&G addidas, right?

No. I thought I was going to this game but we decided to go to HSU SING instead...stupid homecoming! :rolleyes: ;)

[Bull's-eye]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Good point on predicitability. Last week La Grange was 21 and Caldwell was 22. They played last Friday and the score: La Grange 32 Caldwell 31. Pretty good predicter imo.

Very close, but now LG is #21 and Caldwell is #27. You would think Caldwell would stay at #22. Do they consider head to head competition? I would have Cuero ahead of LH, even though the other numbers favor LH.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Rockdale is the highest ranked 2 win team in the state...

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Bull's-eye
Very close, but now LG is #21 and Caldwell is #27. You would think Caldwell would stay at #22. Do they consider head to head competition? I would have Cuero ahead of LH, even though the other numbers favor LH.

I noticed that too. Maybe win-lose counts for something afterall. Otherwise you would expect no change as you point out.

[wimbo_pro]

You would think W-L records have an affect, but check out the
"strength of schedule" in the Massey ratings. LH is 2nd hardest in the state, Cuero is 52nd. Thats the reason for the better LH rating, I think. I have read Massey's site where he explains his system...it's pretty interesting, I suggest everyone who is interested in these ratings read it.

By the way, I bet you most if not all of the polls (notice I say polls, not ratings...Massey's is not a poll) take the Massey numbers into account when they make their lists.

[Pudlugger]

The computer model relies on the strength of numbers and as the season progresses it begins to solidify around significant figures. In short, it is more accurate. Yes I think the savy pollsters look at it. SOS is the reason LH and Cuero are 8 and 9 respectively.

What I like is how the Massey poll differs from most polls and, in point of fact, my own subjective assessment. It brings the discussion back to fundamentals when our biasis are negated.

[wimbo_pro]

Agreed Pud...but more importantly (for me anyway) it gives me a quick snapshot of a team I would otherwise know nothing about, not being anywhere near their district and certainly not ever seeing them play. Kind of give me a starting point to go to when someone on these boards talk about them or a pending match-up. Helps me keep up with the topic!

[3afan]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
The computer model relies on the strength of numbers and as the season progresses it begins to solidify around significant figures. In short, it is more accurate. Yes I think the savy pollsters look at it. SOS is the reason LH and Cuero are 8 and 9 respectively.

What I like is how the Massey poll differs from most polls and, in point of fact, my own subjective assessment. It brings the discussion back to fundamentals when our biasis are negated.

:clap:

[sweetwater07]

Looks pretty accurate..i just don't know about Giddings at numero uno...??:thinking: :thinking:

[WOS87]

The biggest flaw I've found in it having paid pretty detailed attention to it for the past three years is that there are a huge number of wrong scores and sometimes even scores being counted twice which can really skew the whole rankings if just one highly ranked team has an error in its database.

If you go to the site try clicking on the name of your team and it will show you the schedule and scores for that team.... I know they have the WOS - LCM score wrong on the WOS schedule for 2006. Last year it was even worse as they had WOS as having a 14-1 record (while it was actually 12-1) and they had us beating Giddings twice by the same 42-21 margin and also beating Hardin-Jefferson twice by the same huge margin 68-13 which I'm sure is the reason we ended the season with the #1 rated offense in 3A ahead of Wimberley....

2005 Massey Ratings Data for WO-S (http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?tm=262214)

Just something to be aware of before you start relying on it as gospel...

[Pudlugger]

Good to know 'cause as they say "garbage in gargage out".

[STANG RED]

This is all very interesting to look at and consider, and does manage to give a decent general idea about these teams. But what a 100% computer generated poll cannot account for, are the many different variables that cannot have a number affixed to them. There is simply no way a computer can account for the human factor that is present in any sport.

[Pudlugger]

No accounting for heart, right Stang?

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
No accounting for heart, right Stang?

Yea, thats one of the biggies all right, but I think all the top teams have plenty of that, or they wouldnt be where they are. But there are so many others as well. Coaches and players decisions at critical times have huge impacts. When and where turnovers occure. Momentum swings, and what causes them. Weather conditions can make a big difference, especially in the time of year of the playoffs. There are really just too many to mention, that a computer just simply cant account for. Oh, I forgot about maybe the biggest one of all. Luck, good or bad, may be biggest in fact. I think we will all agree that you have to get a little lucky sometime, especially to win it all. Sometime a lucky bounce is all it takes to win or lose.

[wimbo_pro]

Darn, WOS87...now I am doubting the Great Massey!!! But honestly, wrong scored aside, the other things that ARENT accounted for kind of average out over the season...heart, coaching, luck, weather, etc. I am not saying that it cant be wrong, am just saying it might be just as accurate or more so than other polls. I would LOVE for WOS87 to tell us, over the last three years, if the top 5 teams in the Massey ratings at the end of the regular season contained all or most of the eventual state champs.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Darn, WOS87...now I am doubting the Great Massey!!! But honestly, wrong scored aside, the other things that ARENT accounted for kind of average out over the season...heart, coaching, luck, weather, etc. I am not saying that it cant be wrong, am just saying it might be just as accurate or more so than other polls. I would LOVE for WOS87 to tell us, over the last three years, if the top 5 teams in the Massey ratings at the end of the regular season contained all or most of the eventual state champs.

Good point, many of these varibles are random and in a large enough sample will average out. Turnovers will be reflected in scoring which the ratings computer model takes into acount as do several ther intangibles mentioned by Stang. The critical condition is to have a large enough sample (total games) to make the numbers significant. That is why the ratings get more reflective of common wisdom as the season progresses.