Nothing gets discussion going in the world of MIAA sports like the power rankings.
The MIAA unveiled its first update for winter sports Friday morning. The power rankings are what ultimately determine playoff seeding for the state tournament. The top 32 teams in each division make up the first 32 seeds, and any other teams that finish .500 or better also make the postseason for a preliminary-round play-in game.
A refresher on the formula: every team's overall "rating" is the sum of two components: its average margin of victory (with a 10-point maximum/-10-point minimum MOV for wins/losses of 10-plus points), plus its opponent rating (the average of their opponents' overall ratings).
There's a lot to unpack in the first batch of power rankings (find the MIAA's official list here). Here are five immediate takeaways from Friday's update.
1. The power rankings love the Tri-Valley League
The Tri-Valley League is consistently one of the deepest conferences in the MIAA. But they're doing extra well in the rankings to start.
Hopkinton (5-2) slots in third in Division 1 with an overall rating of 17.3. The Hillers have the highest opponent rating in Division 1. Medfield, Norwood and Westwood lead Division 2 and boast the three highest opponent ratings in the entire state. Medway comes in second in Division 3, with Dedham (third), Norton (seventh) and Bellingham (eighth) also near the front. Millis is a 2-seed in Division 4.
There's no subjectivity in the MIAA power rankings formula — so how is it possible for a league to get so much favor? The answer is layered, but my best reasoning is that all of these teams have been winning out of league to start and playing each other close in-league. A conference with a lot of teams, and a lot of winning teams, is going to help lift everyone.
RELATED: 5 boys takeaways from the first MIAA power rankings release
2. Division 1 goes through the same two teams
Bishop Feehan and Wachusett were the class of Division 1 last winter and their meeting in the state championship almost felt like a foregone conclusion. They're back atop the power rankings to start, with Wachusett first (20.3) and Bishop Feehan second (19.7).
I'm not surprised by Bishop Feehan, who has only lost to New Hampshire powerhouse Bedford. The defending champions returned their elite backcourt duo of Charlotte Adams-Lopez and Maddy Steel, who have been humming to start the season, along with fast-rising junior Mollie Mullen. They've also had players like Lily Singer and Shannon LaMorticelli step up in the frontcourt.
Wachusett has impressed me with how they've regrouped after graduating seven seniors. The Mountaineers have versatile junior forward Jaelynn Scott running the show, plus some dynamic breakout guards in Sophie Gibbons and Teegan Lanpher. Wachusett is undefeated entering Saturday's matchup with that same Bedford team, and I'm excited to see how they fare.
3. Who's being slept on?
I always love comparing my own rankings and opinions of teams to the MIAA's official power rankings.
Woburn, for example, is getting fair love from the formula as a projected No. 7 seed in Div. 1. But I have them fifth in my Top 10 and believe they're at least the third-best in the division. Bridgewater-Raynham is another squad I don't have ranked, but I believe is much stronger than their current 15-seed spot in Div. 1.
Division 2 looks fairly on target, though I think Notre Dame Hingham (currently 11th) and Bishop Fenwick (17th) are better than their seedings. I'm zoning in on Pittsfield in Division 3. The 7-0 Generals have good standing as a No. 6 seed, but teams above them should be wary. They've already beaten some of the best programs out in Western Mass., including Springfield Central, Northampton and Hoosac Valley. Cathedral, Millis and Cohasset are in a tier of their own in Division 4, which I understand so far.
I don't let these numbers affect my own rankings too much. But has the MIAA's power rankings made me aware of any personal blind spots?
Pembroke, seeded fourth in Division 2 at 6-0, wasn't heavily on my radar entering the winter. But they've beaten quality teams and it shows in their 8.85 opponent rating. I'm keeping a closer eye on the Titans now. In addition to the aforementioned Tri-Valley League teams, some schools I'll be following more going forward: Natick (fourth in Div. 1), Chelmsford (sixth in Div. 1), Nashoba (10th in Div. 2) and North Reading (10th in Div. 3).
4. Picturing the overall top 20
One of the neat things about the power rankings is that the team ratings theoretically translate across divisions. We can see what the formula believes are the top overall teams regardless of division. Here's that hypothetical list.
1. Medfield — 21.34 (Div. 2)
2. Norwood — 21.14 (Div. 2)
3. Wachusett — 20.3 (Div. 1)
4. Bishop Feehan — 19.7 (Div. 1)
5. Westwood — 18.44 (Div. 2)
6. Pembroke — 17.35 (Div. 2)
7. Hopkinton — 17.31 (Div. 1)
8. St. Mary's — 17.25 (Div. 3)
9. Medway — 17.09 (Div. 3)
10. Dedham — 17.07 (Div. 3)
11. Norwell — 16.19 (Div. 3)
12. Foxboro — 16.07 (Div. 3)
13. Whitman-Hanson — 15.90 (Div. 2)
14. Duxbury — 15.59 (Div. 2)
15. Dartmouth — 15.04 (Div. 2)
16. Natick — 14.91 (Div. 1)
17. Walpole — 14.90 (Div. 2)
18. Central Catholic — 14.73 (Div. 1)
19. Chelmsford — 14.69 (Div. 1)
20. North Quincy — 14.50 (Div. 2)
The formula thinks Medfield — ranked second in our own Top 10 — is the best team in the state. There are six Division 1 schools in this top 20, nine in Division 2 and five in Division 3 (none for Div. 4 and 5).
5. Do not overreact to the first update
I'm a basketball and numbers nerd. It's fun for me to parse through these ratings, especially when they first drop and folks are most eager to see where their school lands. But we're still more than a month and a half from the actual finalized rankings and the seeding of the state tournament field.
Most schools have played less than half of their games, and those out-of-state contests weigh more now than they will in February. Before you build expectations off of how high your team is ranked — or complain about how low it is — remember that this is going to shift quite a bit as teams continue their schedules.
For all the debate about how the power ratings work and the in-game implications of the formula, it's hard to argue against the resounding success of the seeding metric since it first came in use in 2021-22 — particularly in basketball. It's worth letting the season play out to see how the rankings change over time.
