No offense, but I'm wondering if you really know how both fuel injection systems work? Speed Density also measures the air coming into the system, it just does it a different way.
Speed density uses a MAP (manifold absolute pressure) sensor. It measures vacum in your intake manifold and calculates the fuel requirement based on the volumetric efficiency of your engine, RPM, and a default fuel map. It then uses the other sensor inputs to adjust the fuel injected (ie O2 sensor, coolant temp sensor, intake air temp sensor, throttle position sensor, etc). This is where you run into problems with large engine mods, as you end up changing the volumetric efficiency of your engine. However, the other sensors will still offer feedback and thus small changes do not effect performance.
Mass air does have some advantages. Mostly in the fact that it's a more direct way of measuring air, and thus adapts to engine changes better. It's also a little simpler to understand...
Speed density has advantages in that because there is no device measuring airflow, there is less restriction to airflow (more power). Also, mass air measures airflow by using a heated wire.. which in turn heats the air entering the engine(less power). Also this heated wire is prone to failure, and is a costly device. Mass air meters usually go for around $200 and need to be calibrated. MAP sensors cost $30 and do not need to be calibrated.
In some examples, speed density can be the more robust system. For example.. in a mass air vehicle, a vacum leak causes major greif. Simply because unmetered air is entering the manifold. With speed density all that happens is your engine idles too high.
It depends on the application and owner... but speed density does have some real advantages, and a blanket statement like "mass air is better" is not applicable. No more than saying "trucks are better than cars".