New Polls (2017-11-27)

[dntn31]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTkBfnKI3TAXYmDN9MTh8mbewSWA8Zg56CDgTu2JK5X-1YLW7gCOOkPTRLlH0LMlS7YAzxHm1_cSaOp/pubhtml

Few days late. PrepNation didn't release their rankings until late Monday night and I was unavailable all day yesterday.

[Pops]

4 hours ago, dntn31 said:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTkBfnKI3TAXYmDN9MTh8mbewSWA8Zg56CDgTu2JK5X-1YLW7gCOOkPTRLlH0LMlS7YAzxHm1_cSaOp/pubhtml

Few days late. PrepNation didn't release their rankings until late Monday night and I was unavailable all day yesterday.

You are forgiven and thanks again for putting this out every week.  Some observations (mainly focusing on exceptions):

— Allen is highest ranked team not ranked by any poll.  CP has them #38 in country.  That’s not a good look, but they’ve played one team better than evangel Christian and that was a 12 point win over #183 Coppell.  Whoever wins TX will zoom up the polls and maybe CP is correctly pointing out that Allen is at least far from a prohibitive favorite based on results to date 

— how can USAT not have MNW ranked?

— how can Jeff fisher rank STA in top 25?  He’s clearly choosing to just ignore results in the field.  He is the only poll to rank several teams in top 25 — STA (20th), MC (13th — this one may be astute), and John Curtis (another NAME)

 

[Omaha Vol]

I still don’t get the lofty ranking for S. Pointe. They’re good, but not top 10 good. 

[Pops]

9 hours ago, Omaha Vol said:

I still don’t get the lofty ranking for S. Pointe. They’re good, but not top 10 good. 

CP agrees with you 🤛

[AztecPadre]

This is the best the comp poll has ever looked. M.D. looking to be the consensus MNC and not a single ga team in sight. God I love the holidays!!

[Pops]

33 minutes ago, GardenStateBaller said:

Dude, why didn't you include our poll? We need to get our shit together internally going fwd. 

I’m opposed.... so we’re a lot of others when it was discussed previously

don’t think amyone losing sleep but far from a consensus to include

[Coletrain06]

I think ours should be included. I think most every true national hsfb fan would agree that our poll is by far the best....

One can assume that if we take the time each and every week to put this poll together, we take it seriously and have pride in it. As such, we should feel confident putting our poll up against the others, and If you think any of these other polls have more collective hsfb knowledge than our poll, you're insane

[golfaddict1]

On 11/29/2017 at 4:29 PM, Pops said:

You are forgiven and thanks again for putting this out every week.  Some observations (mainly focusing on exceptions):

— Allen is highest ranked team not ranked by any poll.  CP has them #38 in country.  That’s not a good look, but they’ve played one team better than evangel Christian and that was a 12 point win over #183 Coppell.  Whoever wins TX will zoom up the polls and maybe CP is correctly pointing out that Allen is at least far from a prohibitive favorite based on results to date 

— how can USAT not have MNW ranked?  

— how can Jeff fisher rank STA in top 25?  He’s clearly choosing to just ignore results in the field.  He is the only poll to rank several teams in top 25 — STA (20th), MC (13th — this one may be astute), and John Curtis (another NAME)

 

There is no sweet spot for Calpreps until the final few weeks it seems.   CP stands alone as the most volatile (and ridiculous at this point of the season) and it stands out in this compilation poll.    It's Dec. 1st,  TX shouldn't have to zoom up anything.  

I'm guessing USAT didn't like the Norland loss... but beating MC twice (who beat BG on the road and gave IMG a battle and 4th qtr was a tossup) and Carol City 2x isn't too shabby.   I certainly have MNW in. 

Not a clue Pops how any source can have STA #20 (or 25).  My O examples were the highest ranked teams they played until tonight vs. Venice.  Will the soph with more reps and able to scramble if needed, along with the retired longtime OL coach returning back to the sidelines to aid the fugly OL be enough to open the playbook and expect rushing and passing success?  They are gunna need it to beat Venice on the road.   The D will have to be very stout, should be interesting.  

[golfaddict1]

8 hours ago, Coletrain06 said:

I think ours should be included. I think most every true national hsfb fan would agree that our poll is by far the best....

One can assume that if we take the time each and every week to put this poll together, we take it seriously and have pride in it. As such, we should feel confident putting our poll up against the others, and If you think any of these other polls have more collective hsfb knowledge than our poll, you're insane

There are a few flaws in our gig... but it's still a solid product and it's based on opinions from this forum!    The brand name polls are one man shows, not some deep research staff across the land.   Popp, DeMoney, Halley, Fisher  let's not praise 4 individual opinions too much    Freeman is an ongoing discussion.  

 

 

[golfaddict1]

Dec. 1st  Hoban won state's convincingly... rose from 17 to 7.  OH dropped from 7 to 6 schools in 25 (tied with CA)

 Any thoughts on keeping a "rating system" on Dec. 1st with these schools in the top 25?

Let's start with South Pointe at #25 (Pops no likey among others),  #24  St Xavier  #23  Trotwood Madison  #22  Bentonville  #21  St Ignatius  #20 Pickerington North  #19  Mentor  #17  Christian Brothers, MO  (Christian Brothers TN beat them, currently #497)  #16  Folsom  #12  Mission Viejo  #11  North Little Rock  #7  Hoban  #6  St Louis   

I think our forum poll on Dec. 1st can match this  (I did have Hoban in my 25 this week, glad I did ).  

[Pops]

3 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

There is no sweet spot for Calpreps until the final few weeks it seems.   CP stands alone as the most volatile (and ridiculous at this point of the season) and it stands out in this compilation poll.    It's Dec. 1st,  TX shouldn't have to zoom up anything.  

I'm guessing USAT didn't like the Norland loss... but beating MC twice (who beat BG on the road and gave IMG a battle and 4th qtr was a tossup) and Carol City 2x isn't too shabby.   I certainly have MNW in. 

Not a clue Pops how any source can have STA #20 (or 25).  My O examples were the highest ranked teams they played until tonight vs. Venice.  Will the soph with more reps and able to scramble if needed, along with the retired longtime OL coach returning back to the sidelines to aid the fugly OL be enough to open the playbook and expect rushing and passing success?  They are gunna need it to beat Venice on the road.   The D will have to be very stout, should be interesting.  

CP has MNW 13th — one spot higher than comp poll

dont throw out CP with the bath water — DLS was 9th IN CALIFORNIA about now right before 4-peating the state championship and winning comp poll (Inc Cp) in 2012 — it’s volatility is its #1 attribute!  OH too high/ TX too low right now.  Don’t know what was tweaked — glad he’s WILLING to tweak but think he overdid it this time (just like turning the thermostat to high when you feel chilly)

Good luck vs one of your battling Vs

[Pops]

6 hours ago, GardenStateBaller said:

I'd like for it to be used since ours has the true #1 in the land. 

Forgot you are an IMG spokesman

im barely past reluctantly acknowledging that they should be ranked 

MD too good this year to give benefit of doubt to the academy especially since they have even better players 

[TigerHat]

The reason that Texas has to climb up at the end of just about every season is that the Texas power house teams are all public schools who have to play the low rated teams in their districts. CalPreps penalizes teams for playing low rated teams. This gives the California private schools a boost since they aren't forced to play low rated teams - so their ratings don't degrade the way the Texas schools do. Katy while going 8-0 in the regular season ( two games lost to Hurricane Harvey ) went from having a CalPreps rating of over 74 to having a current rating of 66.6 even after shellacking two playoff teams by a 100-21 composite score. The same rating drop has happened to Allen.  Game performance indicates Katy's actual CalPreps rating ought to be around 90 - as all but their first game carries a ** rating on their trend page. For example Katy just beat a CalPreps 61 rated team 44-0 - which would be a true performance of 105. However they will be limited to the ** limit of 28-29 points over their opponents rating. Which will give them a game performance of 89-90.

 

[TigerHat]

Another reason that the politically correct CalPreps rating system is screwed up. It penalizes good teams for blowing out good opponents. Both Allen and Katy played two teams close to their rating last night.  Allen's game was inside the window that CalPreps considers "real" ; a 15 to 29 point win. Their 48-25 (24 points) win is regarded as a "real" win and is more heavily considered by the rating system than Katy's 44-0 win which receives both a double star ( meaning it is not as heavily weighed as a lesser real win is ) and causes their opponents rating to drop much more heavily than Allen's opponent dropped. In other words both Katy and its opponent are penalized because Katy played so well. What a nutty system.

Instead of the 89-90 point game performance I showed in the last post - Katy received a game performance of 84.6 because their opponent's rating was dropped from 61 to 55.6. In other words Katy was penalized with a game performance rating more than 20 points lower than its actual performance of 105. This is again part of the reason that Texas teams are low rated during the regular season and have to come up during their post season.

 

[Pops]

2 hours ago, TigerHat said:

Another reason that the politically correct CalPreps rating system is screwed up. It penalizes good teams for blowing out good opponents. Both Allen and Katy played two teams close to their rating last night.  Allen's game was inside the window that CalPreps considers "real" ; a 15 to 29 point win. Their 48-25 (24 points) win is regarded as a "real" win and is more heavily considered by the rating system than Katy's 44-0 win which receives both a double star ( meaning it is not as heavily weighed as a lesser real win is ) and causes their opponents rating to drop much more heavily than Allen's opponent dropped. In other words both Katy and its opponent are penalized because Katy played so well. What a nutty system.

Instead of the 89-90 point game performance I showed in the last post - Katy received a game performance of 84.6 because their opponent's rating was dropped from 61 to 55.6. In other words Katy was penalized with a game performance rating more than 20 points lower than its actual performance of 105. This is again part of the reason that Texas teams are low rated during the regular season and have to come up during their post season.

 

Shouldn’t playing inferior teams penalize a team in a rating system? 

Mom not sure what complaint actually is here

TX is not mistreated at CP historically — Allen was highest ranked 1-loss team ever (2nd 2012), ie, until 1-loss DLS finished #1 in 2015.  However, this year there were some adjustments made that don’t appear favorable — Arkansas and Georgia are probably overheated now.

[golfaddict1]

Pops, AR avg top 50 schedule strength is still ahead of TX as of today.   Just odd.  

[Pops]

5 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Pops, AR avg top 50 schedule strength is still ahead of TX as of today.   Just odd.  

No arguement

theres a fly in the ointment it would certainly seem 

[Pops]

5 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Pops, AR avg top 50 schedule strength is still ahead of TX as of today.   Just odd.  

 

Just now, Pops said:

No arguement

theres a fly in the ointment it would certainly seem 

But don’t throw baby out with bath water

[TigerHat]

10 hours ago, Pops said:

Shouldn’t playing inferior teams penalize a team in a rating system? 

Mom not sure what complaint actually is here

TX is not mistreated at CP historically — Allen was highest ranked 1-loss team ever (2nd 2012), ie, until 1-loss DLS finished #1 in 2015.  However, this year there were some adjustments made that don’t appear favorable — Arkansas and Georgia are probably overheated now.

What exactly does the quality of your opponent have to do with how good YOUR team is? Show your work.

[Pops]

4 hours ago, TigerHat said:

What exactly does the quality of your opponent have to do with how good YOUR team is? Show your work.

CP is a rating system

it ONLY judges your resume — it doesn’t look at tape — it’s just #s — margin of victory, strength of opponent, etc

despite my past criticism of John Curtis winning most of the human polls in 2012, while my team won the comp poll, I’d acknowledge that CP had them too low at #152, but would contend that they had the resume appropriately slotted — they played absolutely a horrendous schedule for a MNC contending team and CP couldn’t see their true potential.  On the other hand, CP having them at #152 ought to have compelled the humans to ask if they have proven enough to be #1 maybe a bit more rather than just jumping them there after beating an overrated plant team in September 

that’s the way I see it anyway — I was just suggesting that maybe Allen has not been vetted thoroughly for the lofty position they hold but if they keep winning it will sort itself out

[TigerHat]

7 hours ago, Pops said:

CP is a rating system

it ONLY judges your resume — it doesn’t look at tape — it’s just #s — margin of victory, strength of opponent, etc

despite my past criticism of John Curtis winning most of the human polls in 2012, while my team won the comp poll, I’d acknowledge that CP had them too low at #152, but would contend that they had the resume appropriately slotted — they played absolutely a horrendous schedule for a MNC contending team and CP couldn’t see their true potential.  On the other hand, CP having them at #152 ought to have compelled the humans to ask if they have proven enough to be #1 maybe a bit more rather than just jumping them there after beating an overrated plant team in September 

that’s the way I see it anyway — I was just suggesting that maybe Allen has not been vetted thoroughly for the lofty position they hold but if they keep winning it will sort itself out

I see you didn't answer my question. Sadly it didn't even cause you to think.

I am well aware of what CalPreps is and how it works.

A rating system ought to be to tell you how good teams are - in other words - it  ( ideally ) places teams in order from best to worst by assigning a number to their performance based on how well they perform in games. The CalPreps projector - internally - does this since it is based on actual numerical performance of teams without any of the minimum of 15 points boost for the winning team, the 28 - 29 point cap on a win, and the penalty imposed on teams for playing bad teams - all of which the CalPreps rating system does.

The projector's internal rating system is a more honest appraisal of teams than the visible rating system. So why don't they use the projector's internal system, and why does the CalPreps rating system do what it does if the Projector's raw points system is more honest? Sorry, there is only one answer possible to that question: "because they don't want more honest results."  That means the people doing the rating system have an agenda. What is their agenda? To confirm their opinion that California private teams are the best by rigging the rating system to show just that.

 

[Pops]

18 minutes ago, TigerHat said:

I see you didn't answer my question. Sadly it didn't even cause you to think.

I am well aware of what CalPreps is and how it works.

A rating system ought to be to tell you how good teams are - in other words - it  ( ideally ) places teams in order from best to worst by assigning a number to their performance based on how well they perform in games. The CalPreps projector - internally - does this since it is based on actual numerical performance of teams without any of the minimum of 15 points boost for the winning team, the 28 - 29 point cap on a win, and the penalty imposed on teams for playing bad teams - all of which the CalPreps rating system does.

The projector's internal rating system is a more honest appraisal of teams than the visible rating system. So why don't they use the projector's internal system, and why does the CalPreps rating system do what it does if the Projector's raw points system is more honest? Sorry, there is only one answer possible to that question: "because they don't want more honest results."  That means the people doing the rating system have an agenda. What is their agenda? To confirm their opinion that California private teams are the best by rigging the rating system to show just that.

 

I’m sorry

i mistook for wanting an honest conversation not someone to blame for your team not being higher

have a nice day

[TigerHat]

No, I was having an honest conversation and pointing out facts - you keep avoiding talking about facts.

 

 

 

 

[golfaddict1]

Trinity KY still has to play this afternoon, but this is the current 25 from Freeman’s Calpreps.  

http://calpreps.com/2017/ratings/National_all25.htm

My suggestion would be to focus on state ratings right now.   Freeman’s last tinker (retread) seems to have disturbed all the way up to the elites (25).   Just look at 25. They lost an OOS game to a much weaker team it seems.  I ended there.  The national novelty rating is a swing and miss.  It’s too date sensitive now with the playoff boost, but it’s beyond that.  He has AR ridiculously rated, which is evidenced by 2 in the 25 and one in a very lofty spot.  

Of course this will all change next week.  It’s a ridiculous poll and doesn’t belong in the compilation anymore.  Unless you want to have an end of season poll, I’d drop it.  Fisher doesn’t have this turbulent movement and it’s an algorithm based poll.  He figured out the date sensitivity it seems in his “secret sauce” added criteria.   CP is not in tune nationally.  Follow state and the rest is Freeman’s failed retread with some warped State scaling twisting ratings all the way near the top on a national basis (scale).  

[golfaddict1]

I’ll example Bergen Catholic as another example.  Look at their OOS losses.  Look at the PA loss.  Look at who that PA team lost to?   Tell me, as BC blazed thru NJ how does their OOS performance stand up?  It doesn’t.  The shift of ratings boost moves to NJ only and the playoff boost of winning differentials of playing only NJ schools.    Swing and miss national novelty.