Seed never took place until the day of selection in the past. Why should you knowing who is the #1 factor into a timeframe. As long as it is corrected by the weekend of the bracketing, who cares.
Max Preps State rankings
- Thread starter Massillon#82
- Start date
pcbuck
Well-known member
I understand that. That’s a different thread though. I like to keep updating this thread.
Gbulldog
Well-known member
Thanks...looks like the first post was waaaay early!!!
pcbuck
Well-known member
and the next 10:
11. St Edward
12. Green
13. Glen Oak
14. Richmond Heights (D4)
15. Mentor
16. Hoover
17. CVCA (D2)
18. Dover
19. Jackson
20. Canfield (D2) -#67 in the State
Gbulldog
Well-known member
Wow....some of the teams from the first post are nowhere to be found!
Fumblerooski
Well-known member
Who new Lutherans were so good at basketball??
pcbuck
Well-known member
They’re so good that they are considering adding a Lutheran North.
Fumblerooski
Well-known member
I bet their swimming program would be amazing.
The JFK Canfield game next Tuesday should be a good one and will let both teams know where there really stand.
Generally very 1st posts are early by definition troll. Do you think it will change at all going forward? Lol.
CleveHoopFan08
Active member
I'm sorry but there is no way WJFK should be in the Top 10 within all divisions. While they're a really good D4 team, its highly likely they do not get out of their region.
You may be right, although I don't think the fact that they're D4 automatically disqualifies them. They have a stretch in the next 6 days, starting tonight, of @Canton Central Catholic, @ Mogadore, and @Canfield. I think those three games will say a lot about where they are at this point in the season.
I can also say that while regular season accolades are nice, I know that this team is more focused on the post season than any regular season poll.
Not sure Canton CC can be considered much of a test. I watched Ottawa Glandorf beat them by 29 and the game really wasn't that close.
Good to know (and hoping for a similar result), that said 3 road games with long bus rides in 6 days can be a stretch for a team. Or it can prove how tough they are.
pcbuck
Well-known member
Big difference between early in the season and early in the thread. Gbulldog was clearly talking about early in the season.
Well here we are 2 weeks before tourney draw and the Maxpreps RPI has the one big issue that everyone said it would have. Too many teams with really good records who played absolutely awful schedules are seeded higher than they should be.....and teams with really tough schedules being punished for playing bigger schools or teams with better records. Look at martinrpi.com it's much more realistic.....just like everyone knew it would be
goshengophers
Active member
In Division II, Region 5, both MP and Martin have the same teams 1-27. The biggest discrepancies are 6 positions (1 team, 17 MP vs. 23 MRPI), 5 spots (2 teams) and 4 spots (2 teams). Essentially the top 5 seeds in each of the 5 districts will be the same, regardless of which ranking you look at it.
There may be some other districts with worse discrepancies - I don't have the inclination to look.
Shoot, in the college rankings, Pomeroy has BYU No. 9 today, the NET ranking has them at No. 5 and Massey has them No. 26. The point being, every ranking is different and thus will provide varying results.
The other thing that I would point out is that both the Martin RPI and MaxPreps strength of schedule component factors in all opponents, regardless of the outcome. It is not like the football computer ratings where you only get credit for defeated opponents' wins.
That said - and I advocated for this back in October or November - I would like to see the MaxPreps ranking have a provision for playing schools in higher divisions. Kentucky's RPI has this and it shouldn't be difficult to replicate. That's the main difference between Martin and MaxPreps, as far as I can tell.
I'm not defending or debating anyone's position; just saying in my small sample size I don't see much area for concern.
There may be some other districts with worse discrepancies - I don't have the inclination to look.
Shoot, in the college rankings, Pomeroy has BYU No. 9 today, the NET ranking has them at No. 5 and Massey has them No. 26. The point being, every ranking is different and thus will provide varying results.
The other thing that I would point out is that both the Martin RPI and MaxPreps strength of schedule component factors in all opponents, regardless of the outcome. It is not like the football computer ratings where you only get credit for defeated opponents' wins.
That said - and I advocated for this back in October or November - I would like to see the MaxPreps ranking have a provision for playing schools in higher divisions. Kentucky's RPI has this and it shouldn't be difficult to replicate. That's the main difference between Martin and MaxPreps, as far as I can tell.
I'm not defending or debating anyone's position; just saying in my small sample size I don't see much area for concern.
That was the entire arguement against using the MaxPreps RPI.....but as usual the OH$AA took the money instead of using a better system that was already in place
pcbuck
Well-known member
One thing I noticed was that in D4 NEO District OHSAA has Richmond Heights #8 while MartinRPI has them #1.
As it stands there will be 7 teams praying that RH doesn't pick their side of the bracket.
Gbulldog
Well-known member
Sad when you have to explain it to him.
pcbuck
Well-known member
Still doesn’t look like he figured it out. Neither did his missing buddy who liked his post.
NWOsportfan
Active member
Which schools are some examples of this in NWO?
The OHSAA RPI system with MaxPreps is so much better than the old way of doing tournament seeding. It’s great to see the daily updates - it takes the human element out of it - it makes it easier to have super districts (and eventual widespread regions as we go to 7 divisions) because teams can’t vote for schools they haven’t seen.
Could some kinks be worked out? I am sure.
The biggest change I would love to see would be the draw occuring after all 22 games have been played and accounted for.
Could some kinks be worked out? I am sure.
The biggest change I would love to see would be the draw occuring after all 22 games have been played and accounted for.
Big Lex Fan
Active member
^^^Also give credit for playing larger division schools.
It’s not really possible with an RPI, but one of the benefits to coach voting would be the ability to judge head to head matchups. I saw one situation where a team is 7-6, beat another team twice who is 7-6 and is one spot below them in the RPI. Not that all coaches would do their research but that’s one spot where I think the RPI comes up a little short.
Not sure how I feel about it overall. It does at least get rid of the element of coaches teaming up to over/under seed some teams for strategic advantages and takes out those where were ignorant. Just wish head to head could somehow be a factor.
Not sure how I feel about it overall. It does at least get rid of the element of coaches teaming up to over/under seed some teams for strategic advantages and takes out those where were ignorant. Just wish head to head could somehow be a factor.
TriangleMan
Hates Particle Man
Top 50 OHSAA RPI as of Sunday 1/28
A different view
| Rank | Division | School | RPI | WP | OWP | OOWP | Record |
1 | 1 | Whitmer (Toledo) | 0.744005 | 0.923077 | 0.653938 | 0.583584 | 12-1 |
2 | 1 | Olentangy Orange (Lewis Center) | 0.742768 | 1.000000 | 0.562790 | 0.583167 | 15-0 |
3 | 1 | St. Ignatius (Cleveland) | 0.736114 | 0.823529 | 0.735317 | 0.597367 | 14-3 |
4 | 1 | Sandusky | 0.725329 | 0.916667 | 0.621559 | 0.564466 | 11-1 |
5 | 1 | Findlay | 0.724619 | 0.923077 | 0.595711 | 0.587558 | 12-1 |
6 | 4 | Russia | 0.723139 | 1.000000 | 0.552143 | 0.519554 | 15-0 |
7 | 1 | Garfield Heights | 0.723013 | 1.000000 | 0.494932 | 0.599148 | 16-0 |
8 | 1 | Archbishop Moeller (Cincinnati) | 0.722250 | 0.937500 | 0.567542 | 0.594443 | 15-1 |
9 | 1 | Hayes (Delaware) | 0.721495 | 0.937500 | 0.598729 | 0.547757 | 15-1 |
10 | 1 | Elder (Cincinnati) | 0.717340 | 0.933333 | 0.576764 | 0.568558 | 14-1 |
11 | 2 | Wyoming (Cincinnati) | 0.716529 | 1.000000 | 0.521073 | 0.536613 | 15-0 |
12 | 1 | Brecksville-Broadview Heights | 0.713686 | 0.928571 | 0.571175 | 0.569384 | 13-1 |
13 | 4 | Toledo Christian (Toledo) | 0.713053 | 0.933333 | 0.580275 | 0.546495 | 14-1 |
14 | 2 | Bishop Hartley (Columbus) | 0.712001 | 0.928571 | 0.582636 | 0.546599 | 13-1 |
15 | 3 | Ottawa-Glandorf (Ottawa) | 0.709047 | 0.857143 | 0.647127 | 0.558780 | 12-2 |
16 | 2 | Lutheran West (Rocky River) | 0.707623 | 0.875000 | 0.615716 | 0.568488 | 14-2 |
17 | 1 | Louisville | 0.703441 | 0.875000 | 0.608365 | 0.562053 | 14-2 |
18 | 1 | Centerville | 0.699302 | 0.785714 | 0.661031 | 0.614621 | 11-3 |
19 | 4 | Monroe Central (Woodsfield) | 0.699238 | 1.000000 | 0.470453 | 0.538317 | 14-0 |
20 | 3 | Malvern | 0.695281 | 1.000000 | 0.478124 | 0.511750 | 14-0 |
21 | 2 | Ursuline (Youngstown) | 0.693948 | 0.846154 | 0.612312 | 0.564708 | 11-2 |
22 | 2 | Archbishop Alter (Kettering) | 0.693927 | 0.785714 | 0.667826 | 0.583611 | 11-3 |
23 | 3 | Lutheran East (Cleveland Heights) | 0.689455 | 0.812500 | 0.608791 | 0.605515 | 13-3 |
24 | 3 | Crestview (Ashland) | 0.689290 | 1.000000 | 0.475323 | 0.491707 | 15-0 |
25 | 4 | South Webster | 0.688762 | 0.875000 | 0.596277 | 0.520260 | 14-2 |
26 | 1 | Westerville North (Westerville) | 0.687498 | 0.812500 | 0.647372 | 0.543669 | 13-3 |
27 | 2 | Cuyahoga Valley Christian Academy | 0.687334 | 0.937500 | 0.511827 | 0.532778 | 15-1 |
28 | 1 | Beavercreek | 0.684355 | 0.800000 | 0.623141 | 0.585022 | 12-3 |
29 | 1 | Licking Heights (Pataskala) | 0.683394 | 0.866667 | 0.571886 | 0.546268 | 13-2 |
30 | 3 | Williamsburg | 0.681936 | 0.923077 | 0.522415 | 0.519438 | 12-1 |
31 | 3 | Minford | 0.680612 | 0.846154 | 0.586658 | 0.547280 | 11-2 |
32 | 4 | John F. Kennedy Catholic (Warren) | 0.679782 | 0.800000 | 0.636283 | 0.548334 | 12-3 |
33 | 3 | Bluffton | 0.679251 | 0.928571 | 0.510636 | 0.516401 | 13-1 |
34 | 1 | Sycamore (Cincinnati) | 0.678557 | 0.866667 | 0.537274 | 0.575379 | 13-2 |
35 | 4 | Troy Christian (Troy) | 0.676534 | 0.923077 | 0.504709 | 0.522622 | 12-1 |
36 | 4 | Lima Central Catholic (Lima) | 0.674317 | 0.866667 | 0.520649 | 0.581694 | 13-2 |
37 | 2 | Shelby | 0.674312 | 0.866667 | 0.539473 | 0.555320 | 13-2 |
38 | 2 | Willard | 0.673660 | 0.857143 | 0.563990 | 0.533627 | 12-2 |
39 | 1 | Strongsville | 0.673353 | 0.857143 | 0.545814 | 0.557843 | 12-2 |
40 | 1 | Green (Uniontown) | 0.671497 | 0.785714 | 0.615385 | 0.567307 | 11-3 |
41 | 2 | Lexington | 0.670947 | 0.944444 | 0.453266 | 0.538104 | 17-1 |
42 | 1 | Brunswick | 0.670308 | 0.866667 | 0.521281 | 0.564773 | 13-2 |
43 | 1 | Perrysburg | 0.669786 | 0.785714 | 0.607038 | 0.572150 | 11-3 |
44 | 3 | Wayne Trace (Haviland) | 0.668134 | 0.866667 | 0.543599 | 0.524832 | 13-2 |
45 | 2 | Norwayne (Creston) | 0.666355 | 0.928571 | 0.466693 | 0.526335 | 13-1 |
46 | 1 | Newark | 0.663857 | 0.823529 | 0.556903 | 0.558116 | 14-3 |
47 | 1 | New Albany | 0.663650 | 0.750000 | 0.645642 | 0.550703 | 12-4 |
48 | 1 | Winton Woods (Cincinnati) | 0.663024 | 0.846154 | 0.535827 | 0.548093 | 11-2 |
49 | 3 | Buckeye Trail (Lore City) | 0.662491 | 0.923077 | 0.472880 | 0.511010 | 12-1 |
50 | 4 | Hiland (Berlin) | 0.661441 | 0.750000 | 0.646947 | 0.540037 | 9-3 |
A different view
Last edited: