View Full Version : Scorecard of National Polls
Here is a "scorecard" showing how accurate the various national polls are. You can see that the Calpreps model is much better than the average of the human polls (individual years vary).
http://calpreps.com/cgi-bin/2007/polls_view4.pl
Using these measures Calpreps ranked as follows in terms of accuracy:
2007: 1st
2006: 4th
2005: 4th
2004: 1st
If you accept these measures, Calpreps has the highest accuracy rating over the 2004-07 period.
Notice the "Out In Front" rankings. Calpreps is #1 every year. Out In Front shows which poll added a new team to their rating that was ranked for the first time. This illustrates the bias that human polls have against ranking unknown teams.
skyway28
10-24-07, 02:40 PM
I'm not even going to begin to break down why this thread is meaningless beyond to say: Look which site put together those numbers.
I'm not even going to begin to break down why this thread is meaningless beyond to say: Look which site put together those numbers.
LOL Why don't you debate the merits of what they did rather than sticking your head in the sand because you don't like the source. LOL
Do you have a better way to compare the polls? I can't think of one.
If you accept these measures, Calpreps has the highest accuracy rating over the 2004-07 period.
Let's break down their criteria:
1. Least losses--not a great measure, since we're trying to rank the best teams in the country, not the most likely to go undefeated. If calpreps had ranked Tuscola (IL) #1 all year last season, would they have been justified by the fact that they went 14-0 and won almost all their games decisively? There are far more than 25 teams that go undefeated every year--even if every team in someone's initial top 25 went undefeated, there wouldn't be any indication that those were the right 25.
2. Head to head--as noted in the other thread, extremely skewed towards games between teams from the same state, while the point of national rankings is to compare teams from different states. And even if your system does a good job of ranking Wyoming teams against other Wyoming teams, and Idaho teams against other Idaho teams, you can't generalize that to say your system does a good job of ranking Wyoming teams against Idaho teams.
3. Out in front--I don't see how this relates to the accuracy of a ranking. 2 of the 5 teams that calpreps was first to rank this year have since lost--should they be penalized for this?
While I don't think the first two measures are that useful, one could at least argue that they have some merit--they aren't totally unconnected to the accuracy of a national ranking. And it's glaringly obvious that calpreps is at best middle of the pack on those two measures--it's only their "out in front" fudge factor that pushes them towards the top.
RidgePride
10-24-07, 08:35 PM
IMO Polls should be viewed as a tool for debate. Polls more than not are used a double standard tool. Whenever your team is at the top, people are quick to let everyone know. However when a team from your state is ranked low, the same people are quick to dismiss the poll's accuaracy. :shrug: The poll debate is usually complete lunacy.
If the top teams in the nation do not play each other, There is absolutely no way to know what team is #1 much less the 2-10 slots.
Just because team A played an easy schedule and dominated does not mean that it could not beat team B that played a tough schedule and dominated or squeaked by. (an argument for top teams in small states).
Team A may have dominated Team B's opponents too if given the chance.
The strength of schedule is just insane. If the rankings can't get 1-10 correct, it certainly could not get teams 200-5000 correct.
The top 20 or so teams in the nation are probably all correct to be in the top 20 (or so) because they have dominated in their state, but the order will never be correct.
Bordertown
10-24-07, 08:59 PM
The top 20 or so teams in the nation are probably all correct to be in the top 20 (or so) because they have dominated in their state, but the order will never be correct.
Ding Ding Ding - we have a winner. I totally agree with that statement when you use an aggregate approach to the ranking system. I see teams that are highly ranked that I personally question. For example I am not sure the Arizona team is in the top 20 even though they dominate their state.
Let's break down their criteria:
1. Least losses--not a great measure, since we're trying to rank the best teams in the country, not the most likely to go undefeated. If calpreps had ranked Tuscola (IL) #1 all year last season, would they have been justified by the fact that they went 14-0 and won almost all their games decisively? There are far more than 25 teams that go undefeated every year--even if every team in someone's initial top 25 went undefeated, there wouldn't be any indication that those were the right 25.
2. Head to head--as noted in the other thread, extremely skewed towards games between teams from the same state, while the point of national rankings is to compare teams from different states. And even if your system does a good job of ranking Wyoming teams against other Wyoming teams, and Idaho teams against other Idaho teams, you can't generalize that to say your system does a good job of ranking Wyoming teams against Idaho teams.
3. Out in front--I don't see how this relates to the accuracy of a ranking. 2 of the 5 teams that calpreps was first to rank this year have since lost--should they be penalized for this?
While I don't think the first two measures are that useful, one could at least argue that they have some merit--they aren't totally unconnected to the accuracy of a national ranking. And it's glaringly obvious that calpreps is at best middle of the pack on those two measures--it's only their "out in front" fudge factor that pushes them towards the top.
It's nice to see an intelligent response from someone who doesn't need to have his hand held to understand this stuff.
I agree with your points.
Calpreps may well be a middle of the road national ranking. That's all it needs to be. Frankly, it's remarkable that a computer model using a few inputs from (what?) 15,000 teams can rank teams as well as the humans.
I think the Out In Front measure is a good one because it does illustrate the built in bias that the humans have (they give historically good teams an advantage and they are slow to give credit to new comers).
To me, the bottom line is that IF we want to rank national teams we should use ALL of the polls. The computer rankings are a very important part of the overall picture and should not be ignored as some have suggested.
skyway28
10-25-07, 10:02 AM
The least losses category reveals a key flaw with the computer rankings. Teams benefit most from a) winning all of their games b) doing so against teams with good W-L records. Sounds perfectly logical, right? Problem is, this ain't the NFL. Teams don't play the same teams. A small school in Idaho that wins all of their games against a schedule that features teams with good records is going to be ranked highly. Never mind the fact that small school football in Idaho is an entirely different animal than 6A Texas football etc.
My opinion:
None of the national rankings should be taken seriously. None have enough of a basis to compare teams across different regions where no common opponents or common opponents of opponents exist.
UncleBaldy
10-25-07, 10:06 AM
The least losses category reveals a key flaw with the computer rankings. Teams benefit most from a) winning all of their games b) doing so against teams with good W-L records. Sounds perfectly logical, right? Problem is, this ain't the NFL. Teams don't play the same teams. A small school in Idaho that wins all of their games against a schedule that features teams with good records is going to be ranked highly. Never mind the fact that small school football in Idaho is an entirely different animal than 6A Texas football etc.
My opinion:
None of the national rankings should be taken seriously. None have enough of a basis to compare teams across different regions where no common opponents or common opponents of opponents exist.
Exactly.
It is an interesting scorecard, but I need I have some observations and questions perhaps the intelligent people can address.
1. Least Losses-Calpreps boasts they rank each team, but only show 27 losses for '06. That seems to be pretty low given the large number of ranked teams. Assuming that they only include their top 25 to be like the other polls, they still have an advantage. We have all seen that it is very possible to have a lower classification school be ranked early only to drop as the season progresses as their SOS deteriorates. They can still remain undefeated but no longer be included in the rankings. Other rankings, typically do not include teams in their ranking that have no shot of being there at the end of the season, right?
2. Head to Head-Calpreps shows their record to be 37/44. With 7500 games a week of ranked teams, how is this not higher? 3750-3750 a week seems closer to what it should be if all teams are ranked and predicted.
3. Out in Front-See #1. Good teams do not nnecessarily appear until late in the season. Calpreps has the luxury of placing teams in the top 25 and moving them out without penalty and still receive credit. They can make more room each week for more teams and pile up the points.
They receive points for ranking Friendly #24 9/10. They lowered them to #45 the next week, after a win, they have been as low as #50, and currently are back at #45. Somehow they get credit for SS ranking them on 10/8.
Calpreps got a point but without losing was able to move them to #82. How is that not a built in advantage and really kind of meaningless?
It's nice to see an intelligent response from someone who doesn't need to have his hand held to understand this stuff.
OK, so the one category that Calpreps is not average in is the one you appear to like, Out in Front. Without that factor, CP's highest individulal ranking is 3. Taking the average they fininsh in 3rd place 1.5 points behind the #2 ranking and only 1 point separating it from the #5 ranking. It is as close to #6 as it is to #2, way behind #1.
As I indicated before, CP gets the benefit of ranking a team, unranking it and getting credit( a point in their system) when another organization picks it up. Mind you they don't need to be ranked at the time and many are not.
Of the three yearss listed here are the percentage of poiints they have earned from teams they NO LONGER had ranked:
'06 42%
'05 27%
'04 44%
The three year average is 37.5%. SO far in '07 they are 2/5 or 40%.
No other rankings do this. Rank a team for a week, drop them the rest of the year while someone else picks them up. Consequentially they pick up an average of 30-40% more points and carry the category and the rankins, go figure...
The category may sound good, but after a hand holding walk through may appear a little different.
The least losses category reveals a key flaw with the computer rankings. Teams benefit most from a) winning all of their games b) doing so against teams with good W-L records. Sounds perfectly logical, right? Problem is, this ain't the NFL. Teams don't play the same teams. A small school in Idaho that wins all of their games against a schedule that features teams with good records is going to be ranked highly. Never mind the fact that small school football in Idaho is an entirely different animal than 6A Texas football etc.
Actually, your statement is not completely true. There are many undefeated teams in Idaho. The highest rated team is Meridian who is 8-0. They don't even make the national Top 200. None of us knows how the programing of the model works but relative strength of each state (and districts, conferences, etc.) DOES come out in the results. More teams from the strong football states are ranked than other states.
By the way, there is no 6A in Texas. Many people think there should be a 6A classification because that would help the 5A-I and 5A-II playoff situation. However, the travel between 6A schools would be a huge issue so it hasn't happened yet.
skyway28
10-25-07, 02:46 PM
Idaho was randomly mentioned, though they have had teams ranked fairly highly in the recent past. How about Pierce, Nebraska at #35? Ansonia, CT at #37? Arrowhead, WI at #43? Helena of Capital, MT at #54? Capital already suffered a 47-28 loss to Billings. Of course, we all know Billings is big-time. Lawrence of Fairfeld Maine at #55?
So, to name a few, teams from Nebraska, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Montana and Maine all ranked ahead of the likes of Miami BTW, Southlake Carroll, Lakeland and others. By the way, we are in late October. Many of the northern states mentioned above are closer to the end of the season than you might think.
skyway28
10-25-07, 02:53 PM
"None of us knows how the programing of the model works but relative strength of each state (and districts, conferences, etc.) DOES come out in the results."
According to someone, who posts under the screen name 'calpreps' and claims to work with calpreps, the statement above is NOT true. He/she says that the computer has no concept of 'state' and that what state a team is from has NO bearing on how they are ranked. In other words, there is nothing pre-programmed into the computer that would make it less likely for the Alaska or Montana state champ to end up ranked ahead of the Texas or Florida state champ.
Chicago
10-25-07, 03:13 PM
Relative strength is not programmed in.
That does not mean it does not come out.
Determining relative strength from an (eventually) unbiased start is pretty much the whole point of the computer programs.
skyway28
10-25-07, 03:41 PM
Is that why teams from Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan and Iowa all finished ahead of last year's Miami Northwestern team in the FINAL 2006 ratings? Most in Florida believe the 2006 Bulls team was as good as or better than the 2007 team. Three teams with two (2) losses and another four teams with one loss finsihed ahead of MNW. Again, those were the final calpreps ratings for 2006. They look a little koo koo right about now.
Chicago
10-25-07, 04:06 PM
They can (a) not have a bias toward certain states programmed in, and (b) show some states as stronger than others, and (c) be wrong (however you evaluate that), all at the same time.
This is probably news only to you.
"None of us knows how the programing of the model works but relative strength of each state (and districts, conferences, etc.) DOES come out in the results."
According to someone, who posts under the screen name 'calpreps' and claims to work with calpreps, the statement above is NOT true. He/she says that the computer has no concept of 'state' and that what state a team is from has NO bearing on how they are ranked. In other words, there is nothing pre-programmed into the computer that would make it less likely for the Alaska or Montana state champ to end up ranked ahead of the Texas or Florida state champ.
You need to read a little closer. I never said the model has a bias towards states. Nor did I say that the models favors one state over another. I DID say that the "relative strength of each state DOES come out in the results." THAT is true.
Is that why teams from Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan and Iowa all finished ahead of last year's Miami Northwestern team in the FINAL 2006 ratings? Most in Florida believe the 2006 Bulls team was as good as or better than the 2007 team. Three teams with two (2) losses and another four teams with one loss finsihed ahead of MNW. Again, those were the final calpreps ratings for 2006. They look a little koo koo right about now.
I think the final Calpreps rankings from 2006 look very good. The computer model did a remarkable job. It's tough to argue with the output overall. Go look at the top 25. It's amazing that a model with little human intervention could spit out a list as good as that. It's not perfect but it's darn good.
skyway28
10-25-07, 04:25 PM
They can (a) not have a bias toward certain states programmed in, and (b) show some states as stronger than others, and (c) be wrong (however you evaluate that), all at the same time.
This is probably news only to you.
I am leaning towards that exact opinion, actually.
skyway28
10-25-07, 04:27 PM
You need to read a little closer. I never said the model has a bias towards states. Nor did I say that the models favors one state over another. I DID say that the "relative strength of each state DOES come out in the results." THAT is true.
So, then, you'd be in agreement that Oregon was rated higher than Florida last year, correct? Their state champ was rated considerably higher than anybody from Florida. Same goes for the other states listed above, right?
I think the final Calpreps rankings from 2006 look very good. The computer model did a remarkable job. It's tough to argue with the output overall. Go look at the top 25. It's amazing that a model with little human intervention could spit out a list as good as that. It's not perfect but it's darn good.
Why is that? What about the list shows that it was remarkable? Was it that it ranked Wheaton-Warrenville/Portland Jesuit so high?
skyway28
10-25-07, 04:31 PM
I think the final Calpreps rankings from 2006 look very good. The computer model did a remarkable job. It's tough to argue with the output overall. Go look at the top 25. It's amazing that a model with little human intervention could spit out a list as good as that. It's not perfect but it's darn good.
Sure, you think those ratings look good! You're child's school is ranked #1 in the country, lol.
How do you define "good" as it pertains to national prep football ratings? You're suggesting that it is "tough to argue" with having Freindly, Maryland and Xavier of Cedar Rapids, Iowa ahead of Miami Northwestern? Or the teams with one or more loss ahead of them? LMAO
They receive points for ranking Friendly #24 9/10. They lowered them to #45 the next week, after a win, they have been as low as #50, and currently are back at #45. Somehow they get credit for SS ranking them on 10/8.
This is a good point--not only are they giving themselves credit for being the first to rank teams that lose later on, they're also giving themselves credit for being the first to rank teams that they later drop even without a loss.
Why is that? What about the list shows that it was remarkable? Was it that it ranked Wheaton-Warrenville/Portland Jesuit so high?
Pied, take a step back and take a look at the big picture. Sheesh. As is somewhat usual for you, you love to overlook the big picture and nit pick. In this case, if the model is 95% terrific and 5% questionalble, you'll focus on the 5%.
Considering that there is no built in bias and every team is treated the same, it's very remarkable that the Calpreps top 25 was so good. The model is done by a guy named Freeman who has been doing this stuff of 25-30 years. He is one of the experts in this field. His model is just as good as the human rankings and in many ways it's better.
You asked about Wheaton-Warrenville and Portland Jesuit. I'm not familiar with Wheaton, but Jesuit was considered to be the best team from Oregon in the last decade. Calpreps ranked them high early in the season. The human polls (with their built in bias) were very late to recognize how good Jesuit was but they finally ranked them late in the season. In this case, Calpreps nailed the ranking.
consumerman
10-26-07, 09:53 AM
Jesuit was considered to be the best team from Oregon in the last decade
considerd by who? a guy at a dinner in nebraska? where is your proof of this? who was the #1 ranked team in oregon in 1997? 1998? 1999? how (and where) were these teams compared to 2006 Jesuit. Show us the facts.
Jesuit was considered to be the best team from Oregon in the last decade
considerd by who? a guy at a dinner in nebraska? where is your proof of this? who was the #1 ranked team in oregon in 1997? 1998? 1999? how (and where) were these teams compared to 2006 Jesuit. Show us the facts.
They guy from Nebraska and I have become friends. He emailed me and we've spoken a few times on the phone. He chuckles at the reactions of the DLS faithful. There is no doubt he told the truth.
With regard to Jesuit, do your own research. That team was remarkable. Frankly, it reminds me of the way the Ohio faithful talk about 2004 Colerain.
Pied, take a step back and take a look at the big picture. Sheesh. As is somewhat usual for you, you love to overlook the big picture and nit pick. In this case, if the model is 95% terrific and 5% questionalble, you'll focus on the 5%.-huh? nit pick? You made the statement that the computer did a remarkable job. I simply asked what about it you found remarkable. You reiterate below that in many ways it is better(italicized for you).
How is it better? To make that case, I think you have to look at what teams it has significatly different than the others. How else would you do so? I pointed out two teams that it had 2nd and 3rd. The other rankings had them at 10-15 and 15-UR.
You could point out others, ranking Lakeland significantly lower, but I did not want to dig that one up.
How is that nit-picking? Instead of looking at the two of the top three, did you want to review the each school in every ranking's top 25? You are the one making the statement, and again I'll ask what about the final '06 separates itself in a good way from the others?
Considering that there is no built in bias and every team is treated the same, it's very remarkable that the Calpreps top 25 was so good. The model is done by a guy named Freeman who has been doing this stuff of 25-30 years. He is one of the experts in this field. His model is just as good as the human rankings and in many ways it's better.
You asked about Wheaton-Warrenville and Portland Jesuit. I'm not familiar with Wheaton, but Jesuit was considered to be the best team from Oregon in the last decade. Calpreps ranked them high early in the season. The human polls (with their built in bias) were very late to recognize how good Jesuit was but they finally ranked them late in the season. In this case, Calpreps nailed the ranking.-Again, huh? SS and Tony Bianco had them in the top 25 three weeks prior to CP. The week CP rated them 21, they were 22/19 in the others. They entered the top 25( 20,25,21,18,25) of the others the following week.
You might make the arguement that CP raised them to #11 and then up to #4, all the way to #2 rather quicklyand kept them there. The other ratings ended them at 10-15. If you want to give them credit for rasing them, I would think you wuld have to make the case for them being #2 as well. If not then, you would say they got it right, before they got it wrong. In any case, thye were behind two of the polls for recognizing them.
Also waiting on a reply as to the bias CAlpreps receives for the Out in Front measure.
skyway28
10-26-07, 11:48 AM
saying calpreps "nailed the ranking" with regards to Jesuit being ranked #2 neccesarily means they are "better" than those teams ranked below them. What, in your mind, made Jesuit better than Miami Northwestern in 2006?
They guy from Nebraska and I have become friends. He emailed me and we've spoken a few times on the phone. He chuckles at the reactions of the DLS faithful. There is no doubt he told the truth.
With regard to Jesuit, do your own research. That team was remarkable. Frankly, it reminds me of the way the Ohio faithful talk about 2004 Colerain.
How do you rate the relative strength of Ohio vs. Oregon football?
consumerman
10-26-07, 12:21 PM
They guy from Nebraska and I have become friends. He emailed me and we've spoken a few times on the phone. He chuckles at the reactions of the DLS faithful. There is no doubt he told the truth.
With regard to Jesuit, do your own research. That team was remarkable. Frankly, it reminds me of the way the Ohio faithful talk about 2004 Colerain.
you and all your comments on this guy were deleted and refuted on the spartanhood.com
a player who played on the 1991 and 1992 teams said there was no vbgt ./'[p on the team, nor ever registered to take classes at the school
all your posts were refuted then deleted
so where is your proof that jesuit was the best oregon team in the last ten years???
"do your own research" is not an answer. you are the one who made the (as usual) outlandish claim then used that claim to make your argument
consumerman
10-26-07, 12:27 PM
you can "chuckle" all you want
you are the one who had numerous threads CLOSED for how ridiculous they were and you were the one who had his posts deleted and then was possibly banned from another web site
who is really chuckling at who?
Chicago
10-26-07, 12:32 PM
Warrenville-South did this:
Date Opponent W/L Own Opp
8/26 Glen Ellyn (Glenbard West) W 48 7
9/1 Aurora (Waubonsie Valley) W 35 0
9/8 Naperville (Central) W 41 7
9/15 Wheaton (North) W 31 7
9/22 Lombard (Glenbard East) W 45 7
9/29 Naperville (North) W 34 20
10/6 Aurora (West) W 69 13
10/13 Carol Stream (Glenbard North) W 34 7
10/20 West Chicago (H.S.) W 50 0
IHSA Playoffs
*10/27 Bartlett W 39 0
*11/4 Winnetka (New Trier) W 35 7
*11/11 Barrington W 44 15
*11/18 Elmhurst (York) W 23 0
They then beat Mt. Carmel 44-21 (31-7 at halftime, as SLCDad would say). And Mt. Carmel beat Lincoln-Way East by two in the semifinals. LWE was USA Today #10 or so for much of the year.
They were in the 8A (largest classification) playoff bracket. Classifications don't exist during the regular season. But most, if not all, of their opponents were 7A/8A types.
I saw the York game and was not that impressed. That one was 10-0 late and ended up 23-0 (please make adjustments for big and little points). Of course, I saw DLS, St. X., Lakeland, and that crowd at the Herbie a few months before, so my opinions may have been a bit skewed. And it was SRO with maybe 7,000 people in a stadium (and that term is being kind) that seats 4,000 or so, and I got there late. So they could have been great, and I just couldn't tell.
When you're in the largest class in Illinois and your closest game is 14 and your second-closest is 23, you're probably pretty good.
Classifications don't exist during the regular season. But most, if not all, of their opponents were 7A/8A types.
That's really interesting. Did not know that.
Chicago
10-26-07, 01:02 PM
We talked about it last year.
For football only, they take the best 256 records (everyone plays 9 games).
There is sort of an Ohio playoff points deal to break ties (always at 5-4 as far as in and out).
THEN, and only then, they rank the 256 from largest to smallest.
Largest 32 go 8A, next 32 go 7A, and so on.
http://www.ihsa.org/activity/fb/2007-08/playoffs.htm
8A is always Chicago area only. No other part of the state has schools big enough (check the map feature on the site).
Also, it looks like conference champs are automatically in, but I imagine they're almost always, or always, going to be at least 5-4.
Conference alignments are an NCAA-style free for all. Lots of changes from year to year, and some massive ones sometimes. Here's the big one from around here recently:
http://nwitimes.com/articles/2006/06/13/news/illiana/e7b7ed4d3398cd608625718c000738a0.txt
you and all your comments on $&*@# *&^% were deleted and refuted on the spartanhood.com
a player who played on the 1991 and 1992 teams said there was no scott berg on the team, nor ever registered to take classes at the school
all your posts were refuted then deleted
so where is your proof that jesuit was the best oregon team in the last ten years???
"do your own research" is not an answer. you are the one who made the (as usual) outlandish claim then used that claim to make your argument
You will probably get this thread locked, which would be a shame. Can you delete the name?
skyway28
10-26-07, 02:26 PM
Warrenville-South did this:
Date Opponent W/L Own Opp
8/26 Glen Ellyn (Glenbard West) W 48 7
9/1 Aurora (Waubonsie Valley) W 35 0
9/8 Naperville (Central) W 41 7
9/15 Wheaton (North) W 31 7
9/22 Lombard (Glenbard East) W 45 7
9/29 Naperville (North) W 34 20
10/6 Aurora (West) W 69 13
10/13 Carol Stream (Glenbard North) W 34 7
10/20 West Chicago (H.S.) W 50 0
IHSA Playoffs
*10/27 Bartlett W 39 0
*11/4 Winnetka (New Trier) W 35 7
*11/11 Barrington W 44 15
*11/18 Elmhurst (York) W 23 0
They then beat Mt. Carmel 44-21 (31-7 at halftime, as SLCDad would say). And Mt. Carmel beat Lincoln-Way East by two in the semifinals. LWE was USA Today #10 or so for much of the year.
They were in the 8A (largest classification) playoff bracket. Classifications don't exist during the regular season. But most, if not all, of their opponents were 7A/8A types.
I saw the York game and was not that impressed. That one was 10-0 late and ended up 23-0 (please make adjustments for big and little points). Of course, I saw DLS, St. X., Lakeland, and that crowd at the Herbie a few months before, so my opinions may have been a bit skewed. And it was SRO with maybe 7,000 people in a stadium (and that term is being kind) that seats 4,000 or so, and I got there late. So they could have been great, and I just couldn't tell.
When you're in the largest class in Illinois and your closest game is 14 and your second-closest is 23, you're probably pretty good.
This all tells me that, relative to their competition, Warrenville-South was dominant. But, we have no basis to compare them with teams from regions far enough away that their are no common opponents or opponents of opponents. Which, to be fair, means we also can't say SLC, MNW or Lakeland are better than Warrenville-South anymore than we can say the inverse.
Largest 32 go 8A, next 32 go 7A, and so on.
As an illustation, Wheaton-WS is 7A this year...kind of a shame that they don't get to defend the 8A title.
8A is always Chicago area only. No other part of the state has schools big enough (check the map feature on the site).
Belleville East looks kinda lonely on that map...
The travel for downstate 4A teams in the four-class system for other sports is going to be a mess.
you and all your comments on this guy were deleted and refuted on the spartanhood.com
a player who played on the 1991 and 1992 teams said there was no vbgt ./'[p on the team, nor ever registered to take classes at the school
all your posts were refuted then deleted
LOL I deleted all of my posts. LOL I didn't want to have any part of the way some of those posters were acting on Spartanhood. Did you notice a couple of posters were scolded for the way they acted? I'm not sure if there is a moderator on that board (I assume there is) but none of my posts were deleted by him.
I stand by every word that I posted. I've gotten to know this guy a bit more. He is telling the truth. I'd prefer to drop the debate and agree to disagree. You can believe what you want.
You will probably get this thread locked, which would be a shame. Can you delete the name?
Thanks Pied. I made a mistake when I posted the guy's name on this board. It was wrong for me to do that. I deleted my posts and then Uncle Baldy deleted the entire thread. That's good.
Unfortunately they guy's name was posted on a DLS board (after being asked to keep it confidential) through somebody on this board. We can only guess who provided the name.
Thanks Pied. I made a mistake when I posted the guy's name on this board. It was wrong for me to do that. I deleted my posts and then Uncle Baldy deleted the entire thread. That's good.
Unfortunately they guy's name was posted on a DLS board (after being asked to keep it confidential) through somebody on this board. We can only guess who provided the name.
Thanks to consumerman for editing the name. I think most everyone here now knows it so reposintg it only seems to invite the deleting of threads.
In any case, SLCDad do you have any replies for some of the questions regarding the "Out in Front" measure or reasons why the Final CP poll was in many ways better?
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.