View Full Version : Dynasties - Power Rating
Now that the season is over, here are the top 50 dynasties according to the CalPreps model based on Power Rating.
Rank School W-L Rating
1 Carroll (Southlake, TX) 74-3 59.7
2 De La Salle (Concord, CA) 58-6-2 58.4
3 Colerain (Cincinnati, OH) 62-5 58.2
4 St. Xavier (Cincinnati, OH) 57-6 57.8
5 Hoover (AL) 62-10 55.5
6 Warren Central (Indianapolis, IN) 64-8 54.7
7 Don Bosco Prep (Ramsey, NJ) 56-3 53.4
8 Central Catholic (Pittsburgh, PA) 65-6 53.1
9 Byrnes (Duncan, SC) 69-3 52.9
10 Prattville (AL) 66-3 52.2
11 South Panola (Batesville, MS) 75-0 51.8
12 Trinity (Louisville, KY) 61-10 51.2
12 Trinity (Euless, TX) 59-9 51.2
14 Katy (TX) 69-5 50.3
15 Poly (Long Beach, CA) 57-10 50.2
16 Bellevue (WA) 60-5 50.1
17 Eden Prairie (MN) 56-5 49.7
18 St. Xavier (Louisville, KY) 62-9 49.6
19 East Grand Rapids (Grand Rapids, MI) 60-5 49.3
20 Independence (Charlotte, NC) 75-3 49.2
21 Rockhurst (Kansas City, MO) 45-10 49.1
22 Wheaton-Warrenville South (Wheaton, IL) 57-9 48.9
23 Mission Viejo (CA) 52-11-1 48.7
23 Maryville (TN) 73-1 48.7
25 Curtis (River Ridge, LA) 61-5 48.1
26 Armwood (Seffner, FL) 65-6 47.9
27 Lufkin (TX) 57-7 47.5
28 St. Bonaventure (Ventura, CA) 64-5 47.4
28 Hamilton (Chandler, AZ) 64-5 47.4
30 DeMatha (Hyattsville, MD) 55-4 47.3
30 St. Joseph's (Philadelphia, PA) 52-11 47.3
32 Everett (MA) 56-2 46.9
33 Highland Park (Dallas, TX) 62-6 46.8
33 Archbishop Moeller (Cincinnati, OH) 36-20 46.8
35 Jenks (OK) 59-7 46.4
35 Lowell (MI) 53-8 46.4
35 Driscoll Catholic (Addison, IL) 67-3 46.4
38 Longview (TX) 50-11 46.3
38 Elder (Cincinnati, OH) 38-19 46.3
40 Notre Dame (Sherman Oaks, CA) 58-7 45.8
40 St. Edward (Lakewood, OH) 42-18 45.8
40 Abilene (TX) 53-14 45.8
40 Coldwater (OH) 64-5 45.8
44 Smithson Valley (Spring Branch, TX) 57-11 45.7
45 Lowndes (Valdosta, GA) 58-9 45.6
46 Lutheran (Orange, CA) 58-7 45.5
46 Upper St. Clair (PA) 55-8 45.5
48 Blue Springs South (Blue Springs, MO) 42-11 45.4
48 Catholic Academy (Joliet, IL) 57-7 45.4
48 Vestavia Hills (AL) 49-14 45.4
48 Westfield (Houston, TX) 54-10 45.4
consumerman
12-26-07, 05:45 PM
there is no question that slc's current performance 2002-2007 is as fine as there has been in high school football
a few less injuries and slc does even better, particularly this year
what a great perfromance
and of course, st x in 2007 played as difficult a schedule as any team in recent memory
hats off to a great 2007
One of the interesting teams on that list is Moeller at #33. They have lost 35% of their games over 5 years but are still ranked higehr than 99.8% of teams in the USA.
There has been a lot of talk about human vs. computer polls lately but this is an example of the computers giving credit to a very, very tough schedule. I doubt the human polls can do that as well.
No love for Westfield (VA)? 59-5 and two state championships in the largest class of a solid football state.
consumerman
12-27-07, 12:38 PM
what are the odds that 2 schools named Trinity from different states have the exact same rating>?
No love for Westfield (VA)? 59-5 and two state championships in the largest class of a solid football state.
They are 57th on the total list. I posted the top 50 only. By the way, Westfield's 5-year power rating is 44.9 so it's only a fraction below teams that made the list.
what are the odds that 2 schools named Trinity from different states have the exact same rating>?
What are the odds that I have lived near both of those schools?
Trinity HS in Louisville is a private Catholic school. Trinity HS in Euless (DFW) is a public school.
In this day when any reference to religion is removed from the govt domain I'm wondering if a name like that would be allowed for a public HS now.
WoodyHayes
12-27-07, 06:48 PM
For you to find a list that has SLC #1. Pitiful indeed.
For you to find a list that has SLC #1. Pitiful indeed.
I love this list almost as much as I love the List of the World's Great Dynasties (which only goes back as far as 1776) proclaiming the US of A the greatest world Dynasty of all time, and nothing worth mentioning prior to then.
consumerman
12-27-07, 10:14 PM
Actually the time frame they use is their choosing not dad's
TheEture
12-27-07, 10:41 PM
Colerain adove ST X what do you know!
For you to find a list that has SLC #1. Pitiful indeed.
This list has been posted many times on both the national board and the Ohio board. It's a very well known rating to most fans except you.
Here is the link: http://calpreps.com/National_dynasty_ratings.htm
You can get the same list for every state also.
Actually the time frame they use is their choosing not dad'sThat is understood. It doesn't make the rating any more relevant.
Bennies'01
01-03-08, 05:52 PM
When I hear the word "dynasty," I think championships (multiple). I can't speak for the other states, but there are schools on that list from Ohio that don't belong, no matter how many regular season wins they've racked up. :shrug:
D-Swizzel102
01-03-08, 06:21 PM
Colerain adove ST X what do you know!
State Titles:
X- 2
C'rain-1
I'll take it :)
E-L-D-E-R 09
01-03-08, 10:50 PM
Surprised to see Elder that high
D-Swizzel102
01-04-08, 12:31 AM
They have Moeller ahead of Elder...wow.
UncleBaldy
01-04-08, 07:17 AM
They have Moeller ahead of Elder...wow.
It depends upon the time period they are using, i.e., how far they are going back.
It depends upon the time period they are using, i.e., how far they are going back.
They use the last 5 years.
If I'm not mistaken, this ranking is a rolling 5-year power rating. The ranking this year includes 2003-07. Their dynasty ranking last year included 2002-06.
I love this list almost as much as I love the List of the World's Great Dynasties (which only goes back as far as 1776) proclaiming the US of A the greatest world Dynasty of all time, and nothing worth mentioning prior to then.
The list I posted isn't the "all time" list. It's doesn't claim to be that.
It's a current ranking of programs over 5 years.
That is understood. It doesn't make the rating any more relevant.
The ranking is relevant for the last 5 years. That's what it claims to be (nothing more, nothing less).
It's NOT a ranking for 2007 and it's NOT an all-time ranking. We've had plenty of threads about 2007 rankings. Perhaps you could start a thread on all-time rankings since you don't like this version.
The ranking is relevant for the last 5 years. That's what it claims to be (nothing more, nothing less).
It's NOT a ranking for 2007 and it's NOT an all-time ranking. We've had plenty of threads about 2007 rankings. Perhaps you could start a thread on all-time rankings since you don't like this version.
Here's an item that I cannot reconcile.
Indy NC.
Four years undefeated state champs, and one three loss year nets them #20?
Sure it's NC, but that's a ---- of a record. Really unmatched by anyone else, right? Four undefeated seasons?
Teams with as many losses or more from NJ/SC/AL/KY/MS/MN/MI are ranked ahead of them.
Also without looking into it any further how in God's name did Lakeland not make it, but Longview/Abilene/Westfield make the top 50?
OK, found them. They are #86. Three time FL state Champs, 04/05/06 The last two which someone crowned them National Champs.
So, you have a legetimate best team in the Nation 2/5 years, one of the others they still won the FL state title. They spread out six losses over fuve years and the following teams are ranked ahead of them?
47-15 Brentwood TN
46-19 Converse Jusdon
53-13 Copperas Cove
52-14 Mount Carmel IL
Ok, debate Lakeland in the top ten, fine. Is there anyone that wants to defend those four, or the ones I mentioned in the last post as having a better five year run than the Dreadnaughts?
The ranking is relevant for the last 5 years. That's what it claims to be (nothing more, nothing less).
It's NOT a ranking for 2007 and it's NOT an all-time ranking. We've had plenty of threads about 2007 rankings. Perhaps you could start a thread on all-time rankings since you don't like this version.
Oh excellent. I think the Dynasty Rankings for the last weekof the '07 season are just as relevant then. 1/2 of the teams are certifiably undefeated and the other 1/2 posted an o-fer. About as informative as the Dad's favorite dynasty ranking.
NOROMATAHW
Chicago
01-04-08, 03:35 PM
Look at the bright side.
If SLCDad were capable of independent thought, we wouldn't have anything to discuss this week.
Other favorite dynasty rankings:
NFL Dynasties:
1. NE Patriots
2. Dallas Cowboys
MLB Dynasties:
1. Boston Red Sox
Political Dynasties
1. Bush
2. Clinton
Singing Dynasties
1. Britney Spears
2. Christina Aguilera
Moronic Dynasties
*** Dad
Chicago
01-04-08, 05:46 PM
Dynasty dynasties.
1. Windsor
Dynasty dynasties.
1. Windsor
Ming
Oh excellent. I think the Dynasty Rankings for the last weekof the '07 season are just as relevant then. 1/2 of the teams are certifiably undefeated and the other 1/2 posted an o-fer. About as informative as the Dad's favorite dynasty ranking.
NOROMATAHW
I'm wondering why you have such a problem with computer power ratings over the last 5 year period?
Other favorite dynasty rankings:
NFL Dynasties:
1. NE Patriots
2. Dallas Cowboys
MLB Dynasties:
1. Boston Red Sox
Political Dynasties
1. Bush
2. Clinton
Singing Dynasties
1. Britney Spears
2. Christina Aguilera
Moronic Dynasties
*** Dad
I think Elwood is mad because my team is ranked above his team.
Look on the bright side . . . your team is closing the gap from the same ranking last year.
Look at the bright side.
If SLCDad were capable of independent thought, we wouldn't have anything to discuss this week.
LOL You mean like your bogus population per division post? That was a real gem.
Surprised to see Elder that high
Strength of schedule.
Chicago
01-04-08, 06:23 PM
Pied: The last five years; Ming is out.
Chicago
01-04-08, 06:24 PM
I threw you a bone by including the word independent.
Pied: The last five years; Ming is out.
Fair enough, give me Kim Jong Il and his pop.
OK, found them. They are #86. Three time FL state Champs, 04/05/06 The last two which someone crowned them National Champs.
So, you have a legetimate best team in the Nation 2/5 years, one of the others they still won the FL state title. They spread out six losses over fuve years and the following teams are ranked ahead of them?
47-15 Brentwood TN
46-19 Converse Jusdon
53-13 Copperas Cove
52-14 Mount Carmel IL
Ok, debate Lakeland in the top ten, fine. Is there anyone that wants to defend those four, or the ones I mentioned in the last post as having a better five year run than the Dreadnaughts?
Neither computer model (Freeman nor Massey) gives enough respect to Florida. In the years when a few human polls put Lakeland #1 the computers hardly had them in the top 20. Same thing happened to MNW in 2007. The reason is that Florida's top teams are often spread between 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A and 6A. Therefore, even state champs don't generate a tough enough strength of schedule to get a top power rating.
The opposite happens to teams like Converse Judson and Elder. The computers respect them due to their tough schedules.
consumerman
01-04-08, 06:59 PM
Neither computer model (Freeman nor Massey) gives enough respect to Florida. In the years when a few human polls put Lakeland #1 the computers hardly had them in the top 20. Same thing happened to MNW in 2007. The reason is that Florida's top teams are often spread between 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A and 6A. Therefore, even state champs don't generate a tough enough strength of schedule to get a top power rating.
too bad they dont split their top division into halves like texas does
too bad they dont split their top division into halves like texas does
Or into about 100 sections like California.
I think Elwood is mad because my team is ranked above his team.
Look on the bright side . . . your team is closing the gap from the same ranking last year.
Nah, doesn't bother me. Every ranking has to have it's Britney Spears. Any "dynasty" ranking that excludes the extraordinary accomplishments of storied programs like Valdosta and Moeller is self-incriminating.
I just hope that SLC doesn't now go and shave their head and flash the beav.
consumerman
01-04-08, 08:26 PM
Or into about 100 sections like California.
you are the one degrading florida
look in the mirror first
they have different divisions yes
texas has different divisions then SPLITS their top division
worse than florida
consumerman
01-04-08, 08:27 PM
Nah, doesn't bother me. Every ranking has to have it's Britney Spears. Any "dynasty" ranking that excludes the extraordinary accomplishments of storied programs like Valdosta and Moeller is self-incriminating.
I just hope that SLC doesn't now go and shave their head and flash the beav.
dynasty is a pretty stupid word for a 5 year period
you are the one degrading florida
look in the mirror first
they have different divisions yes
texas has different divisions then SPLITS their top division
worse than florida
Come on Consumerman. Read what I posted. I didn't degrade anybody. I just stated the facts and how the computer models work. I don't think you grasped what I posted.
naughty
01-06-08, 10:12 PM
dynasty is a pretty stupid word for a 5 year period
lets talk about lakeland. Dynasty is something Coach Castle has built for over 30 years in a public high school. located in a state where private schools compete with public(unlike texas) in state where the titles at the top are not split up in away. Yet the man has beaten the top private school in the state and has a 4-1 record against them.
To have the most florida big school titles. be one of the most winningest coaches in florida. Numerous district titles and state titles, gods amount of playoffs showings and playoff wins. Never losing in the state game and two straight national titles. 54 Consective wins. 60 Straight regular season wins. Never having a losing season for over 30 years. 2005 National coach of the year and The just crowned coach of the century by the Florida High School Athletic Association.
District Champs: 1979,1980 ,1982 ,1983, 1984, 1986, 1993, 1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2004,2005, 2006.
State Champs: 192?(no state game then),1986,1996,1999,2004,
2005,2006
National Champs:2005,2006
All that and no where near a top25 rating. BULLLLSh!t
#86 ahhhhhhhhhhh. What such a worthy place for Florida's most dominate football program in history.
lets talk about lakeland. Dynasty is something Coach Castle has built for over 30 years in a public high school. located in a state where private schools compete with public(unlike texas) in state where the titles at the top are not split up in away. Yet the man has beaten the top private school in the state and has a 4-1 record against them.
To have the most florida big school titles. be one of the most winningest coaches in florida. Numerous district titles and state titles, gods amount of playoffs showings and playoff wins. Never losing in the state game and two straight national titles. 54 Consective wins. 60 Straight regular season wins. Never having a losing season for over 30 years. 2005 National coach of the year and The just crowned coach of the century by the Florida High School Athletic Association.
District Champs: 1979,1980 ,1982 ,1983, 1984, 1986, 1993, 1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2004,2005, 2006.
State Champs: 192?(no state game then),1986,1996,1999,2004,
2005,2006
National Champs:2005,2006
All that and no where near a top25 rating. BULLLLSh!t
#86 ahhhhhhhhhhh. What such a worthy place for Florida's most dominate football program in history.
A couple of the points you make need some clarification because they are misleading.
1. In Texas the BEST privates DO compete with the publics. They are "average" at best compared to the publics. Unlike Florida, Ohio and California there are no (or very, very, very few) great football teams at Texas private schools.
2. The top teams in Florida ARE split up. They are split up between 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. Check the top 5 teams in Florida for each of the last 5 years. You will see that they are split up into 4-5 classifications every year.
3. Lakeland's claim of a national title in 2005 is somewhat weak because it rejects most of the polls. If all of the polls are used Lakeland ranked 8th in the nation. If ONLY the human polls are used Lakeland ranked 3rd.
4. The dynasty ratings in this thread are NOT all-time dynasties. They are Freeman power ratings for the last 5 years. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is another thread for all-time dynasties.
5. I'm not saying it's right, but Lakeland doesn't generate a high computer power ranking because it's strengh of schedule is lower (average over the last 5 years) partially due to #2 above.
A couple of the points you make need some clarification because they are misleading.
1. In Texas the BEST privates DO compete with the publics. They are "average" at best compared to the publics. Unlike Florida, Ohio and California there are no (or very, very, very few) great football teams at Texas private schools.
2. The top teams in Florida ARE split up. They are split up between 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. Check the top 5 teams in Florida for each of the last 5 years. You will see that they are split up into 4-5 classifications every year.
3. Lakeland's claim of a national title in 2005 is somewhat weak because it rejects most of the polls. If all of the polls are used Lakeland ranked 8th in the nation. If ONLY the human polls are used Lakeland ranked 3rd.
4. The dynasty ratings in this thread are NOT all-time dynasties. They are Freeman power ratings for the last 5 years. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is another thread for all-time dynasties.
5. I'm not saying it's right, but Lakeland doesn't generate a high computer power ranking because it's strengh of schedule is lower (average over the last 5 years) partially due to #2 above.
Talk about misleading, to clarify the part in bold, there are TWO private schools that compete with the publics in TX. They were the two biggest schools. Seems to me a stretch to say that the best DO compete with the public schools.
It would be more accurate to stick with the last statement that there are no great football teams at Texas private schools.
naughty
01-07-08, 01:19 PM
A couple of the points you make need some clarification because they are misleading.
1. In Texas the BEST privates DO compete with the publics. They are "average" at best compared to the publics. Unlike Florida, Ohio and California there are no (or very, very, very few) great football teams at Texas private schools.
2. The top teams in Florida ARE split up. They are split up between 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A. Check the top 5 teams in Florida for each of the last 5 years. You will see that they are split up into 4-5 classifications every year.
3. Lakeland's claim of a national title in 2005 is somewhat weak because it rejects most of the polls. If all of the polls are used Lakeland ranked 8th in the nation. If ONLY the human polls are used Lakeland ranked 3rd.
4. The dynasty ratings in this thread are NOT all-time dynasties. They are Freeman power ratings for the last 5 years. Nothing more. Nothing less. There is another thread for all-time dynasties.
5. I'm not saying it's right, but Lakeland doesn't generate a high computer power ranking because it's strengh of schedule is lower (average over the last 5 years) partially due to #2 above.
1. False. Show me. They do not compete with publics in texas. And if they do(which i dont think is true) who cares that they are not that good. Point is in florida many good private football teams exist. And lakeland has beat the best of the private schools and has a 4-1 record against them.
2. Who cares? So what the best teams are split up. Point blank STA and Lakeland have been florida for the last 4 years. Lakeland has beaten them 3 times in that span two times by a very large amount.
3. Guess what SLC's claim of a national title in 2006 is somewhat weak. Lakeland ranked #1 not including calpreps. SLC ranked#2 not including calpreps. So right back at ya.
4. Again Who cares? This is showing how dumb the calpreps ratings are and since you knock on lakeland lets talk about how carroll had one of best districts in either 2006 or 2005. And yet only two teams in the district had beaten teams that had a winning record.
5.Again they say dynasty how can lakeland not be one of top dynasties of the last 5 years.
So all in all this is not a dynasty list at all. This is a list of who had the highest rating the last 5 years a la calpreps jacked up computer ratings.
Lets not get into the Lakeland vs. SLC thing. That is getting kind of old. I mean lakeland knows every team basically hates them around the country. St.X still boast taking the worst team of the streak to over time(to bad another team did the same exact thing and others almost beat them but none got the job done) and i really dont want to have people have to read your freeman ratings/calpreps/maxpreps numbers or whatever your calling them these days.
And considering that in my first post SLC was not ever mentioned. That shows how much you must want to be a dreadnaught. That from that post the first thing you do is start throwing out your bs about how much better SLC is then lakeland. That is getting old.
5.Again they say dynasty how can lakeland not be one of top dynasties of the last 5 years.
So all in all this is not a dynasty list at all. This is a list of who had the highest rating the last 5 years a la calpreps jacked up computer ratings.
Hard to argue these two points in my opinion.
1. False. Show me. They do not compete with publics in texas. And if they do(which i dont think is true) who cares that they are not that good. Point is in florida many good private football teams exist. And lakeland has beat the best of the private schools and has a 4-1 record against them.
LOL Please name ONE good private football program in Texas that doesn't compete with the publics! You don't know what you are talking about.
2. Who cares? So what the best teams are split up. Point blank STA and Lakeland have been florida for the last 4 years. Lakeland has beaten them 3 times in that span two times by a very large amount.
Who cares? Really? At least you admit that the top Florida teams are split up. THAT is exactly why the top Florida teams don't generate a tough SOS in the computer models. That is why Lakeland's schedule doesn't get respect in the models.
3. Guess what SLC's claim of a national title in 2006 is somewhat weak. Lakeland ranked #1 not including calpreps. SLC ranked#2 not including calpreps. So right back at ya.
You changed the subject. The point is Lakeland's claim in 2005 is very weak. That's a fact no matter how you slice it. I agree, in 2006 SLC and Lakeland can both claim titles equally BUT I posted about Lakeland's claim in 2005.
5.Again they say dynasty how can lakeland not be one of top dynasties of the last 5 years.
Because Lakeland doesn't generate the SOS required for a top power rating. That's how the models work. Lakeland's schedule is weaker than most of the top teams.
So all in all this is not a dynasty list at all. This is a list of who had the highest rating the last 5 years a la calpreps jacked up computer ratings.
The list is what is it. No more. No less.
Lets not get into the Lakeland vs. SLC thing. That is getting kind of old.
LOL YOU started the Lakeland vs. SLC thing. Not me. I said nothing about SLC to you. LOL
I mean lakeland knows every team basically hates them around the country.
Come on. That statement is goofy. Name ONE team that hates Lakeland.
And considering that in my first post SLC was not ever mentioned. That shows how much you must want to be a dreadnaught. That from that post the first thing you do is start throwing out your bs about how much better SLC is then lakeland. That is getting old.
LOL Please show me where I said SLC is better than Lakeland in this thread. it is YOU who made the SLC vs. Lakeland comparison. I didn't. LOL
--
So all in all this is not a dynasty list at all. This is a list of who had the highest rating the last 5 years a la calpreps jacked up computer ratings.
The list is what is it. No more. No less.
SLCDad-where would Lakeland rank on your Dynasty of the past 5 year rankings?
Chicago
01-07-08, 02:43 PM
Naughty, I have to go with SLCDad here.
He is putting everything in bold, making it red, using larger fonts, and using LOL fequently.
He must be right.
You need to step it up and head to Kinko's or something. Then you might have a shot.
Talk about misleading, to clarify the part in bold, there are TWO private schools that compete with the publics in TX. They were the two biggest schools. Seems to me a stretch to say that the best DO compete with the public schools.
It would be more accurate to stick with the last statement that there are no great football teams at Texas private schools.
Either way the point is the same. Naughty was attempting to say the Texas publics get a break because they don't have to play the privates. He is dead wrong.
None of the privates would contend for a state football title in Texas. Few would even make the playoffs.
Chicago
01-07-08, 02:58 PM
Naughty said they were not good.
That was part of his point.
He said Florida schools have to contend with good private schools, and Texas teams don't.
If you are going to argue with him, at least get on the other side.
Either way the point is the same. Naughty was attempting to say the Texas publics get a break because they don't have to play the privates. He is dead wrong.
None of the privates would contend for a state football title in Texas. Few would even make the playoffs.
I don't read it that way. To me you two are saying the same thing.
Good Texas teams do not have to compete w/good private teams, because there aren't any.
naughty
01-07-08, 03:38 PM
This is not a dynasties list so don't call it one. This is a list of the top calpreps computer ratings over the last 5 years. How does that add up to dynasty. Because any real High School Football Fans know that when you mention dynasty over the last five years teams like.
Warren Central
Southlake Carroll
Hoover Alabama
Independece
St.Xavier
Duncan Byrnes
and Lakeland,Florida
Come to mind.
Be we all know
The Montgomery Bell Academy
Brentwood Academy
Newhall Hart
Allen Texas
Vestavia Hills and
Archbishop Moeller
have all had better runs over the last 5 years.
naughty
01-07-08, 03:40 PM
Either way the point is the same. Naughty was attempting to say the Texas publics get a break because they don't have to play the privates. He is dead wrong.
None of the privates would contend for a state football title in Texas. Few would even make the playoffs.
No i didnt. I said they dont play them. Then i said lakeland has beaten one of the best privates the state has to offer 4 times only loss was at home in a sta come back win. Down grading i think not. Simply saying you don't play with privates. Every state does it different
This is not a dynasties list so don't call it one.
You'll have to take that up with Freeman/Calpreps. It's their list and they call it their dynasty list.
http://www.calpreps.com/2007/ratings/index.html#dynasty
Personally, I'd move Lakeland up.
No i didnt. I said they dont play them.
What was your point of saying this? Did you have a point? or just random irrelevant data?
skyway28
01-07-08, 05:33 PM
Why are we still citing calpreps ratings as some sort of credbile source?
skyway28
01-07-08, 05:38 PM
"..5. I'm not saying it's right, but Lakeland doesn't generate a high computer power ranking because it's strengh of schedule is lower (average over the last 5 years) partially due to #2 above."
No, no, no. Lakeland's schedule strength, as measured by a bogus computer model, is weak. Were not talking reality here. We're talking bogus computer ratings. Let's make that perfectly clear.
What was your point of saying this? Did you have a point? or just random irrelevant data?
Here is the point that I got out of it, and I think most readers did as well.
Texas public HS teams do not have to face private schools who play at the same level as they do. Schools in other states have to play good programs that Texas simply does not have.
Lakeland has played them and beaten them regularly to win the 5A title. I really did not think it was that difficult of a point.
Here is the point that I got out of it, and I think most readers did as well.
Texas public HS teams do not have to face private schools who play at the same level as they do. Schools in other states have to play good programs that Texas simply does not have.
Lakeland has played them and beaten them regularly to win the 5A title. I really did not think it was that difficult of a point.
Of course, but the implication is wrong. In fact, dead wrong IMO.
Do you really think that Texas teams have an easier SOS than other states because the private teams in Texas are poor? I interpreted Naughty to be saying that.
If he wasn't implying that what was his point?
Of course, but the implication is wrong. In fact, dead wrong IMO.
Do you really think that Texas teams have an easier SOS than other states because the private teams in Texas are poor? I interpreted Naughty to be saying that.
If he wasn't implying that what was his point?
Tricky question. If all of a sudden, Argyle Liberty/Plano Prestonwood/Clay Academy/John Paul II became like ECA and were top notch 5A programs would it be more difficult to win?
Don't know that it would be harder, but it would be different.
Chicago
01-08-08, 04:30 PM
From TMQ on espn.com:
Grade Inflation Comes to High School Football (Part Two): Last week, TMQ noted that Texas awards 12 high school football state championships, six divisions with two winners each. Many readers -- including Lydia Olsen of Morris Hills, N.J. -- countered that the Garden State awards an incredible 20 high school football championships. For instance, Hunterdon Central won this year's North 2 Group IV state championship. Galen Whipple of Klamath Falls, Ore., adds that on a per capita basis, New Jersey hands out five times as many high school football state championships as Texas.
Obviously, I've been wasting my stuff on you people, when I could have been sending it to espn.com like Galen Whipple of Klamath Falls, Oregon does.
From TMQ on espn.com:
Grade Inflation Comes to High School Football (Part Two): Last week, TMQ noted that Texas awards 12 high school football state championships, six divisions with two winners each.
The 12 Texas titles mentioned by Galen Whipple of Klamath Falls, Oregon only include the publics. If you include the privates there are 22 state titles.
2007
5A Division I - Euless Trinity 13, Converse Judson 10
5A Division II - Katy 28, Pflugerville 7
4A Division I - Lamar Consolidated 20, Copperas Cove 14
4A Division II - Austin Lake Travis 36, Dallas Highland Park 34
3A Division I - Liberty Hill 38, Gilmer 13
3A Division II - Celina 21, China Spring 14
2A Division I - Farmersville 27, Tatum 24
2A Division II - Canadian 40, Elysian Fields 25
1A Division I - Munday 26, Bremond 6
1A Division II - Alto 22, Seymor 0
6-Man Div. I - Richland Springs 98, Rule 54
6-Man Div. II - Motley County 44, Woodson 38
TAPPS Div. I - Houston St. Pius X 38, FW Nolan 14
TAPPS Div. II - Argyle Liberty Christian 28, Mesquite Dallas Christian 7
TAPPS Div. III - Waco Reicher 41, Grapevine Faith Christian 7
TAPPS Div. IV - Hallettsville Sacred Heart 39, FW Calvary 8
TAPPS 6-Man Div. I - Greenville Christian 70, Denton Calvary 22
TAPPS 6-Man Div. II - Fredericksburg Heritage 26, Fort Worth Glenview Christian 20 (OT)
SPC Division I - Dallas St. Mark's 56, Tulsa Holland Hall 20
SPC Division II - Episcopal School of Dallas 27 FW Trinity Valley 19
TCAF Division I - Midland Trinity Christian 44, El Paso Faith Christian 22
TCAF Division II - Tyler Kings Academy 36, San Angelo TLC 14
Chicago
01-08-08, 05:18 PM
I used the 16 listed on CalPreps.
No six-man, and no TCAF, whatever that is.
I used the 16 listed on CalPreps.
No six-man, and no TCAF, whatever that is.
To add some perspective, the two schools that played in the TAPPS Division I final, the largest division for the privates, have about 700 and 1,100 students respectively (boys and girls 9-12).
There are two bigger privates and both play in 5A. Both lost in the first round of the playoffs. Dallas Jesuit has about 1,000 students (boys 9-12) and Houston Strake Jesuit as about 900 students (boys 9-12).
The vast majority of privates in Texas are very small schools.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.