Calpreps Issues

B

Bordertown

New member
Calpreps is quoted quite regularly on this forum. As a general rule I prefer computer models over human polls for the basic reasons that human polls are biased on prior history, the coverage by local media (i.e. a metro team gets more props than a rural team because more media eyes see them), the shear inability to digest the top 5% football teams in America for comparison. Computers take out the emotion and can make comparisons on a timely basis that humans can not process.

But the computer models work only as well as human program them. My opinion is there is a key factor missing or entered in the wrong sequence in the Calpreps (Freeman) model. When I look at the model for Texas, I see some glaring examples of the program gone amuck. When you take it to a national basis it only is amplified.

I will use Texas which I am most familiar for my illustration. Texas has approximately 250 schools in its largest 5A classification and 240 schools in its 4A classification. Not all 490 schools in these classifications are quality programs. There are some real dogs, but as a general rule schools in lower classifications Texas might be able to compete with schools in larger classifications. But competing and consistently winning are two different outcomes.

The Calpreps Top 25 in Texas includes:

#3 - Celina - 3A Power whose reputation at that classification is equal to SLC or Odessa Permian at the the 5A level. As much as I respect their program I doubt they could beat half the 5A programs or 40% of the 4A programs. They may be #200 in the state.

#5 - Liberty Hill - 3A - Comparable to Celina in 2007 and above comments apply.

#19 - Farmersville - 2A - Nice run in the 2A, but this team would have been beaten by 80% if 5A, 70% of 4A and 40% of 3A teams. MAYBE #400 in Texas.

#23 - La Vega - 3A - Not at the same level as either Liberty Hill or Celina. Maybe #250-275

#24- Canadian - 2A - See Farmersville

#25 - China Springs - 3A - See La Vega

One of the things that each of these teams have in common, they did not play teams up in classification. They played in a "Bubble" which caused a distortion.

Texas differs from other states in that private schools are inferior to public schools. Even the private schools acknowlege that statement. Secondly, schools like Celina have quality athletes. If not they would have the reputation they deserve. The issue is depth. Many of the kids play both ways in the lower classifications and might be able to play a 75% of the game with the big boys. But the 4th quarter, their freshness would be an issue.

If this is an issue in Texas, it is probably an issue nationally.
 
 
Lower

Bordertown said:
They also do not do a national poll. Where would you rank Celina in Texas - 75 to 125? Or lower?
Click to expand...
I had a similar conversation with "The Ref" the other day. We were talking about how much the game and speed changes from 3A to 5A. This guy has called games down here forever. I put Celina at about 125-200. Mediocre 5A teams would beat them.
 
What you post is just one example of how/why the ratings are beyond flawed. The reality is there is simply no way to produce accurate, reliable national ratings for prep football through use of a computer. There is no way to account for all the variables that produce the comparative results among common opponents. And, at the national level, you mostly have ZERO common opponents, rendering national computer ratings meaningless. Regardless of who programs the computer. Saying you take out all the bias and subjectivity sounds great initially. Then, you think about it and realize there's not a darn thing left to use as an evaluation if you throw those things out, on a national level anyway.

The reason the ratings within a state like Texas or Ohio are flawed is because factors making the smaller schools less competitive are not accounted for. All that is considered is the scores you beat your opponents by and those opponents' results. In Texas, rarely will a 3A play a 5A, so there are no common opponents to link teams. A 3A could win eevry game 100-0 over teams with good records and ensure itself a high rating, regardless of the quality of said teams with good records. A JV team or middle school team could achieve a very high rating by the same means. Of course, the purely subjective judgment is made not to include these teams in the ratings for obvious reasons. Additional subjective judgements need to be made to produce a more accurate set of ratings.
 
I would agree with you but add that human polls are equally flawed. Someone in Texas cannot compare teams in Texas to teams in Arizona, Indiana or South Carolina. Human polls seem to be caught up in the "dynasty factor" versus the here and now. Even in Texas the biggest joke for a state poll is the AP poll as it is dominated by sports writers in major metro areas that are not familiar with teams in other areas.

The national polls showing only a couple of Texas teams in the top 25 are laughable from a Texas prespective.
 
Yes, I agree that the human ratings (there are no polls) are merely taking a shot in the dark with their ratings as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top