calpreps power rankings 11-05

 
This week:

MNW 72
SLC 49

That being goofy enough, 6 Mater Dei and 7 Permian don't make much sense either.

Average teams beat

MD 3387
OP 2210

Points for Wins(loss in parentheses)

MD 48(44)
OP 44

Points against Wins(loss in parentheses)

MD 15(17)
OP 13

The rankings of MD's opponents:

10
328
334
594
5332
5396
11719
49(LOSS)

The rankings of OP's opponents:

59
88
1063
1369
1553
2704
3178
3404
6475


Nothing about these numbers indicated that Mater Dei would be ranked ahead of Permian.
 
I wouldn't cite any of calpreps' #s as proof where a team should or shouldn't be ranked. I have no doubt that the folks at calpreps could explain why teams are ranked where they are because, or in spite of, the ratings of teams they have beaten.

If there is a clear flaw in the program, the entire program has to be disregarded because the source of the flaw is unidentified. We know that SOMETHING is wrong with what we are seeing in their ratings. What causes these results is not clear. We do know the folks at calpreps will arrogantly state the ratings are accurate because they are "objective" and based only one facts. Never mind that there are MANY facts the computer does not consider...

And, I don't believe the program changed from last year. As a whole, their is absolutely NO reason to believe last year's ratings are any more or less accurate than this year's since the computer has not changed.
 
consumerman said:
perhaps performance had something to do with it

Md had been averaging 50 points a game
Click to expand...

MD avg 48(44 including their loss)
OP avg 44 in all their games(all of them wins obviously)

OP gives up less points per game as well. This information was in my original post. Perhaps you should read posts prior to responding to them.
 
Keeping in mind that the whole thing is circular (or at least has elements of that),

Beating a team that didn't beat anyone in the top 500, and not beating anyone else in the top 1000, isn't going to force you very high (that's MNW).

And losing to someone who didn't beat anyone else in the top 1000, and not beating anyone in the top 500, isn't going to force you very high (that's SLC).

If you lose to #49, but beat everyone else (that's MD), you could still be better than a team that beat #59 and #88 (that's OP), but no one better, especially when your everyone else includes #10, #328, #333, and #592, and their everyone else (beyond #59 and #88) starts with #1063.
 
IMO the fact that Marion Local is now up to #13 in the country, shows that someone undoubtedly spilled a beer on the keyboard at some point this year.:Ohno:
 
skyway28 said:
If there is a clear flaw in the program, the entire program has to be disregarded because the source of the flaw is unidentified. We know that SOMETHING is wrong with what we are seeing in their ratings. What causes these results is not clear.
Click to expand...

I doubt there is a flaw in their program. It seems to do a perfectly good job ranking teams within most states. There is a flaw with the concept of doing a national high school computer rating, because there just are not enough interstate games.
 
MA Fan said:
I doubt there is a flaw in their program. It seems to do a perfectly good job ranking teams within most states. There is a flaw with the concept of doing a national high school computer rating, because there just are not enough interstate games.
Click to expand...

I can see that. Although looking at the national ratings, they have Marion Local as the second-highest rated team in Ohio. Most in Ohio find that abominable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top