Northwestern falls out of calpreps top 25

[SLCDad]

you posted this eight days ago.

Seems to me you are being pretty specific about this years results.

One week after posting that you state:

I keep looking at what you are posting and it appears very very clear. Even if someone was using this years results to qualify last years rankings, it seem obvious to me that you felt that with more time that the model wqould produce more accurate results.

One week later you seem to be saying the exact opposite.

Pied. You still don't get it. Unbelievable.

I'll give it one more shot.

It's foolish to consider the Calpreps rankings TODAY (partial season) to be 100% valid. There some obvious flaws. It's also foolish to toss the entire model (all years) based on one point in time. The model has proven to be a very good tool in the past and will probably prove to be a good tool this year also.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

[pied]

Pied. You still don't get it. Unbelievable.

I'll give it one more shot.

It's foolish to consider the Calpreps rankings TODAY (partial season) to be 100% valid. There some obvious flaws. It's also foolish to toss the entire model (all years) based on one point in time. The model has proven to be a very good tool in the past and will probably prove to be a good tool this year also.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Because that is not what you have said.

 

[SLCDad]

Because that is not what you have said.

LOL That's exactly what I posted. LOL

YOU started this little attack. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent trying to understand what posters are saying rather than telling them. A question asking for a clarification would be much better than an attack. Don't you think?

Like I said a few posts up: "You need to read what I actually posted and NOT what you think I said."

 

[pied]

LOL That's exactly what I posted. LOL

YOU started this little attack. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent trying to understand what posters are saying rather than telling them. A question asking for a clarification would be much better than an attack. Don't you think?

Like I said a few posts up: "You need to read what I actually posted and NOT what you think I said."

Sure here you go I'll post it again:

10/22

In my opinion, Calpreps is producing some really goofy results at this point this year. Historically it's output has been pretty good. I'm thinking the Calpreps model will get better as the season progresses and more games are played. In Texas we've only played 7 games of a 16 game (potential) season. Computer models are usually better when they have the most data possible.

10/22

As the season progresses the computer models will become more accurate. The cream of the crop will rise to the top even though there are very few games between the top teams.

It's somewhat foolish to mock a computer model at this point of the season because the amount of data included is small.

10/22

I'm not saying we should reject the computer rankings but they are producing some goofy results at the present time.

10/30

Anybody who believes the Calpreps model right now is a fool.

According to Calpreps Miami Northwestern doesn't even make the national Top 25 (yet 5 human pulls rank them #1 and the other human polls has them #2).

Calpreps says Katy is the 6th best team in Texas. LOL

Neither Katy nor SLC are in their national Top 25. The human polls both put Katy and SLC in the Top 5 teams in the country.

So you don't say we should reject them at this point, but only a fool would believe them.

I understand that you feel that feel they get better at the end of the year. I understand you feel they are better in many ways than the human polls. I get that, I really do.

 

[SLCDad]

So you don't say we should reject them at this point, but only a fool would believe them.

I understand that you feel that feel they get better at the end of the year. I understand you feel they are better in many ways than the human polls. I get that, I really do.

Unbelievable.

After it has been explained to you twice, you are still intent on telling me what I meant, rather than asking me. If that's the kind of person you are, so be it.

 

[pied]

Unbelievable.

After it has been explained to you twice, you are still intent on telling me what I meant, rather than asking me. If that's the kind of person you are, so be it.

Wow. Have you thought that perhaps the reason why many posters have certain opinions of you is beacause, despite what you may think they are true?

Perhaps these comments and your explanations don't make sense. Have you thought of that?

Then again maybe that's the kind of person you are, whatever that means.

To be fair, reconcile these comments made within eight days:

It's somewhat foolish to mock a computer model at this point of the season because the amount of data included is small.

and

Anybody who believes the Calpreps model right now is a fool.

According to Calpreps Miami Northwestern doesn't even make the national Top 25 (yet 5 human pulls rank them #1 and the other human polls has them #2).

Calpreps says Katy is the 6th best team in Texas. LOL

Neither Katy nor SLC are in their national Top 25. The human polls both put Katy and SLC in the Top 5 teams in the country.

 

[SLCDad]

To be fair, reconcile these comments made within eight days:

I've already done that. TWICE.

Yet . . . . . your only response is to post the same thing over and over and over again. I suppose you want to to explain it three times since you've asked the same question three time.

 

[pied]

I've already done that. TWICE.

Yet . . . . . your only response is to post the same thing over and over and over again. I suppose you want to to explain it three times since you've asked the same question three time.

Here's the response:

It's foolish to consider the Calpreps rankings TODAY (partial season) to be 100% valid. There some obvious flaws. It's also foolish to toss the entire model (all years) based on one point in time. The model has proven to be a very good tool in the past and will probably prove to be a good tool this year also.

Perhaps I am reading too much into it. I have read it twice and I still don't see your comments as consistent, but whatever. I guess I need to look into person building courses...

 

[SLCDad]

Perhaps I am reading too much into it. I have read it twice and I still don't see your comments as consistent, but whatever. I guess I need to look into person building courses...

I think you are missing the context of the conversation.

I'll make the supposedly inconsistent comments again (below) to help you get the context of what I've already posted.

The Calpreps model is producing some really goofy results right now. Anyone would be a fool if they accepted the current rankings completely. However, the Calpreps model has produced some good rankings every year (and will probably produce good rankings this year also) so a person would be a fool if they rejected the model and the output it produced for all years for both power ratings and strength of schedule analysis.

My statement (above) is consistent and logical even though I state that a person would be a fool if they "accepted" and "rejected" the rankings. Obviously, anyone can disagree with my conclusions but the statement is logical and consistent.

I'm really hoping that you finally understand what I was intending to say.

 

[pied]

I think you are missing the context of the conversation.

I'll make the supposedly inconsistent comments again (below) to help you get the context of what I've already posted.

The Calpreps model is producing some really goofy results right now. Anyone would be a fool if they accepted the current rankings completely. However, the Calpreps model has produced some good rankings every year (and will probably produce good rankings this year also) so a person would be a fool if they rejected the model and the output it produced for all years for both power ratings and strength of schedule analysis.

My statement (above) is consistent and logical even though I state that a person would be a fool if they "accepted" and "rejected" the rankings. Obviously, anyone can disagree with my conclusions but the statement is logical and consistent.

I'm really hoping that you finally understand what I was intending to say.

I think context means everything, and one of the reasons I am surprised.

In the conversation on this board and thread the discussion has revolved around the ranking of teams Nationally relative to teams in other states and how those rankings held up to others.

You have made the case repeatedly that the computer polls become mroe accurate as more games are played.

For those who do not know the other comment comes from the 5ATexasfootball.com board on a thread titled:

Carroll Beats EVERY Team in Texas in 07

This was a discussion where seven Texas teams were rpedicted to win against Carroll. The discussion was about the projection aspect and not rankings at all.

For those interested here are my two posts on the thread:

I don't know why you would say that. It is not very many and all are predicted as being very close. How many people would have given Westlake a chance lsat year or Rockwall this year?

Not saying it's accurate, just that it would not shock me if any of those teams won.

and

I did not indicate they had.

My point was that if I saw any of these teams beat SLC this year it would not shock me.

Bowie (Arlington, TX)
Katy (TX)
Madison (San Antonio, TX)
Permian (Odessa, TX)
Plano (TX)
Smithson Valley (Spring Branch, TX)
Trinity (Euless, TX)

Personally I'd throw in Allen and Longview as well off the top of my head.

Would it really shock Dragon fans to see them fall to any of these teams this year?

Obviously I was responding to others in the thread.

Your post came out of no where, seeimingly in response to no one inparticular except the original post:

Anybody who believes the Calpreps model right now is a fool.

According to Calpreps Miami Northwestern doesn't even make the national Top 25 (yet 5 human pulls rank them #1 and the other human polls has them #2).

Calpreps says Katy is the 6th best team in Texas. LOL

Neither Katy nor SLC are in their national Top 25. The human polls both put Katy and SLC in the Top 5 teams in the country.

Here are the overall national rankings if only the six human rankings are used:

Rank.......School................................. ...........Ave Rank
1......Northwestern (Miami, FL)............................1.2
2......St. Xavier (Cincinnati, OH)..........................2.5
3......Katy (TX).............................................. ..4.5
4......Mater Dei (Santa Ana, CA)..........................5.3
5......Carroll (Southlake, TX)...............................5.5
6......South Panola (Batesville, MS)......................5.8
7......De La Salle (Concord, CA).........................10.2
8......Washington (Miami, FL).............................10.2
9......Prattville (AL)..........................................10.5
10.....Hamilton (Chandler, AZ)............................11.5
10.....Northside (Warner Robins, GA)....................11.5
12....Cardinal Mooney (Youngstown, OH).............11.7
12....Colerain (Cincinnati, OH)............................11.7

To be honest I thought you were joking about it originally. It appears not.

 

[SLCDad]

Frankly, I'm wondering why Pied has gone to such great lengths to post what he has in his last few posts. He is really putting forth a huge effort.

It reminds me of a mad man obsessed with proving a point that doesn't exist. Oh well.

 

[pied]

You're right. These posts have epitomized consistency. The model is accurate except when it's not. You're a fool to believe it until it is time to no longer be foolish.

I promise I will not be fooled by the foolish fool model again.

I think I speak for many when I say we wait until the SLCDad decree that it is time to regard the model again.

Foolishly Yours

pied

 

[SLCDad]

Perhaps I should repeat my question.

Pied, why have you gone to such extraordinary lengths in an attempt to tell me what I intended to say in my posts? Wouldn't it be better to just ask?

 

[pied]

Perhaps I should repeat my question.

Pied, why have you gone to such extraordinary lengths in an attempt to tell me what I intended to say in my posts? Wouldn't it be better to just ask?

Cutting and pasting is not extraordinary, especially when the majority of quotes come from one thread.

I have asked, and have not seen an answer that reconciles your posts in my opinion. You have no issue reconciling them. Oh well.