Only loss was by 1 point

RidgePride

New member
Here is the highlight of that game - I just love this video so I brought it back up - Look at the trench battles. Mostly won by Katy.

Damn these are two awesome programs - classy - educated - coachable-great coaches great community support- great facilities - total package

These two teams epitomize high school football.


Katy vs SLC 03
 
 
Here is the highlight of that game - I just love this video so I brought it back up - Look at the trench battles. Mostly won by Katy.

Damn these are two awesome programs - classy - educated - coachable-great coaches great community support- great facilities - total package

These two teams epitomize high school football.


Katy vs SLC 03

I attended that game. I know I'm a homer but I thought SLC was the better team. If they had played 10 games I think SLC would have won 7. However, hats off to Katy, they controlled the clock and never allowed the SLC offense to get on track. The 1st team all-state kicker for SLC missed a medium distance FG late in the game that probably would have won the game for SLC. Katy deserved to win on that day.

Revenge was SWEET in 2005 when SLC slaughtered Katy 34-20 in the state final. The score was really 34-13 but Katy scored with 6 seconds to go with their starters in the game against the SLC subs.
 
I know it does not amount to a hill of beans but I have never seen SLC lose a head to head Calpreps computer matchup.




PROJECT A MATCHUP


at Carroll (Southlake, TX)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 31, [2006] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 30

at Jesuit (Portland, OR)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 31, [2006] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 28

at neutral site
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 31, [2006] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 30
 
I know it does not amount to a hill of beans but I have never seen SLC lose a head to head Calpreps computer matchup.




PROJECT A MATCHUP


at Carroll (Southlake, TX)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 31, [2006] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 30

at Jesuit (Portland, OR)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 31, [2006] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 28

at neutral site
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 31, [2006] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 30

SLC loses plenty of those computer head to head match-ups. It's odd because the same computer that does the power ratings does the match-ups. How can a team ranked higher lose to a lower ranked team when the same model does both?

By the way, that Portland Jesuit team is a very good example of the bias in the human polls. Jesuit was probably a top 5 team in the country. Maybe a top 3. The computer models ranked them accordingly. However, since the human polls have the biases of "don't drop unless you lose" and "we rank traditional powers higher" Jesuit didn't get as much respect in the human polls. Teams like Lakeland remained on top of a few human polls even though they struggled several times against above average teams.
 
SLC loses plenty of those computer head to head match-ups. It's odd because the same computer that does the power ratings does the match-ups. How can a team ranked higher lose to a lower ranked team when the same model does both?

By the way, that Portland Jesuit team is a very good example of the bias in the human polls. Jesuit was probably a top 5 team in the country. Maybe a top 3. The computer models ranked them accordingly. However, since the human polls have the biases of "don't drop unless you lose" and "we rank traditional powers higher" Jesuit didn't get as much respect in the human polls. Teams like Lakeland remained on top of a few human polls even though they struggled several times against above average teams.

So wree the computers right when they say SLC is #1 or when they predict a loss to Portland Jesuit?

You point out the flaws in both, contradictions for the computers and bias for the humans, yet choose the computers as the one to have gotten the rankings correct.

At least with the humans, we can ask and then understand the reasoning, right?
 
First of all national rankings are stupid due to the lack of interstate play. But if you are going to rank, I will rely on the "statistical" approach versus the "human" approach. I do not think any of these experts see enough games to understand what they are watching. It is based 90% on reputation and high school football teams there is too much annual turnover in players. That being said I think humans do a best job in identifying the better programs in the country. You can argue the order, but most will concur on the body of the work.

The computer rankings usually have several components - power ranking, offensive ranking and defensive ranking. Sometimes even the #1 team in the nation has an achilies heel (Ohio State and Oklahoma) and some matchups are not good. If you took the top 10 teams in the human or computer ranking systems and put them in a league, you would not expect the #1 team to go underdefeated and the #10 to be winless. Sometimes it is the matchup. The computer may have determined that Jesuit is a bad match for SLC.
 
So wree the computers right when they say SLC is #1 or when they predict a loss to Portland Jesuit?

You point out the flaws in both, contradictions for the computers and bias for the humans, yet choose the computers as the one to have gotten the rankings correct.

At least with the humans, we can ask and then understand the reasoning, right?

Let me give you the big picture.

Yep, both the humans and the computers have flaws. That is why I've always used ALL of the polls combined. If you are going to look at national rankings I believe it's best to use as much data as you can.

Regarding the Lakeland and Jesuit specific cases, I believe the bias in the human polls had Lakeland ranked to high. If the rankings were done (fresh) at the end of the season, I think it would be very tough to make the case that Lakeland had a national championship season based on their 3-4 close games against above average ordinary teams. The conventional human thinking is that a team shouldn't be dropped unless they lose but that doesn't necessarily result in the best rankings IMO. If a new bottoms up ranking were done at the end of the season, no way Lakeland is #1. That's how I see it.

Jesuit had a fantastic season. It took a long time before the humans even ranked them and even then only one poll had them in the national top 10 by the end of the year. Jesuit finished undefeated playing a tough schedule and their opponents were 91-58 which is one of the best of any of the top 20 national teams.
 
. Sometimes it is the matchup. The computer may have determined that Jesuit is a bad match for SLC.

Perhaps. If I were going to use an opinion of how a team "matches up" with another, it seems that a human would appear better at that.

Maybe not.
 
I am puzzled by this.

Just for grins I run the numbers from last year Jesuit ( considered the top team ever in the State) vs a couple of our favorite teams. Lakeland and Northwestern.

Jesuit crushes both teams and squeaks by SLC. My question is if statistically SLC has been the top team in the nation why does the computer not have them winning every time against everybody?





PROJECT A MATCHUP


at Jesuit (Portland, OR)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 42, [2006] Lakeland (FL) 22

at Lakeland (FL)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 40, [2006] Lakeland (FL) 26

at neutral site
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 41, [2006] Lakeland (FL) 24



at Jesuit (Portland, OR)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 40, [2006] Northwestern (Miami, FL) 26

at Northwestern (Miami, FL)
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 38, [2006] Northwestern (Miami, FL) 28

at neutral site
[2006] Jesuit (Portland, OR) 40, [2006] Northwestern (Miami, FL) 27
 
Let me give you the big picture.

Yep, both the humans and the computers have flaws. That is why I've always used ALL of the polls combined. If you are going to look at national rankings I believe it's best to use as much data as you can.

Regarding the Lakeland and Jesuit specific cases, I believe the bias in the human polls had Lakeland ranked to high. If the rankings were done (fresh) at the end of the season, I think it would be very tough to make the case that Lakeland had a national championship season based on their 3-4 close games against above average ordinary teams. The conventional human thinking is that a team shouldn't be dropped unless they lose but that doesn't necessarily result in the best rankings IMO. If a new bottoms up ranking were done at the end of the season, no way Lakeland is #1. That's how I see it.

Jesuit had a fantastic season. It took a long time before the humans even ranked them and even then only one poll had them in the national top 10 by the end of the year. Jesuit finished undefeated playing a tough schedule and their opponents were 91-58 which is one of the best of any of the top 20 national teams.

And what facts tell you this. Besides a computer. When anyone who knows anything about football can see they played a schedule that was way tougher the yours. I have debated over this so many times it is not even funny. You play in a very weak district for a national team, and you can not argue that fact. Try and i will cut you down as quick as you say one thing. Lakeland, Lake Gibson,or Osceola would all have won that district really easy. You played trinity and westlake thats it for this year. For you to go and say they did not deserve #1 is retarded.

close games against

Nationally ranked
St.X
StA

State ranked
Rival game Kathleen

top 10 5a
Osceola

Lets look at all lakeland has done over the last three years
Beat

Nationally ranked
#4 Sta
#4 St.X
#19 Sta

State Ranked
Chamberlain
Durant
East Bay
Hillsborough
Kathleen
Katleen
Lake Gibson
Lake Gibson
Mainland
Mainland
Sta
Sta
Sta
Winter Haven
Hillsborough



Divison Top 10
Lake Gibson
Lake Gibson
Mainland
Mainland
Osceola
Sta
Sta
Sta

Pretty good track recod if you ask me. In 2004 alone they beat 6 of the top 10 teams in the 5a class.


Get over it. Every where you go you try to cut down lakeland and there outstanding seasons. Enough is enough. Instead of being proud of what carroll is putting together you insist on cutting down another superior team. I just dont understand just dont.


And for the record. I would rather see a team have to tough it out against elite level comp. Then see carroll blowout all the teams in ther very very very very average district. Hey just like you all of this is just IMO.

Go ahead and saw away at me with your texas biased mind. Im waiting.
 
And what facts tell you this. Besides a computer. When anyone who knows anything about football can see they played a schedule that was way tougher the yours. I have debated over this so many times it is not even funny. You play in a very weak district for a national team, and you can not argue that fact. Try and i will cut you down as quick as you say one thing. Lakeland, Lake Gibson,or Osceola would all have won that district really easy. You played trinity and westlake thats it for this year. For you to go and say they did not deserve #1 is retarded.

close games against

Nationally ranked
St.X
StA

State ranked
Rival game Kathleen

top 10 5a
Osceola

Lets look at all lakeland has done over the last three years
Beat

Nationally ranked
#4 Sta
#4 St.X
#19 Sta

State Ranked
Chamberlain
Durant
East Bay
Hillsborough
Kathleen
Katleen
Lake Gibson
Lake Gibson
Mainland
Mainland
Sta
Sta
Sta
Winter Haven
Hillsborough



Divison Top 10
Lake Gibson
Lake Gibson
Mainland
Mainland
Osceola
Sta
Sta
Sta

Pretty good track recod if you ask me. In 2004 alone they beat 6 of the top 10 teams in the 5a class.


Get over it. Every where you go you try to cut down lakeland and there outstanding seasons. Enough is enough. Instead of being proud of what carroll is putting together you insist on cutting down another superior team. I just dont understand just dont.


And for the record. I would rather see a team have to tough it out against elite level comp. Then see carroll blowout all the teams in ther very very very very average district. Hey just like you all of this is just IMO.

Go ahead and saw away at me with your texas biased mind. Im waiting.

Actually, you will lose this argument BIG TIME.

The only way to compare the complete strength of schedule is to use the computer models. They are the only rankings that go down far enough in the rankings to capture all of the teams that both Lakeland and SLC played.

Both national computer models (Freeman and Massey) say that SLC's schedule was tougher. In fact, it's not even close.

If we use the total of all of the polls (both computer and human) both SLC and Lakeland beat two teams each ranked in about the top 50. I have no argument with that.

The problem is that most of the rest of the teams that Lakeland played were worse than the teams that SLC played. Not only that, Lakeland almost got beat by a couple of those teams.

The Freeman Model says SLC's strength of schedule was 37.8 and Lakeland's SOS was 24.9.

The Massey Model says SLC's strength of schedule was 49.12 compared to Lakeland's SOS of 33.66.

You start to quote previous years. You DO NOT want to go down THAT road. SLC's schedule in both 2004 and 2005 was much tougher than Lakeland's. In fact, SLC's playoff run in BOTH of those years could have been the toughest playoff run in the history of high school football. Obviously, there is not way to prove it, but regardless, SLC's schedule in 2004 and 2005 was much tougher than Lakeland's. I can give you a team by team comparison if you want for both years and it's not even close.

Everything that I've written here is supported by the national polls (both human and computer). I you want links to any of it, let me know and I'll provide them.
 
Actually, you will lose this argument BIG TIME.

The only way to compare the complete strength of schedule is to use the computer models. They are the only rankings that go down far enough in the rankings to capture all of the teams that both Lakeland and SLC played.

Both national computer models (Freeman and Massey) say that SLC's schedule was tougher. In fact, it's not even close.

If we use the total of all of the polls (both computer and human) both SLC and Lakeland beat two teams each ranked in about the top 50. I have no argument with that.

The problem is that most of the rest of the teams that Lakeland played were worse than the teams that SLC played. Not only that, Lakeland almost got beat by a couple of those teams.

Everything that I've written here is supported by the national polls (both human and computer). I you want links to any of it, let me know and I'll provide them.

Question to the first bolded comment above.


I am not certain to what level this is. Personally I don't put much stock in beating poor teams that are ranked slightly higher.

I have seen some of these rankings that say Podunk HS was #9,758 in the nation or whatever.

Note these numebrs are made up, you can provide if you like, but for this example, lets say you had team A beat

#7
#20
#45
#111
#2,456
#3,657
#5,687
#8,968


and team B beat
#18
#75
#889
#2,222
#2,987
#3,123
#3,333
#3,500

I think team B might have a higher SOS, but A played more what I would consider very good teams.

You bring up a good point in Lakeland's close wins. Not certain what band they fell in.
 
And what facts tell you this. Besides a computer. When anyone who knows anything about football can see they played a schedule that was way tougher the yours. I have debated over this so many times it is not even funny. You play in a very weak district for a national team, and you can not argue that fact. Try and i will cut you down as quick as you say one thing. Lakeland, Lake Gibson,or Osceola would all have won that district really easy. You played trinity and westlake thats it for this year. For you to go and say they did not deserve #1 is retarded.

close games against

Nationally ranked
St.X
StA

State ranked
Rival game Kathleen

top 10 5a
Osceola

Lets look at all lakeland has done over the last three years
Beat

Nationally ranked
#4 Sta
#4 St.X
#19 Sta

State Ranked
Chamberlain
Durant
East Bay
Hillsborough
Kathleen
Katleen
Lake Gibson
Lake Gibson
Mainland
Mainland
Sta
Sta
Sta
Winter Haven
Hillsborough



Divison Top 10
Lake Gibson
Lake Gibson
Mainland
Mainland
Osceola
Sta
Sta
Sta

Pretty good track recod if you ask me. In 2004 alone they beat 6 of the top 10 teams in the 5a class.


Get over it. Every where you go you try to cut down lakeland and there outstanding seasons. Enough is enough. Instead of being proud of what carroll is putting together you insist on cutting down another superior team. I just dont understand just dont.


And for the record. I would rather see a team have to tough it out against elite level comp. Then see carroll blowout all the teams in ther very very very very average district. Hey just like you all of this is just IMO.

Go ahead and saw away at me with your texas biased mind. Im waiting.

You speak of TX bias however you have just as much of a Florida bias. To call someone out on this makes no sense. Trinity and Austin Westlake were not the only good teams that SLC faced. Claiming that SLC only beat two good teams last year shows your ignorance to TX football.

You are familiar with the teams Lakeland played so you automatically rank them higher than the ones Southlake Carroll played. What kind of sense is that? There is no basis for your argument. I agree with SLCDad - Human polls and Computer polls disagree with you when it comes to schedule strength.
 
And what facts tell you this. Besides a computer. When anyone who knows anything about football can see they played a schedule that was way tougher the yours. I have debated over this so many times it is not even funny. You play in a very weak district for a national team, and you can not argue that fact. Try and i will cut you down as quick as you say one thing. Lakeland, Lake Gibson,or Osceola would all have won that district really easy. You played trinity and westlake thats it for this year. For you to go and say they did not deserve #1 is retarded.

Interesting I used Massey and Calpreps (both non-Texas & Florida rating services) I took the three teams you mention in Lakeland's district and the top 5 in SLC. Let me mention, I have a problem taking a 4 team district very seriously. But those are the cards we are dealt.

Massey Rating
1. Southlake Carroll 3.205
2. Lakeland 2.363
3. Colleyville Heritage 2.240
4. Grapevine 1.882
5. Northwest 1.856
6. Lake Gibson 1.642
7. Richland 1.469
8. Osceola 1.383

Calpreps
1. Southlake Carroll 65.3
2. Lakeland 54.3
3. Colleyville Hertigage 49.5
4. Grapevine 38.2
5. Lake Gibson 34.0
6. Northwest 31.7
7. Richland 26.1
8. Osceola 25.1

Alot of symetry in the two systems. The only question is who is really #5 Lake Gibson or Northwest.

Lakeland is in a nice league Calpreps has it ranked as the #25 league in the nation. Southlake Carroll's is ranked #5.

But I will point out neither Lakeland or SLC are national teams.
 
The Freeman Model says SLC's strength of schedule was 37.8 and Lakeland's SOS was 24.9.

The Massey Model says SLC's strength of schedule was 49.12 compared to Lakeland's SOS of 33.66.


aren't these the same computer models that list a 10-4 team that lost to a losing team as one of the top 50 teams in the nation, which invalidates any competency to that ranking


and these are the same computer rankings that rank a 7-5 Texas team THAT WAS OUTSCORED as a top 250-300 team?

these are the basis of claiming SLC had a tough schedule and any person with even rudimentary thinking can see the system is seriousy flawed

garbage in garbage out
 
I attended that game. I know I'm a homer but I thought SLC was the better team. If they had played 10 games I think SLC would have won 7.

and if Trinity had a coach with a brain they beat SLC 10 out of 10

ifs and buts candy and nuts
 
Top