WOS87 Statewide Power Rankings Week 9

[WOS87]

Before anyone calls me a homer, I swear to god I had no idea the numbers were going to come out the way they did. And if it's any consolation, WO-S is likely to fall in the next two weeks as they would need to win both games by a 60+ point margin to keep the point total they have.

Also, I am working on adding in games vs. 2A and 4A teams, but it will take time, as I will essentially have to do the same thing for each of those classifications as I did with 3A, and then add in all the games between classifications to make it valid.

The highest rated performances for week 8:

1. 117.00 - Liberty Hill's 45 pt win over Hutto
2. 113.94 - WO-S' 20 pt win over Jasper
3. 112.32 - Carthage's 23 pt win over Crockett
4. 110.68 - Madisonville's 35 pt win over Palestine
5. 109.01 - Giddings' 14 pt win over Caldwell
6. 103.32 - Waco La Vega's 50 pt win over Gatesville
7. 98.02 - Bridgeport's 14 pt win over Argyle
8. 97.31 - Gilmer's 52 pt win over Mineola
9. 96.90 - Waco Connally's 40 pt win over Lorena
10. 96.80 - Abilene Wylie's 19 pt win over Sweetwater

I corrected a few errors from last week and this week's numbers are a perfect fit, meaning if you use the numbers listed below to calculate a rating for each team, the numbers should be exactly the same for all 174 teams.

As an example:

Kirbyville (8 games against 3A opponents)

beat Cleveland by 27 pts: 58.34 + 27 = 85.34
beat Carthage by 1 pt: 96.72 + 1 = 97.72
beat Liberty by 18 pts: 61.80 + 18 = 79.80
beat Jasper by 15 pts: 93.94 + 15 = 108.94
lost to WO-S by 24 pts: 112.47 - 24 = 88.47
beat Orangefield by 7 pts: 72.88 + 7 = 79.88
beat Hardin-Jefferson by 36 pts: 56.18 + 36 = 92.18
beat Bridge City by 42 pts: 48.00 + 42 - 90.00

The average rating for the season so far is:
(85.34 + 97.72 + 79.80 + 108.94 + 88.47 + 79.88 + 92.18) / 8 = 90.29 which is their power rating EXACTLY. If you did the above calculation for each of the 174 3A teams you would end up with the exact numbers listed below.



Statewide 3A Power Rankings for Week 9 (Week of Oct. 29th)

1 - 112.47 West Orange-Stark (21-3A)
2 - 108.00 Liberty Hill (18-3A)
3 - 105.32 Royse City (10-3A)
4 - 105.04 Waco La Vega (17-3A)
5 - 102.59 Celina (9-3A)
6 - 102.15 Gilmer (15-3A)
7 - 101.27 Giddings (23-3A)
8 - 96.93 Madisonville (19-3A)
9 - 96.72 Carthage (20-3A)
10 - 95.86 Waco Connally (17-3A)
11 - 95.01 Caldwell (23-3A)
12 - 94.95 Diboll (20-3A)
13 - 94.12 Abilene Wylie (7-3A)
14 - 93.94 Jasper (21-3A)
15 - 91.48 Cuero (29-3A)
16 - 90.91 Silsbee (21-3A)
17 - 90.29 Kirbyville (21-3A)
18 - 89.32 Crockett (20-3A)
19 - 89.03 Robinson (17-3A)
20 - 88.63 Liberty-Eylau (16-3A)
21 - 88.52 Kennedale (12-3A)
22 - 87.70 Frisco Wakeland (9-3A)
23 - 85.84 Navasota (23-3A)
24 - 85.21 Prosper (9-3A)
25 - 85.20 China Spring (17-3A)
26 - 85.15 Graham (6-3A)
27 - 85.04 Hamshire-Fannett (21-3A)
28 - 84.02 Argyle (8-3A)
29 - 83.73 Tyler Chapel Hill (14-3A)
30 - 83.28 Clyde (7-3A)
31 - 83.04 Longview Spring Hill (15-3A)
32 - 82.06 Coldspring (22-3A)
33 - 81.98 Palestine Westwood (19-3A)
34 - 81.74 Burkburnett (6-3A)
35 - 81.30 Bellville (23-3A)
36 - 80.37 Vernon (6-3A)
37 - 79.87 Needville (24-3A)
38 - 78.57 Wimberley (25-3A)
39 - 78.28 Dallas Roosevelt (11-3A)
40 - 77.99 Canyon (5-3A)
41 - 77.92 Pleasant Grove (16-3A)
42 - 77.80 Sweetwater (7-3A)
43 - 77.74 Rockdale (18-3A)
44 - 77.32 Bridgeport (8-3A)
45 - 76.46 Van (14-3A)
46 - 75.79 Athens (14-3A)
47 - 75.68 Palestine (19-3A)
48 - 75.68 Decatur (8-3A)
49 - 75.31 Bullard (14-3A)
50 - 74.99 Gonzales (29-3A)
51 - 74.76 Sealy (24-3A)
52 - 73.75 Kaufman (13-3A)
53 - 73.60 Pittsburg (16-3A)
54 - 73.41 Snyder (3-3A)
55 - 73.26 Canton (14-3A)
56 - 73.17 Whitesboro (9-3A)
57 - 72.88 Orangefield (21-3A)
58 - 72.47 West (12-3A)
59 - 72.35 Mabank (13-3A)
60 - 72.01 Cameron (18-3A)
61 - 72.00 Hutto (18-3A)
62 - 71.94 La Grange (23-3A)
63 - 71.65 Wills Point (10-3A)
64 - 71.49 Breckenridge (7-3A)
65 - 70.64 Dallas Madison (11-3A)
66 - 70.53 Columbus (24-3A)
67 - 70.48 Nevada Community (10-3A)
68 - 69.89 West Columbia (24-3A)
69 - 69.83 Andrews (3-3A)
70 - 69.22 Llano (25-3A)
71 - 68.10 Splendora (22-3A)
72 - 67.90 Fort Stockton (1-3A)
73 - 67.80 Iowa Park (6-3A)
74 - 67.36 Pilot Point (9-3A)
75 - 66.42 Center (20-3A)
76 - 66.29 Rio Hondo (32-3A)
77 - 65.66 Monahans (1-3A)
78 - 65.26 Brownsboro (14-3A)
79 - 65.20 Glen Rose (12-3A)
80 - 64.65 Ferris (13-3A)
81 - 64.65 Mexia (19-3A)
82 - 63.66 Quinlan Ford (10-3A)
83 - 63.49 Atlanta (16-3A)
84 - 63.36 Carrollton Ranchview (11-3A)
85 - 61.80 Liberty (22-3A)
86 - 61.66 Brookshire Royal (24-3A)
87 - 61.53 Sweeny (24-3A)
88 - 61.00 Hondo (28-3A)
89 - 60.77 Hillsboro (12-3A)
90 - 60.76 Lake Worth (11-3A)
91 - 60.71 Bowie (8-3A)
92 - 59.59 Seminole (4-3A)
93 - 59.34 Midland Greenwood (3-3A)
94 - 59.15 Pleasanton (27-3A)
95 - 59.08 Palacios (29-3A)
96 - 58.72 Sanger (8-3A)
97 - 58.67 Port Isabel (32-3A)
98 - 58.34 Cleveland (22-3A)
99 - 57.82 Taylor (18-3A)
100 - 57.76 Commerce (10-3A)
101 - 57.27 Fairfield (19-3A)
102 - 57.10 HIdalgo (32-3A)
103 - 56.97 La Feria (32-3A)
104 - 56.90 Lorena (17-3A)
105 - 56.18 Hardin-Jefferson (21-3A)
106 - 56.04 Princeton (9-3A)
107 - 55.65 Whitney (12-3A)
108 - 55.14 La Vernia (26-3A)
109 - 55.10 Smithville (23-3A)
110 - 54.77 Groesbeck (19-3A)
111 - 54.67 Lubbock Cooper (4-3A)
112 - 54.65 Emory Rains (10-3A)
113 - 53.49 Wharton (24-3A)
114 - 53.32 Gatesville (17-3A)
115 - 53.22 Ingleside (30-3A)
116 - 53.21 Levelland (4-3A)
117 - 53.00 Devine (28-3A)
118 - 52.52 White Oak (15-3A)
119 - 52.25 Shepherd (22-3A)
120 - 51.71 Mount Vernon (16-3A)
121 - 51.22 CC West Oso (30-3A)
122 - 50.59 Gainesville (8-3A)
123 - 50.42 Luling (26-3A)
124 - 50.01 Lytle (27-3A)
125 - 49.02 Gladewater (15-3A)
126 - 48.35 Brownfield (4-3A)
127 - 48.00 Bridge City (21-3A)
128 - 47.64 Huntington (20-3A)
129 - 47.27 Mathis (30-3A)
130 - 46.04 Orange Grove (30-3A)
131 - 45.40 Medina Valley (27-3A)
132 - 45.31 Mineola (15-3A)
133 - 44.67 Crandall (13-3A)
134 - 44.26 Eustace (13-3A)
135 - 44.14 Van Alstyne (9-3A)
136 - 43.98 Bandera (25-3A)
137 - 43.41 Crystal City (28-3A)
138 - 42.80 Yoakum (29-3A)
139 - 42.46 Poteet (27-3A)
140 - 41.98 Rusk (20-3A)
141 - 41.63 Stafford (24-3A)
142 - 41.48 Anthony (1-3A)
143 - 40.83 Comanche (7-3A)
144 - 38.85 Raymondville (31-3A)
145 - 38.78 Goliad (29-3A)
146 - 38.59 Tarkington (22-3A)
147 - 38.01 Gladewater Sabine (15-3A)
148 - 37.92 Borger (5-3A)
149 - 37.88 Pecos (1-3A)
150 - 37.77 Kemp (13-3A)
151 - 35.81 FW Castleberry (11-3A)
152 - 34.37 Zapata (31-3A)
153 - 33.75 Sinton (30-3A)
154 - 33.20 South San West (26-3A)
155 - 32.98 Pearsall (28-3A)
156 - 32.65 Wichita Falls Hirschi (6-3A)
157 - 32.27 Bonham (9-3A)
158 - 31.73 Lyford (31-3A)
159 - 29.81 Clint (1-3A)
160 - 28.62 Fabens (1-3A)
161 - 24.50 Progreso (32-3A)
162 - 23.86 Aransas Pass (30-3A)
163 - 21.79 Marion (26-3A)
164 - 21.27 FW Diamond Hill-Jarvis (11-3A)
165 - 20.35 Dalhart (5-3A)
166 - 17.28 Venus (12-3A)
167 - 17.22 Somerset (27-3A)
168 - 13.35 Perryton (5-3A)
169 - 12.13 Lamesa (3-3A)
170 - 8.58 Falfurrias (31-3A)
171 - 8.45 Carrizo Springs (28-3A)
172 - 5.05 San Diego (31-3A)
173 - 3.20 Tornillo (1-3A)
174 - 0.00 Ingram Moore (25-3A)

[crzyjournalist03]

Great work!!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

And finally a poll that shows Carthage as beign a serious threat...

[block&tackle]

WOS - was WOS's number one of the ones that required a correction this week. If not, how in the heck did they make a 10 point jump?

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by block&tackle
WOS - was WOS's number one of the ones that required a correction this week. If not, how in the heck did they make a 10 point jump?
Probably the fact that they got a win over a top 15 team, just off the top of my head.

[kepdawg]

14 - 93.94 Jasper (21-3A)
15 - 91.48 Cuero (29-3A)
16 - 90.91 Silsbee (21-3A)
17 - 90.29 Kirbyville (21-3A)


Too bad all the K'ville people are over at **********! I'm sure they're having a fit over this! :D

[WOS87]

It's all interconnected... I think the reason WOS jumped so much this week is because they have big wins over Jasper, Kirbyville and Silsbee, all three of which have had some big wins themselves in the past few weeks. To a lesser degree, since Kirbyville has a win over Carthage, and Carthage had a big win too this week, that carries over a little bit to WO-S' rating, due to their win over Kirbyville.


The way it works is, if the teams that you have already played win, it will make your rating go up, even if you happened to be idle that week.

I hope this doesn't confuse people even more but as an example:

Say you have 5 teams (A,B,C,D and E) and they range in quality with A being the superior team, down to E being the worst.

In week 1:
A beats B by 7 pts
C beats D by 14 pts
E is IDLE

In week 2:
A beats C by 28 pts
D beats E by 21 pts
B is IDLE


The standings would be
A 2-0 (two wins by 7 and 28 pts)
D 1-1 (one win by 21 pts and one loss by 14 pts)
C 1-1 (one win by 14 pts and one loss by 28 pts)
B 0-1 (one loss by 7 pts)
E 0-1 (one loss by 21 pts)

But, when I plug these games into my system the ratings come out like this:

1. 63.00 - Team A
2. 56.00 - Team B
3. 35.00 - Team C
4. 21.00 - Team D
5. 0.00 - Team E

And if you do the calculations for each team, you'll find that this is the only way that you can assign ratings to all 5 teams, that perfectly explains all 4 games between them.

Even though Team B hasn't won a single game and has the same record as Team E, they are rated well above team E as well as Teams C and D, and appropriately so.

I'm not making any judgements about any particular teams, it's just the way the numbers come out. This explains how you can have 8-0 Rio Hondo, ranked well below 2-6 Wimberley... Wimberley's 25 point loss to Liberty Hill is actually rated higher than RH's 45 point win over Lyford due to the wins and losses that connect them. The more games that are played, the more accurate the numbers become because any anomalies (i.e. huge upsets) are averaged out....

[block&tackle]

I know how you got your numbers - I like the way that they can be effected by the success of past opponents.

I just had no idea that you could get 50 points (divided by 5 games) worth of swing in one week doing it that way, especially in the middle of district where a win for a past opponent also means a loss for another past opponent. When you are benefitting from a past opponent benefitting from the success of one of their past opponents...I just have a hard time wrapping my brain around that one.

When you only have one non-district opponent that counts in your system like WOS does, I find that drastic a swing almost impossible to accept. I am in no way questioning your integrity - just trying to understand a mathmatical sytem that I find interesting.

For LHPM - (This also has nothing to do with the relative strengths of WO-S or any other team - just pure math.)

[WOS87]

You also have to remember that the upper and lower limits of the number set are completely arbitrary.... when I initially calculate it, WOS ends up with a value of a little over 49 and Ingram Moore a value of less than -62. I added 62 and a fraction to all numbers to bring Ingram Moore up to 0. That's how WOS ends up with 112. Ingram Moore got demolished 68-0 last week.... which probably pushed their relative number down a lot more than WO-S' moved up.

[block&tackle]

Now that makes sense. That and the fact that so many 3A-21 teams had few non-district 3A games and could therefore be influenced by one or two games which didn't involve them. I can believe that.

My suggestion would be to let those teams fall to negative numbers to avoid confusion and add continuity from week to week.

[WOS87]

Okay, here is how it spreads out if I start every team out at zero and let the calculations run their course. Doing it this way each time, one should be able to make more valid comparisons between ratings from week to week.

The highest rated performances this season:
61.44 - Waco La Vega's win over Robinson
61.11 - Celina's win over Frisco Wakeland
60.83 - Gilmer's win over Center
57.59 - WO-S' win over Kirbyville
54.77 - Celina's win over Pilot Point
54.42 - Liberty Hill's win over Hutto


WOS87 Statewide 3A Power Rankings for Week 9
(takes in to account all games between 3A opponents played before 10/28/07)


1. 49.89 West Orange-Stark (21-3A)
2. 45.41 Liberty Hill (18-3A)
3. 42.73 Royse City (10-3A)
4. 42.45 Waco La Vega (17-3A)
5. 40.00 Celina (9-3A)
6. 39.56 Gilmer (15-3A)
7. 38.69 Giddings (23-3A)
8. 34.35 Madisonville (19-3A)
9. 34.14 Carthage (20-3A)
10. 33.28 Waco Connally (17-3A)
11. 32.43 Caldwell (23-3A)
12. 32.37 Diboll (20-3A)
13. 31.54 Abilene Wylie (7-3A)
14. 31.35 Jasper (21-3A)
15. 28.90 Cuero (29-3A)
16. 28.33 Silsbee (21-3A)
17. 27.71 Kirbyville (21-3A)
18. 26.74 Crockett (20-3A)
19. 26.44 Robinson (17-3A)
20. 26.04 Liberty-Eylau (16-3A)
21. 25.93 Kennedale (12-3A)
22. 25.11 Frisco Wakeland (9-3A)
23. 23.25 Navasota (23-3A)
24. 22.63 Prosper (9-3A)
25. 22.61 China Spring (17-3A)
26. 22.57 Graham (6-3A)
27. 22.46 Hamshire-Fannett (21-3A)
28. 21.44 Argyle (8-3A)
29. 21.15 Tyler Chapel Hill (14-3A)
30. 20.69 Clyde (7-3A)
31. 20.46 Longview Spring Hill (15-3A)
32. 19.48 Coldspring (22-3A)
33. 19.40 Palestine Westwood (19-3A)
34. 19.16 Burkburnett (6-3A)
35. 18.72 Bellville (23-3A)
36. 17.78 Vernon (6-3A)
37. 17.29 Needville (24-3A)
38. 15.99 Wimberley (25-3A)
39. 15.70 Dallas Roosevelt (11-3A)
40. 15.40 Canyon (5-3A)
41. 15.34 Pleasant Grove (16-3A)
42. 15.22 Sweetwater (7-3A)
43. 15.15 Rockdale (18-3A)
44. 14.73 Bridgeport (8-3A)
45. 13.88 Van (14-3A)
46. 13.21 Athens (14-3A)
47. 13.10 Palestine (19-3A)
48. 13.09 Decatur (8-3A)
49. 12.72 Bullard (14-3A)
50. 12.40 Gonzales (29-3A)
51. 12.18 Sealy (24-3A)
52. 11.16 Kaufman (13-3A)
53. 11.02 Pittsburg (16-3A)
54. 10.83 Snyder (3-3A)
55. 10.67 Canton (14-3A)
56. 10.59 Whitesboro (9-3A)
57. 10.30 Orangefield (21-3A)
58. 9.89 West (12-3A)
59. 9.76 Mabank (13-3A)
60. 9.43 Cameron (18-3A)
61. 9.42 Hutto (18-3A)
62. 9.35 La Grange (23-3A)
63. 9.07 Wills Point (10-3A)
64. 8.90 Breckenridge (7-3A)
65. 8.06 Dallas Madison (11-3A)
66. 7.95 Columbus (24-3A)
67. 7.89 Nevada Community (10-3A)
68. 7.31 West Columbia (24-3A)
69. 7.25 Andrews (3-3A)
70. 6.63 Llano (25-3A)
71. 5.52 Splendora (22-3A)
72. 5.31 Fort Stockton (1-3A)
73. 5.22 Iowa Park (6-3A)
74. 4.77 Pilot Point (9-3A)
75. 3.83 Center (20-3A)
76. 3.71 Rio Hondo (32-3A)
77. 3.07 Monahans (1-3A)
78. 2.67 Brownsboro (14-3A)
79. 2.61 Glen Rose (12-3A)
80. 2.07 Ferris (13-3A)
81. 2.06 Mexia (19-3A)
82. 1.08 Quinlan Ford (10-3A)
83. 0.90 Atlanta (16-3A)
84. 0.78 Carrollton Ranchview (11-3A)
85. -0.78 Liberty (22-3A)
86. -0.93 Brookshire Royal (24-3A)
87. -1.05 Sweeny (24-3A)
88. -1.58 Hondo (28-3A)
89. -1.82 Hillsboro (12-3A)
90. -1.82 Lake Worth (11-3A)
91. -1.88 Bowie (8-3A)
92. -2.99 Seminole (4-3A)
93. -3.24 Midland Greenwood (3-3A)
94. -3.43 Pleasanton (27-3A)
95. -3.50 Palacios (29-3A)
96. -3.86 Sanger (8-3A)
97. -3.92 Port Isabel (32-3A)
98. -4.24 Cleveland (22-3A)
99. -4.76 Taylor (18-3A)
100. -4.82 Commerce (10-3A)
101. -5.32 Fairfield (19-3A)
102. -5.49 Hidalgo (32-3A)
103. -5.62 La Feria (32-3A)
104. -5.69 Lorena (17-3A)
105. -6.41 Hardin-Jefferson (21-3A)
106. -6.55 Princeton (9-3A)
107. -6.94 Whitney (12-3A)
108. -7.44 La Vernia (26-3A)
109. -7.49 Smithville (23-3A)
110. -7.82 Groesbeck (19-3A)
111. -7.92 Lubbock Cooper (4-3A)
112. -7.93 Emory Rains (10-3A)
113. -9.09 Wharton (24-3A)
114. -9.26 Gatesville (17-3A)
115. -9.36 Ingleside (30-3A)
116. -9.38 Levelland (4-3A)
117. -9.59 Devine (28-3A)
118. -10.07 White Oak (15-3A)
119. -10.33 Shepherd (22-3A)
120. -10.88 Mount Vernon (16-3A)
121. -11.36 CC West Oso (30-3A)
122. -11.99 Gainesville (8-3A)
123. -12.17 Luling (26-3A)
124. -12.58 Lytle (27-3A)
125. -13.56 Gladewater (15-3A)
126. -14.23 Brownfield (4-3A)
127. -14.58 Bridge City (21-3A)
128. -14.95 Huntington (20-3A)
129. -15.32 Mathis (30-3A)
130. -16.54 Orange Grove (30-3A)
131. -17.19 Medina Valley (27-3A)
132. -17.27 Mineola (15-3A)
133. -17.91 Crandall (13-3A)
134. -18.32 Eustace (13-3A)
135. -18.44 Van Alstyne (9-3A)
136. -18.60 Bandera (25-3A)
137. -19.18 Crystal City (28-3A)
138. -19.78 Yoakum (29-3A)
139. -20.12 Poteet (27-3A)
140. -20.61 Rusk (20-3A)
141. -20.96 Stafford (24-3A)
142. -21.10 Anthony (1-3A)
143. -21.76 Comanche (7-3A)
144. -23.74 Raymondville (31-3A)
145. -23.81 Goliad (29-3A)
146. -24.00 Tarkington (22-3A)
147. -24.57 Gladewater Sabine (15-3A)
148. -24.67 Borger (5-3A)
149. -24.70 Pecos (1-3A)
150. -24.82 Kemp (13-3A)
151. -26.78 FW Castleberry (11-3A)
152. -28.21 Zapata (31-3A)
153. -28.83 Sinton (30-3A)
154. -29.39 South San West (26-3A)
155. -29.60 Pearsall (28-3A)
156. -29.94 Wichita Falls Hirschi (6-3A)
157. -30.32 Bonham (9-3A)
158. -30.85 Lyford (31-3A)
159. -32.78 Clint (1-3A)
160. -33.96 Fabens (1-3A)
161. -38.08 Progreso (32-3A)
162. -38.72 Aransas Pass (30-3A)
163. -40.80 Marion (26-3A)
164. -41.31 FW Diamond Hill-Jarvis (11-3A)
165. -42.23 Dalhart (5-3A)
166. -45.30 Venus (12-3A)
167. -45.37 Somerset (27-3A)
168. -49.23 Perryton (5-3A)
169. -50.45 Lamesa (3-3A)
170. -54.00 Falfurrias (31-3A)
171. -54.14 Carrizo Springs (28-3A)
172. -57.53 San Diego (31-3A)
173. -59.38 Tornillo (1-3A)
174. -62.58 Ingram Moore (25-3A)

[crzyjournalist03]

That's even more great stuff WOS...

What I like about the way you just posted it is that zero basically represents middle of the pack...the median team would be ranked 87 in the state, and your zero is right around 84.5. If you look at zero as an "average" team, it really shows you how far above or below your team is from average.

[block&tackle]

I like it.

This way a team's number is relative not only to the other 3A teams but to it's own history after the first week that you do it.

[buff4life]

Amazing stuff man, but i got a question? Do you do any work at work? lol

[WOS87]

Originally posted by buff4life
Amazing stuff man, but i got a question? Do you do any work at work? lol

LOL I saw 18 patients today

[buff4life]

Originally posted by WOS87
LOL I saw 18 patients today

WOW, amazing...

[scott Wilson]

I don`t quite understand how such a swing of points can happen in one week. Teams that are actually state ranked in the three polls, are down past 100 on this list. Good thing the game is played on the field and not paper or some of these teams might not make the playoffs. LOL.

[buff4life]

Welcome to College Football...

even though WOS87 is the man, would love to see his database..

[crzyjournalist03]

Originally posted by buff4life
Welcome to College Football...

even though WOS87 is the man, would love to see his database..

read the first post in the thread. It explains the procedure exactly. That's where the database is coming from.

[buff4life]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
read the first post in the thread. It explains the procedure exactly. That's where the database is coming from.

thats one thing i don't like about typing, you can't get emotion...

my welcome to college football was directed at the "hater" above me...

and if you haven't read any of my other posts on this board, which i'm guessing you haven't, i love what WOS does, i'm just saying i would love to have access to all of his stats and data and become knowledgeable...

[block&tackle]

Originally posted by scott Wilson
I don`t quite understand how such a swing of points can happen in one week. Teams that are actually state ranked in the three polls, are down past 100 on this list. Good thing the game is played on the field and not paper or some of these teams might not make the playoffs. LOL.
I'm curious as to which teams and which polls you are referring to.

[gatordaze]

The problem with this model is that a team that is severly overmatched against an opponent will let up and play backups for much of the game. This affects final score adn thus the ranking. As an example, Celina was ahaed of Bonham 28-0 after 9 offensive plays. The second team came in for the second quarter and scored 12 more to make it 42-0. The third team played the entire second half and scored 12 more while allowing 6 on a fumble return. If you use the prorated 1st team performance the outcome should have been 112-0. Had this happened Celina would have remained on top. (and accused of poor sportsmanship).

Another team in a tighter game benefits from the strength of the opponent and the length of time the startes played. I understand that everyone calls of the dogs in a rout but at what point does it impact the ratings.

[scott Wilson]

BINGO!!!! We have a winner. NOW do you understand?

[WOS87]

Originally posted by gatordaze
The problem with this model is that a team that is severly overmatched against an opponent will let up and play backups for much of the game. This affects final score adn thus the ranking. As an example, Celina was ahaed of Bonham 28-0 after 9 offensive plays. The second team came in for the second quarter and scored 12 more to make it 42-0. The third team played the entire second half and scored 12 more while allowing 6 on a fumble return. If you use the prorated 1st team performance the outcome should have been 112-0. Had this happened Celina would have remained on top. (and accused of poor sportsmanship).

Another team in a tighter game benefits from the strength of the opponent and the length of time the startes played. I understand that everyone calls of the dogs in a rout but at what point does it impact the ratings.

This is all very true, BUT every team has it's share of easy games, and the superior teams on average, should have more games in which the starters get pulled early. All of that should average out over time, and should be completely negated when the playoffs get started and all the better teams start facing off. WO-S is playing the 6th and 8th place teams in their district to finish off the regular season so if all goes as expected, they will drop just like Celina did because I highly doubt they will beat Orangefield by more than 40 points or Bridge City by more than 65 which is what it would take for them to maintain their current rating. Celina, on the other hand, is finishing off against two teams ranked anywhere from 3rd-5th in that district and have an opportunity to move up quite a few points.

That game against Bonham (which is still a pretty significant 49 point win) only counts as one-sixth of Celina's rating currently and with each passing week will have increasingly less influence on the overall total... as it will be only counted as one-seventh this coming week, one-eight the last week and even less with each round of the playoffs they advance.

I'll tinker with the program a bit and see if there's a way to have a cap on maximum margin of victory (say there is a maximum margin of victory of 35 points, and guarantee that a rating not decrease.) The problem that would then occur, would be that some of the teams on the lower end of the scale would end up being highly OVER-rated.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by WOS87
This is all very true, BUT every team has it's share of easy games, and the superior teams on average, should have more games in which the starters get pulled early. All of that should average out over time, and should be completely negated when the playoffs get started and all the better teams start facing off. WO-S is playing the 6th and 8th place teams in their district to finish off the regular season so if all goes as expected, they will drop just like Celina did because I highly doubt they will beat Orangefield by more than 40 points or Bridge City by more than 65 which is what it would take for them to maintain their current rating.

That game against Bonham (which is still a pretty significant 49 point win) only counts as one-sixth of Celina's rating currently and with each passing week will have increasingly less influence on the overall total... as it will be only counted as one-seventh this coming week, one-eight the last week and even less with each round of the playoffs they advance.

I'll tinker with the program a bit and see if there's a way to have a cap on maximum margin of victory (say there is a maximum margin of victory of 35 points, and guarantee that a rating not decrease.) The problem that would then occur, would be that some of the teams on the lower end of the scale would end up being highly OVER-rated.
It would seem the current system would be a more accurate depiction than putting a cap on MoV.

[block&tackle]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
It would seem the current system would be a more accurate depiction than putting a cap on MoV.
Celina and LH vote for NOT putting a cap on MoV.

[gatordaze]

Ideally, you could prorate the score when it is clear that the second team has been put in. Whatever the score was at that time would be extrapolated over the remaining quarters. Of course this would require specific knowledge of each game that would make it impracticle.

[kaorder1999]

Poor Ingram Moore.....

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
Poor Ingram Moore.....
The best athlete ITM had (IMO) over the past few years didn't even play football and graduated in 2006. I feel bad for them. :(

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by WOS87
This is all very true, BUT every team has it's share of easy games, and the superior teams on average, should have more games in which the starters get pulled early. All of that should average out over time, and should be completely negated when the playoffs get started and all the better teams start facing off. WO-S is playing the 6th and 8th place teams in their district to finish off the regular season so if all goes as expected, they will drop just like Celina did because I highly doubt they will beat Orangefield by more than 40 points or Bridge City by more than 65 which is what it would take for them to maintain their current rating. Celina, on the other hand, is finishing off against two teams ranked anywhere from 3rd-5th in that district and have an opportunity to move up quite a few points.

That game against Bonham (which is still a pretty significant 49 point win) only counts as one-sixth of Celina's rating currently and with each passing week will have increasingly less influence on the overall total... as it will be only counted as one-seventh this coming week, one-eight the last week and even less with each round of the playoffs they advance.

I'll tinker with the program a bit and see if there's a way to have a cap on maximum margin of victory (say there is a maximum margin of victory of 35 points, and guarantee that a rating not decrease.) The problem that would then occur, would be that some of the teams on the lower end of the scale would end up being highly OVER-rated.

How much weight do you put on SOS? Jerry Forrest has a rating
system also. He's currently projecting us to finish the regular
season at 6-4 and Graham at 10-0. He has us matching up in
the second round with Graham only favored by 9 points. That tells
me he must really give alot of weight to SOS.:thinking:

[WOS87]

Originally posted by Sweetwater Red
How much weight do you put on SOS? Jerry Forrest has a rating
system also. He's currently projecting us to finish the regular
season at 6-4 and Graham at 10-0. He has us matching up in
the second round with Graham only favored by 9 points. That tells
me he must really give alot of weight to SOS.:thinking:

Strength of schedule is automatically built in to this system... I have you as only 7 point underdogs to Graham

Graham 22.57
Sweetwater 15.22

Region I
1. Abilene Wylie 31.54
2. Graham 22.57
3. Argyle 21.44
4. Clyde 20.69
5. Burkburnett 19.16
6. Vernon 17.78
7. Canyon 15.40
8. Sweetwater 15.22
9. Bridgeport 14.73
10. Decatur 13.09

[block&tackle]

Originally posted by Sweetwater Red
How much weight do you put on SOS? Jerry Forrest has a rating
system also. He's currently projecting us to finish the regular
season at 6-4 and Graham at 10-0. He has us matching up in
the second round with Graham only favored by 9 points. That tells
me he must really give alot of weight to SOS.:thinking:
If I understand both systems like I think I do, neither put any direct weight on SOS.

WOS's numbers are pure math, derived from your average performance against your opponents whose ratings are drived from their average performance against their opponents, and so on.

Jerry's numbers are a combination of opinion and math because in his system each team ends up with a subjective (opinion)starting point. Changes in a given team's rating throughout the season are based upon their performance to a given opponent relative to their rating on that night. So if team A loses to team B in the first game and later on team B ends up much better than the system predicted, team A is still penalized for losing to an average team. Plus, Jerry will arbitrarily give or take rating points to a team when his system isn't working.

Obviously the best either (or Massey's or any other type of computer rating) can do is give a rough idea of what might happen in the future. They don't take into account playing styles or matchup problems or bad nights or a million other things. From a math standpoint I like WOS's sytem. Jerry is the last one I will look at from a prediction standpoint cause I rarely agree with the opinion that he slips in.

[buff4life]

Originally posted by gatordaze
The problem with this model is that a team that is severly overmatched against an opponent will let up and play backups for much of the game. This affects final score adn thus the ranking. As an example, Celina was ahaed of Bonham 28-0 after 9 offensive plays. The second team came in for the second quarter and scored 12 more to make it 42-0. The third team played the entire second half and scored 12 more while allowing 6 on a fumble return. If you use the prorated 1st team performance the outcome should have been 112-0. Had this happened Celina would have remained on top. (and accused of poor sportsmanship).

Another team in a tighter game benefits from the strength of the opponent and the length of time the startes played. I understand that everyone calls of the dogs in a rout but at what point does it impact the ratings.

Celina has a 3rd string???

[lion75]

I'm just trying to understand this system. (1) Who's system is it? (2) Does every team in the state start at zero? (3)If so, then if one team were to beat Celina in week one by a score of 7-0, and another team beat Tornilla by 7-0 in week one, would those two victorious teams have an identical rating after week one?

[gatordaze]

Originally posted by buff4life
Celina has a 3rd string???

Definately at the skill postions. We have 240ish male students and 135 play football. Coach Ford does not cut kids that have dreamed their whole lives of being Bobcats.

[wildcat81]

Originally posted by kepdawg
Too bad all the K'ville people are over at **********! I'm sure they're having a fit over this! :D


not all of them.:D