GWOOD
10-30-2003, 11:36 AM
Day off from work today--Have some time to play!
Wanted to compare the combined computer generated ratings vs. combined subjective polls. The following are the results from this weeks Top 10 ratings. Used 4 computer generated rating systems (Collier/Sharp, DataPoll, Jerry's, and Massey Ratings) and 6 subjective polls (Texas Prep, Alan Outlook, Dave Campbell, Texas HS Football, AP, and 3A Downlow).
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Computer Generated Subjective
1. Burnet 40 1. Burnet 60
2. Gainesville 34 2. Bellville 54
3. Bellville 28 3. Forney 40
4. Gilmer 23 4. Gilmer 39
5. Rice Cons. 23 5. Gainesville 28
6. Daingerfld 16 6. Kennedale 27
7. Cuero 9 7. Rice Cons. 23
8. Atlanta 9 8. Daingerfld 15
9. W. Connally 9 9. Decatur 9
10.Kennedale 8 10.Jasper 7
Liberty Hill 7</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Comments:
1. They are more similiar than I thought. 7 teams are common. With the exception of Forney, all the different teams are in the 7-10 spots.
2. Burnet is highly thought of even outside of Burnet and even with computers.
3. Computer ratings (#3,#3,#2,#2)like Gainesville better than subjective voters (#3,#3,#3,#7, and 2 absences). This doesn't include the Harris Ratings which I understand has Gainesville at #1.
4. Computer ratings (#8 and 3 absences) are not impressed with Forney. Subjective voters (#3,#3,#4,#4,#6,#6) are.
5. Computer ratings (#5,#9,#10, 1 absence)like Cuero better (#8 and 5 absences.)
Conclusion?--As much as computer ratings seem illogical at times and can't factor in many of the intangibles, they actually are not too different than the subjective polls.
Wanted to compare the combined computer generated ratings vs. combined subjective polls. The following are the results from this weeks Top 10 ratings. Used 4 computer generated rating systems (Collier/Sharp, DataPoll, Jerry's, and Massey Ratings) and 6 subjective polls (Texas Prep, Alan Outlook, Dave Campbell, Texas HS Football, AP, and 3A Downlow).
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Computer Generated Subjective
1. Burnet 40 1. Burnet 60
2. Gainesville 34 2. Bellville 54
3. Bellville 28 3. Forney 40
4. Gilmer 23 4. Gilmer 39
5. Rice Cons. 23 5. Gainesville 28
6. Daingerfld 16 6. Kennedale 27
7. Cuero 9 7. Rice Cons. 23
8. Atlanta 9 8. Daingerfld 15
9. W. Connally 9 9. Decatur 9
10.Kennedale 8 10.Jasper 7
Liberty Hill 7</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Comments:
1. They are more similiar than I thought. 7 teams are common. With the exception of Forney, all the different teams are in the 7-10 spots.
2. Burnet is highly thought of even outside of Burnet and even with computers.
3. Computer ratings (#3,#3,#2,#2)like Gainesville better than subjective voters (#3,#3,#3,#7, and 2 absences). This doesn't include the Harris Ratings which I understand has Gainesville at #1.
4. Computer ratings (#8 and 3 absences) are not impressed with Forney. Subjective voters (#3,#3,#4,#4,#6,#6) are.
5. Computer ratings (#5,#9,#10, 1 absence)like Cuero better (#8 and 5 absences.)
Conclusion?--As much as computer ratings seem illogical at times and can't factor in many of the intangibles, they actually are not too different than the subjective polls.