Thread Rating:
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
08-15-2019, 08:02 PM
64SUR Wrote:Can everybody agree that CAL is #1 in 3A :mop::mop::mop:
Yelp
08-15-2019, 10:16 PM
Boy they sure don't know bull
08-15-2019, 10:17 PM
Belfry #1 in 3A you will see
08-16-2019, 02:42 AM
64SUR Wrote:Wow, Wow, Wow July 26 I made my ranking for 3A this year. Guess who I pick as my number #1 team in 3A, Thatâs right CAL but not #1 over all in the state :partyhard
Mysonis55 Maxpreps making 64SUR looking good :Cheerlead
As usual, you missed the boat here. CAL wonât win their district. New coach and lost way too much talent.
08-16-2019, 04:08 AM
mysonis55 Wrote:As usual, you missed the boat here. CAL wonât win their district. New coach and lost way too much talent.
Over the year mysonis55 you have kicked my a$$ winning state championships other than that youâre 0-6 in the pickââem contest against me.
moke:
08-16-2019, 06:03 AM
What fresh hell have I just laid my eyes on?
08-16-2019, 08:16 AM
scotty_bronson Wrote:what fresh hell have i just laid my eyes on?
😂😂😂
08-16-2019, 01:36 PM
How did this list get selected? No disrespect intended to anyone on the list but I'm lost
08-16-2019, 02:55 PM
From Calpreps:
"*For national football ratings only, how good the team appears to be entering the season (based on players graduated/back) is a factor in the ratings early in the year in order to improve early-season accuracy of the ratings, but this is eliminated as the season goes on..."
"Remember when we asked you to hold that thought on how they got to the point they started at? They didn't start there actually. All teams start at 0. There is no bias at all- last year's stats or pre-season projections are not used as a starting point (again, see the one exception above). Everybody starts at 0 and the ratings run continuously until the movement stops. Its just much harder to conceptualize that way (and you thought this way was hard!)- that's why we started the example off with the teams already having ratings."
So based on that information, I would bet that the teams at the top of the list are the ones who actually turned in player information. If they had all player rating information, and that was solely what they went off of to start the season, then you would think someone like Frederick Douglass would be at the top.
Looking at their formula for calculating rankings, it actually does appear to be the most accurate, at least in theory. Teams can actually take a hit for not beating teams as bad as they should have in their formula.
"*For national football ratings only, how good the team appears to be entering the season (based on players graduated/back) is a factor in the ratings early in the year in order to improve early-season accuracy of the ratings, but this is eliminated as the season goes on..."
"Remember when we asked you to hold that thought on how they got to the point they started at? They didn't start there actually. All teams start at 0. There is no bias at all- last year's stats or pre-season projections are not used as a starting point (again, see the one exception above). Everybody starts at 0 and the ratings run continuously until the movement stops. Its just much harder to conceptualize that way (and you thought this way was hard!)- that's why we started the example off with the teams already having ratings."
So based on that information, I would bet that the teams at the top of the list are the ones who actually turned in player information. If they had all player rating information, and that was solely what they went off of to start the season, then you would think someone like Frederick Douglass would be at the top.
Looking at their formula for calculating rankings, it actually does appear to be the most accurate, at least in theory. Teams can actually take a hit for not beating teams as bad as they should have in their formula.
08-16-2019, 04:27 PM
RoShamBo Wrote:From Calpreps:
"*For national football ratings only, how good the team appears to be entering the season (based on players graduated/back) is a factor in the ratings early in the year in order to improve early-season accuracy of the ratings, but this is eliminated as the season goes on..."
"Remember when we asked you to hold that thought on how they got to the point they started at? They didn't start there actually. All teams start at 0. There is no bias at all- last year's stats or pre-season projections are not used as a starting point (again, see the one exception above). Everybody starts at 0 and the ratings run continuously until the movement stops. Its just much harder to conceptualize that way (and you thought this way was hard!)- that's why we started the example off with the teams already having ratings."
So based on that information, I would bet that the teams at the top of the list are the ones who actually turned in player information. If they had all player rating information, and that was solely what they went off of to start the season, then you would think someone like Frederick Douglass would be at the top.
Looking at their formula for calculating rankings, it actually does appear to be the most accurate, at least in theory. Teams can actually take a hit for not beating teams as bad as they should have in their formula.
I'd say you're right on the ones that turned in player information. Some don't even want to report stats.
08-16-2019, 06:55 PM
T-CATS Wrote:1 Christian Academy -Louisville
2 South Warren
3 Covington Catholic
4 Fredrick Douglass
5 Male
6 Boyle County
7 Trinity
8 Franklin-Simpson
9 Scott County
10 Mayfield
11 Highlands
12 Butler
13 North Hardin
14 Johnson Central
15 Beechwood
16 Corbin
17 DeSales
18 St. X
19 Pulaski County
20 Belfry
21 Ashland
22 Ballard
23 South Oldham
24 Bowling Green
25 Simon Kenton
I donât think that the 13 teams ranked a head of JC could all be better then them
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
