[Cat Daddy]

Overall, I think he did a good job. The only thing I would change is giving a title (1 point) and giving a title game appearance (.50). Your best programs are usually measured by titles.

[AtlPirateFan]

Overall, I think he did a good job. The only thing I would change is giving a title (1 point) and giving a title game appearance (.50). Your best programs are usually measured by titles.

I originally has it this way Cat Daddy, but it caused the state title game to be worth nothing to the losing team. Since I chose to use a negative modifier for the loss. In the formula, a state title worth is (Appearance + W/L Weight), so either 1.5 or .5 points for a state title game. With the values reversed. A win was still worth 1.5 points but a loss was worth 0 and I felt the runner up should still get some kind of credit for making it.

I toyed with several other ideas as well but none of them actually changed the order of things enough that it made sense to use over what I chose to use.

[Jackson Purchase]

First, I went into this with absolutely zero expectations of results. Truth be told if I was to say now in retrospect what I might have thought before anything was calculated. I would have said I expect Highlands to be #1, Belfry to not crack the top 10, Danville to be lower, Central and Corbin to be higher.

The reality is if the negative impact of losing a state title is removed only two things happen. Mayfield and Highlands swap spots and O.Cath moves down.

Regardless the weights need to make sense? A team with NO title game appearances is not better than high school with 10 title losses. (-5 pts). Again total and utter nonsense. You can make statistics say what you want. Your model is fun and I applaud the work, but it's no more than someone barking "My team is better than yours".

[AtlPirateFan]

Regardless the weights need to make sense? A team with NO title game appearances is not better than high school with 10 title losses. (-5 pts). Again total and utter nonsense. You can make statistics say what you want. Your model is fun and I applaud the work, but it's no more than someone barking "My team is better than yours".

Title losses are not counted against themselves. A team with 10 titles loses and no wins would have 5 points from State Title games not -5 points.

Take the real example:
(No team on the list has 0 appearances so I will pull out one to compare)
The full state title value is calculated as below

(State Title Score + State Title Era Modifier) which is the below formula
(Appearance + W Weight + L Weight) + (post Weight + pre-weight)

Rockastle (0-2) has 1pt total for State Title Score
(2 + 0 + -1) = (2 + -1) = 1

Russell (1-1) has 2 points for State Title Score
(2 + .5 + -.5) = (2.5 + -.5) = 2

Bell Co.(2-0) has 3 points for State Title Score
(2 + 1 + 0) = 3

Pike Central
(0 + 0 + 0) = 0

Then the era modifier is added to that to get the overall total points for state titles.

As you can see Rock is not negative points for losing a state title, and therefore are not worse or below Pike Central who has no appearances. Is it the best formula for valuing state titles? Probably not, but I don't think I would say it's nonsense. Alos if you have a better calculation I would love to see it.

[Iam4thecats]

Things would be more realistic if you used playoff records. Total wins and winning percentage to replace regular season record or at least 90/10 heavily toward playoffs. Use your 15% modifier for pre-2007. Get rid of the negative .5 for losing a championship game. What kind of nonsense is that? The championship loser went 4-1 in playoff games!

[AtlPirateFan]

Things would be more realistic if you used playoff records. Total wins and winning percentage to replace regular-season record or at least 90/10 heavily toward playoffs. Use your 15% modifier for pre-2007. Get rid of the negative .5 for losing a championship game. What kind of nonsense is that? The championship loser went 4-1 in playoff games!

Overall win % is what is factored in currently.

I can see giving the playoff record a little weight for sure. I will adjust for that and see what shakes out.

I can see the argument for removing the negative modifier for losing since it really doesn't impact the list at all except for it allows Mayfield to jump Highlands and Cov Cath falls about 3 spots.

[Cat Daddy]

We all can find something to complain about. You can't please everyone. I'm glad you took the time, to put this together.

[#55PirateFan]

Title losses are not counted against themselves. A team with 10 titles loses and no wins would have 5 points from State Title games not -5 points.

Take the real example:
(No team on the list has 0 appearances so I will pull out one to compare)
The full state title value is calculated as below

(State Title Score + State Title Era Modifier) which is the below formula
(Appearance + W Weight + L Weight) + (post Weight + pre-weight)

Rockastle (0-2) has 1pt total for State Title Score
(2 + 0 + -1) = (2 + -1) = 1

Russell (1-1) has 2 points for State Title Score
(2 + .5 + -.5) = (2.5 + -.5) = 2

Bell Co.(2-0) has 3 points for State Title Score
(2 + 1 + 0) = 3

Pike Central
(0 + 0 + 0) = 0

Then the era modifier is added to that to get the overall total points for state titles.

As you can see Rock is not negative points for losing a state title, and therefore are not worse or below Pike Central who has no appearances. Is it the best formula for valuing state titles? Probably not, but I don't think I would say it's nonsense. Alos if you have a better calculation I would love to see it.

Great job buddy! Keep doing what your doing. You can't satisfy everyone. There's always a few that chimes in and makes some comment about something that was never said. If they would just read the comment and comprehend it, they might just understand what your talking about.

[SPORTS FAN 101]

Impressive work. Very interesting info

[KentuckyHillBilly5321]

Great work, but Beechwood has had 3 undefeated in that time span.
1991 15-0
1994 15-0
1997 14-0

[AtlPirateFan]

Great work, but Beechwood has had 3 undefeated in that time span.
1991 15-0
1994 15-0
1997 14-0

Thanks, like Breathitt earlier in the thread it’s actually already factored in, I hid a lot of data so I could post the most relevant in a screen shot and in doing so I made a cleaner up undefeated title season column (that is just for view) and missed some of the data when copying it over from the column where the calculations come from