Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
21 hours ago, Omaha Vol said:

MD should be #1. Can’t see Alcoa being top 75. Maybe top 175? 

Alcoa making it caught my eye too.

I agree. I doubt Alcoa has been as good as their ranking there. That said, it is cool to see them recognized for their consistency as a less-than-huge public program.

Posted
1 hour ago, Adam Kurkjian said:

Alcoa making it caught my eye too.

I agree. I doubt Alcoa has been as good as their ranking there. That said, it is cool to see them recognized for their consistency as a less-than-huge public program.

Oakland, Maryville and Alcoa are perfect examples that Jeff's algorithm is far from perfection. He's always had TN weighted way too high. From what he's told me, he's adjusted accordingly going fwd. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, GardenStateBaller said:

Oakland, Maryville and Alcoa are perfect examples that Jeff's algorithm is far from perfection. He's always had TN weighted way too high. From what he's told me, he's adjusted accordingly going fwd. 

Oakland should definitely be in the top 75. Maryville/Alcoa top 150ish. 
(***Oakland still loses points for chickening out against Liberty, though. Lol***). 
 

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 5/26/2022 at 12:18 PM, GardenStateBaller said:

 

Servite should be in the Top 50.  They get unfairly penalized every year for 2-3 automatic losses to SJB and The Stache.   Servite would win the majority of games vs Ryan, Marysville, and Pick Central during this time span.  Servite was pretty good in 2013 and 2014 with Travis Waller at QB.  Much better than they got credit for.

Alot of these programs have been exposed recently when they played OOS. 

Example, Servite played SJB closer in 2019, 2020 and 2021 than every OOS power that SJB played during those years, yet Servite got ranked lower in some cases.

Posted

Teams with HUGE question marks that have not earned their spots in the ranking.  Alot of these teams didn't beat Anyone of note.  In some cases not even a Top 100 win in the years they were ranked in the Top 100

Dutch Fork

Thompson

Hoover

Hoban

Oakland

Center Grove

Catholic BR

SJR

SJP

Ryan

Marysville

Pick Central

Bryant

Trinity*

Highland Park

Guyer

Chambers

Karr

Alcoa

Cathedral

Bixby

Buford

Male

Jenks

Aledo

Massilon

Trinity Christian

Warner Robbins

Cocoa

Central (Phenix City)

Collins Hill

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Sammy Swordsman said:

Teams with HUGE question marks that have not earned their spots in the ranking.  Alot of these teams didn't beat Anyone of note.  In some cases not even a Top 100 win in the years they were ranked in the Top 100

Dutch Fork- lost a close game to a vgood Allen TX.

Thompson- agree. No significant OOS games ever. 

Hoover- Scheduled and got drilled by IMG 3x. They deserve that credit.

Hoban- Running-clocked by BC.

Oakland- agree.

Center Grove- agree. 

Catholic BR- hammered GC

SJR- OOS wins vs JSerra, Serra, DeMatha, DFB, and ED when they finished #2 in USA. 

SJP- on same level with top BNU teams. 

Ryan- agree.

Marysville- agree. 

Pick Central-agree

Bryant-agree.

Trinity*- agree*

Highland Park- agree

Guyer-agree

Chambers- agree

Karr-agree

Alcoa-agree

Cathedral- beat LaSalle OH as bad as IMG did. Legit. 

Bixby-agree

Buford- lost to DFB, C-M. Pussed out vs SJP this season. I'm ok with them.  

Male- agree

Jenks- agree

Aledo- agree

Massilon- agree

Trinity Christian- agree

Warner Robbins- seen them in person twice. They're deserving if Buford is. 

Cocoa- great OOS road warrior team back in the day. Approved. 

Central (Phenix City)- agree

Collins Hill- agree. Loss to Kapowsin WA was a laugher last season

 

Feedback above @Sammy Swordsman

  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Sammy Swordsman said:

Teams with HUGE question marks that have not earned their spots in the ranking.  Alot of these teams didn't beat Anyone of note.  In some cases not even a Top 100 win in the years they were ranked in the Top 100

Dutch Fork

Thompson

Hoover

Hoban

Oakland

Center Grove

Catholic BR

SJR

SJP

Ryan

Marysville

Pick Central

Bryant

Trinity*

Highland Park

Guyer

Chambers

Karr

Alcoa

Cathedral

Bixby

Buford

Male

Jenks

Aledo

Massilon

Trinity Christian

Warner Robbins

Cocoa

Central (Phenix City)

Collins Hill

 

I’m either high as a kite or you’ve gone soft. No Folsom on here? 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Extremely Humble said:

I’m either high as a kite or you’ve gone soft. No Folsom on here? 

LOL.  To their credit they have been scheduling DLS alot of the years during this span and beat them.  Which is more than the teams I singed out.  My only beef with them was scheduling.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Sammy Swordsman said:

LOL.  To their credit they have been scheduling DLS alot of the years during this span and beat them.  Which is more than the teams I singed out.  My only beef with them was scheduling.

 

Realistically, only 20-25 teams make national power schedules. The rest will, usually, schedule tough in-state games. That’s what most of your top 100 teams do. It is what it is. 

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted
On 5/26/2022 at 11:56 PM, SeaShells21 said:

Thing 2 had been relevant longer and deserves the number 1 spot.

Really? Bosco was a laughing stock before Negro. MD has been winning championships since the 1950s. I think that qualifies as ‘relevant longer’.  Even before the years you are considering, MD played for the championship in 2012, 2013 and 2016. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bodysurf said:

Really? Bosco was a laughing stock before Negro. MD has been winning championships since the 1950s. I think that qualifies as ‘relevant longer’.  Even before the years you are considering, MD played for the championship in 2012, 2013 and 2016. 

Facts. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 5/28/2022 at 4:44 PM, Omaha Vol said:

Realistically, only 20-25 teams make national power schedules. The rest will, usually, schedule tough in-state games. That’s what most of your top 100 teams do. It is what it is. 

A loaded team that is ranked should seek/play a schedule that includes at least 2 non league opponents = > them, plus be in a league with at least 2 teams with comparable skill level.

Absent this, a team would not achieve the vetting necessary to have their name in lights.  

  • Like 1
Posted
On 7/14/2022 at 9:10 AM, Sammy Swordsman said:

A loaded team that is ranked should seek/play a schedule that includes at least 2 non league opponents = > them, plus be in a league with at least 2 teams with comparable skill level.

Absent this, a team would not achieve the vetting necessary to have their name in lights.  

I appreciate that train of thought, but it’s not the ONLY reason to justify a high ranking.   Teams can be good enough, regardless of their schedules. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Omaha Vol said:

I appreciate that train of thought, but it’s not the ONLY reason to justify a high ranking.   Teams can be good enough, regardless of their schedules. 

Correct but the question is "how good"?   Unless they are vetted a team does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  The Mendoza handicap will expose a few of the teams you want to rank

  • Thanks 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Sammy Swordsman said:

Correct but the question is "how good"?   Unless they are vetted a team does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.  The Mendoza handicap will expose a few of the teams you want to rank

I’m sure their will be a few teams in my poll that might not deserve it. After all, it’s just one man’s opinion…..

Posted
1 hour ago, Sammy Swordsman said:

Most everyone respects your poll so we are counting on your "A" gamel 

 

I’m getting old. So, I’m not as sharp as I used to be. I’ll try and keep up with your tiers. 

  • Haha 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...