Originally posted by hamspear:
First, I don't have a issue or anything, just discussing. my point I was trying to make was this.
1. There are better teams in the East that had worse records , than teams in the west that had better records.
2. I understand you do them the way you do them because you don't want to be step on any toes ( as it seems) of any high school programs , and you want to promote fairness throughout the state.
3. My theory on comparing college rankings was to say that a 12-1 Marshall would never be ranked like a 12-1 Marshall. Obviously because of SOS.
4. I don't care about Dinwiddie being in the final rankings , was using them as a example, because in my opinion there is at least 3-5 teams in the East that would beat the bottom half of your final rankings.
That's about it.... Merry Xmas!
My apologies for a bad choice of words. I understand that you only wish to discuss.
Regarding your points...
1. There are better teams in the East that had worse records , than teams in the west that had better records.
I agree and I think that was reflected in the top ten where Monacan (11-3) was ranked higher than Liberty (12-2) and Jefferson Forest (12-1). As well with Heritage (12-2) ranking above GW-Danville (12-1). The once more with Kings Fork (10-3) ranked above Courtland (10-2) and Eastern View (10-2).
2. I understand you do them the way you do them because you don't want to be step on any toes ( as it seems) of any high school programs , and you want to promote fairness throughout the state.
I can give you my word that is never the case. The thought of balancing the top ten to promote fairness has never once entered by head. See the 6A top ten where, for most of the season, 7 of the top 10 came from the North.
3. My theory on comparing college rankings was to say that a 12-1 Marshall would never be ranked like a 12-1 Marshall. Obviously because of SOS.
I may have missed your point as you compared my rankings to putting Marshall in the championship game which would not have been the call that I would have made. Again, record is an indicator but not the only indicator. SOS is a consideration as well. Where I think that we split is that I don't like people guessing who someone would beat, opting instead by looking at what teams actually did. (See issue #4)
4. I don't care about Dinwiddie being in the final rankings , was using them as a example, because in my opinion there is at least 3-5 teams in the East that would beat the bottom half of your final rankings.
This is the point of divide for me. I don't want to do rankings where I deal with "who would win" based on opinions and guesses.
I would prefer rankings to be structured around what actually did happen on the field.
Using your Dinwiddie example, were I writing a predictions article, I likely would pick them to beat a number of teams in the top ten. Predictions articles are for that purpose -- expressing the writer's opinion about who would win, explaining why, then guessing the score.
However, when doing rankings, I want to see what the teams actually accomplished on the field. When I do that, I don't see anything on Dinwiddie's 9-3 resume that looks better than Eastern View's 10-2. The Cyclones had more wins, more wins against teams with winning records, and better losses. I don't believe that SOS should override all three of those things. Maybe one or two, but not all three.
Merry Christmas to you and your family, as well.
I hope that provided some better insight, whether you agree or disagree.
