Massey rankings are out!!!!!!!

[Joboots]

Here's the scoop!


http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=hsf&sub=TX

[bhs06]

The problem I have with these mass rankings is how they are based on the 04 season.

[Warbird]

I think the link is broken.

[Joboots]

Better check these ratings on your own-link went out!

[RedRage00]

Yeah, it's messed up.

RR

[drgnbkr]

So Midland Lee is suppose to have a better offense than Longview? What's up with that? What did Katy do wrong? No wonder we've never heard of "The Massey Rankings"..... ;)

[jtk1519]

I like where Abilene is ranked, but I think Tyler Lee and Longview should switch spots. Midland Lee doesnt belong in a top 25 list much less a top 10.

[lonny23]

The Massey rankings will show their worth as the season goes along. Judson plays 5 of the top 40 teams in the regular season. I don't think all of their rankings are correct, but that's what the next 16 games are for. Massey usually does a good job. I want to see Calpreps, but they don't start their rankings until after Week 1.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

#35?? WTF?! :mad:

[supercentex]

Yeah on the Waco High ratings...they have the defense listed lower ratings than the offense? When it should be the other way around.

[LeanderLions3033]

Is this partly from last year, with Cedar Park ranked in the top 25?

[CCBoy]

Dallas Carter ranked 58th...Are kids playing with the rankings now.

[KT2000]

Power rankings are an interesting animal, and one I've never wanted to mess with. Basically, they are just the end result of number crunching. A defense I've heard for power rankings is that they are unbiased, which is true in most cases, but I really like being able to use logic and reason when coming up with rankings.

Champ, 84chill, ET and I have gotten into some pretty good debates over the phone when discussing a new set of rankings before and that's part of the fun for me. I like being able to actually reason things out, and make as best accurate of a projection of who we think the top 25 teams are. Of course, no poll is 100% accurate but I really love using logic. Also, I like being accessible to everyone on here, so if you have an issue with the rankings or a question we can go back and forth on it.

Personally, I really value that interaction and I think we end up with really good discussion because of it. I think it's much better than me just coming on here and saying..."this is what the computer told me."

As far as I know, we're one of the only sites left that doesn't use some kind of formula for our rankings. We take the time to analyze it, break it down and debate it on a week by week basis. Yall deserve to know the how and why in addition to the what.

/shameless promotion off ;)

[CCHS77]

Here's the scoop!


http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=hsf&sub=TX


Now that the link seems to be working, maybe some will actually READ (now theres a concept for you) how these rankings are generated, before some more foolish talk of pre-season "dishing" of their favorite team.

[lonny23]

Here's a few caveats for you:

Offense and defense don't affect the rankings. Offense is based upon total points scored and not soley how good an offense is. An average defense is rated at zero.

This poll reflects past performance and doesn't focus as much on future performance. It will get better as the season goes along.

[CCBoy]

Now that the link seems to be working, maybe some will actually READ (now theres a concept for you) how these rankings are generated, before some more foolish talk of pre-season "dishing" of their favorite team.
Call it foolish or whatever else you want to call it. I saw these rankings when I made my comment earlier and read what someone figured we should go off of, but it is not my bible of a ranking system and that this should the one ranking system we must all worship. I will be the first to say if my favorite school or favorite school to hate is ranked incorrectly (high or low) and I see plenty of others a long way out of the wrong direction which is just my opinion (5th ammendment). Look at those rankings now and we'll see how much it deviates by season end. Dallas Carter Rank #58. :rolleyes: I love it. :D

[dragonsdaddy]

any pre-season power rating system is based on non-existant data until some actual games are played. except they need the support of some ad money, they all should realistically hold their predictions until october at the earliest.

[lonny23]

any pre-season power rating system is based on non-existant data until some actual games are played. except they need the support of some ad money, they all should realistically hold their predictions until october at the earliest.
That's what I like about the Calpreps rankings that so many people like to bash. They don't make preseason rankings and start with a huge national database of all the games after they start playing. Like any other power poll, it's based upon the past and doesn't always equate to the future.

All the power polls say the same things. There are some top teams and then the best of the lower classes and on down to good, but not great teams. To a certain extent the Texas Power Rankings is based upon where teams finished last year and how many people are coming back. It will only take a few weeks before the poll gets to the point where teams stay in place.

Here's what the Texas Power Poll rankings mean:

180's and above is for teams that are the top of the state and the only ones who will win state. The champs almost always are in the 190's or 200's.

170's are good teams and they can win a few rounds if the matchups are right, but they won't win a title.

160's are the minimum to make the playoffs in the top districts, but they can win playoff games in lesser matchups.

150's still get in the playoffs in certain parts of the state, but their days are numbered in the playoffs.

The current 200's and 190's are:

SLC
S Westfield
SV
Lufkin
Katy
Judson
T Lee
Longview
E Trinity
GPNS

The 180's are:

Abilene
D Ryan
Garland
C Cove
D Carter
Duncanville
A Westlake

Some of those teams may drop out and new teams may join, but at the end of the day, Texas almost always has less than 20 teams going into the playoffs that stand a chance to win state. All 8 teams I have in the semifinals are in the first group of 10 teams. My 8 are all over 190 and you're probably not going to find a team under 180 when the playoffs start get to the semis.

[CCHS77]

If anyone actually read about how data is assembled and "crunched", they would have also seen the following statements on this site;

Preseason

* Please take the preseason ratings with a grain of salt.
* Rating and prediction accuracy will improve as the season goes along.


Preseason Ratings

Preseason ratings are typically derived as a weighted average of previous years' final ratings. As the current season progresses, their effect gets damped out completely. The only purpose preseason ratings serve is to provide a reasonable starting point for the computer. Mathematically, they guarantee a unique solution to the equations early in the season when not enough data is available yet.





I'm not "pushing" this site or it's ranking on anyone. I just thought it evident, by some of the posts, that most hadn't read the preseason disclaimers and/or didn't understand that it was a computer driven power poll and not an opinion of where a team might finish in the upcoming season.

But sense I have the podium, let me restate what I think of polls;

Any pre-season poll is worthless.

Any regional poll before week 4 is worthless.

Any state poll before week 10 is worthless.

Any National poll is just plain worthless!

[dragonsdaddy]

"180's and above is for teams that are the top of the state and the only ones who will win state. The champs almost always are in the 190's or 200's.

170's are good teams and they can win a few rounds if the matchups are right, but they won't win a title."

is there any way to look back at the 02 ratings? i would love to see where slc and midland high started out. i bet both were the exceptions that proves the rule. i bet neither were in the 150's.

[lonny23]

"180's and above is for teams that are the top of the state and the only ones who will win state. The champs almost always are in the 190's or 200's.

170's are good teams and they can win a few rounds if the matchups are right, but they won't win a title."

is there any way to look back at the 02 ratings? i would love to see where slc and midland high started out. i bet both were the exceptions that proves the rule. i bet neither were in the 150's.
Here's all the state finalists since 1998 and where they started and finished the year. Some teams were coming off of bad years and didn't start high enough and you can see that some teams lost some of their luster during the year because it's hard to stay above 200 and to an extent 190. Most of the big gains that teams make are within the first few weeks of the season.

1998
Duncanville 191.48 to 189.22
C Judson 173.32 to 190.01 (bad year in 1997)
M Lee 169.82 to 196.99 (Benson sophomore year)
SA MacArthur 188.40 to 179.09 (Katy replacement and got blown out with no preparation)
Katy 196.41 to 189.49

1999
M Lee 206.38 to 198.91
A Eisenhower 189.93 to 189.64
Garland 185.93 to 197.08
Katy 194.13 to 192.83

2000
M Lee 207.74 to 203.15
A Westlake 201.89 to 199.70
Katy 195.29 to 204.64
John Tyler 180.98 to 186.68

2001
Mesquite 177.18 to 184.31
SA Taft 152.49 to 181.85
Lufkin 197.93 to 192.44
A Westlake 206.17 to 188.23

2002
C Judson 197.93 to 199.87
Midland 172.03 to 195.84
SLC 186.83 to 211.68
SV 200.51 to 200.08

2003
GPNS 202.95 to 214.85
Woodlands 193.97 to 195.09
Katy 192.96 to 199.91
SLC 195.32 to 199.66

2004
T Lee 181.24 to 192.78
S Westfield 164.74 to 189.64
SLC 205.78 to 197.84
SV 177.44 to 190.32

The last 2 caveats I can give is some teams advance because they play a worse team and the poll doesn't always properly catch teams in pre-season, but they better make a move pretty early.

You basically have to take this poll week and week and look back to see if somebody is making a move. Westfield started the playoffs last year in the high 170's but they kept winning big and moving up.

Since 1998, 2 state champs started the year below the 180's and 2 finished below the 190's or higher. 7 of the 28 finalists started the year below 180, but only 3 of them were below 170. 8 finalists ended the year below 190, but only 1 was below 180 and that's because they had no time to prepare for the game.

[lonny23]

If anyone actually read about how data is assembled and "crunched", they would have also seen the following statements on this site;

Preseason

* Please take the preseason ratings with a grain of salt.
* Rating and prediction accuracy will improve as the season goes along.


Preseason Ratings

Preseason ratings are typically derived as a weighted average of previous years' final ratings. As the current season progresses, their effect gets damped out completely. The only purpose preseason ratings serve is to provide a reasonable starting point for the computer. Mathematically, they guarantee a unique solution to the equations early in the season when not enough data is available yet.





I'm not "pushing" this site or it's ranking on anyone. I just thought it evident, by some of the posts, that most hadn't read the preseason disclaimers and/or didn't understand that it was a computer driven power poll and not an opinion of where a team might finish in the upcoming season.

But sense I have the podium, let me restate what I think of polls;

Any pre-season poll is worthless.

Any regional poll before week 4 is worthless.

Any state poll before week 10 is worthless.

Any National poll is just plain worthless!
Too many people pass judgment on these polls because of ignorance. They don't understand how they come to their conclusions and dismiss the poll if it doesn't say what they want. Right now, this poll says Judson will have a hard time beating SV. Home field helps, but Judson has to look better early in the year. The beauty is Judson moves up if they win.

I think the national power polls that use numbers are good, but the human vote polls aren't as good. They don't account for the talent in Texas and the lack of talent in many other states.

The state power polls that run numbers are good, but the human polls that go strictly in order of who won and lost that week aren't as good. In the human polls, you can't move up with good performances and only do so when somebody else loses.

I like the polls that start after the season starts. They are good for conversation and I always enjoy seeing the different polls.

[dragonsdaddy]

wow, i'm really impressed that a ranking system would predict greatness for a team that the year before was in a lower classification, getting their clock cleaned in their last game, with no returning qb or rb, and finished 10-4. truly amazing. i bet there were lots of incredulous comments about their high ranking in the preseason.

[Favpack]

Lonny - too many unknowns with the HS polls - you can't keep track of 300+ teams effectively. Plus, at the HS level you have grades, coaching changes regularly, new players coming in, old players leaving - etc. - every single year, and super sophomores no one has heard of that make impacts.

I follow this forum polls and not much else. Dave Campbell is ok, but he has tremendous oversights every year. He doesn't have Gilmer winning their own district and they haven't lost a district game in 6 YEARS!

[lonny23]

Lonny - too many unknowns with the HS polls - you can't keep track of 300+ teams effectively. Plus, at the HS level you have grades, coaching changes regularly, new players coming in, old players leaving - etc. - every single year, and super sophomores no one has heard of that make impacts.

I follow this forum polls and not much else. Dave Campbell is ok, but he has tremendous oversights every year. He doesn't have Gilmer winning their own district and they haven't lost a district game in 6 YEARS!
They'll lose to Pittsburg. I'll make sure they do! :cool:

I really love the number crunchers for the same reason the NCAA uses an RPI for basketball and hockey and polls for football. Not all 10-0's are alike and some 9-1's are worse than 7-3's from a better district. The power polls cut through the trash that pads their record. EP Franklin semi-regularly goes 10-0, but doesn't win playoff games.

[GoOwls]

Here's the info on the 2002 SLC and Midland teams.

Pre-season:
SLC #54 186.83 rating
Midland #129 170.03 rating

pre-season favs.
Austin Westlake #1 213.68
Euless Trinity #2 206.87

Final Rankings (before the playoffs)
SLC #1 211.68
Midland #11 195.84

You are right about this group being the backbreaker, but I like THR, as the season goes on his numbers get better, his winning percentage is pretty darn good.

[wide-e-wide]

GoOwls...where in the world have you been?
Did you go on some adventure...climbing through caverns and
got wedged under a boulder?...then you had to break out the swiss
army knife and cut off your arm to survive?

I'm going to feel like crap if that is what really happened.
Plus...that would really minimize your post count. What with
one arm and all.

[GoOwls]

I'm OK Wide. And please give me back the arm I gnawed off to free myself from that bear trap. I've been around, just that most of the conversations were kind of laid back and personal and I didn't understand what all the personal stuff was about, so I just mostly lurked and chilled. I was waching your posts, in general, and you've been a bad boy. I'll be here more once some games get played and we actually got some sports to talk about. See ya.

[drgnbkr]

Hey, when wide is bad..he's good...you know?.... :D