ADVERTISEMENT

BCMoore Rankings: 10/11

B

bcmoore87

All District
Oct 30, 2001
7,995
23
38
BCMoore Rankings

Comments are welcome.

Notes:
1. Rankings are unbiased.
2. Comments are welcome.




R Team Conf ( W- L) Mod Str Sched Rank Off Ave Def Ave
1 Inwood West Lyon A-1 ( 7- 0) 190.80 7W 143.08 ( 2) 39.57 ( 6) 8.57 ( 7)
2 Brooklyn BGM A-6 ( 7- 0) 150.36 7W 84.57 ( 63) 65.57 ( 1) 5.86 ( 1)
3 Hinton A-1 ( 5- 2) 149.93 4W 140.11 ( 3) 27.29 ( 21) 16.00 ( 17)
4 Avoca AHST A-8 ( 7- 0) 143.58 7W 120.72 ( 16) 32.86 ( 10) 9.71 ( 8)
5 Algona Garrigan A-2 ( 5- 2) 142.75 3W 119.35 ( 18) 28.29 ( 18) 8.14 ( 4)
6 Lawton-Bronson A-1 ( 5- 2) 142.20 1L 134.28 ( 6) 28.57 ( 17) 21.71 ( 28)
7 East Mills A-8 ( 5- 2) 139.16 1L 118.39 ( 20) 30.57 ( 13) 8.43 ( 6)
8 Wapsie Valley A-3 ( 7- 0) 138.73 7W 97.30 ( 55) 49.29 ( 2) 8.43 ( 5)
9 Ackley AGWSR A-2 ( 8- 0) 138.28 8W 107.80 ( 37) 31.38 ( 12) 6.50 ( 3)
10 Gladbrook-Reinbeck A-4 ( 5- 2) 137.29 4W 107.70 ( 39) 34.00 ( 8) 12.14 ( 9)
11 Logan-Magnolia A-8 ( 4- 3) 135.56 1W 113.59 ( 24) 30.43 ( 14) 13.00 ( 11)
12 Audubon A-7 ( 5- 2) 132.77 5W 112.93 ( 26) 28.14 ( 19) 12.57 ( 10)
13 Mason City Newman A-2 ( 2- 5) 131.81 3L 133.03 ( 8) 19.57 ( 38) 19.86 ( 24)
14 Packwood Pekin A-6 ( 6- 1) 131.53 5W 99.67 ( 53) 41.29 ( 5) 15.14 ( 14)
15 Griswold A-8 ( 4- 3) 131.29 1L 122.64 ( 13) 33.71 ( 9) 21.43 ( 26)
16 Woodward-Granger A-7 ( 4- 3) 130.85 1L 115.48 ( 21) 25.43 ( 25) 13.43 ( 13)
 
I'm not understanding your rankings and district 2 at all.
Newman lost yet move up one place from last week.
AGWSR won yet move down one place.
Belmond lost yet move up one place.
Lake mills lost yet move up FOUR places, including leap frogging over the team that beat them.
AGWSR is unbeaten, yet rated lower than Garrigan who they have beaten.
PV is ranked lower than 3 teams they have beaten.
Interesting.......but not realistic.
 
I know he has the score wrong for at least one game which affects the outcome which in turn affects the rankings. He has Alta-Aurelia lossing to Akron-Westfield 21-6 when Alta-Aurelia beat Akron-Westfield by that score. Could some other games be same way? BCMoore when think you will get that corrected along with any other errors may be to fix rankings?
 
> 2013/10/11,Alta-Aurelia,21,Akron-Westfield,6,0

Thanks for the help. Website will update at about 15:10.
 
> weekly move up/down

Each week's analysis is independent of the previous week's analysis. Thus, there is not direct move/up down.


> Lake Mills

Computer thinks Lake Mills vs West Hancock is now a competitive game again - source of the jumpiness.


> Prairie Valley

Now here is an interesting team: underperforms by double digits in each of first three games, overperforms by double digits in each of the last four games. Computer seems to think there are fundamentally different than during their first four games.

What has changed?
 
> BCMoore when think you will get that corrected along with any other errors may be to fix rankings?

Let me know if you find other score errors.

Computer generally had a good week, 152/169 = 89.9% correct; for the year: 990/1212 = 81.7%
 
As I noted in the first sentence, my comment was really about District 2 games.....not non district games. But since you brought that into play, I'll comment about that. You say PV "underperformed" in their 3 first games. Their first game was against a team TWO classes bigger than them. A loss to them is an underperformance? The next game was against a team ONE class bigger them than (and is currently ranked #10 in that class in your current ranking). A loss to them is an underperformance? Now in 3rd game of the year they finally play a team in their class size and lose to your currently ranked #5 team. The next four games played are now against teams their class size and when they win you proclaim them as "overplaying".
Your early rankings are based off last years teams roster. You were assuming PV would play better than they did.....with kids that aren't even there because they graduated. (as an example look at west hancocks early ranking.....now look at them currently, they are struggling because of graduation)
Underperformances and overperformances are kinda like coulda's, shoulda's, woulda's and maybes. Actual wins and losses are reality. Whether it be by 1 point or 30, both teams healthy or both teams hurt, dry field or wet, It all is about either a win or loss. And the reality is as I stated in above post, you have teams losing and going up in your ranking and teams winning and going down. It just doesn't make sense. If a team wins, reward them as such. Its a victory. Whether its from a "overperformance", a good game plan, or because a stud got injured.......its a victory and you should move up, or stay pat.....not down. And if you lose You move down.
P.S. if you are using those early non district games in your rankings your rankings are probably a little messed up. As teams in non district play quite often play up or down class size. And from what I read you put out different rankings by each individual class.
 
spook78:

> underperformance/overperformance

Underperformance/overperformance number are based on all data at the time of the analysis (not just a pregame prediction of games before the particular game date). In this way the model produced an unbiased estimate of how the team did. You will also notice that these estimates change as more games are played (as the season progresses)


> Prairie Valley

I think you are improperly discounting the real growth that Prairie Valley is exhibiting. (I am now enjoying the thought of being accused of being a PV homer!)


> It just doesn't make sense. If a team wins, reward them as such.

I think you fundamental do not like computer models based on game margin. However, game-margin models are better at prediction than models based on win/loss only.


> if you are using those early non district games in your rankings your rankings are probably a little messed up. As teams in non district play quite often play up or down class size.

The problem is that you are introducing class bias. For a computer model, what difference does it make if a team is in a different class? An unbiased analysis would make no such assumption.

Based on the computer model discover of individual team strengths, here are the unbiased estimated of average team strength and standard deviations of team in various classes:


Class N Mean Stdev
4A 48 163.80 21.79
3A 56 149.88 22.81
2A 56 141.32 23.11
1A 56 138.24 22.34
A 63 121.59 26.58
8 64 66.94 31.87


Example: average team in 4A would beat the average team in 3A by (163.80-149.88) = 13.92 points

thoughts?
 
images
 
Spook,

Those are nice explanations by Moore but his own data does not support and contradicts itself.

First. He spoke about PV underperforming the first 3 weeks. If you look at his rankings PV actually went up after week 2 when they played up and lost 40+ pts against Manson NW Webster. Moore considers this a big underperformance yet PV went from #38 to #37. There must have been some HUGE underperformances that week.

Second. Moore says that he thinks you are failing to credit their growth in their last 4 "overperformances". Possible but if you are missing the growth.. so apparently are his rankings. The last three weeks PV has been ranked 31, 32, and 32.

Moore's chart showing "average" score differential between classes is meaningless nearly all the time. Define average? Is that when the "middle" team from 1 class plays the "middle" team from another class? How often does that happen and what about 99% of the time when it isn't 2 teams BOTH from the middle of their class playing? Is it based on the compilation of scores so deviations from the middle greatly skew the average? Take a very good ICR (7-0) in 1A beating what appears to be a good 3A Solon (6-1) by 38 points when according to this chart Solon should win by 11+? This one game missed the average by 50 points. How many games are there across classes and it would only take a few games to skew this average to be meaningless.

I laugh when people think these rankings can ever be used to seat teams for the playoffs. The bad data in the system, a common occurance this year (see above again) and the cross contamination of including other classes from non district play (which the state does not factor into playoff eligibility) are just two of the reasons pointed out in this thread that this system should never be given the slightest consideration for playoff ranking.

Spook, Moore doesn't deal in reality. Here is Friday night's reality from District 2. If some of the people on the bottom of the list feel better while they drink their juice boxes...well that is one thing Moore's ranking are good for.

PV Win +13
AGWSR Win +10
Garrigan Win + 2
SE Webster Win + 2
Lake Mills Loss -13
BK Loss -10
Newman Loss - 2
W Hancock Loss - 2
 
Week 1:
Team A beats Team B by 50
Team D beats Team C by 1

Week 2:
Team A beats Team C by 49
Team D beats Team B by 2

By your logic: A=D and B=C. A win is a win and a loss is a loss.

It would be impossible to predict these games without looking at scoring margins. You can just as easily change the score of one game to show how it effects the whole system. If week 2 Team D wins by 50 then it will make C look better. By your logic a scenario like this shouldn't effect Team C. The result was still A>C by 50 points but C's strength increased in the "eyes" of the computer.

My question is, is it really hard to understand or did you get your feelings hurt because a computer will think you'll lose?
 
icu81222:

Please keep it cordial. We all enjoy talking about Iowa high school football. Differing opinions make it fun.


ghost80:

> The last three weeks PV has been ranked 31, 32, and 32.

Now this is very interesting; I hadn't noticed this. Thanks for posting this.

Full data:

preseason 14
week0 14
week1 38
week2 37
week3 46
week4 40
week5 31
week6 32
week7 32


> Moore's chart showing "average" score differential between classes is meaningless nearly all the time.

I agree with your thoughts. The point of posting the data was simply to share class averages.
 
hard to understand cardinal? what I understand is a win is a win, a loss is a loss. that's all that matters.
Say outloud the record last year of your favorite football team. did you include an asterick saying how many points they should have scored for the year and how many points they should have given up for the year? No. Noone would. I deal in reality.
BC Moore: thanks for trying to explain your side. I'm personally not buying how teams can go up in your rankings when they lose and down when they win (especially in a head to head match like PV and Lake Mills had on Friday night)...but its your ranking so enjoy it.
 
It's really easy to say which team is better after they have played, but when making PREDICTIONS before two teams play is different than looking at wins and losses. They play the games for a reason, but sometimes people want to play a prediction contest, or sometimes they want something to motivate the guys about. "Hey, they've got us picked to lose by 8, lets go show them that they're wrong." type of thing. It is also by far the best way for a fan to compare how good they are in relation to possible post-season opponents. Not to mention having all the scores from the whole season posted really neatly is a big plus in my book. Rankings are always based on records and not necessarily who the BEST teams are. Examples show up every post season where an unbeaten team loses to a team that had previously lost.
 
I have read BCs computer generated football data for years. Each week it gets better and rarely off much. A number will take great issue, but rarely is it wrong when you consider the percentage his algorithms have it right. Handicappers who do this for a living do not do any better.
 
As NoJustice indicated, it's ALL about the algorithms!

Algorithms are our friends. :)
This post was edited on 10/13 5:29 PM by Iron Doc
 
Whos talking predictions? Its called BC MOORE Rankings.
I have been talking rankings, and have no interest in predictions.
 
Originally posted by spook78:

Whos talking predictions? Its called BC MOORE Rankings.
I have been talking rankings, and have no interest in predictions.
Click to expand...
He has done predictions as well. Same dude. Same number cruncher. Same respect.
 
Cardinal,

Your ignorance of the game of football is on clear display.

Your analysis of A beats B, B beats C, so A should also beat C is foolish and would only apply IF everything on both teams is the same. If both teams have identical: passing, rushing, special teams, rush defense, pass defense, coaching, ect then maybe you can rely on your A B C, and point compilation. Anyone who has any knowledge of football knows that not all the teams are equal by category. Moore's factoring offensive points and points allowed attempts to compensate for this but can't drill down enough since it does nothing to analyze WHERE those points came from. Example. Yesterday the KC Chiefs scored 17 points from turnovers created by the defense while the offense really only generated 7. In this situation Moore would credit the offense with 24 points and not 7. Anyone watching the Chiefs yesterday knows the defense really put most of those points on the board.

Football is a game of matchups. Your computer generated ABC might give a brief initial starting point but it comes down to the individual matchups. Hopefully your coach can find out how to cover their weaknesses while exploiting their opponents weaknesses to win REAL games.
 
> Moore's factoring offensive points and points allowed
attempts to compensate for this but can't drill down enough since it
does nothing to analyze WHERE those points came from.
Example. Yesterday the KC Chiefs scored 17 points from turnovers
created by the defense while the offense really only generated 7. In
this situation Moore would credit the offense with 24 points and not 7.

FWIW: Moore's computer has no idea where point come from offense, defense, or special teams.
 
The thing that the computer can do that no human can is be completely unbiased. It doesn't have favorites or preconceived notions about teams. The computer only uses data from this season. It is the only way to calculate rankings/predictions, whatever you want to call them, without any human bias. Over the years, BCMoore's work has proven to be the most reliable of any that I have seen. Ghost, if you know better, then let's see your results...
 
If the best team doesn't always win, then it doesn't matter where teams are ranked. Most people understand this and this is why most people look at rankings for enjoyment rather than factual data. At the end of the year, if your team loses and goes up in the final BC ranking to #45 or whatever it may be, congratulations, as you said yourself, you're still a loser. If your team loses and goes down in the rankings as you say it should, regardless of how they played, you're still a loser. At the end of the season it doesn't matter how the kids play the only thing that matters is the wins and losses and where they end up on rankings. That's the message I'm getting from you. A loss is a loss and a win is a win. Nothing about character, playing hard, or class.
 
lol, did you just come full circle? are you pro-moore in one post then con-moore in the next? those 3 things you mention are exactly what I hear aren't used in his rankings.
 
I'm pro-moore as a system and believe it's the best rankings out there. Sometimes it has flaws, but I'm capable enough to know it's off and understand why the system has it that way. I'm also rational enough to realize there are some things the computer can not factor, but I still would take the computer's rankings, as a whole one through sixty or whatever, over anybody else's. The "factual data" was not directed to the computer using actual game data, it was directed at you for assuming a team ranked 32 is the 32nd best team. In real life rankings don't mean anything, but there is more to the game of football than wins and losses.
 
So Cardinal, do you think Moore's system helps to develop character, playing hard, or class then the hypothetical rankings and hypothetical results erroneously do not align with what happens in reality on the football field?

What if after the game while shaking hands the losing team were to say, "but we are the better team and if we were to meet again we would probably win"? Would that be sportsman like? What if the computer in say 2009 says a team finished number #1 even though they lost in the semi finals to the eventual state champion who ended up being ranked #4 in the final poll. Ranked #4 and told, "The computer says they would probably loose BOTH your semi and final games in a rematch" even though in reality they beat the final #1 team in the semis and the #3 team in the finals? What if the same #1 Ranked team in 2009 did the same thing in 2010 when the computer ranked the same team #1 in the final polls even though they lost in the finals by 2 scores to the team it rated #2 in the final ranking.

Brent, it is a mistake to say the best team doesn't always win and use Madrid in 2010 as an example. There can be times and situations beyond a teams control (such as tainted officiating among other things) which can lead to the situation of the best team not always winning. Whatever the reason it can happen but to suggest the better team did not win a specific game is terrible sportsmanship. If you lose for whatever reason, shut up and take it like a man.

The computer ranked Madrid #1 in 2009 and 2010 and they lost in the dome both those years. In 2011 they also went to the dome and lost but ended with a #6 rank. Madrid was not the best team those years. Madrid had a weakness that the top teams they would run into discovered and exploited. They developed a tendency to make mistakes (particularly hanging on to the football) when they played other top teams. When you get to the dome it is often the team who makes the fewest mistakes who wins so most coaches facing Madrid soon realized that if you do not beat yourself, get your kids to be patient and wait for Madrid to make the mistakes. If they are suspect at hanging on to the football that means you target for the strip and have your players ready to recover Madrid's fumbles. It was a strategy which paid dividends and not a case of "the better team not winning".






This post was edited on 10/14 11:01 PM by ghost80
 
BCMoore's system has much greater value as a prediction tool than as a ranking of team strength.
If the prediction is outside 13 points, you can pretty much call it a lock for the favored team to win (doesn't matter about the margin....a win is a win). As the predicted gap gets closer to zero, the more likely the favored team is to lose. Inside 2 points is basically a coin toss.

When you have top ten teams facing each other, I believe "upsets" according to these rankings are more likely due to these teams having the talent to create/capitalize on each other's mistakes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
So then Pax it sounds like what you are saying is that the rankings that Moore post each week of the top 16 teams is not of great value. The top 16 teams is only a fraction of entire teams base and very few of the games are going to show both teams listed in the top 16. Many of the teams within the top 16 are within a close point margin so why are the Rankings (Moore's own word) even listed?
 
The rankings are nice more for the lines of what-if situations. IF we played this team across the state. Looking back is different than looking forward. Even if you look back to the first or second game of the year where you had injuries or inexperience and you rolled off 6 or 7 consecutive wins against good teams, the computer unbiasedly sees growth and potential, while win loss rankings see a 6-3, 7-2, or 8-1 record. Some schools move players around and things start clicking.

I never said the computer rankings do lead to class, sportsmanship, etc. I said there is more to football than winning. Don't try and twist that around.
 
Like most of you, I appreciate and enjoy the BCMoore rankings for what they are...a way to add entertainment to the high school football season. Any sensible person realizes that these rankings don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. The playoff qualifiers and seedings won't be based on any sort of computer rankings, so I find it rather amusing when posters feel the need to be critical. Like someone else already stated, if you've got a better system to share with us, we'd love to see it. Life will go on if your team happens to be ranked below someone that you've beaten. It will be OK.

The Prairie Valley example is interesting. I would have expected PV to be ranked higher as well, but BCMoore has done a good job of explaining the system. I doubt the Prairie Valley kids are too worked up about it. They're on a nice winning streak, have made the playoffs, and I doubt they'll take any less satisfaction from their win on Friday just because they are "ranked" a spot below the team they just beat.

Again, if anyone out there has a better system, let's see it.
 
Lot of people worked up over a 2-5 team. Take a deep breath everyone. It will work itself out over the next 2 weeks. Here is what is going to happen. Manson City Newman will win handily Friday and drop out of the top 16. They will also win handily week 9 and drop even further and be ranked closer to where a 4-5 team should be ranked. They will at least drop enough that noone will care especially after week 10.

Mason City Newman is being overrated due to an overweighted SOS. Their SOS will drop both of the next 2 weeks and consequencly so will their ranking. It's that simple.
 
Brent, it is a mistake to say the best team doesn't always win and use Madrid in 2010 as an example. There can be times and situations beyond a teams control (such as tainted officiating among other things) which can lead to the situation of the best team not always winning. Whatever the reason it can happen but to suggest the better team did not win a specific game is terrible sportsmanship. If you lose for whatever reason, shut up and take it like a man.

In my original post I has asking NoJustice if he thought Madrid was upset in 2010.

In general I have no real insight on that particular game; computer model is the one that thought it was an upset.
 
Mason City Newman is being overrated due to an
overweighted SOS. Their SOS will drop both of the next 2 weeks and
consequencly so will their ranking. It's that simple.

SOS is calculated after team strengths are discovered. Thus, a team can go up in the rankings and have their SOS go down. The other three possibilities can also occur:

ranking up, SOS down
ranking down, SOS up
ranking down, SOS down
 
Originally posted by bcmoore87:
Brent, it is a mistake to say the best team doesn't always win and use Madrid in 2010 as an example. There can be times and situations beyond a teams control (such as tainted officiating among other things) which can lead to the situation of the best team not always winning. Whatever the reason it can happen but to suggest the better team did not win a specific game is terrible sportsmanship. If you lose for whatever reason, shut up and take it like a man.

In my original post I has asking NoJustice if he thought Madrid was upset in 2010.

In general I have no real insight on that particular game; computer model is the one that thought it was an upset.
Click to expand...
Yes it was an upset.

What a computer model also cannot ascertain is the impact of playing football in a roller rink in mid-November as opposed to outdoors where real men play the game :0
 
I think that No Justice has a valid point. Teams which have been to the Dome do enjoy some advantages over teams that have never been there. Many smaller schools have never played on turf let alone inside. Even if the players for a team have not played in the dome, if their coaches have coached there most understand what they need to do different to adjust to inside play on turf.

Where I don't agree with No Justice is considering Madrid an inexperienced team in the differences in playing in the Dome compared to an outdoor grass field. Madrid has been to the Dome too many times to use the "rookie" excuse. IMO Madrid's regular season schedule allows them to make mistakes they can live with during the regular season but eventually kills them when they face the top competition.
 
Originally posted by GOPANTHERS23:
^^^ the famous Madrid excuse :))
Click to expand...
Excuse? Ha. It was a jab at playing indoors. I hate it. My favorite photo is the one of Mike Ditka roller skating around the Chicago Bears' offices to make fun of Minnesota the Metrodome. Classic.
 
Originally posted by ghost80:
I think that No Justice has a valid point. Teams which have been to the Dome do enjoy some advantages over teams that have never been there. Many smaller schools have never played on turf let alone inside. Even if the players for a team have not played in the dome, if their coaches have coached there most understand what they need to do different to adjust to inside play on turf.

Where I don't agree with No Justice is considering Madrid an inexperienced team in the differences in playing in the Dome compared to an outdoor grass field. Madrid has been to the Dome too many times to use the "rookie" excuse. IMO Madrid's regular season schedule allows them to make mistakes they can live with during the regular season but eventually kills them when they face the top competition.
Click to expand...
The elements. The grass. Mud. Rain. Snow. Sleet Wind. Dirt. That is where football is to be played. This is has nothing to do w/ Madrid. It has everything to do with where football should be played. Outdoors. Plastic grass? Covered fields? That is for roller skating.
wink.r191677.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P

UNI Dome Games Challenge

Replies
9
Views
1K
General Football Forum
PNation
P
U

2A Rankings -- Oct. 2

Replies
6
Views
1K
General Football Forum
MsideChief
M
P

IHSAA State Rankings

Replies
0
Views
700
General Football Forum
privateer13
P
B

8 Man Rankings 30Sep2023

Replies
0
Views
497
General Football Forum
BetterthanIAPreps
B
B

8 Man Rankings - 7Oct2023

Replies
0
Views
544
General Football Forum
BetterthanIAPreps
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back