BCMoore Rankings: 10/25

[bcmoore87]

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 ( 9- 0) 203.26 9W 151.54 ( 2) 40.44 ( 5) 7.33 ( 3)
2 Brooklyn BGM A-6 ( 9- 0) 166.26 9W 108.45 ( 61) 57.67 ( 1) 5.33 ( 1)
3 Hinton A-1 ( 7- 2) 162.83 6W 151.06 ( 3) 27.33 ( 25) 13.89 ( 13)
4 Wapsie Valley A-3 ( 9- 0) 157.56 9W 115.04 ( 48) 46.89 ( 2) 7.67 ( 4)
5 Avoca AHST A-8 ( 9- 0) 155.49 9W 133.03 ( 16) 33.67 ( 10) 10.44 ( 7)
6 East Mills A-8 ( 7- 2) 154.84 2W 127.30 ( 21) 34.67 ( 8) 6.56 ( 2)
7 Algona Garrigan A-2 ( 7- 2) 154.36 5W 130.74 ( 18) 29.78 ( 16) 8.00 ( 5)
8 Lawton-Bronson A-1 ( 6- 3) 152.47 1L 148.19 ( 8) 24.67 ( 28) 20.78 ( 22)
9 Gladbrook-Reinbeck A-4 ( 7- 2) 151.80 6W 116.87 ( 45) 35.56 ( 7) 11.33 ( 8)
10 Logan-Magnolia A-8 ( 5- 4) 150.33 1W 130.72 ( 19) 31.22 ( 12) 16.22 ( 16)
11 Lisbon A-5 ( 7- 2) 146.79 7W 114.75 ( 49) 45.78 ( 3) 12.56 ( 10)
12 Packwood Pekin A-6 ( 7- 2) 145.99 1L 112.91 ( 52) 39.78 ( 6) 13.89 ( 14)
13 Madrid A-7 ( 7- 2) 145.93 6W 121.63 ( 34) 42.22 ( 4) 22.22 ( 26)
14 Hawarden West Sioux A-1 ( 4- 5) 145.43 3W 152.48 ( 1) 28.22 ( 23) 31.78 ( 46)
15 Ackley AGWSR A-2 ( 9- 1) 144.55 1L 122.35 ( 32) 28.80 ( 20) 8.40 ( 6)
16 Mason City Newman A-2 ( 4- 5) 144.00 2W 134.39 ( 13) 24.44 ( 29) 21.33 ( 25)

 

[ghost80]

Another week another underperformance by Newman in their 11 point win over an 0-9 team yet they still remain a ranked team even with a losing record.

So much for the age old argument by the Moore supporters that, "It will work itself out by the end of the season".

Someone should call a computer doctor. The computers "aroused condition" for Newman has lasted much longer than 4 hours.

 

[bcmoore87]

You have a good criticism. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

 

[Eleven30]

LOL. When I saw Newman at #16, I knew he'd be all worked up again...

 

[ghost80]

Worked up because Newman is ranked 16? You are clueless.

Notice I didn't say a word until AFTER there was a thread posted across multiple boards about using Moore's rankings to seed playoffs teams? That is my motive....I could care less the computer has a love affair with Newman BUT being playoff time it's prime time to remind everyone how far from realistic these ratings are.

Fill you in on little secret 11:30... Newman wasn't even the biggest egg that the computer laid this week. That would have to be on the 2A rankings. An unbeaten #1 team gets beat by an unbeaten #6 team and their ranking do not change. The 8-1 loser is still # 1 while the 9-0 winner is still #6. Why didn't I call out Moore on that one? I didn't have too. Someone else did.

It only takes one person to proclaim the emperor is really naked for others to also speak out.

 

[bcmoore87]

Somewhat reminds me of the time in 8-man, when a team lost their game in about week 4 or 5 and the computer promoted them to #1. They then went the rest of the year undefeated and won the state title. (I'll have to look that one up.)

My personal prediction is that no champion has lost their week 9 game. (need to verify)

 

[Cardinal2012]

Originally posted by bcmoore87:
Somewhat reminds me of the time in 8-man, when a team lost their game in about week 4 or 5 and the computer promoted them to #1. They then went the rest of the year undefeated and won the state title. (I'll have to look that one up.)

My personal prediction is that no champion has lost their week 9 game. (need to verify)

Armstrong-Ringsted 2009 with a 2 point loss in week 5 jumped from number 3 in the rankings up to number 1. North Sentral, the team that beat A-R, was upset by Graettinger-Terril who subsequently got ROLLED by Armstrong in week 12.

 

[ghost80]

You guys do realize that you just went back to 2009 to find an instance where the computer was right when it bump a team that lost up to number 1?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[ghost80]

Got to take the good with the bad. So the computer bumped up a team from 3 to 1 with a loss and that team went on to win a championship in 2009.

How many times has the computer failed to accurately reflect what has happened on the field in regards to championship games and who it "thinks" should be number 1 after all the games are played.

2012 3 times
2011 2 times.

Let me guess what the answer will be. In a rematch how do you know the outcome wouldn't be different???

Answer. There will be no rematch. The reality of the playoffs is it is 1 and done and then you move on to next year.

 

[bcmoore87]

> It only takes one person to proclaim the emperor is really naked for others to also speak out.

In your proposed model:

Naked = no value, 50% probability of playoff predictions
Computer model gets 76.4% of playoff games correct; not perfect but not random. (sample set: 1024 playoff games: 2000-2011, sorry I still need to compile 2012)


> How many times has the computer failed to accurately reflect what has
happened on the field in regards to championship games and who it
"thinks" should be number 1 after all the games are played.

I think you have to remember that the computer is about maximizing the number of future games picked correctly. Because it has no bias, this process has the wonderful side effect of objectively revealing what outcomes are most unusual: which games are upsets.



This post was edited on 10/29 7:40 AM by bcmoore87

 

[Cardinal2012]

Originally posted by ghost80:
Got to take the good with the bad. So the computer bumped up a team from 3 to 1 with a loss and that team went on to win a championship in 2009.

How many times has the computer failed to accurately reflect what has happened on the field in regards to championship games and who it "thinks" should be number 1 after all the games are played.

2012 3 times
2011 2 times.

Let me guess what the answer will be. In a rematch how do you know the outcome wouldn't be different???

Answer. There will be no rematch. The reality of the playoffs is it is 1 and done and then you move on to next year.

In the computer's defense it factors in the average game of each team. Some teams are consistent, while others are not. To criticize the computer West Lyon was beat by Hinton twice and still were ranked higher at the end of last season. This proves there is more than just scores, match-ups matter as well.

When the playoffs come around does it really matter who is ranked ahead of who anyways? Even though individual cases may be "off" the computer still gives a really good representation of who is better than who.

 

[Eleven30]

Cardinal's last paragraph pretty much sums it up. These are simply rankings. They have no bearing on who makes the playoffs or who wins in the playoffs. Those teams who feel they are ranked too low have every opportunity to prove themselves to everyone in the post-season. If some individual teams seem to be ranked too high, who really cares?

I just can't believe there are people who don't understand this concept. As I have said before, if you feel the need to bash the BCMoore rankings over and over (to the point of embarrassing yourself), then step up and show us something better.

 

[ghost80]

Not embarrassed in the least. Matter of fact, even thought serious flawed I don't believe Moore should be embarrassed. He steadfastly stands by his system and that is worth something.

The people who embarrass themselves are the townspeople who keep telling Moore his new suit is beautiful and he should wear it to the playoffs. Those sheep have embarrassed themselves.

 

[Eleven30]

You seem to be the most critical of his rankings. Do you have a better system? Obviously, the rankings are not going to be used for playoff positioning. That's what district football is for...