Does anyone else have a problem with the Iowa Highs School girls' ranking system? The IGHSAU has one person who apparently compiles the rankings for all 5 classes. This seems to be an impossible task for one person. In 4A, #3 Grinnell has victories over three ranked opponents by an average of 30 pts (at the time they played - Boone #7, Pella #12, CPU #5), yet #1 Marion and #2 Lewis Central are both ranked ahead of Grinnell. Marion has beaten one ranked opponent and Lewis Central hasn't played a ranked opponent. The BCMoore rankings, based on current statistics have Grinnell ahead of both these teams (bcmoorerankings.com). All teams get into the playoffs. However, rankings determine seedings. Rankings need to be accurate and without bias or subjectivity.
High School Girls Basketball Ranking System
- Thread starter G-TownTiger**
- Start date
There is no bias when it comes to the rankings and the only subjectivity involved would be ignorance.
Yes, there should be a group that compiles the rankings and forms a list from that. (assuming that what you say is true, that there's only one person that does the rankings).
G-Town your portrayal of how the Girls Union determines rankings is not quite accurate. I know he seeks out information from numerous people around the state as well as those within the Union.
I understand your issue with seedings at state but there is a lot of season left to sort things out. Additionally, you won't find a rankings system that do not have some kind of subjectivity.
I understand your issue with seedings at state but there is a lot of season left to sort things out. Additionally, you won't find a rankings system that do not have some kind of subjectivity.
The IGHSAU ranking and subsequent seeding system deserves some scrutiny and criticism.
The first mistake the union makes is that they trot out the preseason and early season rankings. While I'm confident some research is done, ie...last year's record, returning starters, etc..., the very existence of a preseason and early season ranking gives unfair advantage to the teams that have been highly ranked.
As an example, the union ranks "Team Red" as the preseason #6 team. Team Red rolls through season, with a very weak conference and thus a very weak schedule. The head coach of Team Red knows how the game is played. He realizes that if they breeze through the schedule and go undefeated through January 20-25, his team will at minimum be ranked #6 or higher. He gives no thought to scheduling difficult out of conference games, unless he can schedule them after the brackets are determined. This ensures that his team will be seeded first in a region and thus have an advantageous path to state.
Then you have "Team Blue". The Union ranks them as preseason #10. Team Blue plays in a much better conference, with a much tougher schedule. The Team Blue head coach may even schedule a couple of difficult out of conference games, even possibly playing up a class or two and trying to beat a higher class ranked team. So Team Blue plays some tough out of conference games and loses by a few points in one of the games. Team Blue them goes through a tough conference schedule, getting knocked off two times and thus has three losses prior to the bracketing. The three losses dropped them in the polls all three times. The first time they go from #10 to #12. They are able to fight their way back up to #10 but no more because the teams ahead of them never lose. Then they have the second loss and it drops them back down to #12. The third loss sends them out of the rankings.
As previously stated, Team Red is a #1 seed. Team Blue is a #3 seed. Team Blue by virtue of their seeding, has a much tougher route.
You can even apply a similar flaw as it relates to two teams that never lose. One starts the season ranked higher and thus from the start is ensured a higher seeding. The #1 ranked team blows through the schedule and they end up facing the equivalent of a #16 ranked team as the #2 seed. Meanwhile the #10 ranked team blows through the season, may have even picked up more quality wins against better opponents, but no one ahead of them loses, so they remain at #10. They end up the #2 seed facing the a #1 seed (likely the #5 to #8 team) that is ranked higher. They did everything right but it doesn't matter because the union decided things in the preseason rankings.
BCMoore seems to take the subjectivity out of the equation and pays attention to strength of schedule. I sure would hope that the union takes a look at that, but until they ditch the preseason and early season rankings, they are playing a role in the outcome before the ball is even tipped.
The first mistake the union makes is that they trot out the preseason and early season rankings. While I'm confident some research is done, ie...last year's record, returning starters, etc..., the very existence of a preseason and early season ranking gives unfair advantage to the teams that have been highly ranked.
As an example, the union ranks "Team Red" as the preseason #6 team. Team Red rolls through season, with a very weak conference and thus a very weak schedule. The head coach of Team Red knows how the game is played. He realizes that if they breeze through the schedule and go undefeated through January 20-25, his team will at minimum be ranked #6 or higher. He gives no thought to scheduling difficult out of conference games, unless he can schedule them after the brackets are determined. This ensures that his team will be seeded first in a region and thus have an advantageous path to state.
Then you have "Team Blue". The Union ranks them as preseason #10. Team Blue plays in a much better conference, with a much tougher schedule. The Team Blue head coach may even schedule a couple of difficult out of conference games, even possibly playing up a class or two and trying to beat a higher class ranked team. So Team Blue plays some tough out of conference games and loses by a few points in one of the games. Team Blue them goes through a tough conference schedule, getting knocked off two times and thus has three losses prior to the bracketing. The three losses dropped them in the polls all three times. The first time they go from #10 to #12. They are able to fight their way back up to #10 but no more because the teams ahead of them never lose. Then they have the second loss and it drops them back down to #12. The third loss sends them out of the rankings.
As previously stated, Team Red is a #1 seed. Team Blue is a #3 seed. Team Blue by virtue of their seeding, has a much tougher route.
You can even apply a similar flaw as it relates to two teams that never lose. One starts the season ranked higher and thus from the start is ensured a higher seeding. The #1 ranked team blows through the schedule and they end up facing the equivalent of a #16 ranked team as the #2 seed. Meanwhile the #10 ranked team blows through the season, may have even picked up more quality wins against better opponents, but no one ahead of them loses, so they remain at #10. They end up the #2 seed facing the a #1 seed (likely the #5 to #8 team) that is ranked higher. They did everything right but it doesn't matter because the union decided things in the preseason rankings.
BCMoore seems to take the subjectivity out of the equation and pays attention to strength of schedule. I sure would hope that the union takes a look at that, but until they ditch the preseason and early season rankings, they are playing a role in the outcome before the ball is even tipped.
Bcmoore also punishes teams who don't win by the "predicted margin". Unless he has made recent changes.
So, if a team is favored by 40 but they only win by 20 they drop in points. Teams that call off the dogs could drop in ranking even if they are undefeated. If they run it up and win by more than predicted they earn additional points.
As stated, I don't think there is a ranking system that is totally unbiased.
So, if a team is favored by 40 but they only win by 20 they drop in points. Teams that call off the dogs could drop in ranking even if they are undefeated. If they run it up and win by more than predicted they earn additional points.
As stated, I don't think there is a ranking system that is totally unbiased.
