CCC Adjusted MaxPreps Ratings after Week 9

[PrepFanNC]

Right now it looks as if there are 4 teams from the Central Carolina that are playoff bound.

This info was released today and I think I’m reading it right:

2A Adjusted MaxPreps Rankings

15- Salisbury
16- Oak Grove
39- Ledford
55- Thomasville
68- North Davidson
75- Central Davidson
86- West Davidson
99- Lexington
107-South Rowan
110-East Davidson

Don’t freak out over the odd placement up top. I think strength of schedule played a big factor in that.

Oak Grove’s non-conference consisted of:
117-Trinity (dead last)
And
92- Jordan Matthews (and if you ask me, 92nd is stretching it, Jordan Matthews is bad. Not as bad as Trinity, but baaad.)

However it works out in the end, is just how it works out. Conference placement will supersede MaxPrep ratings... so whomever wins the conference gets the first placement in the playoffs.

 

[SCRballer]

Right now it looks as if there are 4 teams from the Central Carolina that are playoff bound.

This info was released today and I think I’m reading it right:

2A Adjusted MaxPreps Rankings

15- Salisbury
16- Oak Grove
39- Ledford
55- Thomasville
68- North Davidson
75- Central Davidson
86- West Davidson
99- Lexington
107-South Rowan
110-East Davidson

Don’t freak out over the odd placement up top. I think strength of schedule played a big factor in that.

Oak Grove’s non-conference consisted of:
117-Trinity (dead last)
And
92- Jordan Matthews (and if you ask me, 92nd is stretching it, Jordan Matthews is bad. Not as bad as Trinity, but baaad.)

However it works out in the end, is just how it works out. Conference placement will supersede MaxPrep ratings... so whomever wins the conference gets the first placement in the playoffs.

Not sure if we are seeing the same MaxPreps Rankings but it says (what I see). https://www.maxpreps.com/rankings/f...ion/nc/7kMvGgtZBUWgPa4KPU8Ytw/division-2a.htm
2A Rankings
OG #15
Salisbury #23
Ledford #32
Thomasville #55
North Davidson #46
Central #72
West #81
Lexington #94
Soth Rowan #98
East #106
I don't know maybe I'm looking at a different Ranking.

 

[SCRballer]

AHHH!! I see the "Adjusted Maxpreps Ranking". https://www.highschoolot.com/nchsaa-2a-football-adjusted-maxpreps-rankings/18655670/ I find it interestingly different. Not caught up on how this all works if anyone cares to explain the difference between the 2 for me.

 

[PrepFanNC]

AHHH!! I see the "Adjusted Maxpreps Ranking". https://www.highschoolot.com/nchsaa-2a-football-adjusted-maxpreps-rankings/18655670/ I find it interestingly different. Not caught up on how this all works if anyone cares to explain the difference between the 2 for me.

I’m with you... I don’t exactly know what I’m looking at either... Could be that you are right and I am wrong!

 

[SCRballer]

I’m with you... I don’t exactly know what I’m looking at either... Could be that you are right and I am wrong!

From best I can teel...The NCHSAA uses Maxpreps but makes adjustments according to strength, ADMs , whatever... that is what they use for seeding/rankings. I am probably just trying to make sense of it and doing a bad job.LOL Anyway I think its best to go with the NCHSAA AMPR.

 

[TheMule_rivals384855]

Where can I find the most recent adjusted ratings?

 

[PrepFanNC]

Where can I find the most recent adjusted ratings?

HighSchoolOT.com is where I found these.

 

[NDApp]

The NCHSAA calculates the Adjusted MaxPreps rankings by taking the margin of victory out of the calculation. Therefore, the two big non-conference margins that OGHS had against Trinity and Jordan Matthews are removed.

 

[Old Mountaineer]

Where can I find the most recent adjusted ratings?

Off the NCHSAA website , you have to download it.
Adjusted Maxprep rankings - 10/21/2019

1 Shelby
2 Hertford County
3 Mountain Heritage
4 SouthWest Edgecombe
5 Burns
6 Northeastern
7 Clinton
8 Randleman
9 North Lincoln
10 Wallace-Rose Hill

 

[TheMule_rivals384855]

Off the NCHSAA website , you have to download it.
Adjusted Maxprep rankings - 10/21/2019

1 Shelby
2 Hertford County
3 Mountain Heritage
4 SouthWest Edgecombe
5 Burns
6 Northeastern
7 Clinton
8 Randleman
9 North Lincoln
10 Wallace-Rose Hill

Thanks.

 

[tarheelg]

The NCHSAA calculates the Adjusted MaxPreps rankings by taking the margin of victory out of the calculation. Therefore, the two big non-conference margins that OGHS had against Trinity and Jordan Matthews are removed.

I wish I could like this status, because what you shared is accurate information, but I DO NOT "like" that they have removed margin of victory from the rankings

 

[SW1985]

Off the NCHSAA website , you have to download it.
Adjusted Maxprep rankings - 10/21/2019

1 Shelby
2 Hertford County
3 Mountain Heritage
4 SouthWest Edgecombe
5 Burns
6 Northeastern
7 Clinton
8 Randleman
9 North Lincoln
10 Wallace-Rose Hill

Any poll that has Northeastern in the top 10 is suspect. Come on man.

 

[Ramfan200000002]

Where would Reidsville be at

 

[rambbq]

Reidsville at 11?? lol.............there are NOT 10 2A teams better than the Rams..............

 

[Old Mountaineer]

Any poll that has Northeastern in the top 10 is suspect. Come on man.

Don't kill the messenger
Their the only 3 lost team in the top 10 of the 4 classifications.
They are also #10 in the Maxprep rankings the only thing I can think of in the Maxprep they have the highest strength of schedule rating out of 114 2A schools of 18.8.

 

[swe98]

I wish I could like this status, because what you shared is accurate information, but I DO NOT "like" that they have removed margin of victory from the rankings

You have to take margin of victory out because that's an obvious unfair point of comparison because no teams' schedules are exactly alike. We are about play winless Farmville Central. We should beat them by 50. Now let's say a team beats Shelby this week by 1. Should we be deemed better than the team that beat Shelby because our margin of victory was better? No. Different competition makes for different margins of victory, therefore using MOV unfair.

 

[tarheelg]

You have to take margin of victory out because that's an obvious unfair point of comparison because no teams' schedules are exactly alike. We are about play winless Farmville Central. We should beat them by 50. Now let's say a team beats Shelby this week by 1. Should we be deemed better than the team that beat Shelby because our margin of victory was better? No. Different competition makes for different margins of victory, therefore using MOV unfair.

Ok, but my point is: If the whole point of letting the ranking affect playoff seeding (instead of the old way of 10 game record where you dropped a non-conference game, and all conf. champions with 0 losses first, then conf. champs with 1 loss, and so on) was a better way to reward teams for playing a tougher schedule....How does the computer know how tough your schedule really is, if margin of victory is eliminated? There would be nothing wrong with some metric or parameter that used a margin of victory range, where you got more credit for winning by 6 than by 3....20 than 10, etc., while having some cutoff of 21 or 28 where you do not help your rating by winning by 70 than by 28, but I think you should get some credit for dominating a game vs. squeaking by; hence the College Football Playoff's metric called "game control"....that went into effect the year after Florida State could have easily been not even eligible for a bowl, let alone be in the discussion for the CFP had five or six different teams not given games away in 4th quarter against them that year (Miami, Louisville, NC State, Clemson, Notre Dame, BC, Florida), i know at the end of the day, a win is a win, and a loss is a loss, but if the goal of using computer rankings to seed is to make it more fair, and truly have the best teams at the top, I think anybody looking at the rankings can tell that the actual maxpreps rankings (still somewhat flawed, as they may be), are still a much better representation of who is better than who, than the adjusted rankings, which will affect seeding, it has reverted back to rewarding teams with higher seeds and more home playoff games to those who do not challenge themselves out of conference

 

[NDApp]

IF the NCHSAA wanted to do the playoffs in the right way, this is what I would propose. The automatic berths for finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd in your conference are only a berth to the playoffs. Use the MaxPreps rankings to determine the 64 teams that make the playoffs. Split into 2A and 2AA based upon ADM. Split into regions based upon location, then seed the teams based upon their ranking, not allowing an inferior team finishing first in a week conference to have a higher seed than a team that finished second in a strong conference. It would be more like the NCAA basketball tournament in that you receive a bid for winning your conference, but don't receive a preferential seed. That would be like giving UNCG a top 4 seed in a region because they won the Southern Conference.

 

[Old Mountaineer]

IF the NCHSAA wanted to do the playoffs in the right way, this is what I would propose. The automatic berths for finishing 1st, 2nd or 3rd in your conference are only a berth to the playoffs. Use the MaxPreps rankings to determine the 64 teams that make the playoffs. Split into 2A and 2AA based upon ADM. Split into regions based upon location, then seed the teams based upon their ranking, not allowing an inferior team finishing first in a week conference to have a higher seed than a team that finished second in a strong conference. It would be more like the NCAA basketball tournament in that you receive a bid for winning your conference, but don't receive a preferential seed. That would be like giving UNCG a top 4 seed in a region because they won the Southern Conference.

You just pretty much described how it's done, the only difference is maybe the automatic qualifiers are seeded first but still by thier rankings then after thier seeding the at large teams are seeded by thier rankings then when they have 48 teams they use the ADM and split into A & AA then decide East and West regions.
As far as a team in a conference jumping a team in another conference.
If Team C and Team D are in the same conference and Team C finishes third while Team D finishes fourth, Team D cannot get into the playoffs before Team C, even if it has a higher MaxPreps ranking. With that being said, Team D could get into the playoffs before a third place team from another conference if it has a higher MaxPreps adjusted ranking.

 

[NDApp]

Obviously, I wasn't clear. There are automatic berths from each conference and the at large teams are selected based upon AMP rankings without a lower finishing team jumping in over a higher finishing team for at large selection. However, once the 64 teams are determined and broken down by size and region, the seeding then puts all the first place teams at the top of the bracket, then the second place teams, third place teams and at large teams in the bracket. Here is an example of what I am proposing. Let's say that Oak Grove and Ledford both are sent to the 2AA East with Oak Grove finishing first in the CCC and Ledford finishing third (Salisbury as the second place finisher would be in the West). Under today's process, Ledford would not be seeded until all first and second place teams in the East bracket were seeded, even though Ledford may have a higher ranking in the AMP rankings than a school that finished first or second in a weaker conference. I am saying that once the teams have been selected and placed in the appropriate classification and region that the 1-16 seeding for those teams should be based upon the AMP ranking rather than allowing champions from weaker conferences to get seeding preference. Like I said in my previous message, a conference champion should not be guaranteed a home game just because they won a conference.

 

[Eastcoastman1957]

Why all these stats for playoffs? Line up and play

 

[PrepFanNC]

Why all these stats for playoffs? Line up and play

I understand where you’re coming from on this. Even if the two best teams in the state line up in the second round, the best team should still advance...

But there is something about that “predetermined bracket” in football that irks me.

Some of it goes back to a crappy team who wins a small group in a split conference... I think of South Caldwell a few years ago who won their part of a split conference. Although they still get a bit of a favored bracket in the current format, it isn’t quite as advantageous.

Although I guess one of the benefits of a predetermined bracket would be that conference re-matches could be engineered to happen no sooner than round 3.

 

[TheMule_rivals384855]

The biggest problem with the adjusted rankings is that teams with higher seedings could get blown out by lower seeds with lower adjusted rankings.

For example, and I am not trying disrespect Randleman, it looks likes Randleman will be seeded higher than Reidsville due to the adjusted rankings.

In the power rankings, if the two teams meet Reidsville will be a pretty heavy favorite to win that matchup and it could be a very long night for Randleman.

The object of any seeding system should be that the better teams get the higher seeds. This NCHSAA debacle does not accomplish that end. What they have done is to make politically correct adjustments so that teams that win by big margins are penalized. If two teams play the same opponent and one team wins by one point and the other wins by fifty points, they are judged equal. What a joke.

 

[DogsRunItUp]

Any poll that has Northeastern in the top 10 is suspect. Come on man.

100% agree. There is NO way that Northeastern should be in the top 10 . I don’t care if their schedule is tough because the fact is they LOST those games. We (WRH) lost to the same Havelock team they did but we also played Wake Forest, and lost, who has won the last 3 state titles. So according to the “adjusted” rankings our 1 loss to WF isn’t as valuable as their 2 losses to Hertford Co. and Edenton-Holmes? I call BS on that.

 

[SWO-#1_rivals]

Well for years lots complained about the rankings and seeding. They wanted strength of schedule considered. Its here now and still complaining. No matter if its just # of games won and margin of victory or SOS it still has HUMANS deciding the outcome.

 

[Old Mountaineer]

Well for years lots complained about the rankings and seeding. They wanted strength of schedule considered. Its here now and still complaining. No matter if its just # of games won and margin of victory or SOS it still has HUMANS deciding the outcome.

Well technically it doesn't have humans deciding except for those who wrote the formula for the computer algorithm. A computer in a San Francisco based company has all the teams, conferences,schedules etc and all someone does now is input the scores and stats and the computer gives the rankings. No polls or human interjection , plus every team starts the year on ground level the formula doesn't consider school history just raw data.
As far as using point margins I understand what the NCHSAA board meant by saying they didn't want team to run up scores but on the other hand I understand the argument for it deciding between two teams with the same record that played the team but not each other, I believe Maxprep tried to balance that by putting in their computer algorithm that the point margin counts but only up to 21 points.

 

[tarheelg]

Well technically it doesn't have humans deciding except for those who wrote the formula for the computer algorithm. A computer in a San Francisco based company has all the teams, conferences,schedules etc and all someone does now is input the scores and stats and the computer gives the rankings. No polls or human interjection , plus every team starts the year on ground level the formula doesn't consider school history just raw data.
As far as using point margins I understand what the NCHSAA board meant by saying they didn't want team to run up scores but on the other hand I understand the argument for it deciding between two teams with the same record that played the team but not each other, I believe Maxprep tried to balance that by putting in their computer algorithm that the point margin counts but only up to 21 points.

Yes, if the ACTUAL maxpreps ranking (instead of the ADJUSTED maxpreps ranking) caps margin of victory at affecting rating at 21 points, then there is no reason to use the adjusted ones in the name of not wanting teams to run up the score...the ones that are going to run it up are going to run it up anyway....and there's already the running clock rule in second half when the spread gets to 42 or more

 

[Old Mountaineer]

Yes, if the ACTUAL maxpreps ranking (instead of the ADJUSTED maxpreps ranking) caps margin of victory at affecting rating at 21 points, then there is no reason to use the adjusted ones in the name of not wanting teams to run up the score...the ones that are going to run it up are going to run it up anyway....and there's already the running clock rule in second half when the spread gets to 42 or more

I read that in an article but of course now I can't find it. On the Maxprep site they just state when they do use margin of victory there is a cutoff point but doesn't say if its 21 points.
Maxprep site:
"Points aren't everything by any means- the win or the loss is always the most important thing, even when margins are used. There is a "diminishing returns" principle at play so as to not fully credit a team for blowing out a weak opponent. In addition to the cutoff point past which margins are not counted, there is a "win minimum" as well a maximum-"
It also states basically that the few paragraphs they give as a explanation of thier rankings is an over simplification of a complicated mathematical formula.

 

[ocdavis31]

Yes, if the ACTUAL maxpreps ranking (instead of the ADJUSTED maxpreps ranking) caps margin of victory at affecting rating at 21 points, then there is no reason to use the adjusted ones in the name of not wanting teams to run up the score...the ones that are going to run it up are going to run it up anyway....and there's already the running clock rule in second half when the spread gets to 42 or more

You’re right that some coaches will run up the score. I think the issue is to avoid giving coaches the motivation to run up the score solely to benefit their seeding.

 

[tarheelg]

You’re right that some coaches will run up the score. I think the issue is to avoid giving coaches the motivation to run up the score solely to benefit their seeding.

Maybe, but the 21 point thing (if that is still part of it) massively diminishes the incentive