Great illustration and I do understand that point, but I think most classes have similar situations. They may not be as pronounced as Class-A, but the separation is there.

 

Bellevue folks, he is now calling you the Snooki of Class A football. Them are fightn' words.

 

I think you're right. I think it is more pronounced in A. It doesn't take away my point.

 

As to my analogy it was just to simplify it. I respect every kid and coach at Bellevue. It's easy to come out in June and July when you're HHS or BW when you know you're going to have a strong season. It takes love of the game and pride when you've got a good idea that you're up against it. Those are the kids I respect the most.

I think you're right. I think it is more pronounced in A. It doesn't take away my point.

 

As to my analogy it was just to simplify it. I respect every kid and coach at Bellevue. It's easy to come out in June and July when you're HHS or BW when you know you're going to have a strong season. It takes love of the game and pride when you've got a good idea that you're up against it. Those are the kids I respect the most.

 

I really did like your analogy. I will leave this alone with the bolded statement because I could not agree more.

My top 3 would be

 

1. Mayfield and Hazard

 

3.Beechwood

 

Why? Because since 2008 Beechwood has only beaten 2 or 3 teams that they were underdogs or even against. If Beechwood was a stock they would on a downward trend and a sell.

 

Mayfield and Hazard have both won more games where they were considered underdogs or the outcome was not assured before they played than Beechwood.

 

Beechwood is at the point where they only win the games that you know they going to win. Beechwood is a fine program and they will surely turn things around but lets not fool ourselves and say they are the best program in 1A. They have been but 2008 is long gone and they are stuck in mediocrity.

My top 3 would be

 

1. Mayfield and Hazard

 

3.Beechwood

 

Why? Because since 2008 Beechwood has only beaten 2 or 3 teams that they were underdogs or even against. If Beechwood was a stock they would on a downward trend and a sell.

 

Mayfield and Hazard have both won more games where they were considered underdogs or the outcome was not assured before they played than Beechwood.

 

Beechwood is at the point where they only win the games that you know they going to win. Beechwood is a fine program and they will surely turn things around but lets not fool ourselves and say they are the best program in 1A. They have been but 2008 is long gone and they are stuck in mediocrity.

 

It seems like your methodology penalizes a team for being the favorite. I don't believe that indicates who's had the best program during the time frame. Hard to argue with VOR's numbers.

It seems like your methodology penalizes a team for being the favorite. I don't believe that indicates who's had the best program during the time frame. Hard to argue with VOR's numbers.

 

Numbers in that time frame mean nothing to me. It's about playing for championships and quality wins. You can beat the Fultons and Ludlow's all you want but if you're not winning more of the tough games instead of losing them then your program is not up to snuff. In the last 4 seasons Beechwood cannot say that. They are on a decline.

It seems like your methodology penalizes a team for being the favorite. I don't believe that indicates who's had the best program during the time frame. Hard to argue with VOR's numbers.

 

Key words here hit the nail on the head

1. methodology

2. durning the time frame

3. VOR's numbers

 

Using his criteria the results are correct but it all depends on the methodology and criteria used. Given the chance to select the criteria and methodology you can pretty much spin it anyway you want it to turn out.

My top 3 would be

 

1. Mayfield and Hazard

 

3.Beechwood

 

Why? Because since 2008 Beechwood has only beaten 2 or 3 teams that they were underdogs or even against. If Beechwood was a stock they would on a downward trend and a sell.

 

Mayfield and Hazard have both won more games where they were considered underdogs or the outcome was not assured before they played than Beechwood.

 

Beechwood is at the point where they only win the games that you know they going to win. Beechwood is a fine program and they will surely turn things around but lets not fool ourselves and say they are the best program in 1A. They have been but 2008 is long gone and they are stuck in mediocrity.

 

So they get penalized because they often beat and are the favorite against teams on the difficult non-district schedule they play? Being an underdog has nothing to do with it. I don't necessarily agree with the rankings, but you have to come up with a better argument for your team then that. If you can't, then they likely should stay right where they are.

 

You talk out both sides of your mouth. If a team is the Favorite, then they are not on a downward trend.

 

I hope you are not a stock broker. If you are, then I hope you don't manage anything in my portfolio. Companies that are a sure bets (ie: "the Favorite") are the stocks you should own. Speculators and get rich quick folks pick underdogs and usually lose!

Key words here hit the nail on the head

1. methodology

2. durning the time frame

3. VOR's numbers

 

Using his criteria the results are correct but it all depends on the methodology and criteria used. Given the chance to select the criteria and methodology you can pretty much spin it anyway you want it to turn out.

 

I agree with you and in-fact, joked about it above. But you cannot believe that "Winning as the favorite" should be part of any criteria, can you?

Companies that are a sure bets (ie: "the Favorite") are the stocks you should own. Speculators and get rich quick folks pick underdogs and usually lose!

 

Buy Mayfield this year is what your saying :laugh: sorry couldn't help myself on that one

I agree with you and in-fact, joked about it above. But you cannot believe that "Winning as the favorite" should be part of any criteria, can you?

 

To Snake that is important criteria, as for me I have not really stopped to give it a great deal of thought. Honestly I am much more interested in the moment. Speaking of which, if H or M win the title then Vor may need to find new criteria and methodology :thumb: kidding Vor, just kidding

Numbers in that time frame mean nothing to me. It's about playing for championships and quality wins. You can beat the Fultons and Ludlow's all you want but if you're not winning more of the tough games instead of losing them then your program is not up to snuff. In the last 4 seasons Beechwood cannot say that. They are on a decline.

 

Wow, you really took offense to this didn't you. I absolutely love it. Decline? Yes, any team that stays on top for a long period of time will eventually have to go into decline. Whether is Pro, College, or High School - Football, Basketball, or Bad Minton, a top team will eventually fall off.

 

You come up with a logical argument that has numbers to back it up and we'll (ok, at least I will) listen. You may very well be correct. Pick a Time-Period and measurement and give reasons as VOR did. But, do not pull some arbitrary crap about not winning as the underdog and subjective crap like a team being "on the decline"

To Snake that is important criteria, as for me I have not really stopped to give it a great deal of thought. Honestly I am much more interested in the moment. Speaking of which, if H or M win the title then Vor may need to find new criteria and methodology :thumb: kidding Vor, just kidding

 

And I totally understand that and agree with you. That's what I joked about above. This is about "programs" a d not a single year. That's what the current Rankings are for. We all know that if you frame it around the past few years, then the rankings are different, but VOR's make sense.

 

Because of the different measurements and time-frames that could be applied, I thought this was a good and fun thing, but some folks got a little crazy :jump:

VOR had a decent time frame, since the reclass. What am I missing? Does Beechwood not have the most titles and playoff wins in that time frame? What would be a better measure? If people don't want to use numbers, what would be better to use? I'd say some feelings got hurt on this one.

To Snake that is important criteria, as for me I have not really stopped to give it a great deal of thought. Honestly I am much more interested in the moment. Speaking of which, if H or M win the title then Vor may need to find new criteria and methodology :thumb: kidding Vor, just kidding

 

He admitted the rankings would change. That seems reasonable.

Buy Mayfield this year is what your saying :laugh: sorry couldn't help myself on that one

 

hmm, if I were a speculator, my broker would be getting the call for HZD on the KY Stock Exchange