1 Scott Co 18 4 2.198 38.95 ( 1) 85.31 ( 1) 11.59 ( 33) 26.67 ( 1) R11

2 Elizabethtown 23 3 2.194 37.84 ( 2) 80.35 ( 6) 15.44 ( 10) 23.58 ( 7) R5

3 + 3 Male 14 2 2.092 35.57 ( 3) 77.19 ( 13) 16.34 ( 7) 23.60 ( 6) R7

4 Pleasure Ridge Pk 19 2 2.079 34.79 ( 5) 77.73 ( 11) 15.02 ( 14) 20.77 ( 19) R6

5 - 2 Pendleton Co 22 1 2.023 32.15 ( 10) 76.42 ( 16) 13.68 ( 24) 17.07 ( 34) R10

6 - 1 John Hardin 20 3 1.986 34.26 ( 6) 72.45 ( 34) 19.77 ( 2) 20.97 ( 17) R5

7 + 2 Jeffersontown 19 2 1.964 33.51 ( 7) 77.58 ( 12) 13.88 ( 21) 19.99 ( 20) R7

8 - 1 Shelby Co 23 2 1.964 31.75 ( 12) 71.55 ( 39) 18.15 ( 5) 18.58 ( 27) R8

9 - 1 S Laurel 17 3 1.909 34.87 ( 4) 78.09 ( 9) 14.74 ( 16) 16.53 ( 39) R13

10 + 1 Lexington Cath 16 5 1.822 32.66 ( 9) 78.03 ( 10) 12.59 ( 27) 20.90 ( 18) R11

 

Chng Team W L Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

 

11 + 6 Doss 16 4 1.773 31.83 ( 11) 74.34 ( 24) 15.45 ( 9) 19.95 ( 21) R6

12 + 2 Eastern 20 5 1.767 29.85 ( 18) 73.49 ( 29) 14.31 ( 19) 21.02 ( 16) R7

13 - 1 Owensboro Cath 20 3 1.767 33.17 ( 8) 67.77 ( 72) 23.35 ( 1) 16.08 ( 46) R3

14 + 2 Covington Cath 16 5 1.746 31.65 ( 13) 74.32 ( 25) 15.29 ( 12) 22.02 ( 14) R9

15 Henry Clay 18 8 1.715 29.56 ( 19) 81.51 ( 4) 6.00 ( 99) 24.58 ( 3) R11

16 + 4 Fern Creek 17 6 1.692 30.89 ( 15) 78.88 ( 8) 9.96 ( 47) 19.58 ( 23) R7

17 + 8 Bryan Station 18 7 1.691 31.03 ( 14) 81.95 ( 3) 7.03 ( 85) 22.35 ( 12) R11

18 - 5 Highlands 17 4 1.683 28.47 ( 21) 71.14 ( 43) 15.28 ( 13) 18.97 ( 25) R9

19 - 9 Holmes 17 6 1.664 30.14 ( 16) 76.54 ( 15) 11.55 ( 34) 22.25 ( 13) R9

20 - 1 Ballard 15 9 1.608 29.92 ( 17) 75.23 ( 19) 12.65 ( 26) 23.70 ( 5) R7

 

Chng Team W L Rating Power Offense Defense Sched

 

21 - 3 University Hts 19 5 1.577 26.70 ( 24) 81.46 ( 5) 3.20 (137) 18.86 ( 26) R2

22 Madison 18 6 1.565 25.53 ( 26) 73.00 ( 31) 10.49 ( 42) 19.54 ( 24) R11

23 - 2 Lafayette 15 9 1.553 28.59 ( 20) 83.21 ( 2) 3.33 (135) 24.10 ( 4) R11

24 + 2 Tates Creek 13 6 1.524 27.08 ( 22) 74.87 ( 21) 10.17 ( 46) 21.04 ( 15) R11

25 + 3 Holy Cross-Cov 17 4 1.511 24.67 ( 30) 66.84 ( 82) 15.78 ( 8) 16.31 ( 44) R9

26 + 8 Marshall Co 17 2 1.497 24.49 ( 32) 67.48 ( 76) 14.96 ( 15) 12.40 ( 72) R1

27 + 8 GR Clark 18 7 1.433 25.70 ( 25) 72.71 ( 32) 10.94 ( 38) 17.13 ( 33) R10

28 - 1 Mason Co 18 8 1.417 25.27 ( 27) 72.19 ( 38) 11.03 ( 37) 18.40 ( 28) R10

29 - 5 St Xavier 13 9 1.415 24.92 ( 29) 68.33 ( 62) 14.54 ( 17) 22.51 ( 11) R7

30 Graves Co 15 4 1.411 24.61 ( 31) 63.05 (140) 19.52 ( 4) 12.50 ( 71) R1

MUCH BETTER RATINGS!!

The only thing i don't like about these ratings are that they don't give me a good laugh like Cantrell.

These are solid. The only problem may be South Laurel should be in the 3-7 range but it is still more accurate than any other ratings around.

One thing I don't understand is the adjustment Massey makes from its power ratings. South Laurel's "power rating" is the fourth best in the state, but after the final adjustments the Cardinals are ranked ninth.

 

I think the "power ratings" are closer to placing teams in the right order than the actual rankings.

These are probably the most accurate of the site rankings (outside BGP of course ) that I have seen this year. Solid numbers.