article Western Kentucky Power Ranking - 10/04/15

[DragonFire]

DFire, don't misunderstand. I don't see how that all of those losses aren't premature? South Warren was playing in 3A with 5A enrollment numbers. Simply playing the hand they are dealt, sure. But why exactly does that excuse them for not finishing the job? It doesn't. It is a matter of opinion if you believe that that is the place they should have lost. I simply can't fathom any scenario where they should have lost to Central or PT in the past two playoff trips.

 

And to reflect on your point about McCracken, that is in a point to the rankings discussion of this season's standings only. I personally believe a win against Mayfield is better than a win against an average John Hardin team.

 

They were still a program that was building up, and those four years are the first in program's history, so no, I don't believe they were premature. The initial teams didn't even have very many upperclassmen due to the fact that players were allowed to stay at Greenwood and Warren Central the initial year that South Warren didn't play football. Perhaps it can be argued that South Warren should've beaten Paducah in 2013 (I don't agree), but if you look back at the predictions of the time, Paducah was roundly picked to win that game. In the expectations of most, South Warren went exactly as far as they were expected to go.

[DragonFire]

Actually our friend JC did ! I believe he wrote SW was (last year )a 4a but was second smallest so they would be still be in 3a I may have read that wrong if so I apologize .I could not find thread to check for fact ,but DFif you could prove that right or wrong I would appreciate it

 

 

If the current alignment had been done with the previous two years male enrollments (which would have been 12/13 and 13/14), South Warren would have been the smallest 5A school. They had an average of 544.5 males in those two years, 4.5 ahead of Hopkinsville at 540.0. Now, they would have been offered the chance to move down if the KHSAA offered it in the same way, but that also presumes that the same teams requested to play up or that the same teams requested to move down. We have no way to know. As it stands, based on the enrollments they did use, South Warren is the 8th largest 4A school from the four year enrollment. When you consider that their total drops from 544.5 in a two year span to 476.0 in a four year span, you get a picture of just how much they've grown and just how much of a gift the expansion of time truly was. They may have ended up 4A anyway if the KHSAA made the same offer, but in no way would they have been second smallest 4A at any point in the last couple of years. Even by single year enrollment they're quite large (their 2013/14 male enrollment was greater than 9 of the 39 teams that were slated for 5A and equal to Iroquois). The two numbers that kept them low were in the first two years of the program - they'll never be that small again unless the district gets real creative with this realignment.

 

As for the last two years of the previous alignment, yes, it is arguable that they should have been in 4A during that time. When they were first aligned into 3A, they were immediately the fifth largest high school at 413 males by the numbers used in that alignment. There was a provision that called for (direct quote) "There will be a review of alignments after the first two years with potential adjustments in class based on schools having a 12% or higher change (increase or decrease) in average boys enrollment, and such change placing a school below or above class bounds." South Warren increased from 413 in those numbers to 488 in the following year to 525 the year after. Easily within those bounds. That placed them above a great many schools that were playing in 4A at the time.

 

I don't have time to go into more detail than that, but South Warren has not ever had 3A numbers outside of the very first year they were a school. It's all there, black and white, crystal clear.

[Spinstopshere]

K thanks

[jcarter]

Spin

The comments last year about south was they averaged out at around 5 to 7th largest 4A after realignment. They took the first 4 year numbers into consideration and averaged them which gave them the advantage of reclass to 4a. DF is probably correct if they had only used the last two years numbers not sure.

 

When South opened in 2010 it only had an enrollment of 799. It broke down the first years as approximately 80 to 90 Sr, 130 +\-Jr. 200+\- sop hand aroun 250 fresh. Every year since the classes range 250 to 275.

 

And according to the rezoning numbers South total enrollment is just over 1,100, Greenwood just over 1225, central right at 1000 and east right at 900. I am not saying these are exact just what was kinda laid out at one of the meetings as approximate.

 

DF p88 and others have heard me say before that South got a gift the first 4 years and I guess you can say the 4 year average saved them in the current alignment.

 

Also this is only Souths 5th year of varsity football the first year they only played a JV schedule. So while it can be argued that they should have beat PT two years ago and Central last year it can also be chalked up to inexperience in the big games and quite possibly the Welker schedules through the first 4 years as Nelson said to try and build and give confidence. He even stated he didn't think it would all come together as quick as it did after the first year struggles.

[Spinstopshere]

I agree 100%and thanks for info

[Purple88]

Great Info DFire and JC! You guys always provide insightful perspectives! :thumb:

[tsyoung7]

TSY' date=' what do you think about your Falcons being in the 11 to 15 range? Also, I didn't realize your district got matched up with Desales district. That is really tough![/quote']

 

I am very ok with your analytics towards the Falcons. I believe in giving a team that is taking care of business their dues when they are performing. And vice versa.... My Falcons will be ok. Do they deserve a higher ranking??? IMHO...no!

Will they earn their respect in 2a this season....YES!

 

As always...absolutely great job on your work every week!!!!

[jcarter]

I agree 100%and thanks for info

 

NP and your welcome. Also some of the comments about 3a and 4a in the past alone with numbers could have been us talking about 3a vs 4a after year two when the enrollment clearly increased 12% yet they kept them in 3a.. I may have looked at where they fell after year two with those numbers by taking the opening year number of Sr numbers male enrollment and replacing with second class of freshman numbers. That would have been the only time that I believe they would have been at lower end of 4a numbers because of the skewed numbers of Sr Jr. and Soph classes when the school opened being replaced each year.

[Purple88]

Check out Gardners highlights on maxpreps for the CC game

 

Brown, I did! The thing that impresses me about him is that he can line up pretty much anywhere on the defensive side of the ball, but is most effective standing up on the outside right at the line of scrimmage. And based on his speed and tenacity, commands offenses to pay attention each play to where he's lined up. Less sophisticated offenses simply can't overcome this IMO, while more sophisticated offenses likely audible out of multiple plays just to run in the opposite direction to where he lines up. Terrific player! I'm sure O has others to step in with physical gifts, just not near the experience. Hope he's not done for the year!

[00Tyler10]

I do not get the argument for SW at #1 at the CURRENT MOMENT DT. No injuries, sure. The entire purpose for rankings is to try and accurately predict an outcome between teams. In SW's current state SW fans (more than likely) are the only people in the state who would say they are better than BG. And using our loss to X does NOT make your guys healthy this week so that is a poor attempt for argument.

 

Again 100% healthy SW team and this conversation is different and I am willing to bet Purple88 still has them at #1. Outside of that all good stuff by everyone and all the more proof that a game between BG and SW is needed.

[jcarter]

I do not get the argument for SW at #1 at the CURRENT MOMENT DT. No injuries, sure. The entire purpose for rankings is to try and accurately predict an outcome between teams. In SW's current state SW fans (more than likely) are the only people in the state who would say they are better than BG. And using our loss to X does NOT make your guys healthy this week so that is a poor attempt for argument.

 

Again 100% healthy SW team and this conversation is different and I am willing to bet Purple88 still has them at #1. Outside of that all good stuff by everyone and all the more proof that a game between BG and SW is needed.

 

I would tend to agree. P88 can correct me if I am wrong but the way I see BG and SW this year is they are perry close when everyone is healthy. Souths defense is playing extremely well but the offense has struggled with the injuries.

 

Littens ankle injury in the first qtr of Central Hardin game basically mode Souths defense and special teams step up and make the difference.

 

I would say that Litten immobility even though he continued to play till deep in third Qtr. IMO was just as big as arnett going down for CH. since that injury Souths passing game has been non existent in North Hardin game and FS game. It's allowed teams to key on the backs and ding some other players up and hampered offensive production.

 

To me this IMO has been big difference in BG and SW for the rankings. I would believe that if they were avg the 40 points a game like the first 3 they would be #1 but averaging approx 24 points the last three hurts their stats especially with defense and special teams accounting for a majority of the points. Lone exception was Namvongs 3 rushing TD performance against FS.

[Purple88]

Well said JC, this is pretty close to my vantage point as well. Both teams have terrific teams and should challenge for the Championship in their respective classes.