Question regarding MaxPreps rankings

[kbrizzzle]

Can anyone on here explain how MaxPreps ranks teams? I know its some type of program or algorhythm, or whatever, but knowing that more and more sections are using MP to seed the playoffs, its only right that there is some type of clarity to how teams are ranked.

Case in point, Sac High beat Saint Francis by 23 (road), and Los Gatos by 29 (road). Today when the rankings were updated Saint Francis #8 D2,and #44 in state, Los Gatos is #14 D2 and #67 overall in state. Sac again, with very recent head to head wins over both teams is #20 D2 and #86 overall in state. Please explain how that makes any type of sense??

I know it doesn't matter now, because the games still must be played, but for the future, if the CIF will be using MaxPreps for seeding like SJS did, the ranking component must be worked out, someway, somehow. If anyone could provide any type of clarity, that would be great! thanks!

 

[ClayK]

The MaxPreps computer rankings are done with a proprietary formula developed by Ned Freeman, and they do not take into account two things that I think are crucial;

1) Head to head results
2) The difference between playing several elite teams and a bunch of weak ones, as opposed to playing a solid schedule that has neither strong or weak teams
3) They don't, and can't, take into account injuries, players who become eligible at midseason, or improvement over the course of a season. A loss in November counts the same, I'm pretty sure, as a loss in March.

The formula also appears to reward wins a little too much for my taste ...

That said, however, over the years I've found them to be pretty accurate by season's end. Another thing to look at is the strength rating, as opposed to the numerical standing. The numerical standing is often a distinction without much of a difference because so many teams are so close -- and I'm pretty sure the ratings are a kind of point-spread estimate.

So

St. Francis 24.6
Los Gatos 21.8
Sacramento 20.6

would mean St. Francis is about three points better than Los Gatos and four points better than Sacramento. But again, remember that early games probably count as much as late games, so losing to Folsom by three early gets factored in along Folsom losing to Sheldon of Oregon by 33.

No computer formula -- and no human process -- can account for what happens in sports. Pinewood over St. Mary's is just one example, but look at the NCAA tourney, or the huge upsets in college football, etc. Sacramento is playing great right now, and peaking at just the right time, so all credit to Michele and her team. But earlier this year, they were not as strong, and St. Francis and Los Gatos were playing better.

 

[Eastcountybball]

Current d1 NCS rankings don't make sense either. Liberty lost in the first round of NCS and is stilled ranked 5th. Heritage is ranked behind Dublin and Berkley and they beat both of them. They split with Liberty. Odd given the head to head results

 

[cptmycpa]

Can anyone on here explain how MaxPreps ranks teams? I know its some type of program or algorhythm, or whatever, but knowing that more and more sections are using MP to seed the playoffs, its only right that there is some type of clarity to how teams are ranked.

Case in point, Sac High beat Saint Francis by 23 (road), and Los Gatos by 29 (road). Today when the rankings were updated Saint Francis #8 D2,and #44 in state, Los Gatos is #14 D2 and #67 overall in state. Sac again, with very recent head to head wins over both teams is #20 D2 and #86 overall in state. Please explain how that makes any type of sense??

I know it doesn't matter now, because the games still must be played, but for the future, if the CIF will be using MaxPreps for seeding like SJS did, the ranking component must be worked out, someway, somehow. If anyone could provide any type of clarity, that would be great! thanks!

Because Sacramento and McClatchy play in a "weak league" as coded by the MaxPreps computer formula, even though when both teams won by huge margins over league opponents, their rankings still fell (did not improve but got worse--did you notice that?) I've noticed that over the years, but especially last year and this year. That's why Sacramento and McClatchy have to play very tough teams during nonleague to get their strength rating high. Then when league play starts, their strength rating falls quickly, making their MaxPreps ranking go down even though they have huge league wins. On the other hand, leagues like the Sierra Foothill League work the opposite way. Very strong league (Oak Ridge, Folsom, Del Oro, Granite Bay, Rocklin) means high league strength rating and high MaxPreps ranking. Then you stratch your head how Golden Valley of Merced received the #5 seed in the SJS Div. 1 section playoffs ahead of Lincoln of Stockton and McClatchy. Compare the schedules and wins and losses between Golden Valley and McClatchy and you wonder why Golden Valley was a #5 seed and McClatchy was a #7 seed. This was all due to MaxPreps rankings that does not take into account head-to-head competition, nor does it compare like-kind opponents or common opponent games. Your cause of concern was exactly the same for McClatchy last year. They beat Oak Ridge twice in the post-season on neutral courts and Oak Ridge had a final MaxPreps state ranking in the Top 20, and McClatchy's final MaxPreps state ranking was #46 for the State Division 1 Champs. And MaxPreps headquarters (Cameron Park) is only 8.5 miles away from Oak Ridge HS. How likely is it that employees of MaxPreps have family, friends, or are former alumni of Oak Ridge HS. The SJS has used MaxPreps "power" rankings for seedings for years despite how poorly or ridiculous the seedings come out.

 

[RespectBBGame]

If any believes in the computer tour are wrong for doing so. It's like saying you believe in fools gold. But 25 excellent is ok but it has it flaws too. A team that doesn't play top team should be ranked number 1 but they will be at the end of this year. Most topen teams in of states can't beat the 15 rank team is the state of Ca.

 

[ClayK]

A great point about the strength of California -- and also Texas and the DMV. Take some of those state champions, unbeaten or otherwise, and put them in Texas and they'll have four or five losses. But by the same token, we really don't know how good Wichita South is because Kansas won't let teams play over Christmas break or travel. Maybe they would still be that good.

And what fun would it be if the Xcellent 25 had eight Texas teams, seven Cali teams and five from the DMV?

 

[RespectBBGame]

Clay
I know what you are saying but if people know how many kids get recruited for CA. compared to other stated it's like 4 to 1. I just the TOC Joe Smith should be a sponsored Division working with Maxprep top 25 excellent. That would decided the real toproblem 25 in the nation.

 

[ClayK]

Very true about the recruiting. The problem with the Nike TOC and sponsoring it is that you'd have to pay for all 16 teams, and realistically, it's a $10,000 trip (counting airfare, hotel, van rental, food) per team. It would make more sense to cut it to eight, but that's still a pretty big hit.

 

[RespectBBGame]

Yes but I think Nike would kick in to have that big ticket with there name on it. Just think number 1 tournament in the country deciding how would be number high girls team in the country. You with draw like that ever college team will be represented their. So theyou could charge 500 for the spreadsheet times 200 colleges that would cover more the half of the Joe Smith division. If your crunch the numbers it could happen if they really wanted to happen.

 

[ClayK]

They already get 200 coaches -- and Nike has cut back its commitment over the years.

The other issue, starting this year and for the next couple, is that the calendar will prevent some teams from coming. Schools that have finals on the Monday, Tuesday and even Wednesday before Christmas (on Sunday) won't let teams come.

There also a bunch of state rules that get in the way. New Jersey teams can't play three days in a row; Texas teams can't travel before Christmas; etc.