National prep FB rankings

I love it when two "nationally-ranked" teams play, and the lower-ranked team ends up winning 45-7.

Oooops.

 

One of the things that has disappointed me about the changes in USA Today has been its major cutback in high school coverage. I really enjoy reading things from across the country. Call me a geek.

 

A sad, sad day when the worst SE in the (short) history of USAT decided to trash the daily Across the USA page. I did everything I could, short of getting fired, to protest that. Many people in the department hated the thing, but I thought it was a powerful (and pre-Internet) resource to keep us well-connected.

 

My feelings exactly, shotty. I like stories, not rankings.

Yes, there are 125 college football teams. But a major metro area will have at least that many high school teams.

College rankings can be compiled based on solid information such as statistics and consistent, objective reporting.

High school stats are inflated at best, cooked at worst, and vary greatly by region and school. Metro areas may not have consistent prep coverage (no reporter following a single school each week) and smaller papers may not have objective coverage (for a variety of reasons, not dogging small papers).

Personally, I think it's inappropriate to have national rankings for any pre-collegiate sport. These are still 15-16-17-year-old kids. Kids.

 

Well, cadet, you had me until the "kids" argument. I think that's way overblown. They aren't damaged for life by getting some national exposure.

 

Yeah, and it can help them get into college, too. [/crazed parent]

Seriously, though, for HS rankings of any kind, is there some kind of formula? I'd imagine that's incredibly hard to do.

 

The Massey Ratings uses some kind of formula for state-by-state rankings. Not sure if the power numbers can be compared on an interstate basis (Southlake Carroll 77.58 in 2006; Colerain 61.80).

http://www.masseyratings.com/hsf.htm

The site also rates NFL, colleges from NCAA to NAIA, and many other sports.

 

It's all crap, but especially HS rankings, given the fact there are about 18,500 high schools out there (according to the NFSHSA's web site). The state organization here crowned 12 state champions last year. And we're supposed to believe someone can pick a national No. 1?

 

amen, man. IMO opinion, basketball, swimming and track are the only high school sports that can be quantified and ranked. Hoops because it's easy to spot a loaded team, and the other two sports because times/distances can't be debated (notice I left out cross country, however, because courses differ so much).

 

Interesting that we're having this debate now, because a high school game is on ESPN, and they're interviewing Lawlor about having to rank so many schools. I didn't listen to the whole thing, but I definitely heard the word "subjective" thrown out there.

 

Is there anyone who ranks small schools (i.e. those under 1,000 enrollment) nationally? If nobody does it, I'm sure there's a market for it, especially in Texas.

 

there's a market for ranking the strength of the ants in my backyard, too.