sticky Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 1. Stephenville (I-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 82.46 2. McKinney North (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 81.82 3. Corpus Christi Calallen (IV-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 81.04 4. Texarkana Texas High (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 79.53 5. La Marque (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.61 6. Rosenberg Lamar Consolidated (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.44 7. Dallas Highland Park (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.35 8. El Campo (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.22 9. Mesquite Poteet (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.08 10. Keller Fossil Ridge (I-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 77.93 14. Galena Park (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 76.07 19. Brenham (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 74.97 36. Mont Belvieu Barbers Hill (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 70.46 46. Marshall (II-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 67.92 49. Beaumont Central (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 66.88 51. Livingston (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 66.14 62. Crosby (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 61.58 83. Huffman Hargrave (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 57.78 98. Port Neches-Groves (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 55.44 110. Texas City (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 53.61 116. Nederland (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 52.83 137. Dayton (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 47.22 155. Houston Smiley (III-4A) (2-0-0) (0-0-0) 42.88 161. Beaumont Ozen (III-4A) (0-3-0) (0-0-0) 41.28 164. Orange Little Cypress-Mauriceville (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 41.15 180. Lumberton (III-4A) (2-0-0) (0-0-0) 38.88 207. Bay City (III-4A) (0-3-0) (0-0-0) 26.26 208. Houston C.E. King (III-4A) (0-2-0) (0-0-0) 26.06 215. New Caney (III-4A) (0-2-0) (0-0-0) 21.13 220. Houston Forest Brook (III-4A) (0-2-0) (0-0-0) 19.44 227. Vidor (III-4A) (1-1-0) (0-0-0) 16.50
L-Town Stunners Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 1. Stephenville (I-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 82.46 2. McKinney North (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 81.82 3. Corpus Christi Calallen (IV-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 81.04 4. Texarkana Texas High (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 79.53 5. La Marque (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.61 6. Rosenberg Lamar Consolidated (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.44 7. Dallas Highland Park (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.35 8. El Campo (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.22 9. Mesquite Poteet (II-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 78.08 10. Keller Fossil Ridge (I-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 77.93 14. Galena Park (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 76.07 19. Brenham (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 74.97 36. Mont Belvieu Barbers Hill (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 70.46 46. Marshall (II-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 67.92 49. Beaumont Central (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 66.88 51. Livingston (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 66.14 62. Crosby (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 61.58 83. Huffman Hargrave (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 57.78 98. Port Neches-Groves (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 55.44 110. Texas City (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 53.61 116. Nederland (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 52.83 137. Dayton (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 47.22 155. Houston Smiley (III-4A) (2-0-0) (0-0-0) 42.88 161. Beaumont Ozen (III-4A) (0-3-0) (0-0-0) 41.28 164. Orange Little Cypress-Mauriceville (III-4A) (1-2-0) (0-0-0) 41.15 207. Bay City (III-4A) (0-3-0) (0-0-0) 26.26 208. Houston C.E. King (III-4A) (0-2-0) (0-0-0) 26.06 215. New Caney (III-4A) (0-2-0) (0-0-0) 21.13 220. Houston Forest Brook (III-4A) (0-2-0) (0-0-0) 19.44 227. Vidor (III-4A) (1-1-0) (0-0-0) 16.50 Guess I'll never understand how a 0-3 can be ranked higher than a 2-0 team. Must be based on respect, past record, past performance, a twenty slipped under the table, etc............... :shock:
BHFAN Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Holy crap BH is in the lead and they have Galena PArk in our district at #14 :shock: Of course power rankings are mathmatical and can become pretty accurate by week 10 ,but not right now IMHO.
tvc184 Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Guess I'll never understand how a 0-3 can be ranked higher than a 2-0 team. Must be based on respect' date=' past record, past performance, a twenty slipped under the table, etc............... :shock: [/quote'] Strength of schedule. It is points score for/against plus the records and power rating of the other teams that you play. You can't line up weak teams to play and expect to be given credit for beating them. It is better to lose to a top 10 team by 3 points than it is to beat a weak school from a lower classification.
vfootball Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 then why is port neches ahead of nederland
tvc184 Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 then why is port neches ahead of nederland Nederland is currently rated at #4 with PN-G being rated at #6. What are you talking about?
vfootball Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 the first post shows port neches 98 nederland 116
Guest etbu Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 Man I had to get my specs on this one. :shock: :shock: :shock:
KFDM COOP Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 I think he thinks these power rankings are from us.
WOS92 Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 He's talking about the power ratings - the title of this thread. PN-G is in at 98 with Nederland at 116.
vfootball Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 no i know they are not from you. i just dont see how they picked it
tvc184 Posted September 18, 2006 Report Posted September 18, 2006 I think he thinks these power rankings are from us. Yeah. I had answered two posts about the same question of record over poll rating. One was the power rating and the other being the setxsports.com poll. I got misfused on which one I was responding to.
gringo Posted September 19, 2006 Report Posted September 19, 2006 14. Galena Park (III-4A) (3-0-0) (0-0-0) 76.07 19. Brenham (III-4A) (2-1-0) (0-0-0) 74.97 Yeah............right
kepdawg Posted September 20, 2006 Report Posted September 20, 2006 Power Ratings Explained http://mb4.scout.com/fhstexasfrm1.showMessage?topicID=5633.topic
Recommended Posts