Post by illinoissooner on Dec 1, 2022 11:49:01 GMT -6
So Pittsburg gets 45% more first place votes than Lomega but still land in second place and their total points are closer to Hammon than they are to Lomega. Seems like there are some coaches that slotted Pittsburg not just below Lomega but below others as well. Just like last year, both teams will get to prove it on the court at the end of the season (along with everyone else) but there does seem to be some coaches somewhere that are not giving Pittsburg their due. Good luck to all the teams!!
How could (and why would) class B coaches rank Pittsburg behind Lomega??? What a joke!!! Western state bias by small school coaches.
why wouldn't they? I mean you act like its complete bias and far fetched that Lomega is better. I dont think its inconceivable for coaches to think that lomega is better.
It's not but, and that's a big but. I fine with Lomega at the one position (they already have some stellar wins this season) but it really should be Pittsburg. But I think the problem is that some schools didn't rank Pitt at the two spot either. I don't know if this is by ignorance or slight.
I don't either care, I don't have any affiliation with either team. But in the past many "experts" including coaches have stated that the previous state champ should get the benefit of the doubt until they are defeated. But I pretty sure Pittsburg return three starters, get two transfers that were on the bench during the state tournament (one looked taller than any girl in uniform) and a good freshmen group coming in. All that being said, Lomega's win over Okarche and how they won and the way they came back after being down in the first half was really impressive!
I don't have a problem with Lomega being 1 they may be the best team. I do however have a problem if coaches don't even have pittsburg in the rankings at all tho.
Post by Cap'nCrunch on Dec 1, 2022 15:02:32 GMT -6
Anyone down for some transparency?
Well here we go...
86 coaches submitted rankings. 50 of those had Lomega and Pittsburg both in their top 2.
Here's how the 36 remaining voted:
-12 had one of them ranked #1 and the other #3 (7 had Pittsburg #1, 5 had Lomega) -Goodwell (1-Hammon, 2-Lomega, 3-Pittsburg) and Macomb (1-Varnum, 2-Pittsburg, 3-Lomega) had them both in the top 3. -Shidler had Lomega at 2 & Pittsburg at 6 (Varnum #1) -The following had Lomega #1 and Pittsburg in the top 10 (Pittsburg's rank in parentheses): Forgan (9), Alex (6), Mt. View-Gotebo (4), Ok School for the Deaf (4), Schulter (4). -Lomega #1, Pittsburg not in the top 10: Maud (13), Maysville (10), Medford (19), Oilton (13), Tipton (14) -Only 2 coaches had Pittsburg 1 and Lomega not in the top 3: Hanna (7), New Lima (UNRANKED) -Carney: Lomega - 2, Pittsburg - 6 -Granite: Pittsburg - 4, Lomega - 5 -Indiahoma: Lomega - 3, Pittsburg - UNRANKED - Grandfield: Lomega - 4, Pittsburg - UNRANKED
If you've been keeping track, that leaves 3 more... Bowlegs, Clayton, Temple. I'll post their entire top 20 next.
So, as you can see, there really doesn't appear to be much regional bias (I really expected there would be). I guess there are just several coaches who have lost their damn minds.
Post by illinoissooner on Dec 1, 2022 15:15:38 GMT -6
Thanks okref for the transparency!! I remember hearing a saying many years ago that if something has two possible explanations of a conspiracy or incompetence that incompetence will win 9 times out of 10. I think that the official saying is "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Not saying that this system is broken but some of these coaches make you shake your head. In the end the majority do a good job so I think that it is still the best system.
I think there are a few coaches (first year coaches) that had no clue they had to do rankings. That being said, EVERY coach needs to do at least 30 minutes of research before they make themselves look incompetent. Like those that were posted. There are no excuses leaving Lomega and Pittsburg out of the rankings. ZERO!
This happens a lot unfortunately. Lots of young coaches look at record or are very gullible and will listen to the coaches that call and politic a lot. Hurts very early rankings, they should get better moving forward.
Same thing happens in Class A -- Seiling for instance is the defending state champ, and returned 5 of their top 6, and MULTIPLE schools, still did not even rank them. Granted, they have not played a game due to a good football run, but that backs the fact of rankings teams based upon their record. Just because they are 0-0, doesn't mean you don't vote for them.
Last Edit: Dec 2, 2022 12:11:52 GMT -6 by Tscfan12
Coaches doing an abhorrent job of ranking, whether it is incompetence or manipulation, is ridiculous and gives the ranking system's critics something to latch onto. I think every coach's ranking should be where everyone can access it, not just those with a log-in to the coaches site of ossaarankings. Some coaches won't like it, but if they are truly taking the time to do Due Diligence and rank who they truly believe are the top 20 teams, then they shouldn't worry. Administration of schools that have coaches making a mockery of the system that is a good system and is there to help get a true sense of the rankings, which in turn is for the student athletes, that this whole thing is for anyway, should reprimand "said coaches." Of course some administration's probably don't care, or think otherwise, but if a coach is neglectful in this aspect of their job, what other facets of their job are they neglectful in??
Post by hasbeenneverwas on Dec 2, 2022 12:42:36 GMT -6
Wait a minute, I’m a little confused… Why was Clayton’s coach ranking Class B girls? Clayton is Class A. I thought you only submitted rankings in your own class? Correct me if I’m wrong, just curious!