HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

In case anyone cares...they still have my Rogers team listed as losing to Monticello. so how good can they be??


http://minnesota-scores.net/classqrf.ph ... 1&class=-1

http://minnesota-scores.net/classqrf.ph ... 1&class=-1[/quote]

Great web site!!!

Good site but horrible rankings...Spring Lake Park at #1 in Class A?

Yeah, and Roseau is # 14 in AA! This formula obviously includes a SOS element. These rankings in A and AA will be vastly different by the end of the year.

Mite-dad wrote:Yeah, and Roseau is # 14 in AA! This formula obviously includes a SOS element. These rankings in A and AA will be vastly different by the end of the year.

Read this, it explains the QRF:
http://www.minnesota-scores.net./qrf.php

I think they do a good job with basketball, but not so good with hockey. Its a nice site to get the schedules and scores, but the rankings are crap.

Super secret family math recipe (rocks, paper, scissors) for doing the rankings.

I noticed they stayed away from soccer.......so really how good can it be ???

RLStars wrote:
I think they do a good job with basketball, but not so good with hockey. Its a nice site to get the schedules and scores, but the rankings are crap.

Uh, you sure?

Here are their AA rankings from March 3rd:

1. Moorhead
2. Edina
3. Holy Angels
4. Roseau
5. Cloquet
6. Duluth East
7. Roseville
8. Hill-Murray
9. Minnetonka
10. Centennial
15. Grand Rapids

Funny, they look an awful lot like Mitch Hawker's rankings from March 10th:

1. Moorhead
2. Holy Angels
3. Edina
4. Roseau
5. Roseville
6. Duluth East
7. Cloquet
8. Cretin
9. White Bear Lake
10. Hill-Murray
Grand Rapids was the 12th ranked AA team.

Hawker's looked an awful lot like Lee's. If you call the QRF crap you need to include those others as well.

Personally, I've always liked computer rankings. As long as you know what you are looking at they are very helpful.

Furthermore, doesn't EVERYONE have Edina, Roseau, Minnetonka, Hill-Murray, and Centennial as their Top 5 right now? I checked Follow the Puck, My Fox, and others and that seems to be unanimous. These crap QRF rankings sure look pretty good under the microscope.

Dude, what are you looking at?

Here are the qrf rankings from Minnesota-Scores site:

1 Minnetonka (6-0-0) 45.5
2 Edina (5-0-0) 42.7
3 Centennial (5-0-0) 42.2
4 Owatonna (5-0-0) 37.3
5 Eastview (4-2-1) 35.2
T-6 Woodbury (6-1-0) 32.4
T-6 Bloomington Jefferson (6-1-0) 32.4
8 Hill-Murray (5-1-0) 32.2
9 Rosemount (7-2-0) 31.3
10 Roseville (5-1-0) 29.9
11 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton (4-2-1) 29.3
12 Benilde-St. Margaret's (5-1-0) 28.9
13 Cretin-Derham Hall (4-2-0) 28.1
14 Roseau (5-0-0) 27.8
T-15 Burnsville (4-3-0) 27.7
T-15 Tartan (5-2-0) 27.7
17 Champlin Park (6-1-0) 27.3
18 Moorhead (3-3-0) 25.6
T-19 Maple Grove (4-4-0)
T-19 Blaine (3-2-0)

And here is Calss A:

1 Spring Lake Park (4-2-0) 42.2
2 South St. Paul (4-1-0) 40.0
3 Duluth Denfeld (5-2-0) 39.0
4 Warroad (5-2-0) 34.4
5 St. Thomas Academy (4-1-0) 34.1
6 Park Rapids/Menahga/Nevis (6-0-0) 33.8
7 St. Cloud Cathedral (3-0-1) 33.4
8 Red Wing (4-2-1) 33.3
T-9 Albert Lea (5-1-0) 32.8
T-9 New Ulm (4-1-0) 32.8
11 International Falls (6-0-0) 32.7
12 Marshall (5-1-0) 30.9
13 Breck (5-3-0) 30.8
14 New Prague (4-1-0) 29.4
15 Hermantown (4-4-0) 28.6
16 Mankato West (5-0-0) 28.4
T-17 Minnehaha Academy (7-0-0) 28.2
T-17 Mound-Westonka (7-2-0) 28.2
T-17 Rochester Lourdes (3-3-0) 28.2
20 Duluth Marshall (4-2-0) 28.1

If you want to see something thats even funnier yet, look at the section rankings.............

Section 8AA Standings
QRF Rank Team (QRF) Section Overall For Agst Streak
W L T W L T AVG AVG
No. 14 Roseau (27. 1 0 0 5 0 0 5.0 1.0 Won 5
No. 32 Northern Lakes (21.2) 1 0 0 5 1 0 5.0 2.3 Won 4
No. 26 Brainerd (22.7) 1 0 0 4 1 0 4.4 2.6 Won 1
No. 18 Moorhead (25.6) 1 1 0 3 3 0 4.3 4.2 Lost 1
No. 36 Buffalo (19.9) 1 1 0 3 3 0 4.3 2.5 Won 2
No. 52 Monticello (15.1) 0 1 0 2 5 0 3.0 4.9 Lost 3
No. 64 St. Cloud Tech (10.1) 0 1 0 1 4 0 2.2 5.0 Won 1
No. 70 River Lakes (6.5) 1 0 0 1 4 0 2.6 4.8 Lost 2
No. 71 Becker/Big Lake (5.4) 0 2 0 0 4 0 1.8 6.8 Lost 4

These rankings are pretty bad right now. It has nothing to do with SOS either, as is stated via the link above. We'll see if they get any better as the year goes on.

RLStars wrote:Dude, what are you looking at?

Here are the qrf rankings from Minnesota-Scores site:

1 Minnetonka (6-0-0) 45.5
2 Edina (5-0-0) 42.7
3 Centennial (5-0-0) 42.2
4 Owatonna (5-0-0) 37.3
5 Eastview (4-2-1) 35.2
T-6 Woodbury (6-1-0) 32.4
T-6 Bloomington Jefferson (6-1-0) 32.4
8 Hill-Murray (5-1-0) 32.2
9 Rosemount (7-2-0) 31.3
10 Roseville (5-1-0) 29.9
11 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton (4-2-1) 29.3
12 Benilde-St. Margaret's (5-1-0) 28.9
13 Cretin-Derham Hall (4-2-0) 28.1
14 Roseau (5-0-0) 27.8
T-15 Burnsville (4-3-0) 27.7
T-15 Tartan (5-2-0) 27.7
17 Champlin Park (6-1-0) 27.3
18 Moorhead (3-3-0) 25.6
T-19 Maple Grove (4-4-0)
T-19 Blaine (3-2-0)

I am looking at the QRF rankings. As with any "computer" rankings it takes time to have enough data points to become meaningful or accurate. Lee (with his PS2) "borrows" data points from last season until there is enough data from this season. Hence, 1-2 Holy Angels is still ranked very high. QRF does not.

If you don't even understand the calculations being made I guess it is impossible to expect you to understand how to interpret. Either Roseau will win a bunch of games and move up or they'll lose a few and we'll know they really aren't #1. It doesn't help them (in a computer ranking) that Moorhead has lost two other games.

Eastview played Edina tight, so they aren't penalized for a loss much in the QRF.

Rankings look fine to me, which is why their year-end 2007 looks so good.

Until you come up with a better methodology I'll look at theirs. Computer rankings have limitations. If you don't understand that you'll forever be let down. Dude.

I actually like this site because it proves everything that we already knew, it doesnt matter til March where you're ranked on these lists... It also shows that no body really knows who's gonna be where at the start of the season... give it time and by late jan/feb it seems to have a formula that will start placing them in better order

bulldog14411 wrote:I actually like this site because it proves everything that we already knew, it doesnt matter til March where you're ranked on these lists... It also shows that no body really knows who's gonna be where at the start of the season... give it time and by late jan/feb it seems to have a formula that will start placing them in better order

Ding Ding Ding.

Florida guy,
I believe the confusion was your listing the March 2007 rankings. But to your point, the computer rankings get 'better' as the season progresses, and at season-end, they are similar in their rankings.

As stated, take computer rankings for what they are worth, a list of teams ranked by (generally) a mathamatical equation.

Computers don't watch games, players, etc...
People do, that's why I like to rank and like to read how other 'people' rank, as well as how a computer solves the 'dilema'.

Unfortunately for you, it will be a few more days before you get to see good ol' Minnesota high school hockey. Fortunately (some would say) you do not have to endure good ol' Minnesota winter.

One thing to keep in mind about the QRF is that it is supposed to be a ranking for just your class. You play Holy Angels and win or you play Irondale and win and it counts to same. Any ranking system (including the PS2) isn't close to complete until at least 80% of the way through the season. The QRF is flawed in that everyone in a class is worth the same, but all in all, is a pretty good system later in the season.

In all sports it always does 75%+ in playoffs.

A good point listed by The Watcher.

AY

AngusYoung wrote:A good point listed by The Watcher.

AY

That would be a 1st

Good point by Bader....

AY

elliott70 wrote:Florida guy,
I believe the confusion was your listing the March 2007 rankings. But to your point, the computer rankings get 'better' as the season progresses, and at season-end, they are similar in their rankings.

As stated, take computer rankings for what they are worth, a list of teams ranked by (generally) a mathamatical equation.

Computers don't watch games, players, etc...
People do, that's why I like to rank and like to read how other 'people' rank, as well as how a computer solves the 'dilema'.

Unfortunately for you, it will be a few more days before you get to see good ol' Minnesota high school hockey. Fortunately (some would say) you do not have to endure good ol' Minnesota winter.

Elliott, you're right! It was confusing the way I referenced the dates "March 3rd" and "March 10th"!!

Teams will always lose, some of the time, to other teams ranked below them. Look no further than the Big 12 championship over the last decade for examples. Texas, with the "hardest working QB in college football" (James Brown), knocked off Nebraska in about 1997 - keeping the 'Huskers out of the NC game. People were wondering if Oklahoma was the greatest CFB team of all time when they were upset by K-State (I think they had Bishop and Sproles).

Any computer ranking I've ever looked at has the better teams at the top and the worst ones at the bottom. For never seeing a game they get something right.

QFB, PS2, Mitch, etc.... all seem fine to me. Notice I won't say any one of them is "crap" the moment they fail to predict the right outcome.

I don't know if everyone remember last year or have been paying attention to QRF for a while now like I have, but this always happens. The rankings are average at best until around the first of the year. Then they start to even out and look pretty good.

Just don't plan your schedule around it, they miss or provide the wrong information lots of times.

OT Clown

I should have said "CRAP" at this point in the season. When a ranking has Northern Lakes rated higher then three teams in their section that will totally dominate them, thats crap. I heard River Lakes even beat Northern Lakes in a preseason scrimmage, although I'm not positive.

It does appear that eventually it works itself out.

This makes Hal feel so superior.

RLStars wrote:OT Clown

I should have said "CRAP" at this point in the season. When a ranking has Northern Lakes rated higher then three teams in their section that will totally dominate them, thats crap. I heard River Lakes even beat Northern Lakes in a preseason scrimmage, although I'm not positive.

It does appear that eventually it works itself out.

Exactly. If they were utter crap they'd still look like crap at year end. They didn't. Last year they looked just fine. White was hurt for Grand Rapids so they lost several games they probably wouldn't have. Moorhead was awesome but didn't go to State because of a 1-0 loss to Roseau, eventual champions.

Computer rankings are computer rankings. It is important to know what you are looking at when commenting.

Lee's PS2 has Holy Angels at #6 with a 1-2 record. Is that crap? His methodology, like Sagarin, includes prior year data for a while before phasing it out completely.

QRF has Roseau rather low, because it DOESN'T include prior year data. So which is better? And which is crap?

In both cases the 'author' will concede that they need more time. Mitch Hawker has not published a 2007-08 ranking yet. Is that better?

QRF has last year's rankings in archives for each week. Here is the Top 20 AA at this time last season.

1 Moorhead (6-0-0) 57.1
2 Edina (5-1-0) 44.0
3 Cloquet/Esko/Carlton (7-0-0) 42.6
4 Holy Angels (3-0-0) 41.6
5 Roseville (7-0-0) 41.5
6 Blaine (6-2-0) 37.5
7 Cretin-Derham Hall (5-2-0) 36.1
T-8 Hill-Murray (5-0-0) 36.0
T-8 Woodbury (6-2-0) 36.0
10 Monticello (6-2-0) 35.9
11 Roseau (7-1-0) 33.9
12 Tartan (7-2-0) 33.1
13 Rochester Mayo (4-2-0) 32.9
14 Eagan (5-1-1) 32.7
15 Eden Prairie (4-2-1) 32.0
16 Rochester Century (4-2-0) 31.7
17 Eastview (5-2-1) 31.0
18 Minnetonka (3-3-0) 30.2
19 Chaska (4-3-0) 29.0
20 Duluth East (4-2-0) 28.7

CNT - Will you be at the Granite City Classic?