Rankings

Bluecat98

Member
Some of y'all simply don't understand coaching at all. As an assistant coach, moving a few times isn't that crazy. To my knowledge, we are talking about 3 moves in 4 years. Most coaches have done that at some point in their career. I honestly have no loyalty to any sixman team, but it does seem strange that we freak out when a kid transfers to one school, but when a kids transfers to another school (I guess one the poster likes) then this is considered to be fine. If you have an issue with changing schools, it should apply across the board.

My other question is, as a coach, am I supposed to leave my kids behind when I get a new job? If my kid is a stud receiver and I am looking at jobs, why would I not go to Southlake Carrol as apposed to 2-8 team. Shouldn't we put our kids in the best position possible to succeed?

BTW, not a sixman coach.
A transfer does not live in the district. Employees of the district will almost always be granted a residency waiver. In small schools, coaches with kids who can help are sometimes prioritized over their actual coaching ability. Nothing illegal about it.
 
A transfer does not live in the district. Employees of the district will almost always be granted a residency waiver. In small schools, coaches with kids who can help are sometimes prioritized over their actual coaching ability. Nothing illegal about it.
He wasn't referencing transfers, he's talking about a coach's kids moving in with him. I think his point is valid.
 

OutsideObserver

New member
Yes. Let me clarify. I'm not talking about like a kid in, lets say, Blum keeping the same address and transferring to Covington to play more. I'm talking about a kid from Blum whose dad is a coach. Say he gets passed over for the head coaching spot when the old coach leaves so he decides to look for another job. So he leaves Blum. His kid is a stud spreadback so he doesn't want to send him to an 0-10 team. So he gets offers from an 0-10 team, a 3-7 team, and a 9-1 team. If I'm wanting my kid to get playing time with a good supporting cast, I would send him to the best school for his skills. Just my opinion, but I'm for sure gonna value putting my kid in the best situation.
 

51eleven

Active member
How does all this affect the current rankings? Were we not asked politely to stick to the thread topic by the owner of the site? Somebody start a transfer thread if you want to. Just my 2 cents worth.
 

Race Bannon

New member
I know that they're new to sixman football this year -- and that the next iteration of Granger's Toy (now in new hands) may need several more weeks of data to become somewhat reliable -- but #127 St. Stephen's (the granddaddy of Austin private schools) may be grossly underrated ... by like a hundred points/places.

With easy opening wins, they appear to have picked up the new format without much trouble. Of course, we'll have to see how this longtime 11-man team performs against tougher competition down the road ... and whether or not they'll stick with the sixman game.

Welcome, Spartans, and fare thee well this year.
 
How does all this affect the current rankings? Were we not asked politely to stick to the thread topic by the owner of the site? Somebody start a transfer thread if you want to. Just my 2 cents worth.
Not a bit. Rankings don't affect much either, it will be decided on the turf.
 
Last edited:

1st & 15

Member
Surprised to see Water Valley remains the same after beating Garden City 54-8 and was only picked by 12. Garden City put up 42 points on Sterling City and was a 14 point game. Yet Sterling is still ranked better than Water Valley. Not that rankings matter just thought this seems a little odd.
 

Mike

Administrator
A few things of note as the rankings are concerned. First, the algorithm being used is still @granger's algorithm. So, outside the pre-season rankings, things are going along just as they would have regardless. Second, you can't look at a single game or matchup to determine rankings. The rankings take all games, and opponents' games (strength of schedule), into account.

Finally, as @Nsider said, I still don't have a handle on how the rankings work yet so I'm just relying solely on @granger's work there. I'll get it all figured out as soon as possible so tweaks can be made where necessary. Until then, though, we'll just have to all see what happens together.

If your team is ranked lower than you think they should be, use it as fuel!
 

oldfolks

Member
Mike, some of these new members sure seem to know a lot about the system. My opinion, make every team #1 until after next week and give some of these people something to cry about.
 

1st & 15

Member
Mike, some of these new members sure seem to know a lot about the system. My opinion, make every team #1 until after next week and give some of these people something to cry about.
I never claim to know anything about the system. And like I said rankings don’t really matter. Just knowing some of the matchups and scores it didn’t make sense. Not trying to ruffle any feathers. Just conversation about Rankings.. I am thankful this site is up and running again.
 

1st & 15

Member
A few things of note as the rankings are concerned. First, the algorithm being used is still @granger's algorithm. So, outside the ore-season rankings, things are going along just as they would have regardless. Second, you can't look at a single game or matchup to determine rankings. The rankings take all games, and opponents' games (strength of schedule), into account.

Finally, as @Nsider said, I still don't have a handle on how the rankings work yet so I'm just relying solely on @granger's work there. I'll get it all figured out as soon as possible so tweaks can be made where necessary. Until then, though, we'll just have to all see what happens together.

If your team is ranked lower than you think they should be, use it as fuel!
I figured you were using grangers old crystal ball. Didn’t mean any disrespect. I applaud you for keeping this site alive and running. I just disagreed with the way the rankings came out this week. No big deal
 

Mike

Administrator
I figured you were using grangers old crystal ball. Didn’t mean any disrespect. I applaud you for keeping this site alive and running. I just disagreed with the way the rankings came out this week. No big deal

I wasn't meaning to be argumentative, and I didn't take it that you were either. I just wanted to add some clarification so folks would know I wasn't drawing team names from a hat.

I think every year there is something that someone will point at and say it doesn't make sense, especially early in the season. No matter how the rankings were done, there would be folks who disagreed. It makes for some good conversations, and that's all I saw this as.

So, I'd say critique away.
 

Roach

New member
I’m not upset at the rankings at all! I’m very appreciative of Mike having this site back for the game of 6man. I didn’t mean to come across as a mad fan, so I apologize if I did. I don’t have a “main team” so I just enjoy the topics and everything else this site offers!
Thanks again Mike! You’re doing a great job and I know in time this site will be even better!
 

51eleven

Active member
The rankings for several years now become much more accurate as the season progresses. Uncannily so in the playoff's. Though there will always be upsets. The program shouldn't need a lot of adjustment.
 

everydownback

New member
I know that they're new to sixman football this year -- and that the next iteration of Granger's Toy (now in new hands) may need several more weeks of data to become somewhat reliable -- but #127 St. Stephen's (the granddaddy of Austin private schools) may be grossly underrated ... by like a hundred points/places.

With easy opening wins, they appear to have picked up the new format without much trouble. Of course, we'll have to see how this longtime 11-man team performs against tougher competition down the road ... and whether or not they'll stick with the sixman game.

Welcome, Spartans, and fare thee well this year.
I am just curious on what grounds you are making this claim? Beating Chester and UME Prep does not exactly scream grossly underrated.
 

Mike

Administrator
I am just curious on what grounds you are making this claim? Beating Chester and UME Prep does not exactly scream grossly underrated.
He was, evidently, on the right track saying they were underrated. That was to be expected, though, because of their initial rating of 60. They've gained 229 points since the pre-season rankings. They also gained 59.95 points after last week alone, moving them up into 2nd place in TAIAO. This week's matchup will be a good test for them, taking on the Austin Royals (TAIAO #1).

That said, if he meant 100 places on the rankings (meaning to #27 overall), they're going to have some work to do!
 
Top