When does Maxpreps release their state of FL preseason rankings?

[Ray Icaza]

4 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:

Needless to say, I have a problem with those rankings. 

I would imagine you aren't alone.  In just the local central FL area Apopka is ranked right at the top and we barely broke the top 10.  Some local "EXPERTS" in our area predict we will end the regular season at 6-4 due to our strength of schedule and I would guess that is certainly a possibility.  In any event, I would rather not be on this list and earn our ranking in the top 20 in the entire state; I think it helps our kids from becoming complacent but rather have a chip on their shoulder. 

[Ray Icaza]

1 minute ago, Ray Icaza said:

I would imagine you aren't alone.  In just the local central FL area Apopka is ranked right at the top and we barely broke the top 10.  Some local "EXPERTS" in our area predict we will end the regular season at 6-4 due to our strength of schedule and I would guess that is certainly a possibility.  In any event, I would rather not be on this list and earn our ranking in the top 20 in the entire state; I think it helps our kids from becoming complacent but rather have a chip on their shoulder. 

Based on these rankings we have 5 of the top 25 listed on our schedule and that doesn't include APK in the KOC.

[DarterBlue2]

21 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

I would imagine you aren't alone.  In just the local central FL area Apopka is ranked right at the top and we barely broke the top 10.  Some local "EXPERTS" in our area predict we will end the regular season at 6-4 due to our strength of schedule and I would guess that is certainly a possibility.  In any event, I would rather not be on this list and earn our ranking in the top 20 in the entire state; I think it helps our kids from becoming complacent but rather have a chip on their shoulder. 

I don't know whether Apopka is a top 25 team at this stage or not. I do know that there are teams on the Max Preps top 25 list that we would almost certainly beat if the games were played over the next two weeks. 

How things will stack up in November/December is anyone's guess at this stage. A lot can happen over the course of a season. 

[Nulli Secundus]

10 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

Looks like rankings you asked about are here. 

 

Florida Preseason MaxPreps Top 25

1. IMG Academy (Bradenton), 8-1 record in 2022
2. Central (Miami), 14-0
3. Chaminade-Madonna (Hollywood), 12-1
4. St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale), 14-0
5. American Heritage (Plantation), 13-2
6. Columbus (Miami), 14-1
7. Homestead, 11-3
8. Lakeland, 14-0
9. Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale), 11-2
10. Edgewater (Orlando), 12-1
11. Norland (Miami), 9-3
12. Booker T. Washington (Miami), 9-3
13. Western (Davie), 7-4
14. Clearwater Academy International (Clearwater), 9-1
15. Venice, 9-4
16. Jones (Orlando), 11-3
17. Mainland (Daytona Beach), 11-4
18. Seminole (Sanford), 9-3
19. Bartram Trail (St. Johns), 12-1
20. Osceola (Kissimmee), 10-4
21. Cocoa, 11-3
22. Bolles (Jacksonville), 9-5
23. Tampa Bay Tech (Tampa), 9-3
24. Mandarin (Jacksonville), 5-5
25. West Orange (Winter Garden), 7-5

Related Content

•  

Let the tree shaking begin!  Quite a few on the list will collide this season.  

[Longtime Observer]

10 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

Looks like rankings you asked about are here. 

 

Florida Preseason MaxPreps Top 25

1. IMG Academy (Bradenton), 8-1 record in 2022
2. Central (Miami), 14-0
3. Chaminade-Madonna (Hollywood), 12-1
4. St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale), 14-0
5. American Heritage (Plantation), 13-2
6. Columbus (Miami), 14-1
7. Homestead, 11-3
8. Lakeland, 14-0
9. Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale), 11-2
10. Edgewater (Orlando), 12-1
11. Norland (Miami), 9-3
12. Booker T. Washington (Miami), 9-3
13. Western (Davie), 7-4
14. Clearwater Academy International (Clearwater), 9-1
15. Venice, 9-4
16. Jones (Orlando), 11-3
17. Mainland (Daytona Beach), 11-4
18. Seminole (Sanford), 9-3
19. Bartram Trail (St. Johns), 12-1
20. Osceola (Kissimmee), 10-4
21. Cocoa, 11-3
22. Bolles (Jacksonville), 9-5
23. Tampa Bay Tech (Tampa), 9-3
24. Mandarin (Jacksonville), 5-5
25. West Orange (Winter Garden), 7-5

Related Content

•  

I don't think those will be the ratings used for the playoffs. The ratings used for playoffs are (or were last year) a neutered version of the calpreps ratings. The ratings for Florida playoffs won't be nearly as "good" as those ratings.

[Longtime Observer]

The better indication of Florida's starting playoff ratings may be what calpreps has at the moment. Calpreps' current Florida ratings

[Nulli Secundus]

27 minutes ago, Longtime Observer said:

The better indication of Florida's starting playoff ratings may be what calpreps has at the moment. Calpreps' current Florida ratings

I've never seen the point of a starting poll.  Coaching changes, student changes and most importantly, no games played.  From that, we are to believe that Calpreps or any outlet can accurately forecast and track who is the top dog.  The fun is we get to talk mess and defend why teams are too high or too low.  

[Dr. D]

1 hour ago, Longtime Observer said:

I don't think those will be the ratings used for the playoffs. The ratings used for playoffs are (or were last year) a neutered version of the calpreps ratings. The ratings for Florida playoffs won't be nearly as "good" as those ratings.

The FHSAA Power Rankings adopted in 2022 use MaxPreps' proprietary formula minus using margin of victory in the formula. 

[Longtime Observer]

2 hours ago, Dr. D said:

The FHSAA Power Rankings adopted in 2022 use MaxPreps' proprietary formula minus using margin of victory in the formula. 

It can get confusing because Maxpreps offers two sets of rankings. They have their own rankings published by human writers, and the other ratings are straight from Calpreps. FHSAA uses the Calpreps computer ratings (minus the margin of victory component)...which they refer to as "Maxpreps ratings"...but are actually just the calpreps ratings. Those ratings, to be even remotely credible, rely on margin of victory. So, taking it out makes for very poor ratings. We saw that last year and, if nothing changes, they will be very poor again this year.

This is to be expected when people who are very much uninformed are making critical decisions.

[Beek]

Im good with the pre season rankings for Poinciana. We moved up like 40 spots and havent played a game!  Seriously, until rankings actually play a game who really knows. The ranking structure is somewhat respectable, in the fact as a 300th place team, I know that playing a 500th place team should equal a win, whereas playing a top 100 team should be a loss. within a certain range, its a toss up. any given friday night an underdog could win.  I do use the rankings somewhat when scheduling especially not knowing about a team in question. I look to see where they are ranked. Who they played, wins and losses versus known quantity opponents. When I was trying to build a team with a 1-9 record, I looked for opponents that I felt we had a great chance to beat. Wins do cure a lot of ills. Now that we have had a successful season last year, We are ramping up opponents where we could. As our schedule was made when we were 1-9 and all but 1 team was ranked above us. So the schedule we had last year said by rankings we should have not been successful. But players changed, team attitude changed, culture changed.  This year according to the rankings only 2 teams we play are above us. So our strength of schedule will suffer. Next year will be different I hope. With another hopefully successful season we will rejoin the playoff system, and ramp up our schedule to challenge our talent. provided we have any. 

[Nulli Secundus]

11 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:

Needless to say, I have a problem with those rankings. 

You know it will get sorted out as the season progresses, per usual.

[DarterBlue2]

1 hour ago, Nulli Secundus said:

You know it will get sorted out as the season progresses, per usual.

Yes, I do. But the whole idea of these pre-season rankings done by computer sometimes with human intervention that can't possibly know what talent each team returns galls me. 

[Nulli Secundus]

57 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:

Yes, I do. But the whole idea of these pre-season rankings done by computer sometimes with human intervention that can't possibly know what talent each team returns galls me. 

I never said it made sense!  Polls, all polls, even the ones that benefited Lakeland have been entertainment for me.  The sheer amount of joy I get from seeing a lower-ranked team defeat a higher ranked team gives me goosebumps.  In my opinion, the only fair way to do a poll is to take the human aspect out of it and go strictly by records.  Will it be equitable for all?  Of course not.  However, it sickens me to see this national trend of ranking teams based on the number of highly rated players without proof of team production.  It's getting worse and honestly it's beyond asinine.  

[THAT S--T WAS FUNNY]

5 hours ago, Longtime Observer said:

It can get confusing because Maxpreps offers two sets of rankings. They have their own rankings published by human writers, and the other ratings are straight from Calpreps. FHSAA uses the Calpreps computer ratings (minus the margin of victory component)...which they refer to as "Maxpreps ratings"...but are actually just the calpreps ratings. Those ratings, to be even remotely credible, rely on margin of victory. So, taking it out makes for very poor ratings. We saw that last year and, if nothing changes, they will be very poor again this year.

This is to be expected when people who are very much uninformed are making critical decisions.

Nailed it

[PinellasFB]

Wow Armwood way down at 85.  They are always a top 50 team even in down years.

[cribboy305]

On 8/12/2023 at 4:13 AM, DarterBlue2 said:

Needless to say, I have a problem with those rankings. 

them ppl got bartram trail in there & not my bulls? Im inconsolable 

[VeniceIndianFan]

23 minutes ago, cribboy305 said:

them ppl got bartram trail in there & not my bulls? Im inconsolable 

Don’t get too down.  The people at Maxpreps aren’t exactly rocket scientists. 

[Dr. D]

But they would argue that they are computer scientists.