STILL LIVING IN THE PAST! Those Lightning Stanley Cup Championships as as ancient as the Fla Varsity Football Central message board! 

I have been "dropping knowledge" on this message board for many years! When I said the man who doesn't know as much as he thinks, I was talking about YOU! 

I’m with you when you right bro. 

As the good Dr. pointed out in the thread below and I have said since the beginning of the season, these early season rankings are truly flawed and we both encourage you to ignore them.  What is more important, early season rankings that are flawed or winning playoff games after the first two rounds?  It's what I refer to making a lot of NOISE during the season to sadly leave with a whimper.  I also honestly said I think we are currently overrated due to last year's success while being overlooked last year due to our 4-7 record the previous year overlooking the devastating injuries to several D1 players during that season that were back to full strength last year.   Looking down the road, you should have running clock victories in the first two playoff rounds like we did last year as District 13 & 14 (4A) outside of Dillard only has one other team with even a pulse.   Once we got to the Regional Championship round where the pretenders are gone, no one (including yourself) gave us a chance to beat Armwood at their place and how did that go.  Same with the next round vs Bucholz.  Point being, talk is cheap so let your success at the end of the road do your talking.  

With all due respect, you are looking for answers that do not exist, at least not in a publicly available forum, and there is no way to make it make sense.  Each “owner” of a computer ranking uses his own version of different variables (won-loss record, strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc.), with different weighting applied to those variables, and run through some type of computer algorithm or Monte Carlo simulation or whatever.  Since each of these rankings uses “proprietary” information, the public at large has no clue as to what the process looks like.  Hence, the frustration at a finished product which no one can understand.  And even though these computer rankings are presented as “objective”, there are subjective elements within the calculations, based on the particular biases and opinions of the "owner".  But my limited knowledge tells me that any statistically significant metric must be repeatable and can be verified independently, which these rankings are not.  Thus, I suggest you join me in viewing computer rankings with skepticism and/or disdain.