Pax

I didn't ask why anyone would think Gunter would hide numbers; I asked why anyone would think they would benefit from it. What's the up side? They stay ranked #1 instead of dropping all the way down to #2? We can't let that happen!!!!!!!!!!!! Quick!!!!!! Hide the kids!!!!!!!!! ...... And once again - the high school is growing as well. Just not at tye same rate - and AGAIN the reason it doesn't grow at the same rate is because it's not a bunch of high school kids moving to Gunter; you know....their mommy and daddy are coming too. Some of those mommies and daddies aren't mommies and daddies yet, and some of those mommies and daddies are, but they are mommies and daddies to kids THAT ARENT IN HIGH SCHOOL. Gunter's enrollment has increased by an amount expected from the population increase. They aren't all 15-18 year olds moving in.....I feel embarrassed that this has to be explained.

Population increase does not directly translate to enrollment increase. The only demographic that affects enrollment are kids enrolled in school. If five hundred 60-year-olds moved to Gunter, it would have no impact on high school enrollment. A population increase of 584 doesn't mean much. How many of those 584 go to high school? You know....there is already a method in place to figure that out. We count them and turn that number in. Turns out, it's a bit lower than 584 because 584 high school-aged kids didn't move to Gunter..... Gunter has already turned in an enrollment number that exceeds the last cutoff. Now you'll have to wait to see what the new cutoff number is. I suppose you think Gunter has infiltrated that process as well, eh? Good. Lord...

Yes, the #2 I referenced comes from Pigskin.

I have no reason to think they do. The only reason you have is what? They're too good? And if I looked at it circumstantially, what reason do they have to fudge the numbers to avoid moving up? If Gunter were playing a 3AD1 schedule, they'd be ranked #2 in the state. They would be just as competitive, so tell me - what reason do they have to risk being caught blatantly violating a rule and all the consequences that would come from that.......all to avoid going from #1 in their current class to #2 at the next level? It makes zero sense, and supporting the notion that they are fudging numbers without any semblance of evidence outside of "they're too good" is patently absurd. It's nonsense. Gunter has already turned in a current enrollment which exceeds the cutoff. Now, I believe the cutoff will increase and Gunter will stay down, but if you're gonna make up your enrollment, you generally make up a number that is LOWER than the current cutoff......ya follow?

Yes. Their 3 losses are : 27-35 to 4AD2 Wimberley (#4 in 4AD2) - Brock was an 11-point underdog in this game, so they beat the spread 7-10 to 4AD2 Pleasant Grove (#3 in 4AD2) - Brock was a 9-point underdog in this game, so they beat the spread. 12-35 to Gunter (#1 in 3AD2) Brock was favored by 1 point in this one. In their other 6 games, Brock won by an average score of 54-7. And those are among the losses that Gunter opponents have, so judging the quality of Gunter's opponents by their opponent's W-L record without regard to who those losses are to can easily be very misleading. According to Pigskin, Gunter has played the 5th toughest schedule among 3AD2 teams judging by opponent RATING rather than by their record. Gunter's average score against that 5th toughest schedule is 59-6.

There's not as much difference between two adjacent classifications as you seem to think there is. Larger enrollment = better team is not some universal rule - and you're not even talking about different classifications, but a team on the upper end vs the average - because Gunter isn't playing all the smallest schools in 3AD2. Gunter beat the current #2 team in 3AD1 (Brock) 35-12 during predistrict play, and they aren't just squeezing by their opponents. They are handling their competition convincingly. Ranking them #1 is reasonable. The last 3AD2 range was an enrollment between 230 and 349. Gunter was on the upper end of that, and I believe the current count is 354 (cutoff may increase too - probably will). Either way, conceding that Gunter is indeed on the upper end, and they have about 50 kids on the team, that's about 14% of the student body. Assuming that percentage is about the same, a team on the lower end of 3AD2 would have about 33 kids to choose from. In other words, not every student enrolled in a school plays football. So the ACTUAL difference between the number of kids on a football team at opposite ends of the 3AD2 spectrum is closer to 15-20 kids. That's it. That's the REAL difference between two 3AD2 teams on opposite ends of the enrollment cutoffs. And this is the difference between the extremes. In reality, Gunter isn't just playing all the smallest schools in 3AD2, but it averages out to about the middle, so you're looking at a real difference of about 7-10 kids. That's the real difference between the lower end of 3AD2 and the upper end.

Gunter comes in scoring 59.2 per game against defenses that allow 32.8 per game (26.4 more) and they are holding teams that average 33.3 per game to just 6.2 per game (27.1 fewer). Gunter's overall swing is +53.5. Blue Ridge is scoring 32.9 per game against teams that allow 33.4 per game (0.5 fewer) and allowing 33.7 per game to teams that score 29.3 per game on average (4.4 more) for a total swing of -4.9. This will be the final game of the regular season, so the final district game as well. Gunter and Blue Ridge's 4 common opponents are those district games. In those 4 games : Gunter is 4-0 with an average score of 71-2 and a swing of +72.0. Blue Ridge is 2-2 with an average score of 39-36 and an overall swing of -3. Based on only district games, I get a 75-0 Gunter win. Based on the entire schedule, I get a 62-6 Gunter win. I'm gonna lean more toward the 62-6 prediction - and I'm not sure if it will be that lopsided. Final game of the regular season, Gunter has #1 seed locked up - so I could see them shutting it down earlier than usual. I'll still stick with the 62-6 prediction. Gunter's 53-point average margin of victory puts them at #1 in 11-man football across all classifications 2A-6A. One 6-man team has a better average MOV of 54.

Ha! I'm losing my mind. Again - the final numbers are still right (as far as the averages go). So Waskom 1-3 and Daingerfield 3-1 against common opponents. Average score is still 25-41 on the losing side for Waskom and 43-8 on the winning side for Daingerfield. I guarantee there are no more errors..........nobody has to check. I checked, and uh...yeah...no more errors...

Yep - just misspoke on that one. The averages are right. Waskom beats Queen City, and is 1-3 in those 4 common games. Prediction is still the same.

Waskom comes into this one averaging 30.0 per game against defenses that allow 30.7 on average (so 0.7 pts less on avg), so they are more or less scoring what their opponents allow anyway. Waskom is giving up 43.1 per game to teams that average 32.3 per game (10.8 more), so allowing more than the teams are used to scoring on average. Not a combination you want - giving up more points than your opponents average and scoring less than your opponents give up on average. Total swing for Waskom is -11.5. Daingerfield is scoring 40.0 per game against defenses that allow 32.6 per game (7.4 more) and allowing 13.8 points per game to teams averaging 34.4 (20.6 fewer) for a total swing of +28.0. The score my algorithm spits out is Daingerfield, 51-11. DF and W have 4 common opponents. Here are the outcomes for those games : Timpson - Waskom loses 12-63, Daingerfield wins 33-26 (58-point swing for DF) New Diana - Waskom loses 35-36, Daingerfield wins 42-0 (43-point swing for DF) Elysian Fields - Waskom loses 16-32, Daingerfield wins 40-0 (56-point swing for DF) Queen City - Waskom loses 34-37, Daingerfield wins 62-0 (63-point swing for DF) Waskom went 0-4 against these teams with an average score of 25-41, Daingerfield went 4-0 against these teams with an average score of 43-8. Daingerfield - on average - swinging those games by 51 points. I'll take Daingerfield in this one in a 49-0, 56-7 type game.

Not angry...... I was confusing a Melissa game with a Pottsboro game. Gunter lost 27-14 to Pottsboro - who advanced to state in 3AD1 and lost 42-35 in the state championship game. The did beat Melissa in their championship year, but it wasn't as recent as I thought. My point was that there is only an option of moving up one level. They can only play a 3AD1 schedule; no higher, and a season at that level would very likely look no different than at their current level due to the vast overlap between just two classes one level apart. They would still likely blow out district opponents and not see a competitive game until they were several rounds deep. Between just two classes, a team that makes deep runs at one level is gonna make deep runs at the next level. The differences between the quality of the teams manifests at the upper ends. In other words, the average 3AD1 team is only slightly better than the average 3AD2 team. There is nothing inherent about larger schools that make the individuals at those schools better football players. It's just a numbers game. You're more likely to field a better team if you have more kids to choose from. The classifications and divisions are based on enrollment numbers; not the number of kids that try out for the team. Because of this, the difference in the quality of a football team between two classifications just one division apart is almost non-existent - emwith the possible exception at the extremes (top handful of teams) - who you likely would not face until you've made a deep run.

It was close last realignment. They won't be going to 4A though. 3AD1 is the next jump up. The last cutoff from 3AD2 up to 3AD1 was 359. Gunter had an enrollment of 354 on snapshot day for that realignment year. My understanding is that at a recent school board meeting, they announced an enrollment of 364 - which would put them over the last cutoff, but those cutoff points generally increase year to year as well. They realign districts every two years. Prior to the last cutoff of 359, the cutoff was 334. A jump of 25. Assuming that trend continues, the new cutoff would be 384 - and Gunter would probably come in under that since their last and recent count was 364. The official snapshot count the UIL uses will happen in a couple weeks. In either case, there is zero chance their enrollment will have gone up enough to entirely skip over 3AD1 and go directly to 4AD2. That's not gonna happen.

This makes zero sense. The year you are talking to, Meillisa was blowing everyone out until they got deep into the playoffs. I guess Mellisa shpuld have been playing up that year, eh? Or did you enjoy their run at a title? Nah, you hated it, right? It wasn't fair to all those teams they were blowing out.... I also remember another year where Gunter beat Melissa. Melissa went on to win state that year - again classes up from Gunter - handing Melissa their only loss that year. By the way, Melissa would go on to be ranked #7 in 4AD1 that year, so that's TWO classes up from Gunter - which confirms what I was saying. Also, why weren't you complaining and urging Melissa to move up a division back during their deep runs when they were blowing everyone out in the regular season? Eh? Where were you? It's no different.

I agree. According to Pigskin, they'd currently be ranked #2 in D1 right now.

Which exceeds the last cutoff between 3AD1 and 3AD2 of 359 (Gunter came in just under at 354) That's what I am saying. The question is whether or not that cutoff point will increase because if it doesn't....or doesn't by enough, Gunter will be moving up. It'll be close to the cutoff again.

I think they are currently above the last realignment cutoff. That cutoff increases every two years, but I think they are growing faster than the cutoff increases, so my guess is they will move up. For those of us that just listen on the radio and watch from the stands, it's just conversation. For the kids playing the game, it's not about blowing your opponent out. It's about playing football. If those seniors had the choice of whether to play 11-16 more games or 10, they'd probably all choose more. That's what it's about. The accolades are for when they visit their school 10, 20, 30 years from now and walk through the halls with pride knowing they were part of something that put those trophies in the cases and knowing there were those that wished they would have voluntarily and mercifully moved up a class because they didn't want to play them. I'd take that memory.

Gunter will face better competition the deeper they get into the playoffs. If they played up, they would likely be blowing a lot of teams out at this part of the season as well, and once again meet better competition deeper into the playoffs. There is a LOT of overlap between two adjacent classes. Gunter is currently ranked #1 in 3AD2 according to Pigskin ratings. If they played a D1 schedule, they'd be ranked #2. In fact, if you ranked all of 4AD1 down, Gunter is ranked #5. They'd have to jump to 5AD2 before they would be outside the top ten - where they would sit at #13. I don't mean this as a "look at how good Gunter is" kind of way. It's just the reality. Playing up won't eliminate these district/early season blowouts. They will likely move up to D1 next realignment anyway, so for those that think they shpuld be playing up, they'll probably be required to soon enough.

.

In those 7 years Gunter has made it to the semis, Canadian was who we faced in 6 of them; 5 of them in a row. Gunter has a 4-2 series lead in that state semi-final match-up. I expect it to be Canadian there again this year. The eventual state champion was the winner of those semifinal games 4 of the 6 meetings. Hopefully Gunter gets there. It's become a cool rivalry I think. Average score in those 6 semifinal matchups is 27-25 in favor of Gunter - and this is rounding. Average margin of victory is 1.7 points. Gunter and Canadian are on opposite ends of the enrollment cutoffs for 3AD2. There's a good chance neither will be there next realignment. Canadian dropping to 2AD1 while Gunter moves up to 3AD1. I'd like to see that matchup again while it's still possible. It would probably be a while...if ever, with them trending in opposite directions. Sorry for double-posting the original comment. I tried to delete one of them, but gave up.

Perhaps we are just getting the state rankings from different sources. Brock is currently #2 on Pigskin. Columbus is #1. In either case, the point is that Gunter played a top ranked team a class up. This was just to counter the insinuation that Gunter plays a weak predistrict schedule. Brock is not weak. There were some other solid teams on their schedule as well. I just thought of Brock.

In the last 7 years, Gunter has advanced 5 rounds deep to the state semifinal in all 7 of those years, advanced to the state championship game in 5 of those years, and won the title 3 times - amassing a playoff record over that stretch of 36-4. By the way, Gunter beat Brock (currently sitting at #2 in 3AD1) this year in predistrict 35-12. Over that 7-year stretch, Gunter has an overall record of 113-6, a playoff record of 36-4. The two other losses came during predistrict games. Gunter's last district loss came on October 9, 2015 (8+ years). Since then, they have won 48 consecutive district games. Again, in that stretch, Gunter has lost two pre-district games. A 2019 loss to Pottsboro 27-14. Pottsboro lost the 3AD1 state championship that year 42-35. The other predistrict loss was again to Pottsboro in 2020. They went 3 rounds deep in that year. If only they could do better at scheduling predistrict games to better prepare them for district play and the playoffs....

My predictions are based on pure math - and even surprising to me, they usually get the games pretty close. No gut feelings are involved. If they are wrong - and this one was VERY wrong - then they are wrong. I predicted a 35-point win for HG. It was a 13-point win for Cooper. Obviously, that's a pretty bad prediction. I was basically 50 points off, but I wanted to see Cooper win. The HC graduated from Gunter and coached in Gunter. He brought a lot of Gunter's scheme to Cooper, so seeing them break the streak AND get a win takes the sting of a bad prediction away.

Pleasant Grove comes in averaging 45.1 ppg against defenses that give up 31.6 per game on average (13.6 more) and they allow 14.1 per game to offenses that score 32.2 on average (18.1 fewer). Overall swing for PG is a +31.6. Liberty-Eylau averages 20.7 ppg vs defenses that allow 35.5 per game (14.9 fewer) and they give up 35.7 to teams that score 31.5 on average (4.2 more). Overall swing for LE is a -19.0. Based on this, PG looks like about a 50-point favorite by my method. Taking PG's best three swing games, they have a +49.7 swing. LE's best three, and they get a -1.8. Still about a 50-point favorite. PG's worst three games, they are a +13, LE has a -36.3. Still have PG as a 50-point favorite. Based on just district games (though the sample size is a tiny 2 games), I get PG by 70. They actually have a common opponent in Gilmer. PG won by 35. LE lost by 44, so that's almost an 80-point swing there, so it does appear that Pleasant Grove is the obvious pick - and by how ever much they want. I'll go with Pleasant Grove, 56-7.

Your method is no worse than mine.

I posted earlier in this thread and predicted a 40-0 HG win. They've each played a game since then, so adding those games into the equation, I get a HG win, 35-0. This is using a different method though - and I only used it because there is a flaw in the way my calculations work. The flaw only exists because HG allows so few points, so I don't use it that often. A boring and possibly confusing explanation : It's kind of complicated. Using my normal method, I get a Honey Grove win, 43-20. My normal method just uses straight up points. The flaw in my system is that if a team is shutting out literally everyone they play, there is sort of a threshold that doesn't allow the "math" to actually tell how good a defense is. Thru 5 games, HG held each opponent to zero points. The average offense HG faced scores 26.9 points per game, and HG's defense on average held opponents to 26.9 fewer points than they average. The flaw is that if Honey Grove's defense is better than 26.9 points, the math wouldn't show it because they can only hold their opponents to zero. And if that team only averages 27 points a game, then they will have only held them to 27 points fewer than they average, so being that Honey Grove's opponents average 27 points per game, their defense cannot hold them to more than 27 points fewer. Make sense? In other words, there is no way to tell if they WOULD HAVE held them to zero even if they average 30, 35, 40 points a game. Up until this most recent game where they gave up what I think was a cheap field goal, they have faced teams that average 31, 35, and 40 points per game - and Honey Grove held each of these opponents to zero - so in THOSE games, they held their opponents to 31 fewer, 35 fewer, and 40 fewer than they average respectively. If I had applied my "x" amount fewer than they average method - - which is only 27 points, then I would have had all three of those teams scoring points. However, if I use a "percentage" method instead, I get a 35-0 prediction. Honey Grove has held their opponents to about 1.8% of what they average. Cooper averages 45.3 points per game, and 1.8% of this is 0.82 points. Since scoring 1 and only 1 point is extremely unlikely, I just made it 0 in the 35-0 prediction that uses this percentage method. The absolute method (which is what I use pretty much 100% of the time, I get a 43-20 Honey Grove win. I realize how much I'm overthinking all this. I hope I didn't bore everyone.