Earl Nall's Prep Performance Ratings
Tennessee High School Football
Tennessee High School Football Ratings with and without the
Margin of Victory
Monday, June 24, 2002 
Visit TSSAA Website Designed and Maintained by Earl Nall
Tennessee High School Football Ratings with and without the Margin of Victory
Final Ratings
Mid Year Review
Private vs. Public School Records Since 1993
Highest Scoring Games Since 1993
Summary of Ratings since 1993
Team by Team Offense Summary
Team by Team Defense Summary
Frequently Asked Questions about the Ratings
1999 Ratings
2000 Ratings

Tennessee High School Football Ratings with and without the Margin of Victory

By Earl Nall (Bio)

 

 

The collegiate Bowl Championship Series (BCS) formula is being modified to eliminate the margin of victory (MOV) component in the computer ratings. I modified my Tennessee high school football computer ratings to see what affect eliminating the MOV would have on them.  From a statisticians view this was a good experiment as my ratings terminate at the end of the regular season.  Since Tennessee has a playoff system I can always determine how good the ratings were by looking at the results of the play-offs and compare them to my final ratings. This is something the NCAA cannot do since they do not have a play-off system and canít really determine how good the BCS is at picking the top teams.

 

I have been doing ratings for ten years and they consistently hit on 80-84% of the games during the last weeks of the season.  Also, never has a team won the state championship that was not ranked in the top 10 at the end of the season.

 

Like a lot of computer rating systems I use a cap on the MOV. I cannot imagine not using the MOV.  The margin of victory is the single most important statistic in determining a teamís strength. If a team wins a game 45-0, they are almost always going to win the statistical game too. In all my studies in determining what are the important factors in a teamís strength, MOV comes out on top. If in the final score one could eliminate points off turnovers, substitutes, and trick plays - computer ratings could be unbelievably accurate.

 

To see how not using MOV could cause problems Ė look at this scenario. Suppose you have a ten-team conference and all the teams play each other. Going into the last week of the season Team A has defeated all its opponents handily by a score of 55-0 Ė inserting second and third teams to finish each game. For the last game of the season they are going to play Team B who is also undefeated, but has won each of its games 7-6. The rest of the schools in the conference have beaten up on each other. So for the common opponents Team A has won by a margin of 54 points more than Team B has.

Going into the final game, common sense would tell you that Team A is going to defeat Team B. In fact, all the voting polls would have Team A solidly ranked No. 1 and Team B a distant No. 2. But the computer systems would have to have these teamsí dead even since you canít count MOV and since all the teams in the conference have beaten up of each other so there is no clear team to put into 3rd place.

So, how did the Tennessee high school ratings do using MOV and without MOV?

 

In Tennessee there are eight state championships, so 16 teams make it to the final game.  Brackets are pre-set before the season starts.  Using my current system which uses the MOV, 13 of the 16 teams that were in the championship game were ďpicked to be thereĒ by the ratings.  This is a darn good number I think.  You can say you donít like computer ratings, but historically good computer ratings program will have that kind of accuracy.  When the MOV was not used, the ratings picked 9 of the 16 teams to make the finals.  While not bad, it is still just a little over 50% while using the MOV was over 80%.

 

Here is the breakdown by class:

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Class 1A

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Ezell-Harding (Champions)

1

Ezell-Harding (Champions)

2

Univ. School Jackson

 

2

Collinwood

 

3

Christ Pres. Academy

 

3

Bruceton Central

 

4

Collinwood

 

4

Gordonsville

 

5

Bruceton Central

 

5

Univ. School Jackson

 

6

Jo Byrns

 

6

Christ Pres. Academy

 

7

Cloudland (Runnerup)

 

7

Cloudland (Runnerup)

 

8

DCA

 

8

Midway

 

9

Gordonsville

 

9

Greenback

 

10

Boyd-Buchanan

 

10

Cascade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

Example:  Teams 1-6 were in the west bracket this year, while Cloudland was the highest ranked team from the east

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:  Ezell-Harding actually finished second in the final ratings using MOV, but just by a point.

Since they played University School of Jackson at home in the play-offs they were

 

actually favored since they got the 2.5 point home field advantage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Class 2A

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Westview (Runnerup)

 

1

McKenzie

 

2

David Lipscomb

 

2

Westview (Runnerup)

 

3

Goodpasture (Champions)

 

3

Alcoa

 

4

Tyner

 

4

Lewis County

 

5

Lewis County

 

5

Tyner

 

6

McKenzie

 

6

David Lipscomb

 

7

Union City

 

7

South Greene

 

8

Huntingdon

 

8

Goodpasture (Champions)

 

9

Humboldt

 

9

Sweetwater

 

10

Milan

 

10

Booker T. Washington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Class 3A

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Portland

 

1

Portland

 

2

Covington

 

2

Anderson County

 

3

McNairy Central

 

3

McNairy Central

 

4

Trousdale County

 

4

Covington

 

5

Anderson County

 

5

Trousdale County

 

6

Crockett County (Runnerup)

6

Sycamore

 

7

Austin-East (Champions)

 

7

Austin-East (Champions)

 

8

Marshall County

 

8

Knoxville Fulton

 

9

Knoxville Fulton

 

9

Kingsbury

 

10

Smith County

 

10

Smith County

 

11

 

 

11

Crockett County (Runnerup)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Class 4A

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Maryville (Champions)

 

1

Tennessee High

 

2

Hillsboro (Runnerup)

 

2

Dyersburg

 

3

Cleveland

 

3

Hillsboro (Runnerup)

 

4

Red Bank

 

4

Morristown West

 

5

Memphis East

 

5

Columbia

 

6

Morristown West

 

6

Maryville (Champions)

 

7

East Ridge

 

7

East Ridge

 

8

White House

 

8

White House

 

9

Columbia

 

9

Memphis East

 

10

Tennessee High

 

10

Pearl-Cohn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Class 5A

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Riverdale (Champions)

 

1

Riverdale (Champions)

 

2

Kingsport Dobyns Bennett

 

2

Kingsport Dobyns Bennett

 

3

Hendersonville (Runnerup)

3

Hendersonville (Runnerup)

4

Brentwood

 

4

Brentwood

 

5

Germantown

 

5

Whitehaven

 

6

Collierville

 

6

Germantown

 

7

Ooltewah

 

7

Houston

 

8

Gallatin

 

8

Collierville

 

9

Whitehaven

 

9

Hunters Lane

 

10

Hunters Lane

 

10

Central-Merry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Division II AAA

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Bishop Byrne (Champions)

1

Bishop Byrne (Champions)

2

SBEC (Runnerup)

 

2

SBEC (Runnerup)

 

3

Rosemark

 

3

St. Andrews

 

4

FACS

 

4

FACS

 

5

St. Andrews

 

5

Rosemark

 

6

Memphis Catholic

 

6

Elliston

 

7

Elliston

 

7

Memphis Catholic

 

8

Kings Academy

 

8

Kings Academy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Division II AA

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

Briarcrest (Runnerup)

 

1

Harding Academy

 

2

BGA (Champions)

 

2

Briarcrest (Runnerup)

 

3

Knoxville Webb

 

3

BGA (Champions)

 

4

Harding Academy

 

4

Knoxville Webb

 

5

ECS

 

5

ECS

 

6

Notre Dame

 

6

Notre Dame

 

7

Knoxville Catholic

 

7

Knoxville Catholic

 

8

St. Benedict

 

8

St. Benedict

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams in bold are the highest rated teams that could reach the finals based on the brackets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Regular Season Ratings

 

Division II A

 

Using Margin of Victory

 

Eliminating Margin of Victory

 

Rank

Team

 

Rank

Team

 

1

McCallie (Champions)

 

1

McCallie (Champions)

 

2

Brentwood Academy (Runnerup)

2

Brentwood Academy (Runnerup)

3

MUS

 

3

MUS

 

4

MBA

 

4

CBHS

 

5

Baylor

 

5

MBA

 

6

CBHS

 

6

Baylor

 

7

Father Ryan

 

7

Father Ryan

 

 


Earl Nall has been doing computer ratings for Tennessee high school football for ten years. He majored in mathematics and physics in college and his mathematics professor was Herman Matthews whose ratings for Scripps-Howard are part of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Mr. Nall worked for years as a statistician and computer programmer in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He is now the technology coordinator for the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA), which oversees high school sports in the state. He lives in Kingston, Tennessee with his wife and daughter who is a college sophomore.