Polls/Rankings are always funny but...

[Hotrodg]

this year the Padilla/DCTF preseason ranking contains a real head scratcher.

Look at class 2A

Cisco #1, Elysian Fields #8

BUT

EF over Cisco is the pick for the D2 title?

EDIT:

Also - Early #3 Kirbyville #13

BUT

Kirbyville over Early for D1 title?

[Guest etbu]

Was thinking the same thing but does EF have the good qb back this year?

[tvc184]

The predictions on state titles are not from the Padilla poll.

It is like having a setxsports.com rankings in this area as speculated by the admin but some knowledgeable person on here predicting that the #5 team would likely beat the #1 team that the admin has ranked.

Put it another way, if I am predicting the state title, I don't have to use the Padilla poll. Padilla does a poll and I have my opinion so it is easy for my opinion to differ from his opinion on rankings. DCTF just happens to have a poll from a different person(s) than the person(s) that are guessing at the state titles.

And as always, it is just for discussion purposes.  8)

[Hotrodg]

The predictions on state titles are not from the Padilla poll.

It is like having a setxsports.com rankings in this area as speculated by the admin but some knowledgeable person on here predicting that the #5 team would likely beat the #1 team that the admin has ranked.

Put it another way, if I am predicting the state title, I don't have to use the Padilla poll. Padilla does a poll and I have my opinion so it is easy for my opinion to differ from his opinion on rankings. DCTF just happens to have a poll from a different person(s) than the person(s) that are guessing at the state titles.

And as always, it is just for discussion purposes.  8)

It is not really like that at all.  The difference is the way the picks and rankings were published.  The ranking listing is published as the "Sate Farm/Texas Football 2A Top 25".  Not as "this individual's opinion".  The state finalist and champ picks are published in a feature for each class titled "Texas Football's Take".  Not as "a different guy's opinion".

It would be like 2 moderator's here making a ranking and state picks but titling them as "SETXSports.com's Rankings" and "SETXSports.com's Picks".

The oddity here is that they published them both as "Texas Football".  In the process they contradict themselves as a publication.

There isn't really anything wrong with it.  It is just a really bizarre way to have published them.

[tvc184]

I guess the analogy whooshed right past you.

You just said the same thing that I did in a different way. I never mentioned any individuals opinions. Padilla apparently did the top 25 rankings and someone else did the finalists. It's not rocket science.

[Hotrodg]

LMAO.

You don't get it.  Oh well.

[Hotrodg]

It does not take much insight to understand that the ranking and picks were done by different contributors.  I think that is obvious to everyone.  The thing that is goofy is that the editors allowed the mag to cantradict itself by publishing contradictory info as the same entity.  My opinion is this was the result of a lack of editorial oversight.

Here, I'll try taking the analogy away from football ranking to help you achieve understanding.

Lets say you and I work for a large company.  We both work in a department called "Consumer Relations".  We have been assigned a very important project.  We are to determine what things, in order, customers most want changed, and figure out how to most effectively improve our customer relations.

So we prepare our report.  You go do research and I go do research.  We make a presentation and present to management.

Slide 1 is titled "Consumer Relations Top 25 Things Customers Want Changed".  The #1 thing listed is "No one ever answers the phone" and at #13 we have "Your email address is hard to find on your website".

Slide 2 is titled "Consumer Relations take on what customers most want changed".  On this slide we explain that given the choice between having someone answer the phone or making our email address more visible, customer would choose to have the email address made more visible.  Since making the email address more visible is most important, that is where we intend to focus our efforts.

Exact same thing as happened in the mag.  Two different people, or groups of people, worked on the same thing independently but then we presented contradictory opinions as THE SAME ENTITY in this case the "Consumer Relations Department".  How do you think we look to our target audience?  As the other departments take our presentation and decide what to do to work on customer relations how much faith will they put in our department's research?

[tvc184]

It does not take much insight to understand that the ranking and picks were done by different contributors.  I think that is obvious to everyone. 

Then why start off saying it is a real head scratcher?

One entity is responsible for one and another entity is responsible for the other. I'll bet if you read a news magazine you can find contradicting articles on current events. I surely don't see any need for head scratching but if you need to, scratch away.

[Hotrodg]

Well I'll stop this conversation now.  Further discussion with you on the matter has no value to the rest of the board.