So its fair to say ALL rankings in illinois is totally based on ccl blue? Bc the latest max prep state rankings are dumb

[jha618]

The games, X's and O's, schedules, kids performances, etc. It's high school football the rankings literally mean nothing. The goal is to win a state title, what a schools ranking is has zero bearing on that.

With as much stuff that gets flushed around here, rankings seem like a fairly safe topic.

 

[LHSTigers94]

It's still all a matter of opinion regardless of on the field results.

What if someone has the opinion after watching BR and LWE play that BR would beat LWE 9 times out of 10? I'm not saying I have that opinion, but what if I did? Do I rank BR ahead of LWE based on that? Or do I rank LWE ahead of BR because of that one single game?

Facts always supersede opinion. The team that won is ALWAYS better than the team that lost. Excuses and reasons why are good for conversation but aren't facts.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

So why do them? Other than for discussions

You understand “not doing rankings” and “people caring too much about them” are two different things, right?

 

[ramblinman reborn]

Facts always supersede opinion. The team that won is ALWAYS better than the team that lost. Excuses and reasons why are good for conversation but aren't facts.

You are making no room for upsets nor subsequent wins and losses. You are also using words like "ALWAYS" that leave no wiggle room.

Using your logic, a 1-8 team whose lone victory came over a team that is 8-1 should be ranked higher than the 8-1 team because the 1-8 team is "ALWAYS better."

If you say to me that's a hypothetical outlier, you would be correct. But, outliers happen. Is a 3-6 team defeating a 8-1 team realistic? Perhaps not, but it's more realistic than a 1-8 team doing it. What about 5-4? Would you ALWAYS rank them higher than the 8-1 team they defeated? Where do you draw the line? At what point do you start taking into account the fact that the better team doesn't always win?

If you want to talk about "facts," the fact is that a team scoring a major upset was better for 48 minutes of regulation playing time that day but not necessarily better over the course of an entire season and its results.

 

[LHSTigers94]

You are making no room for upsets nor subsequent wins and losses. You are also using words like "ALWAYS" that leave no wiggle room.

Using your logic, a 1-8 team whose lone victory came over a team that is 8-1 should be ranked higher than the 8-1 team because the 1-8 team is "ALWAYS better."

If you say to me that's a hypothetical outlier, you would be correct. But, outliers happen. Is a 3-6 team defeating a 8-1 team realistic? Perhaps not, but it's more realistic than a 1-8 team doing it. What about 5-4? Would you ALWAYS rank them higher than the 8-1 team they defeated? Where do you draw the line? At what point do you start taking into account the fact that the better team doesn't always win?

If you want to talk about "facts," the fact is that a team scoring a major upset was better for 48 minutes of regulation playing time that day but not necessarily better over the course of an entire season and its results.

Not true as you inserted eight other facts in the example you used.
Do you agree that an upset is an opinion and not fact. Example, BR losing to MC was considered an upset because opinion suggest MC should win. Facts are BR and MC that last two years were 1 and 1 in close games. People had the opinion that MC was the favorite which was all opinion based.
The same opinion had LWE getting blown out by BR.

That being said, first game of the year, there are no facts available. Instead of everything being 50/50, we pick a side and that narrative is carried throughout the year in some cases. Now we start using the term upset versus the reality that some teams match up better against other teams. I also think when teams are evenly match, home field becomes a factor. All that said, FACTS should be the driving force behind rankings. In most cases there are enough facts to be pretty close to accurate. (Massey is a close example). Opinions is what create the craziness.

There are some outliers that can make things tricky with FACTS. Example will be LA versus MC. Based on 2026 Facts, LA should be the favorite. Head to Head with BR and home field advantage. MC beating LA twice last year is a fact that can be inserted. Is it relevant for 2026, no, however it is a fact that can be inserted in a discussion of who will win. It can't be used in the discussion of ranking though.

 

[ramblinman reborn]

Not true as you inserted eight other facts in the example you used.
Do you agree that an upset is an opinion and not fact. Example, BR losing to MC was considered an upset because opinion suggest MC should win. Facts are BR and MC that last two years were 1 and 1 in close games. People had the opinion that MC was the favorite which was all opinion based.
The same opinion had LWE getting blown out by BR.

That being said, first game of the year, there are no facts available. Instead of everything being 50/50, we pick a side and that narrative is carried throughout the year in some cases. Now we start using the term upset versus the reality that some teams match up better against other teams. I also think when teams are evenly match, home field becomes a factor. All that said, FACTS should be the driving force behind rankings. In most cases there are enough facts to be pretty close to accurate. (Massey is a close example). Opinions is what create the craziness.

There are some outliers that can make things tricky with FACTS. Example will be LA versus MC. Based on 2026 Facts, LA should be the favorite. Head to Head with BR and home field advantage. MC beating LA twice last year is a fact that can be inserted. Is it relevant for 2026, no, however it is a fact that can be inserted in a discussion of who will win. It can't be used in the discussion of ranking though.

I asked you five specific questions, and you answered none of them.

 

[LHSTigers94]

I asked you five specific questions, and you answered none of them.

Let me make it simple for you.
Question 1. No they are not automatically ranked higher (8 other games answer that) but they are definitely better (proven fact!). All you other questions are apart of your first question.

 

[Sterling Warrior]

I think Max Preps is pretty accurate for 5-A even though it’s funny to see a 2-4 team ranked #1 My only disagreement is Good Stem Academy ranked 10th and Chicago Morgan Park #5 Neither team has really played anyone but mostly CPL teams and have each lost one. Correct me if I’m wrong, maybe I don’t know the scoop on either team?

 

[SiuCubFan8]

I think Max Preps is pretty accurate for 5-A even though it’s funny to see a 2-4 team ranked #1 My only disagreement is Good Stem Academy ranked 10th and Chicago Morgan Park #5 Neither team has really played anyone but mostly CPL teams and have each lost one. Correct me if I’m wrong, maybe I don’t know the scoop on either team?

Accurate?
The top two teams are not in 5A for 2026 season.

 

[ramblinman reborn]

Let me make it simple for you.
Question 1. No they are not automatically ranked higher (8 other games answer that) but they are definitely better (proven fact!). All you other questions are apart of your first question.

How can you justify ranking a team higher than a team you think is inferior to it?