Page 1 of 1

Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:35 pm
by ansonberns
William Groger, John John Groger, and Arjun Nageswaran have requested that I post these statistical rankings they have developed on their behalf. Only teams that have played a tournament this season have been included in the rankings, and thus they should be viewed more as a relative ranking of the teams listed than an absolute, overall ranking. The rankings use the formula (((12.5 * Adjusted Powers/Games) + (125 * Adjusted Points per Bonus/30))/2) - (Negs/Games). This formula makes it so that a team that gets 8 adjusted powers will get 50 points for the power section, and a team with 24 aPPB will get 50 points in the bonus section. This makes up the bulk of the ranking, with teams that get 24 aPPB and 8 adjusted powers scoring 100 points in this part. The negs per game are then subtracted, to differentiate between teams of similar skill level. Due to a lack of resources, only teams with 18 aPPB and higher were ranked. A-Sets and MSNCT were not included. This is not meant to be a competitor to HSQBRank. Rather, it attempts to be another method of ranking teams using different factors. Perhaps curiosity killed the cat, but please don't kill our rankings!

1 Hunter A
2 Uni Lab A
3 Wayzata A
4 Stevenson A
5 Beavercreek A
6 Miami Valley A
7 IMSA A
8 Auburn A
9 High Tech A
10 Lexington A
11 Chattahoochee A
12 Ithaca A
13 "A* Four"
14 DCC A
15 Wilmington Charter A
16 Greens Farms A
17 Troy A
18 Solon A
19 Millburn A
20 St. Marks A
21 Colleyville Heritage A
22 Plano West A
23 Cistercian A
24 Parish Episcopal A
25 GNS A
26 High Tech B
27 Phillips Academy A
28 Henderson County A
29 Singapore American A
30 Allderdice A
31 Glasgow A
32 Westview A
33 Greenhill A
34 George Washington A
35 Sandburg A
36 Dunbar A
37 Olympian A
38 Barrington A (RI)
39 Livingston A
40 Westview B
41 High Tech C
42 Kellenberg A
43 Latin A
44 Del Norte A
45 Hinsdale Central A
46 Latin B
47 Barrington A (IL)
48 St Marks B
49 Uni Lab B
50 Darien A
51 DCC B
52 Cistercian B
53 Clark A
54 East Brunswick A
55 Woodford County A
56 La Jolla A
57 North Hollywood A
58 H-F A
59 Hanover A
60 Beavercreek B
61 Dublin Scioto A
62 Darien B
63 Eastside A
64 Wilton A
65 Mountain Lakes A
66 TMS A
67 East Brunswick B
68 Copley A
69 Johnson Central A
70 Daviess County A
71 Hunter B
72 Northmont A
73 Plano West B
74 Dunbar B
75 Dupont Manual A
76 TJ Classical A
77 Blazer A
78 Russell A

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:55 am
by matthewspatrick
We need someone to come up with a clever backronym so we can talk about GROGER ranks.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:49 am
by SirMrGuy
Generated Rankings Obtained from Game Examination and Review
(alternatively, for ARJUN, Appreciable Ranking Justifies my Unintelligent Negs)

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:53 am
by jonathanshauf
Well, we're not quite in last.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:52 pm
by matthewspatrick
SirMrGuy wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:49 am
(alternatively, for ARJUN, Appreciable Ranking Justifies my Unintelligent Negs)
Image

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:02 pm
by Thiccasso's Guernthicca
I'm curious to see the results if A-sets were counted, as they are in HSQBRank (I don't believe MSNCT is). Would the rankings change significantly?

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:20 pm
by AKKOLADE
I include MSNCT.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:58 pm
by Not John John
We chose not to include A-sets and MSNCT due to both a lack of resources and a disproportionately large impact of powers.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:32 pm
by Iamteehee
While MSNCT and IS-A are accounted for in Morlan rankings, they have very little effect on the positions of teams in the rankings.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:07 pm
by troyharris
While MSNCT and IS-A are accounted for in Morlan rankings, they have very little effect on the positions of teams in the rankings"
Except they do when you look at a team like Belmont, who, at MIT without Cameron, still had a decent tournament, but then had a full team at PAQT the next week and beat Lexington (a short-handed version of Lexington, but still very good) twice and won the entire event. I totally get this isn't supposed to be any sort of official ranking system and you are trying to get creative with a different ranking methodology, but to not see a team as good as Belmont in the rankings at all shows a shortfall of omitting the A-sets.


















"

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 pm
by Berniecrat
Hello.

A lot of what you mentioned is true. Belmont is indeed a very good team that deserves a national ranking, and they are not including the ranking. Our main rationale asides from the additional stats we would have to enter, as stated before, is because the disproportionate effect powers would have.

Lower difficulty sets like SCOP Novice, A Sets, and MSNCT will tend to have the powers become more weighted then HS regular sets simply because of the difficulty. While more powers is a good thing from an outreach perspective and to get players started, it also skews our ranking to focus more on powers if that makes sense. Josh from the Pi-oneers ran a statistical analysis based on this and when lower difficulty sets are weighted, the effect of PPB and negs are diminished while powers play a larger role. Even when it is adjusted compared to the powers from an IS set, the effect is still increased.

Similarly, we felt that A-sets and other novice sets are not representative of skill on HS regular sets and above, which is the main purpose of this ranking. While unfortunately that would exclude Belmont for this round, we plan to release more updates to the rankings somewhat consistently and if they play sets at HS-regs and above and can pull up similarly impressive stats, they will get the recognition they deserve.

On the note of incomplete pictures, Georgia teams are underranked in this post and will likely be in future posts. Some of the Georgia tournaments don't have their stats posted, others like http://hsquizbowl.org/db/tournaments/5276/ have skewed PPB that includes bounceback making it impossible to include them in the rankings as there is no way to find out the "pure ppb". That being said, a player from Chattahoochee informed us that their unskwed PPB was 24.6. Along with their power and neg stats, William Groger ran the calculations and had that tournament been included with the 24.6 PPB, Chattahoochee would have been the #1 Groger Ranked team.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:01 pm
by whatamidoinghere
Berniecrat wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:59 pm
On the note of incomplete pictures, Georgia teams are underranked in this post and will likely be in future posts. Some of the Georgia tournaments don't have their stats posted, others like http://hsquizbowl.org/db/tournaments/5276/ have skewed PPB that includes bounceback making it impossible to include them in the rankings as there is no way to find out the "pure ppb". That being said, a player from Chattahoochee informed us that their unskwed PPB was 24.6. Along with their power and neg stats, William Groger ran the calculations and had that tournament been included with the 24.6 PPB, Chattahoochee would have been the #1 Groger Ranked team.
Alongside the rankings for Chattahoochee, it feels like in general this set of rankings skews towards teams which have earlier seasons where they play regs-level tournaments, such as Ohio and Illinois. For example, in NorCal, our first tournament with one of the sets that do count (non-Novice, non-MSNCT), doesn't start until late October. Although these are fine preliminary rankings, I feel it is important to address that many of the circuits, including NorCal and Georgia, won't have a reliable ranking on this set of rankings.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:15 pm
by Not John John
whatamidoinghere wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:01 pm
Alongside the rankings for Chattahoochee, it feels like in general this set of rankings skews towards teams which have earlier seasons where they play regs-level tournaments, such as Ohio and Illinois. For example, in NorCal, our first tournament with one of the sets that do count (non-Novice, non-MSNCT), doesn't start until late October. Although these are fine preliminary rankings, I feel it is important to address that many of the circuits, including NorCal and Georgia, won't have a reliable ranking on this set of rankings.
This was already addressed.
ansonberns wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:35 pm
Only teams that have played a tournament this season have been included in the rankings, and thus they should be viewed more as a relative ranking of the teams listed than an absolute, overall ranking.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:07 pm
by AKKOLADE
Expecting any system to have an absolute ranking on October 13th isn't realistic.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:57 pm
by ansonberns
Updated rankings. Remember that they are still relative, if a team hasn't played anything, they will not appear here.
RANK TEAM GROGER SCORE
1 Hunter A 115.7140152
2 DCC A 113.7138717
3 Wayzata A 112.0763889
4 Beavercreek A 107.0625
5 Miami Valley A 105.8833333
6 Uni Lab A 105.8767505
7 High Tech A 102.3541667
8 Lexington A 101.6875
9 Chattahoochee A 101.5833333
10 Montgomery Blair A 101.4919872
11 Ithaca A 100.2708333
12 Stevenson A 100.2498565
13 IMSA A 96.85781106
14 Montgomery Blair B 96.8125
15 Auburn A 96.5661444
16 Wilmington Charter A 91.82765152
17 Troy A 90.3125
18 Solon A 89.34166667
19 Henderson County A 89.259705
20 Millburn A 89.01893939
21 St. Marks A 88.85416667
22 Colleyville Heritage A 88.19791667
23 Plano West A 87.40277778
24 Cistercian A 86.30952381
25 Parish Episcopal A 86.16666667
26 GNS A 85.10984848
27 Greens Farms A 84.15137167
28 Glasgow A 83.46387167
29 Phillips Academy A 82.63068182
30 Singapore American A 81.73333333
31 Allderdice A 80.84583333
32 Dunbar A 77.73053834
33 McLean A 77.69886364
34 Raleigh Charter A 77.63888889
35 High Tech B 77.44303834
36 Westview A 77.29166667
37 Greenhill A 77.125
38 Dorman A 76.45833333
39 BASIS McLean A 76.4375
40 George Washington A 76.31666667
41 Olympian A 74.38333333
42 Barrington A (RI) 73.35416667
43 Livingston A 72.56818182
44 Westview B 72.36111111
45 NCSSM A 71.84722222
46 Kellenberg A 71.59090909
47 Del Norte A 70.86666667
48 DCC B 70.06803834
49 Sandburg A 68.66803834
50 St. Joseph A 68.52637167
51 St Marks B 68.51388889
52 GPS A 66.08053834
53 High Tech C 65.35276056
54 Cistercian B 64.5
55 Latin A 64.01387167
56 Dupont Manual A 63.92637167
57 Clark A 63.875
58 Hinsdale Central A 63.784705
59 East Brunswick A 63.58143939
60 Woodford County A 63.4375
61 La Jolla A 63.3125
62 Latin B 62.85137167
63 North Hollywood A 62.73611111
64 Barrington A (IL) 62.71803834
65 Thomas S. Wootton 62.22083333
66 Hanover A 62.02083333
67 Montgomery Blair C 62
68 Atkins A 61.99305556
69 Richard Montgomery B 61.37083333
70 Uni Lab B 61.18053834
71 Beavercreek B 61.12916667
72 Dublin Scioto A 60.94583333
73 Darien A 59.422205
74 Eastside A 59.33035714
75 Winston Churchill A 59.15833333
76 Wilton A 58.85416667
77 Simon Kenton A 58.62637167
78 Mountain Lakes A 58.23333333
79 Danville A 58.072205
80 DCD A 57.58053834
81 H-F A 55.72637167
82 Middlesboro A 55.609705
83 TMS A 55.04464286
84 East Brunswick B 54.17083333
85 Copley A 54.08333333
86 Johnson Central A 53.97916667
87 Daviess County A 53.83333333
88 Darien B 52.890955
89 Hunter B 52.61666667
90 Northmont A 52.5
91 Plano West B 51.54761905
92 Dunbar B 49.22916667
93 Divine Child A 48.46387167
94 TJ Classical A 47.70833333
95 Blazer A 47.08333333
96 Russell A 40.83333333

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:09 pm
by Berniecrat
In order to save Anson the trouble of copying and pasting the rankings every time, and to stop this thread from being filled with huge walls of text, we will be posting all future rankings to grogerranks.wordpress.com

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:33 pm
by Berniecrat
Dylan Bowman of Uni Lab has posted a nice write-up of the Illinois teams featured in the Groger Ranks here: https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -analysis/. You too can get your hsqb analysis featured on the Groger Ranks website!

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:40 pm
by Berniecrat
These rankings encompass the tournaments from the last two weeks. Thanks to Penn Bowl, we have a new number one! Congratulations to TJ from Virginia!
https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:24 pm
by Berniecrat
In Steven Liu of High Tech's new article for Groger Ranks, he delves into the common question about the applicability of national rankings, such as ours. You can find that here: https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -analysis/ The reason I am posting this into the forums even though it isn't actual rankings, is because Steven has also created this amazing website (which although in initial phases) will calculate the probability of top teams making the championship of PACE throughout the season! https://sirmrguy.github.io/qbmodel/index.html

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:13 pm
by Antrobus63
I am very impressed. Grogers, Steven Liu... wow. The more that students use their intelligence and initiative to lead the charge within HS QB, the better.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:43 pm
by Habitat_Against_Humanity
Berniecrat wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:24 pm
In Steven Liu of High Tech's new article for Groger Ranks, he delves into the common question about the applicability of national rankings, such as ours. You can find that here: https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -analysis/ The reason I am posting this into the forums even though it isn't actual rankings, is because Steven has also created this amazing website (which although in initial phases) will calculate the probability of top teams making the championship of PACE throughout the season! https://sirmrguy.github.io/qbmodel/index.html
Hey, this looks pretty cool and it's incredibly impressive to see logistic regressions being run by high school folk. One nitpick: I might be reading the explanation wrong, but it sounds like the data is being double counted:

If the absolute value of the "Groger Difference" between team 1 and team 2 is X, it sounds like both data points (X, 1) which is the winning team's data point and (-X, 0) which is the losing team's data point are both being included in the regression. It won't affect the estimates of the model, but since you're looking at p-values and standard errors, this double-counting of the data doubles the sample size and thus affects the p-value and standard error calculations.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:45 pm
by SirMrGuy
Habitat_Against_Humanity wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:43 pm
Berniecrat wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:24 pm
In Steven Liu of High Tech's new article for Groger Ranks, he delves into the common question about the applicability of national rankings, such as ours. You can find that here: https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -analysis/ The reason I am posting this into the forums even though it isn't actual rankings, is because Steven has also created this amazing website (which although in initial phases) will calculate the probability of top teams making the championship of PACE throughout the season! https://sirmrguy.github.io/qbmodel/index.html
Hey, this looks pretty cool and it's incredibly impressive to see logistic regressions being run by high school folk. One nitpick: I might be reading the explanation wrong, but it sounds like the data is being double counted:

If the absolute value of the "Groger Difference" between team 1 and team 2 is X, it sounds like both data points (X, 1) which is the winning team's data point and (-X, 0) which is the losing team's data point are both being included in the regression. It won't affect the estimates of the model, but since you're looking at p-values and standard errors, this double-counting of the data doubles the sample size and thus affects the p-value and standard error calculations.
Thanks for pointing this out! I just re-ran the numbers without double counting the data points, and I'll probably make a write-up about that at some point soon. In case people are curious: the p-value increased for the logistic model and the correlation coefficient went down for the linear model, though the actual results (logistic regression curve, line of best fit, residual standard error) all stayed about the same.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:04 pm
by Berniecrat
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Here are your latest rankings (our first set of rankings with new Groger Ranks member Steven Liu!): https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:49 pm
by Berniecrat
Our final rankings of the year, with new member Anson Berns of Montgomery Blair, can be found here: https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2018/ ... s-top-200/ Happy winter break, everyone, and best of luck for next year!

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:40 pm
by jonpin
I wonder if the powers/game model might work better with multiplicative adjustments rather than additive. As it stands, a team gets a massive boost for playing a hard set, even if they do relatively poorly on it. On EFT, for instance, the adjustment of +6 Pw/Gm represents about 38 Groger points for a team even if they don't power a single question, whereas the bonus adjustment is worth about 13 points.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:03 pm
by Deviant Insider
If I am reading everything right, a team that played Penn Bowl and did not answer a single question would be ranked #170 in the country.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:56 pm
by Not John John
jonpin wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:40 pm
I wonder if the powers/game model might work better with multiplicative adjustments rather than additive.
Hi Mr. Pinyan, we actually briefly tried doing this, but it was killed very quickly due to anomalous results. Making power adjustments multiplicative completely devalues PPB, making the rankings of the highest-tier teams rely only on their power numbers from college sets. In its brief existence, multiplicative adjustments put TJ B in 3rd based off their Penn Bowl performance, in which they finished 8th out of the 10 HS teams present.
jonpin wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:40 pm
As it stands, a team gets a massive boost for playing a hard set, even if they do relatively poorly on it.
As to your second point, of the 233 teams that currently have Groger Scores, only 19 have their highest value from a college tournament(5 from EFT, 7 from Sun God, and 7 from Penn Bowl). Of these the most "anomalous" result was Carmel's performance on Sun God, which was 10.62 points above their average score. For reference teams have gotten as much 19.31 points above their average on regular difficulty sets.
Deviant Insider wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:03 pm
If I am reading everything right, a team that played Penn Bowl and did not answer a single question would be ranked #170 in the country.
Hi Mr. Reinstein, while a team that got 0 PPB and 0P/G would technically have a Groger Score of 61.79, they would not be ranked at all due to our current 18aPPB cutoff. The only way to get a Groger Score for doing nothing would be if the PPB adjustment was above 18.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:25 am
by jonpin
Not John John wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:56 pm
jonpin wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:40 pm
I wonder if the powers/game model might work better with multiplicative adjustments rather than additive.
Hi Mr. Pinyan, we actually briefly tried doing this, but it was killed very quickly due to anomalous results. Making power adjustments multiplicative completely devalues PPB, making the rankings of the highest-tier teams rely only on their power numbers from college sets. In its brief existence, multiplicative adjustments put TJ B in 3rd based off their Penn Bowl performance, in which they finished 8th out of the 10 HS teams present.
Deviant Insider wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:03 pm
If I am reading everything right, a team that played Penn Bowl and did not answer a single question would be ranked #170 in the country.
Hi Mr. Reinstein, while a team that got 0 PPB and 0P/G would technically have a Groger Score of 61.79, they would not be ranked at all due to our current 18aPPB cutoff. The only way to get a Groger Score for doing nothing would be if the PPB adjustment was above 18.
Makes sense. A little after posting, I wondered if instead, some sort of logistic adjustment might be even better (since there is an obvious upper limit to how many powers a team can get), but obviously that becomes far more difficult to implement and understand.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:40 pm
by tmerc10
Hey guys,

To you that have made the rankings, thank you. I thoroughly enjoy reading them and think they are really well done. However, I just noticed on the most recent rankings that you have a typo for my school, Hinsdale Central. It looks like our stats from HFT were placed under the name "Hindsdale Central." Therefore, we have two rankings, one with the misspelled name and the other one with the right name from our other tournaments. I just wanted to let you know so you could combine the stats and maybe add a deserving team to the rankings.

Thanks, Thomas Mercurio

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:36 pm
by Berniecrat
Happy New Year! While we won’t be posting new official Groger Ranks yet due to some issues with Bardbowl stats, given that there’s a midseason poll going on, we thought splitting the rankings into mACF and NAQT would be helpful!

Our next rankings will probably utilize the Liu Adjustment Method mentioned in the articles.

https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2019/ ... -rankings/
https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2019/ ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:16 pm
by Berniecrat
Welcome back to Groger Ranks! You can find our first rankings of the year, ranking the top 200, here: https://grogerranks.wordpress.com/2019/ ... y-28-2019/

These rankings are also the first (other than the mACF and NAQT only rankings that were published in late December) that use the new Liu Adjustments. Steven Liu will explain further in detail the Liu Adjustments in an upcoming Groger Ranks article.

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:04 pm
by Berniecrat
Our long awaited article explaining the new Modified Liu Adjustments can be found here (the first article to be posted on our new domain name!): https://grogerranks.com/2019/02/04/modi ... -analysis/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:30 pm
by Berniecrat
With the season entering full swing, we are ready to release our new rankings! https://grogerranks.com/2019/02/13/febr ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:04 pm
by Berniecrat
With a whole bunch of major tournaments happening on Saturday, we are ready to present our newest rankings powered by our amazing Patreon subscribers! https://grogerranks.com/2019/02/26/febr ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 3:49 pm
by Berniecrat

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:53 pm
by Berniecrat
New rankings again, this time with a tease of a potential new addition to our site. https://grogerranks.com/2019/04/19/apri ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:53 pm
by Berniecrat
You can find our new SSNCT Pre-Nationals Rankings here: https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/01/ssnc ... s-ranking/ . These are our first set of rankings using weighted rankings

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 9:37 pm
by Berniecrat
New top 250 (our first with weighted rankings) is out: https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/06/may-5-2019-rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 9:31 pm
by Berniecrat
Going along with our pre-nationals content, as well as a useful supplement to our Pre-Nationals poll, we are publishing Hard Sets-only, mACF-only, and NAQT-only rankings. You can find them here:
https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/13/pre- ... -rankings/
https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/13/pre- ... y-ranking/
https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/13/pre- ... -rankings/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 10:46 pm
by Berniecrat
Our final overall rankings ahead of nationals are now released: https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/21/fina ... -rankings/
Thank you so much everyone for your support for the rankings this year!

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 11:08 pm
by Berniecrat
Quick Timeline for Future Content:
Tuesday/Wednesday - Upload Pre-Nationals Poll Podcast
Wednesday - Pre-HSNCT Ranks
May 27/28 - Post-HSNCT Debrief & Analysis
Sometime the week before PACE NSC - Pre-NSC Ranks
June 10/11- Post-NSC Debrief & Analysis
June 10/11 - Release 2019 Player Poll

There are obviously a bunch of empty dates in this calendar. We'd like to ideally fill the space heading into nationals with analysis pieces from circuits all across the country. Please consider writing a piece and submitting it to grogerranks@gmail.com

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:33 pm
by Berniecrat
The Pre-HSNCT Ranks took less time than expected, so they are now uploaded here: https://grogerranks.com/2019/05/22/fina ... -rankings/

Editing the podcast is taking a little bit more time than expected, so that might be up closer to Thursday. We will have it out before HSNCT, though

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 11:27 pm
by Berniecrat
Congratulations to all at HSNCT! While we work on entering in HSNCT stats and our Post-HSNCT write-up, here is an interesting spreadsheet we compiled comparing the t-12 and up teams to how Groger Ranks predicted they'd end up: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =363332385

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Thu May 30, 2019 4:32 pm
by jnelson
Posted to HSQBRank last Thursday- the site will go on hiatus for the 2019-2020 season.

https://hsqbrank.com/2019/05/23/a-quick ... -hsqbrank/

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:10 pm
by Berniecrat
Pre-NSC Ranks are up!
https://grogerranks.com/2019/06/05/fina ... -rankings/

In regards to our post-HSNCT debrief, the podcast is still being edited - we will release it in the next couple of days

Re: Groger Ranks 2018-19

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:33 pm
by Berniecrat