Ok.

1.)  I don't recall that I wrote anything to "criticize" Devine's list as SJ said.  I only explored a different methodology.

2.)  The calpreps model is designed to predict a winner and the "spread". A prediction of a 1 point win suggests the game is going to be a lot closer than a game where calpreps "spread" is 9 points.  The model predicted that the 05 Palma team would beat the 05 Seaside team.  That is what happened.  The fact that the model had a different score than the actual game results does not make the "project a matchup model a joke" as hookup said.

3.)  What is wrong with my Top 10 having different rules and scope than Devine's list?  Why is that such a big deal to you two?  It is funny how a thread that started by offering suggestions of schools that should or should not be on Devine's list became a thread about my methodology, with a geography lesson to boot.

4.) If you take away the requirement that a team be a CCS Finals team, and look at some of the teams suggested in this thread, here is what the model says that creates a new "top 10" list:

2001 Palma
2006 Palma
2005 Palma
2003 Palma
2007 Gilroy
2002 SLV
2001 Salinas
2011 Palma
2009 Carmel
2002 Salinas

For those requiring geographic purity the list would drop the Gilroy, SLV and Hollister teams and add the 2006 Seaside and 2005 Seaside teams below the 2002 Salinas team.  Making it a list of the top 9.

Or if you want it for just the past 10 years, drop the 2001 Palma and 2001 Salinas teams and you have a top 8 list.  Or a top 7 list if you combine the geography and decade "requirements" together.

By the way hookup, if "JD's opinion doesn't mean much" why bother to read what he writes?  The fact is this guy busts his ass, working weekends, evenings and writing into the night to cover high school sports better than anyone in this area.  Better than anyone has for as long as I can remember.  You may not agree with his opinion, but he sure has earned the right to have one.
 

Edited 4 times by carmelkyd Oct 11 12 9:48 AM.