November 27, 2019 Rankings

There have been a lot of changes at the top since the last rankings. Some of this can be attributable to our method of weighted rankings. Some of it can be attributable to more accurate adjustments as more teams have played more tournaments. Of course, a lot of it comes from new dominant performances from top teams across the nation! Sidenote: there will not be any Interview Thursdays this week due to Thanksgiving. In the spirit of giving thanks, we’d like to give thanks as always to our patreons, namely:

Dawn Combs

Fred Morlan

Goma Srinivasan

Kaili Fan

Sindhu Nair

Vikshar Athreya

Tyler Vaughan

You too can get your name listed here by donating at! Here are your top 175:

1 Miami Valley A (OH) 112.45 Scottie
2 Hunter A (NY) 110.92 EFT
3 University Lab A (IL) 108.85 RAFT
4 Millburn A (NJ) 108.43 EFT
5 Saratoga A (CA) 108.38 Penn Bowl
6 Phillips Academy A (MA) 107.71 WAIT
7 Mission San Jose A (CA) 106.96 BLAST
8 Adlai E. Stevenson A (IL) 103.84 RAFT
9 Beavercreek A (OH) 103.26 BLAST
10 Richard Montgomery A (MD) 100.98 IS-186
11 Chattahoochee A (GA) 100.53 BLAST
12 Stanford Online A (CA) 99.70 EFT
13 Georgetown Day A (DC) 99.14 EFT
14 Thomas Jefferson Science & Tech A (VA) 97.70 EFT
15 LASA A (TX) 97.35 IS-186
16 Wayzata A (MN) 96.81 Penn Bowl
17 Westview A (CA) 96.58 IS-188
18 Strake Jesuit A (TX) 96.41 IS-186
19 St. Mark’s School of Texas A (TX) 96.10 IS-188
20 Ed W. Clark A (NV) 94.27 WAIT
21 East Chapel Hill A (NC) 94.05 EFT
22 Detroit Catholic Central A (MI) 93.81 BLAST
23 High Tech A (NJ) 93.38 IS-186
24 U of Toronto Schools A (ON) 92.48 EFT
25 Mounds View A (MN) 92.18 WAIT
26 Hunter B (NY) 91.28 IS-186
27 Lexington A (MA) 91.23 EFT
28 Centennial A (MD) 91.10 IS-186
29 Hoover A (AL) 90.73 LOGIC
30 Manheim Township A (PA) 90.54 IS-188
31 Woodford County A (KY) 90.15 LOGIC
32 Eastside A (GA) 90.07 WAIT
33 Santa Monica A (CA) 89.80 IS-186
34 Greenhill A (TX) 89.80 IS-186
35 Carnegie Vanguard A (TX) 89.60 LOGIC
36 Del Norte A (CA) 89.43 2019 SSNCT
37 Harker A (CA) 88.37 IS-188
38 Lambert A (GA) 88.19 IS-186
39 McLean A (VA) 87.95 IS-188
40 Cambridge A (GA) 87.93 BLAST
41 Davis A (CA) 87.92 BLAST
42 BASIS McLean A (VA) 87.89 IS-186
43 Wayzata B (MN) 87.67 EFT
44 Adlai E. Stevenson B (IL) 86.71 IS-188
45 Ladue A (MO) 86.68 WAIT
46 IMSA A (IL) 86.62 RAFT
47 Lusher A (LA) 86.39 IS-188
48 Northmont A (OH) 86.26 Scottie
49 Cistercian A (TX) 86.25 IS-188
50 Russell A (KY) 86.17 Scottie
51 East Brunswick A (NJ) 86.14 WAIT
52 Hinsdale Central A (IL) 85.59 Prison Bowl XII
53 Solon A (OH) 85.13 IS-186
54 Ithaca A (NY) 85.11 2019 SSNCT
55 Great Valley A (PA) 84.46 IS-188
56 Penn Manor A (PA) 84.09 Penn Bowl
57 Middlesboro A (KY) 83.91 Scottie
58 Detroit Country Day A (MI) 83.81 HFT
59 Adlai E. Stevenson C (IL) 83.59 IS-188
60 St. Louis Patriots A (MO) 83.50 RAFT
61 Arcadia A (CA) 83.47 IS-186
62 Henderson A (PA) 83.38 IS-186
63 Hotchkiss A (CT) 83.29 LOGIC
64 Belmont A (MA) 83.08 WAIT
65 Chicago Christian A (IL) 83.08 RAFT
66 Darien A (CT) 83.04 LOGIC
67 Adlai E. Stevenson D (IL) 82.76 IS-188
68 Copley A (OH) 82.73 IS-186
69 Dorman A (SC) 82.65 BLAST
70 George Washington A (WV) 82.46 BLAST
71 William Fremd A (IL) 82.42 IS-188
72 Chattahoochee B (GA) 82.41 BLAST
73 Williamsville A (IL) 81.70 IS-188
74 Dunbar A (KY) 81.28 Scottie
75 Homestead A (CA) 81.19 IS-188
76 Barrington A (IL) 81.18 RAFT
77 James Clemens A (AL) 80.63 Scottie
78 TAG Magnet A (TX) 80.51 IS-188
79 High Tech B (NJ) 80.32 IS-186
80 Raffles A (SG) 80.16 IS-186
81 Tenafly A (NJ) 80.06 2019 SSNCT
82 Bellarmine College Prep A (CA) 79.95 IS-188
83 Brophy College Prep A (AZ) 79.60 EFT
84 Richard Montgomery B (MD) 79.15 IS-186
85 Caddo Magnet A (LA) 78.63 IS-188
86 Enloe A (NC) 78.63 IS-186
87 Acton-Boxborough A (MA) 78.55 HFT
88 Great Valley B (PA) 78.11 IS-188
89 Mira Loma A (CA) 77.92 IS-188
90 Plymouth A (NH) 77.69 WAIT
91 Eden Prairie A (MN) 77.68 WAIT
92 Wheeler A (GA) 77.52 BLAST
93 Westview B (CA) 77.51 IS-188
94 North Gwinnett A (GA) 77.17 IS-186
95 Daviess County A (KY) 77.00 Scottie
96 Freeman A (VA) 76.88 IS-188
97 Merrol Hyde A (TN) 76.71 Scottie
98 Plano West A (TX) 76.63 IS-188
99 Wilton A (CT) 76.61 IS-186
100 St. Anselm’s A (DC) 76.57 IS-186
101 Archbishop Mitty B (CA) 76.46 IS-188
102 Challenger-Almaden A (CA) 76.43 IS-188
103 North Carolina Science and Math A (NC) 76.29 IS-186
104 Westmount A (ON) 76.18 EFT
105 Parish Episcopal A (TX) 75.93 IS-186
106 Hamilton A (AZ) 75.91 EFT
107 Bellaire A (TX) 75.52 IS-186
108 University School A (OH) 75.37 IS-186
109 Friends Select A (PA) 75.24 IS-188
110 Harker B (CA) 75.14 IS-188
111 Livingston A (NJ) 74.77 2019 SSNCT
112 Paideia A (GA) 74.70 WAIT
113 Clarke A (NY) 74.34 IS-188
114 Rockford Auburn A (IL) 74.06 IS-188
115 Gwinnett Math and Science A (GA) 73.98 IS-186
116 Maggie Walker Governor’s School A (VA) 73.96 IS-188
117 Ridgewood A (NJ) 73.78 IS-186
118 Norfolk Academic Guild A (VA) 72.77 IS-188
119 BASIS Scottsdale A (AZ) 72.74 IS-186
120 Great Neck South A (NY) 72.64 2019 SSNCT
121 Dougherty Valley A (CA) 72.16 IS-188
122 South Forsyth A (GA) 71.85 IS-186
123 College Heights Christian A (MO) 71.76 HFT
124 Kinkaid A (TX) 71.70 IS-186
125 Blacksburg B (VA) 71.59 Prison Bowl XII
126 Allderdice A (PA) 71.48 IS-186
127 Johns Creek A (GA) 71.33 BLAST
128 Strake Jesuit B (TX) 70.98 HFT
129 St. Francis A (CA) 70.83 IS-188
130 Plano West B (TX) 70.60 IS-186
131 Dalton A (NY) 70.60 IS-188
132 Lakewood A (OH) 70.57 IS-186
133 Seoul International A (SK) 70.51 IS-188
134 Trinity A (PA) 70.46 IS-188
135 Carbondale A (IL) 70.13 RAFT
136 Monta Vista A (CA) 69.97 IS-188
137 Wheatley A (NY) 69.83 LOGIC
138 Singapore American A (SG) 69.61 IS-188
139 Archbishop Hoban A (OH) 69.54 IS-186
140 East Brunswick B (NJ) 69.47 IS-186
141 Thomas Jefferson Classical A (NC) 69.30 IS-186
142 Cinco Ranch A (TX) 69.21 IS-186
143 BASIS Chandler A (AZ) 69.21 IS-186
144 duPont Manual A (KY) 69.09 BLAST
145 Kellenberg A (NY) 69.09 IS-186
146 Hunter C (NY) 69.03 IS-186
147 Carl Sandburg A (IL) 68.67 RAFT
148 Churchill Middle A (CA) 68.35 IS-188
149 Seton Hall Prep A (NJ) 68.12 IS-188
150 Walnut Hills A (OH) 67.89 IS-186
151 Blacksburg A (VA) 67.71 Prison Bowl XII
152 Eriksen A (CA) 67.68 IS-188
153 Seven Lakes A (TX) 67.62 IS-186
154 St. Joseph A (IN) 67.44 2019 SSNCT
155 Treasure Valley A (ID) 67.41 EFT
156 Shaker Heights A (OH) 67.13 IS-186
157 Greenhill B (TX) 66.75 IS-186
158 Cave Spring A (VA) 66.71 Prison Bowl XII
159 Detroit Catholic Central B (MI) 66.64 IS-188
160 St. John’s B (TX) 66.61 IS-186
161 Westminster A (GA) 66.61 BLAST
162 Coppell A (TX) 66.47 IS-186
163 St. Joseph Central A (MO) 66.44 HFT
164 Dublin Scioto A (OH) 66.42 IS-186
165 Centennial B (MD) 66.35 IS-186
166 Dublin A (CA) 66.02 IS-188
167 James E. Taylor A (TX) 65.89 HFT
168 North Kansas City A (MO) 65.71 IS-186
169 Early College at Guilford A (NC) 65.59 IS-186
170 Cistercian B (TX) 65.54 IS-188
171 Hwa Chong A (SG) 65.54 IS-186
172 Strake Jesuit C (TX) 65.50 IS-186
173 Valley Christian A (CA) 65.46 IS-188
174 Bergen Tech-Teterboro A (NJ) 65.39 2019 SSNCT
175 BASIS Chandler B (AZ) 64.61 IS-186

18 thoughts on “November 27, 2019 Rankings

  1. Having had Cistercian “A” beat both St. Mark’s “A” and Greenhill “A” on both IS 188 and and IS 186, I found it totally nutty that St. Mark’s “A” and Greenhill “A” would ranked, respectively 19th and 34th — while Cisterican “A” ranks 49th! I’m sure some ‘clever fellow’ will leap to the defense of this ranking process, but, as the head coach for Cistercian Prep, this methodology is looking for a truth it cannot find.


    1. Hi there, just wanted to clarify a few points here.

      Avinash is not a member of Groger Ranks, so points attacking him specifically for the methodology are unfair given that he had no part in its creation. We generally do agree with him however that these rankings may not take into account individual matches due to being based on tournament statistics rather than head to head results.

      Additionally, you are right that Cistercian has beat these teams multiple times. Those are certainly very impressive performances and there is no doubt Cistercian is a top team nationally! However, our rankings do not take game by game results into account as those are tough to compare nationwide and also are much more susceptible to variability than aggregated powers per game and ppb stats over a tournament which can be compared nationwide. If you have any specific questions over Cistercian putting up better stats than the listed teams above, we can go more into depth into how their score was calculated.

      We do appreciate the feedback as the viewpoints of our readers is what makes the rankings better. If you have any specific methodology changes that you feel will lead to rankings more reflective of the true strength of teams, email us at We always love learning about new methods of statistical analysis from esteemed members of this community!


  2. With all due respect Father Gregory, the rankings are not a predictive tool. While Cistercian has beaten St. Mark’s and Greenhill (perhaps even multiple times, I am not particularly familiar with the circuit there), these rankings are based first off stats. The ranking formula for Groger Ranks is described at this link:, which you can read to your heart’s content. Cistercian’s stats were not as good as Greenhill’s or St. Mark’s’s, so their ranking is not as high. The rankings are based entirely off stats, and not game wins. The stats correlate towards game wins, but are not definitive. In response to your final statement, the truth which the rankings are trying to find is the best team in the nation, stats wise. Individual games themselves are too variable to determine who is the best team, so the rankings look at long term trends (multiple tournaments) to find out which teams are the best and more likely to win in a matchup, but not which ones will definitively win.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dear Mr. Iyer,
      You state that the rankings are not “predictive” (they do not ‘predict’ the future) but, then, you go on to affirm exactly that notion: “[T]he rankings look at long term trends . . . to find out which teams are the best and more likely to win in a match-up”. If your statement is not an example of ‘predictive’ commentary, then I guess 37 years of teaching AP English has been done in ignorance (my own).
      If, as you first state, the rankings are not ‘predictive’ then the entire rationale for what you are doing is vitiated. If nothing else, sir, the very fact that Cistercian “A” has repeatedly beaten certain teams is ironically predictive (we’ve done it repeatedly over time) and “prophetic”; we’ll probably continue to do so. Yet your “lashed to the mast” methodology may well continue to ranking Cistercian lower while we continue to win!
      Perhaps the value, then, of this formula is to endlessly perform what one might call the ‘Cassandra function’ wherein your formula proclaims possible future winners, but, in fact, will continue to merely point out higher ranked [repeated] losers.
      On second thought, however, I think we’ll take our lower rankings — and keep winning trophies. Sometimes it’s just more fun being actually a winner than predictive[ly] a lower.


      1. With respect, Father Gregory, the rankings state who is more likely to win, not who will win every time. Just cause Cistercian has beaten St. Mark’s and Greenhill, it doesn’t mean that they are going to beat them forever. These rankings aren’t prophetic in any way, they’re just using what is publicly available (stats) to figure out which team is more likely to win in a matchup. This doesn’t mean that that team which is more likely to win the match will win the match every time. Also, the sample size of teams which Cistercian has beaten is only two. There are 48 teams ranked higher than them, so just cause they’re able to beat Greenhill and St. Mark’s in a couple of what can be seen as fluke games (according to each of those teams’ stats), it doesn’t mean they’re going to beat every team which is ranked higher than them. The rankings are not just for one region either. The reasoning for these rankings is not so we can predict whether Cistercian will beat St. Mark’s, it’s to see whether x team would be likely to beat y team across circuits. This way, one can predict that, for example, MSJ would be more likely to beat, say, St. Mark’s than the other way around. It doesn’t mean that it will happen definitively, but just means that it’ll be more likely. Rankings don’t care about one or two games as much as they care about tens or hundreds of them.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. your team’s stats over the tournament just weren’t as good as greenhill’s or st. mark’s’s. it’s not that deep


      3. Transitive property for victories:
        – Greenhill A beat Cistercian A (Parish)
        – TAG A beat Greenhill A (Parish)
        – Coppell A beat TAG A (LOGIC)
        – Plano West B beat Coppell A (Hornet)
        – Greenhill B beat Plano West B (Hornet)
        – TAG B beat Greenhill B (Parish)
        – Cistercian E beat TAG B (Parish)

        Thus, by the transitive property, Cistercian E is truly better than Cistercian A.


      4. Transitive property for victories:
        – Greenhill A beat Cistercian A (Parish)
        – TAG A beat Greenhill A (Parish)
        – Coppell A beat TAG A (LOGIC)
        – Plano West B beat Coppell A (Hornet)
        – Greenhill B beat Plano West B (Hornet)
        – TAG B beat Greenhill B (Parish)
        – Cistercian E beat TAG B (Parish)

        Thus, by the transitive property, Cistercian E could beat Cistercian A when push comes to shove.


      1. The transitive property of ‘victory’ would argue otherwise: Cistercian “A” beat St. Mark’s “A” which beat Greenhill “A” – ergo, Cistercian A could beat Greenhill A when push comes to shove.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s