Archive for the ‘Columns’ Category

Bob Gardner: High school activities bring communities together

Tailgates. Pep rallies. Friday night lights. The new school year is here! And that’s exciting news for student-athletes and high school sports fans alike.

Research shows that being a student-athlete is about a lot more than fun and games.  It teaches important life lessons, too. In fact, high school athletes not only have higher grade point averages and fewer school absences than non-athletes, they also develop the kind of work habits and self-discipline skills that help them become more responsible and productive community members.

Attending high school sporting events teaches important life lessons, too.    

Among them, it teaches that we can live in different communities, come from different backgrounds, faiths and cultures, cheer for different teams, and still have a common bond.

That’s why attending the activities hosted by your high school this fall is so important. It’s not only an opportunity to cheer for your hometown team, it is also an opportunity to celebrate our commonality. And that’s something our country needs right now.

Pine Creek Rampart volleyball fans

(Josh Watt/CHSAANow.com)

The bond we share is mutually supporting the teenagers in our respective communities. We applaud their persistence, tenacity, preparation and hard work, regardless of the color of the uniform they wear. We acknowledge that education-based, high school sports are enhancing their lives, and ours, in ways that few other activities could. And we agree that, regardless of what side of the field we sit on, attending a high school sporting event is an uplifting, enriching, family-friendly experience for all of us.

Many of the high schools in our state lie at the heart of the communities they serve. They not only are educating our next generation of leaders, they also are a place where we congregate, where people from every corner of town and all walks of life come together as one. And at no time is this unity more evident than during a high school athletic event.

This is the beginning of a new school year. Opportunities abound in the classroom and outside it. Let’s make the most of them by attending as many athletic events at the high school in our community as possible.   

Turn on the lights, and let the games begin!

Casey: Thank you, commissioner Paul Angelico

State track graduation

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

Paul Angelico, our commissioner over the past seven school years, usually arrived in the office around 6 a.m. or so. Occasionally he would come in even earlier.

He’s an early-morning person. Emphasis on early. I can picture him, ballcap atop his head, sitting at a table outside a coffee shop in Denver, or Vail, or Steamboat, or Boston, or Oklahoma City, with his coffee in front of him — no lid — as he reads something in the early-morning light.

He’s always the first one to arrive wherever we’re going. “Let’s setup at 7:15,” he would say about the Legislative Council meetings. And some of us would show up at 7:15 a.m. The setup would be done. He got there at 6:45.

So of course this habit extended to typical office days. But he also arrived so early in part because that was the only time he could really find time to answer emails, or check his voicemail, or really just work on things he needed to. When everyone else shuffled in, usually one of their first stops was his office. Sometimes just to chat, or to go over a waiver, or brainstorm about a committee meeting.

His office had a perpetual open door. You could walk in there, and he’d put his pencil down from whatever he was working on — he had this thing with rulers and underlining — and he would give you his full attention.

“You could always go to him for help on questions,” said longtime assistant commissioner Bert Borgmann, who worked with Paul for all 27 of the years he’s been at CHSAA.

I can’t even begin to remember the number of times I’ve walked into Paul’s office to talk politics, the world, or ask him how he could possibly have parked his Jeep so terribly. I thoroughly enjoyed each moment like that, and others like them at lunch, or at state venues.

Look, he’s not dying. I know those moments will continue, they just won’t be in his office anymore.

But that’s the point: We’re going to miss him in that office when his retirement becomes official this weekend. Us, as a CHSAA staff. But also us, as a CHSAA membership. He’s done a lot in his career.

The first time I met Paul was in March 2011. I was about a year into a job at the Denver Post covering high school sports. I did a short Q&A with him about television rights of the state championships, and other things.

I got to know him better over the course of the next two years, and eventually saw an opportunity at CHSAA to start a site that would promote high school activities.

Paul and I went to lunch in the Northfield area at a time when Northfield was literally being built. There was no one else in the restaurant.

I pitched him on the idea that would later become CHSAANow.com, and Paul was interested, but honest: “I need to see what our Board thinks,” he said. I thought perhaps we would revisit the idea at a later time, but then a few months later at the Legislative Council meeting in April, he said that Harry Bull, then the Board president, gave a green light.

Paul offered me a job — this job — and I accepted.

It remains one of the best decisions I’ve ever made in my life. And not because I had to leave the newspaper — no, I did enjoy that — but working for Paul at CHSAA has been so thoroughly rewarding and challenging.

I’ve told him this already, but I never really believed in the idea of mentorship when I was younger. I do now. I seek his guidance daily, for all kinds of things. And that will never stop.

His influence has pushed Colorado to the forefront nationally.

Things like the InsideOut Initiative, now growing nationally, started here because of the conditions he created.

He welcomed the You Can Play! initiative, which sought more inclusion for the LGBT+ community in high school activities, even though some schools opposed it. He did that because it helped kids.

“That was huge, and what that meant for inclusion, and what it meant for that community was huge,” said Tom Robinson, who has been Paul’s associate commissioner since 2014. “He left an indelible mark on our organization with gender equity and those kinds of things. And it’s not that he was doing every single thing, but he was certainly in the loop and empowering it.”

At the Equity Committee meeting in January, outgoing Board president Eddie Hartnett told Paul, “We are seen as one of the more progressive states, and it was because of your leadership that that happened.”

He’s part of a legacy of associate commissioners who became commissioners. That will continue when Rhonda Blanford-Green takes over his seat on July 1.

“Paul has taught me — through his words and his actions — that leadership success starts with honesty, integrity, and being frank, but also that it needs to be combined with compassion and common sense,” Blanford-Green said. “Over the years, I have applied that in my leadership roles, and it has served me well.

“He’s retiring,” she added, “but he has a designated seat in my office. I think I can lure him in with food.”

His 40 years of education experience shone through in the decisions he made (though, he still can’t spell). He would often start sentences with, “Well, when I was in a school …”

A former gymnastics coach, and gymnast himself, he understood the influence coaches can have on the life of a high school student.

CHSAA Hall of Fame 2015

(Jack Eberhard/JacksActionShots.com)

Paul had this thing about him in meetings, big or otherwise, where he would always ask questions to see what others thought before he offered his own opinions.

“One of the greatest things about him is he doesn’t micromanage,” said assistant commissioner Jenn-Roberts Uhlig. “He allows you to fulfill a vision, allows you to make the decision to better your sports, and really encourages you to take things to a different level.”

He was the first to back us is every situation.

“He empowered us,” said assistant commissioner Bethany Brookens.

He also expected excellence out of each of us.

“He offered guidance, history, and the opportunity for his staff to succeed,” said CHSAA assistant commissioner Bud Ozzello. “The high standards he placed on the staff and the Association has been a benchmark for changing the focus of our communities to honor the student by teaching life lessons through interscholastic competition.”

Sometimes, his temper would flare up, his face would turn red. But that was part of his nature, something we also grew to love. At times when this happened, we would laugh, and his face would only grow more red.

“I love that he could get fired up and tell you what he thought, but he also made sure that that did not ruin the relationship between you and him,” Borgmann said.

No one cared more about his employees. He’d always ask after our families, tell us to bring our kids into the office so he could spend the whole day playing with them. And he loved to share his family with us.

In the summers, we have an event where our families and the families of Board members eat dinner together. Paul would always sneak off with the kids to go buy them ice cream. I would say he will make a great grandparent one day, but he basically already is one to our kids.

“When I had just taken the job, I sold my Prius, so I needed a car for a month or so before I started work,” Brookens said. “And he just let me use his car for as long as I needed. He’s always thinking about other people before himself.”

He loved spending time talking to everyone in the break room. In fact, one of our executive assistants, Whitney Webermeier, has a grand plan to name it after him, despite his protests.

Jenn moved into a new house last week. Guess who showed up to help?

After state championship events, Paul was the one who would take the volunteers out to dinner.

He treated all of CHSAA’s activities the same. He was at every state championship event, music gala, every student leadership camp.

“He gave the same attention to a state wrestling champion as he did to a competitor in speech and debate or student leadership or music,” Ozzello said.

When I first was hired at CHSAA, I spent the first year or so strictly working from home. I regret that, because it means I didn’t get to spend more time in the office absorbing what I could from Paul.

Thank you, Paul, for pushing CHSAA to the forefront nationally. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your guidance.

Thank you for your friendship.

Casey: The abuse of officials is driving them away

EDITOR’S NOTE: Opinions in this column do not reflect an official viewpoint of CHSAA. Warning: This column contains obscene language.

Do you want to be an official?

No? Why not?

Maybe you don’t have enough time. Maybe you don’t think you’re qualified.

Or maybe you don’t want to put up with the regular abuse you’ll have to endure on seemingly a game-to-game basis.

I don’t know what it is about sporting events, but they have an enduring tendency to turn its participants, coaches and fans — often grown adults — into toddlers, willing to throw a fit and curse at strangers, and sometimes threaten physical attack because they have a differing opinion.

The only other situation I think comes close to this kind of irrational behavior is on the road, where strangers will become blind with road rage.

In our world, we have a type of sports rage.

Most team sports that CHSAA sanctions has a database where officials file game reports, sometimes after each competition, but also if there’s some kind of foul that needs reporting, such as a yellow card in soccer, or an ejection. This means that the office sees a report on just about every incident that happens in a game because it hits the inbox of the administrator who oversees the sport.

Valor Christian Rampart hockey referees officials

(Cindy Betancourt/eStudioWest.com)

Not everything is horrible. Sometimes they’re funny. (One baseball report: “[The coach] said, ‘Go ahead, please eject me.’ I obliged his request, immediately.”) And there are also many, many comments commending teams, players and coaches for their sportsmanship, even the way they handle participants who are out of control.

But a recent game report simply stuck with me, and I’ll share it here. It’s a perfect example of what’s driving officials away.

This was a boys soccer game, but I’ve removed anything that would identify the teams or players. (Warning: The language used here is at times obscene and inappropriate, but I feel it’s necessary to show the full picture of what transpired.)

[Home team Player 1] was cautioned in the 53rd minute for Persistent Infringement after illegally challenging the [away team] goalkeeper for possession of the ball by running into the GK while the GK had the ball in his hands. This was the fourth time a [home team] player had run into the GK in such a manner.

[Home team Player 2] was cautioned in the 58th minute for Unsporting Conduct after committing a reckless tackle for possession of the ball where he recklessly and forcefully pushed his opponent to the ground off the field of play after the ball had been played up the field for an advantage for [away team].

[Away team Player 1] was cautioned in the 64th minute for Delaying the Restart of play by first refusing to give the ball to his opponent and then throwing the ball away.

[Home team Player 3] was cautioned in the 64th minute for pushing his opponent in the chest with both hands while the ball was not in play, after his opponent refused to give him the ball for his team’s restart.

[Home team Player 2] was cautioned for Dissent and then ejected for Receiving a Second Yellow Card in the 73rd minute after telling the referee he was ridiculous. His team mate had been called for a pushing foul which [Player 2] disagreed with by forcefully bouncing the ball in a disgusted gesture, causing the referee to stop the clock and address his behavior. After being told to collect himself and play the game is when he made his “ridiculous” remark.

[Home team Player 4] was ejected in the 79th minute for Foul or Abusive Language directed at his opponent; he shouted “fuck you” repeatedly at his opponent.

[Home team Player 5] was ejected in the 79th minute for Foul or Abusive Language directed at his opponent; he shouted “fuck you” at his opponent after his teammate had been ejected from the game and before play could be restarted.

At this point someone in the [home team] side of the crowd shouted “Hey ref, we called your wife; we told her you were fucking us!” I walked over to the [home team] bench to discuss it with [the head coach]. This is when [an assistant coach] was cautioned for Dissent for loudly disagreeing with a list of things that the referee had apparently done.

After the completion of the game while I was waiting for [another referee] to join me for the quick exit from the field, [Home team Player 3] was shown the red card for Foul or Abusive language directed at his opponent after repeatedly yelling “fuck you” at a [visiting team] player. When I displayed the red card to him, he loudly told me “Go ahead, show me the fucking red card! I don’t give a shit!”

That is horrific. Why would anyone who endured this ever want to officiate ever again? Most of the officials in the state are involved because they really enjoy the sport. It’s not as though they’re making thousands upon thousands of dollars. It’s a side job for most, or even a hobby.

There are countless of instances in these game reports of players, coaches and fans cursing at officials, or flipping them off.

Here’s an example from a football report:

[Home assistant coach] was very animated and screaming obscenities about the play. At that time [an official] threw a flag for [unsportsmanlike conduct] and then a second where numerous players and coaches were screaming that we the officials were a “fucking piece of shit,” along with many other things.

[Home head coach], after finding out that we were not going to change the ruling, and after explaining what the [back judge] saw, went into an obscenity-laced tirade, to which another [unsportsmanlike] was called. Then [home assistant] ran onto the field and contacted [an official], going face-to-face and screaming obscenities, in [the official’s] face, to which he was flagged and ejected.

At the conclusion of the game, there were two photographers that came after us asking us our names. When I informed them that that was not our policy, they became somewhat angry that we would not give them the information and that the game administration knew who we were if they needed the information. Police escorted us off the field.

Another one:

Parents were on the track screaming at the officials. What I heard were the following quotes from parents:

“You guys have been fucking terrible all game.”
“Fuck you, way to screw the kids.”
“You guys fucking suck.”
“That’s fucking terrible, how can you miss that fucking call.”
“That’s bullshit, you can’t miss that call. Bullshit.”

There are many other instances of participants charging officials as if to fight. Check this out from a basketball report:

We had to be escorted to our cars by police since [a player’s father] was waiting for us after the game.

Or from a baseball report:

After the games, [another umpire] and I were approached by a male adult fan (and assumed wife). He verbally harassed us about our calls. I told him to “move on” several times. He demanded our names. [The other umpire] threatened to call the police. After a few more insults, they drove off.

Why do people think this is OK?

If you’re in a grocery store, and someone puts the apples under a “delicious” label, are you going to go find the store manager and flip them off because you disagree?

Volleyball officials

(Matt Daniels/MattDanPhoto.com)

Perhaps a better analogy: If your daughter’s teacher gives her a B+ on a paper you think she deserved an A on, are you going to wait for the teacher after school and verbally berate them? Or threaten to fight them?

No, because that’s irrational. It’s inappropriate. It’s unacceptable by any measure.

Besides, from a purely logical perspective: Do you think the level of officiating is going to improve if you drive all of the experienced officials away?

Listen, this isn’t a complete across-the-board defense of officials. They are obviously flawed at times, and yes, there are some who take their power too far. But that’s not the point. In no situation is it ever OK to take this kind of abusive approach towards another person who happens to be officiating the game you’re involved in.

The reality is that Colorado’s heading toward a crisis when it comes to officiating numbers. Out-of-control fans, coaches and players in situations such as these are only exacerbating the problem.

There’s data to back that up. The CHSAA office conducted a survey of 1,359 officials from all sports who opted to not re-register from 2015 to 2016, and asked why. Of those who responded, 21.41 percent said it was because of poor sportsmanship by either coaches and players, or spectators.

One respondent wrote that “many coaches and players are disrespectful and intimidating.” Another said that it “gets worse and worse every year and nobody is willing to do anything about it.”

Finally: “I was followed to my car after a few games. This takes the enjoyment out of officiating. I decided not to do anything I don’t enjoy, not enough money to take the risk.”

I recently heard of an organization that keeps dozens of extra striped officiating jerseys on hand at youth games. If there’s a parent who is constantly berating officials, someone from the organization simply walks up, hands them a striped jersey and nods toward the field: “You’re up.”

The parent never takes the jersey.

Perhaps they should. Shoot, we may soon need the bodies.

Littleton Gateway football officials

(Michael Hankins/TGWstudios.com)

Casey: Ideas for tweaking the CHSAA RPI formula

EDITOR’S NOTE: Opinions in this column do not reflect an official viewpoint of CHSAA.

I’ve spent a number of hours staring at spreadsheets each week this fall.

This actually isn’t atypical for me, but I do seem to have my laptop on my lap late at night more often, eyes fixed on the bottom right corner of the screen as I watch a percentage slowly increase.

See, this is the problem with the RPI: it takes so long to process in Excel.

Oh, you thought I was going to go somewhere else with that?

Yes, the RPI has been under some scrutiny since it was first implemented with baseball last spring. That scrutiny has picked up once football’s RPI standings were released following Week 6 games.

You know what? There are valid arguments against the system, or data that makes you go, Hmm … — but, no, it is not the end of the world, as some of the usual suspects would have you believe.

Since the RPI was implemented, the CHSAA office, Board of Directors, and committees have said that there would be unforeseen issues that we’d have to deal with, and that we would have to live through a season or two to see how it played out.

We are currently seeing how it’s playing out, so it’s time to take a hard look and see what changes might be needed.

The good news here is that there can be tweaks to this formula in the middle of a two-year cycle, and it’s up to individual sports committees to do that.

Before we start, these changes assume basic knowledge of the CHSAA RPI formula. To familiarize yourself with it, the best place to start is the CHSAA RPI FAQs. We’ll be using acronyms like WP (winning percentage), OWP (opponents’ winning percentage), and OOWP (opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage).

Currently, the RPI formula used in all sports is:

RPI = (¼ × WP) + (½ × OWP) + (¼ × OOWP)

[divider]

Possible changes to the CHSAA RPI

Denver South football practice generic

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

1. Change the percentages used in the formula itself.

We’ve said from the beginning with this formula that the more data you put into the formula, the more accurate it becomes. That’s why, by and large, the right teams have made the postseason fields in softball, field hockey and boys soccer — the only sports to have completely finalized RPI data so far this fall. Each sport has anywhere between 15-19 games.

This becomes problematic for football, which only has eight games of data for 6-man teams, nine for 8-man/1A/2A and 10 for 3A/4A/5A. That’s part of the reason a classification modifier was implemented for football, but for no other sports.

We’ve talked to dozens of coaches and athletic directors about the RPI this fall. Consistently, they’ve said that they feel a team’s own winning percentage should account for more of the formula. We took that feedback, and ran it in the formula.

There are two options we’ve heard more than the rest: splitting each competent evenly into thirds; and then really weighting winning percentage more — namely 37.5 percent of the formula.

The thirds formula is as follows:

RPI = (⅓ × WP) + (⅓ × OWP) + (⅓ × OOWP)

The other formula, what we’ll call 37.5, is:

RPI = (0.375 × WP) + (0.375 × OWP) + (¼ × OOWP)

Below is the data from soccer, softball and field hockey with those proposed splits; where teams did rank, and where they would rank. Note that teams are sorted by the current RPI formula, and the new data is at the far right.

[toggler title=”Boys Soccer” ]

Class 5A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Denver East 0.673 15-0-0 1.000 0.576 0.541 0.706 1 0.726 1
2 Boulder 0.669 15-0-0 1.000 0.564 0.548 0.704 2 0.723 2
3 Cherry Creek 0.635 11-4-0 0.733 0.637 0.532 0.634 5 0.647 5
4 Broomfield 0.625 12-2-1 0.833 0.559 0.549 0.647 3 0.659 3
5 Fairview 0.622 12-3-0 0.800 0.574 0.540 0.638 4 0.650 4
6 Arapahoe 0.597 11-4-0 0.733 0.554 0.546 0.611 7 0.619 8
7 Grandview 0.596 11-2-2 0.800 0.516 0.552 0.623 6 0.632 6
8 Fort Collins 0.592 9-3-3 0.700 0.564 0.542 0.602 9 0.609 9
9 Pine Creek 0.585 10-5-0 0.667 0.564 0.545 0.592 10 0.598 11
10 Mountain Vista 0.584 9-4-2 0.667 0.571 0.528 0.589 13 0.596 12
11 Rangeview 0.578 12-2-1 0.833 0.493 0.493 0.606 8 0.620 7
12 Ralston Valley 0.573 11-4-0 0.733 0.518 0.521 0.591 12 0.600 10
13 Legacy 0.572 10-4-1 0.700 0.523 0.541 0.588 14 0.594 15
14 Lincoln 0.566 11-4-0 0.733 0.490 0.549 0.591 11 0.596 13
15 Regis Jesuit 0.564 9-5-1 0.633 0.558 0.508 0.566 18 0.574 18
16 Rock Canyon 0.556 11-3-1 0.767 0.462 0.533 0.587 15 0.594 14
17 Castle View 0.553 9-4-2 0.667 0.519 0.509 0.565 19 0.572 19
18 Cherokee Trail 0.551 6-7-2 0.467 0.607 0.525 0.533 28 0.534 28
19 Vista Ridge 0.545 9-6-0 0.600 0.526 0.527 0.551 22 0.554 23
20 Arvada West 0.543 11-4-0 0.733 0.462 0.514 0.570 17 0.577 17
21 Horizon 0.537 8-6-1 0.567 0.523 0.535 0.542 24 0.543 24
22 Greeley West 0.536 8-7-0 0.533 0.540 0.531 0.535 26 0.535 27
23 Bear Creek 0.535 10-5-0 0.667 0.495 0.484 0.549 23 0.557 22
24 Grand Junction 0.532 10-3-2 0.733 0.436 0.524 0.565 20 0.570 20
25 Lakewood 0.530 11-4-0 0.733 0.445 0.499 0.559 21 0.566 21
26 Fruita Monument 0.530 7-6-2 0.533 0.536 0.515 0.528 30 0.530 30
27 Aurora Central 0.527 8-5-2 0.600 0.505 0.497 0.534 27 0.539 26
28 Far Northeast Warriors 0.527 6-8-1 0.433 0.574 0.526 0.511 33 0.509 33
29 Gateway 0.526 12-2-1 0.833 0.386 0.497 0.572 16 0.582 16
30 Fossil Ridge 0.519 5-9-0 0.357 0.584 0.550 0.497 34 0.490 35
31 Monarch 0.518 6-7-2 0.467 0.528 0.550 0.515 32 0.510 32
32 Legend 0.517 8-4-3 0.633 0.455 0.524 0.538 25 0.539 25
33 Doherty 0.516 9-6-0 0.600 0.471 0.520 0.530 29 0.532 29
34 Eaglecrest 0.509 8-7-0 0.533 0.487 0.527 0.516 31 0.515 31
35 Rampart 0.507 5-8-2 0.400 0.552 0.522 0.492 37 0.488 36
36 Mountain Range 0.505 6-9-0 0.400 0.545 0.532 0.492 36 0.487 37
37 Heritage 0.505 3-8-4 0.333 0.586 0.515 0.478 39 0.474 39
38 Smoky Hill 0.492 4-11-0 0.267 0.592 0.517 0.459 43 0.452 44
39 Adams City 0.492 7-7-1 0.500 0.486 0.497 0.494 35 0.494 34
40 Hinkley 0.490 5-7-3 0.433 0.523 0.481 0.479 38 0.479 38
41 Westminster 0.475 7-8-0 0.467 0.476 0.479 0.474 41 0.473 40
42 Overland 0.474 5-8-1 0.393 0.492 0.518 0.468 42 0.461 42
43 ThunderRidge 0.467 6-7-2 0.467 0.436 0.529 0.477 40 0.471 41
44 Chaparral 0.464 5-8-2 0.400 0.486 0.485 0.457 44 0.453 43
45 Chatfield 0.464 4-10-1 0.300 0.533 0.489 0.441 46 0.435 45
46 Rocky Mountain 0.461 2-13-0 0.133 0.590 0.532 0.418 50 0.404 51
47 Poudre 0.460 4-10-1 0.300 0.501 0.535 0.446 45 0.434 46
48 Liberty 0.443 3-12-0 0.200 0.536 0.499 0.411 52 0.401 52
49 Loveland 0.441 2-12-1 0.167 0.532 0.531 0.410 53 0.395 53
50 Denver South 0.437 4-11-0 0.267 0.488 0.507 0.420 49 0.410 49
51 Pomona 0.435 5-9-1 0.367 0.438 0.498 0.434 47 0.426 47
52 Coronado 0.426 5-10-0 0.333 0.438 0.495 0.422 48 0.413 48
53 Northglenn 0.419 5-10-0 0.333 0.429 0.487 0.416 51 0.407 50
54 Columbine 0.419 2-11-2 0.200 0.490 0.496 0.395 55 0.383 56
55 Grand Junction Central 0.415 1-14-0 0.067 0.553 0.488 0.369 59 0.354 59
56 Highlands Ranch 0.411 2-13-0 0.133 0.502 0.508 0.381 58 0.365 58
57 Palmer 0.406 2-12-1 0.167 0.475 0.506 0.383 57 0.367 57
58 Fountain-Fort Carson 0.406 3-10-2 0.267 0.433 0.490 0.397 54 0.385 54
59 Prairie View 0.398 4-10-1 0.300 0.406 0.478 0.395 56 0.385 55
60 Brighton 0.394 0-14-1 0.033 0.531 0.481 0.348 62 0.332 62
61 Douglas County 0.393 0-14-1 0.033 0.521 0.496 0.350 61 0.332 61
62 Thornton 0.378 2-13-0 0.133 0.457 0.465 0.352 60 0.338 60
63 Dakota Ridge 0.374 0-14-1 0.033 0.498 0.467 0.333 63 0.316 63
Class 4A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Cheyenne Mountain 0.679 13-1-1 0.900 0.633 0.551 0.695 1 0.713 1
2 Lewis-Palmer 0.648 12-3-0 0.800 0.626 0.538 0.655 3 0.669 3
3 The Classical Academy 0.639 13-2-0 0.867 0.583 0.522 0.657 2 0.674 2
4 Air Academy 0.635 11-4-0 0.733 0.631 0.546 0.637 5 0.648 6
5 Mullen 0.619 12-3-0 0.800 0.571 0.532 0.634 7 0.647 7
6 Denver West 0.614 11-1-3 0.833 0.552 0.518 0.635 6 0.649 5
7 Durango 0.608 14-1-0 0.933 0.485 0.528 0.649 4 0.664 4
8 Silver Creek 0.598 12-2-1 0.833 0.521 0.517 0.624 9 0.637 9
9 Battle Mountain 0.598 13-2-0 0.867 0.512 0.500 0.626 8 0.642 8
10 Skyview 0.596 12-3-0 0.800 0.536 0.510 0.615 10 0.628 10
11 Palmer Ridge 0.587 10-4-1 0.700 0.543 0.561 0.601 11 0.606 13
12 Pueblo West 0.585 11-4-0 0.733 0.551 0.505 0.596 12 0.608 12
13 Niwot 0.577 9-6-0 0.600 0.583 0.539 0.574 20 0.579 21
14 Standley Lake 0.575 9-4-2 0.667 0.548 0.538 0.584 17 0.590 17
15 Valor Christian 0.575 7-7-1 0.500 0.638 0.522 0.553 26 0.557 26
16 Denver North 0.574 9-6-0 0.600 0.583 0.531 0.571 22 0.576 22
17 D’Evelyn 0.574 10-4-1 0.700 0.529 0.539 0.589 14 0.595 16
18 Evergreen 0.573 8-5-2 0.600 0.583 0.527 0.570 23 0.575 23
19 Skyline 0.571 12-3-0 0.800 0.499 0.488 0.595 13 0.609 11
20 Pueblo Centennial 0.563 11-3-0 0.786 0.489 0.488 0.588 15 0.600 14
21 Greeley Central 0.562 10-5-0 0.667 0.534 0.515 0.572 21 0.579 20
22 Ponderosa 0.559 11-4-0 0.733 0.495 0.512 0.580 18 0.589 18
23 Centaurus 0.558 9-5-1 0.633 0.540 0.519 0.564 24 0.570 24
24 Steamboat Springs 0.558 11-4-0 0.733 0.505 0.490 0.576 19 0.587 19
25 Fort Morgan 0.554 11-2-2 0.800 0.460 0.494 0.585 16 0.596 15
26 Pueblo South 0.549 10-5-0 0.667 0.519 0.493 0.559 25 0.568 25
27 Longmont 0.549 6-8-1 0.433 0.626 0.511 0.523 31 0.525 31
28 Green Mountain 0.544 6-8-1 0.433 0.605 0.532 0.523 32 0.522 32
29 Kennedy 0.532 7-7-1 0.500 0.545 0.539 0.528 30 0.527 30
30 Golden 0.531 7-8-0 0.467 0.557 0.543 0.522 33 0.520 33
31 Thompson Valley 0.526 5-9-1 0.367 0.601 0.533 0.500 39 0.496 40
32 Mitchell 0.524 9-6-0 0.600 0.505 0.486 0.530 29 0.536 29
33 Sand Creek 0.524 10-5-0 0.667 0.452 0.523 0.547 27 0.550 27
34 Windsor 0.523 10-5-0 0.667 0.464 0.498 0.543 28 0.549 28
35 George Washington 0.514 5-10-0 0.333 0.602 0.519 0.485 43 0.480 43
36 Holy Family 0.508 8-7-0 0.533 0.514 0.473 0.507 36 0.511 35
37 Discovery Canyon 0.502 7-8-0 0.467 0.513 0.515 0.498 42 0.496 41
38 Summit 0.498 9-6-0 0.600 0.446 0.500 0.515 34 0.517 34
39 Montrose 0.496 5-10-0 0.333 0.578 0.493 0.468 46 0.465 46
40 Eagle Valley 0.496 8-7-0 0.533 0.473 0.503 0.503 37 0.503 37
41 Littleton 0.495 8-7-0 0.533 0.457 0.532 0.507 35 0.504 36
42 Alameda 0.494 7-6-2 0.533 0.474 0.495 0.501 38 0.501 39
43 Northridge 0.493 7-7-1 0.500 0.476 0.519 0.499 41 0.496 42
44 Elizabeth 0.472 9-5-1 0.633 0.392 0.473 0.499 40 0.502 38
45 Glenwood Springs 0.472 7-8-0 0.467 0.465 0.492 0.475 44 0.472 44
46 Mesa Ridge 0.472 6-9-0 0.400 0.499 0.491 0.463 47 0.460 47
47 Canon City 0.463 5-9-1 0.367 0.506 0.472 0.448 49 0.445 49
48 Vista PEAK Prep 0.461 7-7-1 0.500 0.429 0.485 0.471 45 0.469 45
49 Arvada 0.452 5-9-0 0.357 0.484 0.482 0.441 50 0.436 50
50 Harrison 0.448 5-10-0 0.333 0.488 0.483 0.435 52 0.429 52
51 Pueblo County 0.442 7-8-0 0.467 0.412 0.478 0.452 48 0.449 48
52 Thomas Jefferson 0.431 3-12-0 0.200 0.511 0.502 0.404 56 0.392 58
53 Wheat Ridge 0.431 4-11-0 0.267 0.474 0.509 0.417 54 0.405 54
54 Erie 0.427 3-10-2 0.267 0.493 0.456 0.405 55 0.399 56
55 Mountain View 0.422 6-8-1 0.433 0.375 0.503 0.437 51 0.429 51
56 Pueblo East 0.420 6-8-1 0.433 0.389 0.467 0.430 53 0.425 53
57 Widefield 0.411 3-11-1 0.233 0.470 0.469 0.391 59 0.381 59
58 Frederick 0.396 6-9-0 0.400 0.371 0.440 0.404 57 0.399 55
59 Palisade 0.391 1-13-1 0.100 0.490 0.483 0.358 63 0.342 63
60 Falcon 0.389 1-14-0 0.067 0.490 0.508 0.355 64 0.336 64
61 Rifle 0.388 0-13-2 0.067 0.504 0.477 0.349 65 0.333 65
62 Sierra 0.384 4-11-0 0.267 0.400 0.468 0.378 60 0.367 60
63 Conifer 0.383 3-12-0 0.200 0.426 0.479 0.368 61 0.355 62
64 Roosevelt 0.376 7-8-0 0.467 0.296 0.445 0.402 58 0.397 57
65 Woodland Park 0.369 4-11-0 0.267 0.376 0.456 0.366 62 0.355 61
66 Pueblo Central 0.368 0-15-0 0.000 0.510 0.451 0.320 67 0.304 67
67 Berthoud 0.351 2-13-0 0.133 0.418 0.432 0.328 66 0.315 66
68 Mead 0.304 0-14-0 0.000 0.399 0.419 0.273 68 0.254 68
Class 3A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Kent Denver 0.657 14-0-1 0.967 0.562 0.537 0.689 1 0.707 1
2 KIPP Denver Collegiate 0.631 12-2-1 0.833 0.576 0.538 0.649 2 0.663 2
3 Colorado Academy 0.614 10-4-1 0.700 0.609 0.539 0.616 7 0.626 7
4 Vail Mountain 0.613 12-3-0 0.800 0.570 0.513 0.628 5 0.642 5
5 Colorado Springs Christian 0.606 13-2-0 0.867 0.526 0.506 0.633 4 0.649 4
6 Jefferson Academy 0.597 12-3-0 0.800 0.533 0.525 0.619 6 0.631 6
7 Denver Science & Tech Stapleton 0.595 9-4-2 0.667 0.603 0.505 0.592 11 0.603 11
8 Coal Ridge 0.589 14-1-0 0.933 0.448 0.525 0.635 3 0.649 3
9 Fountain Valley 0.583 8-6-1 0.567 0.638 0.490 0.565 17 0.574 17
10 Salida 0.583 12-3-0 0.800 0.523 0.485 0.603 8 0.617 8
11 Basalt 0.582 10-5-0 0.667 0.578 0.505 0.583 12 0.593 12
12 Bruce Randolph 0.575 12-3-0 0.800 0.492 0.515 0.603 9 0.613 9
13 Peak to Peak 0.571 9-5-1 0.633 0.559 0.531 0.574 15 0.580 15
14 The Pinnacle 0.566 10-5-0 0.667 0.538 0.521 0.575 14 0.582 14
15 Aurora West College Prep Academy 0.558 13-2-0 0.867 0.432 0.503 0.600 10 0.613 10
16 Frontier Academy 0.548 9-5-1 0.633 0.533 0.492 0.553 21 0.561 21
17 Denver School of Science & Technology: Green Valley Ranch 0.545 11-4-0 0.733 0.485 0.478 0.565 16 0.576 16
18 Delta 0.542 12-3-0 0.800 0.430 0.507 0.579 13 0.588 13
19 St. Mary’s 0.540 8-6-1 0.567 0.548 0.496 0.537 25 0.542 27
20 The Academy 0.539 9-4-2 0.667 0.481 0.526 0.558 20 0.562 20
21 Liberty Common 0.538 10-3-2 0.733 0.466 0.489 0.563 19 0.572 19
22 Denver Christian 0.532 9-5-1 0.633 0.523 0.450 0.535 27 0.546 24
23 Crested Butte 0.530 8-6-1 0.567 0.536 0.481 0.528 29 0.534 29
24 Jefferson 0.529 10-5-0 0.667 0.469 0.512 0.549 22 0.554 23
25 Arrupe Jesuit 0.521 8-7-0 0.533 0.512 0.528 0.524 30 0.524 32
26 Beth Eden Baptist 0.521 9-2-0 0.818 0.393 0.479 0.563 18 0.574 18
27 William Smith 0.520 8-3-0 0.727 0.443 0.469 0.546 23 0.556 22
28 Ridgway 0.517 8-4-0 0.667 0.458 0.486 0.537 26 0.543 25
29 Roaring Fork 0.515 10-5-0 0.667 0.448 0.500 0.538 24 0.543 26
30 Sheridan 0.513 4-11-0 0.267 0.637 0.512 0.472 46 0.467 47
31 Dawson School 0.509 9-5-1 0.633 0.481 0.441 0.519 32 0.528 30
32 James Irwin 0.509 9-6-0 0.600 0.488 0.460 0.516 33 0.523 33
33 Telluride 0.501 7-6-1 0.536 0.494 0.479 0.503 35 0.506 35
34 Lamar 0.498 11-4-0 0.733 0.395 0.468 0.532 28 0.540 28
35 Manitou Springs 0.495 9-6-0 0.600 0.461 0.457 0.506 34 0.512 34
36 Fort Lupton 0.491 8-7-0 0.533 0.477 0.478 0.496 38 0.498 39
37 Manual 0.490 8-7-0 0.533 0.459 0.510 0.501 37 0.499 38
38 Sterling 0.489 9-3-3 0.700 0.390 0.477 0.522 31 0.528 31
39 Aspen 0.489 5-9-1 0.367 0.543 0.502 0.470 48 0.467 48
40 Eagle Ridge Academy 0.487 8-6-0 0.571 0.473 0.432 0.492 39 0.500 37
41 Lake County 0.483 5-8-1 0.393 0.514 0.512 0.473 45 0.468 46
42 Lutheran 0.480 6-8-1 0.433 0.488 0.512 0.478 43 0.473 43
43 Bishop Machebeuf 0.480 6-8-0 0.429 0.499 0.491 0.473 44 0.471 44
44 The Vanguard School 0.475 8-7-0 0.533 0.447 0.475 0.485 40 0.486 40
45 Alamosa 0.475 7-7-1 0.500 0.457 0.485 0.481 41 0.480 41
46 Faith Christian 0.473 2-11-2 0.200 0.590 0.514 0.435 54 0.425 54
47 Rye 0.472 9-5-0 0.643 0.386 0.476 0.501 36 0.505 36
48 SkyView Academy 0.467 7-7-1 0.500 0.430 0.507 0.479 42 0.476 42
49 Moffat County 0.466 7-8-0 0.467 0.451 0.496 0.471 47 0.468 45
50 Bayfield 0.460 4-6-3 0.423 0.466 0.486 0.458 49 0.455 50
51 Pagosa Springs 0.457 4-9-2 0.333 0.500 0.494 0.442 51 0.436 52
52 Middle Park 0.453 5-10-0 0.333 0.487 0.504 0.441 52 0.434 53
53 Bennett 0.448 3-11-1 0.233 0.523 0.511 0.422 56 0.411 56
54 Heritage Christian 0.440 8-7-0 0.533 0.390 0.446 0.457 50 0.458 49
55 Atlas Preparatory School 0.438 6-8-0 0.429 0.428 0.466 0.441 53 0.438 51
56 Montezuma-Cortez 0.424 4-10-0 0.286 0.464 0.482 0.411 58 0.402 58
57 Venture Prep 0.424 4-7-1 0.375 0.426 0.470 0.423 55 0.418 55
58 Valley 0.417 3-11-1 0.233 0.492 0.450 0.392 59 0.385 59
59 Ellicott 0.415 5-9-0 0.357 0.428 0.448 0.411 57 0.407 57
60 Weld Central 0.413 3-11-0 0.214 0.502 0.436 0.384 60 0.378 60
61 Prospect Ridge Academy 0.413 2-13-0 0.133 0.521 0.475 0.377 63 0.364 63
62 Colorado Rocky Mountain 0.409 1-9-0 0.100 0.523 0.490 0.371 65 0.356 65
63 Grand Valley 0.405 2-12-1 0.167 0.482 0.487 0.379 62 0.365 62
64 Englewood 0.390 3-12-0 0.200 0.438 0.485 0.374 64 0.360 64
65 Ridge View Academy 0.377 2-10-1 0.192 0.433 0.451 0.359 67 0.347 67
66 Caprock Academy 0.372 0-10-0 0.000 0.498 0.492 0.330 68 0.310 68
67 Dolores Huerta Prep 0.370 0-10-0 0.000 0.512 0.454 0.322 70 0.306 70
68 Evangelical Christian 0.367 4-11-0 0.267 0.376 0.451 0.364 66 0.354 66
69 Colorado Springs School 0.345 0-15-0 0.000 0.484 0.412 0.299 75 0.285 74
70 Lotus School For Excellence 0.344 0-14-0 0.000 0.460 0.455 0.305 72 0.286 73
71 Thorncreek Christian School 0.343 2-13-0 0.133 0.396 0.445 0.325 69 0.310 69
72 Denver Academy 0.340 5-6-0 0.455 0.219 0.467 0.380 61 0.369 61
73 Estes Park 0.339 0-15-0 0.000 0.451 0.455 0.302 73 0.283 75
74 Union Colony Prep 0.337 1-13-0 0.071 0.411 0.452 0.312 71 0.294 71
75 Front Range Christian 0.330 1-13-0 0.071 0.420 0.411 0.301 74 0.287 72

[/toggler][toggler title=”Softball” ]

Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Broomfield 0.671 17-2-0 0.895 0.624 0.541 0.687 1 0.705 1
2 Grand Junction Central 0.648 16-2-1 0.868 0.604 0.513 0.662 3 0.681 2
3 Cherokee Trail 0.642 16-3-0 0.842 0.577 0.572 0.664 2 0.675 3
4 Douglas County 0.640 15-4-0 0.789 0.606 0.561 0.652 4 0.663 4
5 Eaglecrest 0.636 15-4-0 0.789 0.600 0.555 0.648 5 0.660 5
6 Legend 0.629 14-4-1 0.763 0.595 0.563 0.640 6 0.650 6
7 Arvada West 0.620 13-5-1 0.711 0.604 0.562 0.625 8 0.633 8
8 Loveland 0.615 13-6-0 0.684 0.616 0.545 0.615 12 0.624 12
9 Rocky Mountain 0.605 14-5-0 0.737 0.574 0.538 0.616 11 0.626 11
10 Fossil Ridge 0.604 15-4-0 0.789 0.535 0.554 0.626 7 0.635 7
11 Dakota Ridge 0.600 11-8-0 0.579 0.631 0.560 0.590 15 0.594 14
12 Ralston Valley 0.592 11-7-0 0.611 0.596 0.566 0.591 14 0.594 15
13 Prairie View 0.590 16-3-0 0.842 0.512 0.495 0.616 10 0.632 9
14 Brighton 0.587 16-3-0 0.842 0.500 0.507 0.617 9 0.630 10
15 Fort Collins 0.586 12-7-0 0.632 0.585 0.541 0.586 17 0.592 16
16 Legacy 0.585 13-6-0 0.684 0.555 0.545 0.595 13 0.601 13
17 Castle View 0.582 11-7-1 0.605 0.580 0.563 0.583 18 0.585 18
18 ThunderRidge 0.571 13-6-0 0.684 0.519 0.561 0.588 16 0.591 17
19 Columbine 0.567 9-10-0 0.474 0.625 0.543 0.547 22 0.548 22
20 Rock Canyon 0.563 10-9-0 0.526 0.584 0.559 0.556 20 0.556 20
21 Mountain Vista 0.561 12-7-0 0.632 0.526 0.562 0.573 19 0.574 19
22 Grandview 0.559 9-10-0 0.474 0.609 0.544 0.542 25 0.542 25
23 Poudre 0.553 10-9-0 0.526 0.569 0.546 0.547 23 0.547 23
24 Mountain Range 0.552 10-9-0 0.526 0.569 0.545 0.547 24 0.547 24
25 Fruita Monument 0.548 11-8-0 0.579 0.541 0.529 0.550 21 0.552 21
26 Cherry Creek 0.545 9-10-0 0.474 0.587 0.533 0.531 27 0.531 27
27 Smoky Hill 0.530 10-9-0 0.526 0.529 0.535 0.530 28 0.530 28
28 Chatfield 0.529 7-12-0 0.368 0.603 0.541 0.504 36 0.500 36
29 Horizon 0.524 8-11-0 0.421 0.573 0.530 0.508 35 0.505 34
30 Vista Ridge 0.523 10-8-1 0.553 0.519 0.502 0.524 29 0.527 30
31 Northglenn 0.518 11-8-0 0.579 0.499 0.495 0.524 30 0.528 29
32 Pomona 0.514 9-10-0 0.474 0.509 0.565 0.516 31 0.510 33
33 Pine Creek 0.511 10-8-1 0.553 0.503 0.484 0.513 32 0.517 31
34 Liberty 0.508 13-6-0 0.684 0.437 0.474 0.532 26 0.539 26
35 Bear Creek 0.508 9-10-0 0.474 0.505 0.547 0.509 34 0.504 35
36 Grand Junction 0.505 10-9-0 0.526 0.486 0.523 0.512 33 0.511 32
37 Greeley West 0.497 8-11-0 0.421 0.518 0.531 0.490 37 0.485 38
38 Fairview 0.491 8-11-0 0.421 0.511 0.521 0.484 39 0.480 39
39 Highlands Ranch 0.488 8-11-0 0.421 0.504 0.523 0.483 40 0.478 40
40 Arapahoe 0.482 8-11-0 0.421 0.490 0.528 0.480 41 0.474 41
41 Chaparral 0.477 4-15-0 0.211 0.570 0.557 0.446 48 0.432 50
42 Lakewood 0.477 5-14-0 0.263 0.549 0.547 0.453 45 0.441 47
43 Regis Jesuit 0.475 5-14-0 0.263 0.552 0.534 0.450 46 0.439 48
44 Fountain-Fort Carson 0.468 11-8-0 0.579 0.411 0.472 0.488 38 0.489 37
45 Heritage 0.467 5-14-0 0.263 0.538 0.530 0.444 50 0.433 49
46 Westminster 0.461 7-10-0 0.412 0.471 0.490 0.457 42 0.453 43
47 Monarch 0.450 4-15-0 0.211 0.529 0.531 0.423 51 0.410 52
48 Thornton 0.449 9-10-0 0.474 0.434 0.453 0.454 44 0.454 42
49 Rampart 0.447 9-10-0 0.474 0.423 0.467 0.454 43 0.453 44
50 Adams City 0.445 7-9-0 0.438 0.446 0.453 0.445 49 0.444 45
51 Denver East 0.444 8-11-0 0.421 0.437 0.479 0.446 47 0.442 46
52 Lincoln 0.441 5-10-0 0.333 0.504 0.422 0.420 52 0.419 51
53 Palmer 0.409 5-12-0 0.294 0.455 0.432 0.394 54 0.389 53
54 Rangeview 0.404 5-13-0 0.278 0.427 0.482 0.396 53 0.385 55
55 Doherty 0.399 6-13-0 0.316 0.422 0.437 0.391 55 0.386 54
56 Overland 0.388 4-15-0 0.211 0.423 0.496 0.376 56 0.362 57
57 Far Northeast Warriors 0.374 5-12-0 0.294 0.383 0.435 0.371 57 0.363 56
58 Coronado 0.345 1-16-0 0.059 0.442 0.437 0.313 60 0.297 60
59 Aurora Central 0.336 3-12-0 0.200 0.352 0.440 0.331 58 0.317 59
60 Denver South 0.336 4-15-0 0.211 0.353 0.427 0.330 59 0.318 58
61 Gateway 0.326 1-15-0 0.063 0.396 0.448 0.302 61 0.284 61
62 Hinkley 0.291 0-17-0 0.000 0.369 0.426 0.265 62 0.245 62
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Erie 0.664 19-0-0 1.000 0.564 0.527 0.697 1 0.718 1
2 Mullen 0.644 13-3-1 0.794 0.615 0.554 0.654 4 0.667 4
3 Valor Christian 0.643 18-1-0 0.947 0.544 0.538 0.676 2 0.694 2
4 Pueblo West 0.642 15-3-0 0.833 0.599 0.536 0.656 3 0.671 3
5 Wheat Ridge 0.615 13-6-0 0.684 0.606 0.563 0.618 7 0.625 9
6 Mountain View 0.598 16-3-0 0.842 0.520 0.510 0.624 5 0.638 5
7 Silver Creek 0.589 16-3-0 0.842 0.504 0.507 0.617 8 0.631 7
8 Conifer 0.587 15-4-0 0.789 0.541 0.474 0.602 11 0.618 11
9 Elizabeth 0.587 16-3-0 0.842 0.525 0.453 0.607 10 0.626 8
10 Air Academy 0.586 14-4-0 0.778 0.523 0.521 0.607 9 0.618 10
11 Frederick 0.586 12-7-0 0.632 0.590 0.532 0.585 13 0.591 13
12 Thomas Jefferson 0.586 17-2-0 0.895 0.482 0.486 0.621 6 0.638 6
13 Discovery Canyon 0.581 12-7-0 0.632 0.585 0.524 0.580 14 0.587 15
14 Pueblo Central 0.574 12-7-0 0.632 0.558 0.548 0.579 15 0.583 16
15 Pueblo South 0.573 10-8-1 0.553 0.598 0.545 0.565 18 0.568 20
16 Golden 0.571 14-5-0 0.737 0.514 0.519 0.590 12 0.599 12
17 Berthoud 0.567 12-7-0 0.632 0.562 0.513 0.569 17 0.576 17
18 Thompson Valley 0.557 14-5-0 0.737 0.491 0.507 0.578 16 0.587 14
19 D’Evelyn 0.545 12-7-0 0.632 0.518 0.513 0.554 21 0.559 21
20 Pueblo County 0.545 13-6-0 0.684 0.489 0.517 0.563 19 0.569 19
21 Rifle 0.539 14-5-0 0.737 0.477 0.467 0.560 20 0.572 18
22 Ponderosa 0.532 9-10-0 0.474 0.554 0.547 0.525 24 0.522 26
23 Falcon 0.531 9-10-0 0.474 0.568 0.514 0.518 27 0.519 27
24 Holy Family 0.530 11-8-0 0.579 0.502 0.537 0.539 22 0.540 22
25 Windsor 0.523 10-9-0 0.526 0.518 0.528 0.524 25 0.524 25
26 Longmont 0.519 11-7-0 0.611 0.489 0.486 0.529 23 0.534 23
27 Evergreen 0.514 11-8-0 0.579 0.488 0.501 0.523 26 0.525 24
28 Pueblo Centennial 0.511 6-12-1 0.342 0.583 0.535 0.487 34 0.481 36
29 Arvada 0.506 11-8-0 0.579 0.500 0.446 0.509 29 0.516 29
30 Pueblo East 0.498 7-12-0 0.368 0.545 0.531 0.482 36 0.475 38
31 Niwot 0.496 9-10-0 0.474 0.502 0.504 0.493 30 0.492 31
32 Vista PEAK Prep 0.488 10-9-0 0.526 0.484 0.457 0.489 31 0.493 30
33 Kennedy 0.485 9-9-1 0.500 0.481 0.480 0.487 33 0.488 33
34 Lewis-Palmer 0.483 10-9-0 0.526 0.470 0.465 0.487 32 0.490 32
35 George Washington 0.476 13-5-1 0.711 0.371 0.451 0.511 28 0.518 28
36 Mead 0.476 7-12-0 0.368 0.508 0.518 0.465 39 0.458 40
37 Widefield 0.472 10-9-0 0.526 0.451 0.461 0.479 37 0.482 35
38 Green Mountain 0.470 7-11-0 0.389 0.490 0.512 0.463 40 0.457 41
39 Palmer Ridge 0.468 10-9-0 0.526 0.444 0.458 0.476 38 0.478 37
40 Canon City 0.467 11-8-0 0.579 0.417 0.456 0.484 35 0.487 34
41 Montrose 0.464 8-12-0 0.400 0.485 0.485 0.457 42 0.453 42
42 Cheyenne Mountain 0.457 9-10-0 0.474 0.448 0.457 0.460 41 0.460 39
43 Alameda 0.439 6-12-0 0.333 0.491 0.440 0.422 49 0.419 48
44 Palisade 0.439 6-13-0 0.316 0.484 0.472 0.424 47 0.418 49
45 Eagle Valley 0.436 7-11-0 0.389 0.449 0.456 0.431 43 0.428 43
46 Woodland Park 0.431 7-12-0 0.368 0.453 0.450 0.424 48 0.420 47
47 Northridge 0.431 4-15-0 0.211 0.509 0.495 0.405 51 0.394 52
48 Skyline 0.424 3-16-0 0.158 0.514 0.511 0.394 54 0.380 56
49 Roosevelt 0.424 5-14-0 0.263 0.462 0.508 0.411 50 0.399 50
50 The Classical Academy 0.421 8-11-0 0.421 0.412 0.440 0.424 45 0.423 45
51 Englewood 0.420 8-11-0 0.421 0.402 0.456 0.426 44 0.423 44
52 Skyview 0.420 8-11-0 0.421 0.406 0.445 0.424 46 0.422 46
53 Boulder 0.411 5-14-0 0.263 0.431 0.518 0.404 52 0.390 53
54 Denver North 0.409 6-12-0 0.333 0.445 0.414 0.397 53 0.395 51
55 Sand Creek 0.409 5-14-0 0.263 0.454 0.465 0.394 55 0.385 54
56 Standley Lake 0.408 0-18-0 0.000 0.564 0.503 0.356 59 0.337 59
57 Durango 0.394 3-14-0 0.176 0.454 0.491 0.374 57 0.359 57
58 Mesa Ridge 0.382 7-12-0 0.368 0.358 0.442 0.389 56 0.383 55
59 Centaurus 0.378 3-16-0 0.158 0.439 0.475 0.357 58 0.343 58
60 Greeley Central 0.336 0-19-0 0.000 0.428 0.487 0.305 61 0.282 62
61 Harrison 0.315 4-14-0 0.222 0.316 0.408 0.315 60 0.304 60
62 Mitchell 0.303 3-16-0 0.158 0.320 0.413 0.297 62 0.282 61
63 Denver West 0.303 0-11-0 0.000 0.398 0.414 0.271 63 0.253 63
64 Sierra 0.276 1-18-0 0.053 0.329 0.394 0.259 64 0.242 64
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Strasburg 0.648 17-2-0 0.895 0.585 0.525 0.668 1 0.686 1
2 Rocky Ford 0.623 18-1-0 0.947 0.521 0.502 0.657 2 0.676 2
3 Eaton 0.607 15-4-0 0.789 0.554 0.531 0.625 3 0.637 3
4 Brush 0.605 14-5-0 0.737 0.584 0.516 0.612 4 0.624 4
5 Lamar 0.587 13-6-0 0.684 0.582 0.501 0.589 5 0.600 5
6 Valley 0.556 11-8-0 0.579 0.565 0.514 0.553 9 0.557 9
7 The Academy 0.553 15-4-0 0.789 0.479 0.466 0.578 6 0.592 6
8 Basalt 0.546 15-4-0 0.789 0.462 0.469 0.574 7 0.587 7
9 Cedaredge 0.542 14-5-0 0.737 0.474 0.484 0.565 8 0.575 8
10 Sterling 0.529 10-9-0 0.526 0.537 0.517 0.527 11 0.528 11
11 Weld Central 0.529 12-7-0 0.632 0.515 0.456 0.534 10 0.544 10
12 La Junta 0.529 10-9-0 0.526 0.543 0.502 0.524 12 0.527 12
13 Faith Christian 0.520 10-9-0 0.526 0.548 0.457 0.510 14 0.517 14
14 Burlington 0.506 11-7-0 0.611 0.479 0.455 0.515 13 0.523 13
15 Delta 0.499 11-8-0 0.579 0.468 0.480 0.509 15 0.513 15
16 Meeker 0.487 11-8-0 0.579 0.453 0.463 0.498 16 0.503 16
17 Limon 0.483 11-8-0 0.579 0.454 0.447 0.493 17 0.499 17
18 Fort Lupton 0.477 10-9-0 0.526 0.457 0.467 0.483 19 0.485 18
19 St. Mary’s 0.476 10-9-0 0.526 0.454 0.470 0.483 18 0.485 19
20 Dolores Huerta Prep 0.469 4-8-0 0.333 0.528 0.489 0.450 22 0.445 22
21 University 0.465 7-12-0 0.368 0.500 0.493 0.454 21 0.449 21
22 Wray 0.454 10-9-0 0.526 0.424 0.442 0.464 20 0.467 20
23 Platte Valley 0.442 7-12-0 0.368 0.448 0.502 0.440 23 0.432 24
24 Akron 0.429 9-10-0 0.474 0.402 0.437 0.438 24 0.438 23
25 Gunnison 0.427 3-16-0 0.158 0.537 0.476 0.390 29 0.380 29
26 Montezuma-Cortez 0.422 6-13-0 0.316 0.459 0.456 0.410 25 0.405 25
27 Lyons 0.410 2-17-0 0.105 0.512 0.510 0.376 30 0.359 31
28 Florence 0.401 6-13-0 0.316 0.416 0.457 0.396 27 0.389 27
29 Holyoke 0.388 7-12-0 0.368 0.364 0.454 0.396 28 0.388 28
30 James Irwin 0.385 4-12-0 0.250 0.415 0.461 0.375 31 0.365 30
31 Sheridan 0.382 9-10-0 0.474 0.325 0.406 0.401 26 0.401 26
32 Yuma 0.334 1-13-0 0.071 0.414 0.435 0.307 34 0.291 34
33 Peak to Peak 0.327 4-15-0 0.211 0.336 0.424 0.323 32 0.311 32
34 Aspen 0.325 0-14-0 0.000 0.413 0.472 0.295 35 0.273 35
35 Jefferson 0.320 4-14-0 0.222 0.325 0.408 0.318 33 0.307 33
36 Platte Canyon 0.239 0-10-0 0.000 0.293 0.373 0.222 36 0.203 36

[/toggler][toggler title=”Field hockey” ]

Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Kent Denver 0.613 13-0-2 0.933 0.509 0.502 0.648 1 0.666 1
2 Palmer Ridge 0.589 11-2-2 0.800 0.528 0.500 0.609 3 0.623 3
3 Colorado Academy 0.587 11-2-2 0.800 0.523 0.500 0.608 4 0.621 4
4 Denver East 0.581 11-1-3 0.833 0.495 0.502 0.610 2 0.624 2
5 Cherry Creek 0.580 11-2-1 0.821 0.499 0.500 0.607 5 0.620 5
6 Mountain Vista 0.544 9-4-1 0.679 0.499 0.500 0.559 6 0.567 6
7 Regis Jesuit 0.533 8-6-1 0.567 0.533 0.498 0.533 7 0.537 7
8 St. Mary’s Academy 0.495 7-7-1 0.500 0.489 0.500 0.497 8 0.496 8
9 Golden 0.477 5-9-1 0.367 0.522 0.498 0.462 10 0.458 10
10 Grandview 0.466 6-8-1 0.433 0.464 0.502 0.466 9 0.462 9
11 Smoky Hill 0.447 4-10-1 0.300 0.495 0.500 0.431 11 0.423 11
12 Cheyenne Mountain 0.429 4-11-0 0.267 0.475 0.500 0.414 12 0.403 12
13 Liberty 0.396 2-13-0 0.133 0.475 0.500 0.370 13 0.353 13
14 Arapahoe 0.394 1-13-0 0.071 0.502 0.500 0.358 14 0.340 14
15 Fossil Ridge 0.369 0-15-0 0.000 0.489 0.498 0.329 15 0.308 15

[/toggler]

I’m hesitant to do this next part, because the season isn’t even over yet, and we’ve preached patience. But, in the interest of transparency, here is football through Week 8:

[toggler title=”Football” ]

Class 5A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Valor Christian 0.679 5-3-0 0.595 0.786 0.552 0.644 6 0.656 6
2 Regis Jesuit 0.679 7-1-0 0.875 0.643 0.555 0.691 1 0.708 1
3 Mullen 0.657 6-2-0 0.750 0.654 0.571 0.658 4 0.669 4
4 Grandview 0.656 7-1-0 0.875 0.607 0.533 0.672 2 0.689 2
5 Pomona 0.639 7-1-0 0.875 0.549 0.584 0.670 3 0.680 3
6 Cherry Creek 0.639 5-3-0 0.625 0.710 0.510 0.615 7 0.628 7
7 Columbine 0.606 6-2-0 0.734 0.589 0.511 0.611 9 0.624 9
8 Legacy 0.604 6-2-0 0.750 0.589 0.488 0.609 10 0.624 8
9 Highlands Ranch 0.601 5-3-0 0.625 0.597 0.585 0.602 11 0.604 11
10 Ralston Valley 0.598 5-3-0 0.625 0.625 0.518 0.589 12 0.598 12
11 Chaparral 0.597 6-2-0 0.750 0.554 0.533 0.612 8 0.622 10
12 Eaglecrest 0.592 8-0-0 1.000 0.393 0.581 0.658 5 0.668 5
13 Fairview 0.556 6-2-0 0.750 0.462 0.550 0.587 13 0.592 13
14 Fountain-Fort Carson 0.545 3-5-0 0.375 0.646 0.514 0.511 21 0.511 21
15 Mountain Vista 0.534 4-4-0 0.500 0.554 0.527 0.527 17 0.527 16
16 Doherty 0.522 6-2-0 0.750 0.375 0.590 0.572 14 0.569 14
17 ThunderRidge 0.515 4-4-0 0.500 0.545 0.472 0.506 23 0.510 22
18 Cherokee Trail 0.511 4-4-0 0.500 0.536 0.473 0.503 24 0.507 23
19 Lakewood 0.508 5-3-0 0.625 0.442 0.523 0.530 15 0.531 15
20 Poudre 0.499 5-3-0 0.625 0.429 0.513 0.522 18 0.523 18
21 Legend 0.498 4-4-0 0.500 0.463 0.567 0.510 22 0.503 24
22 Bear Creek 0.497 2-6-0 0.250 0.623 0.493 0.455 29 0.450 30
23 Fossil Ridge 0.494 5-3-0 0.625 0.411 0.528 0.521 19 0.520 19
24 Horizon 0.486 5-3-0 0.625 0.406 0.505 0.512 20 0.513 20
25 Castle View 0.483 3-5-0 0.375 0.518 0.522 0.472 28 0.465 28
26 Arapahoe 0.483 4-4-0 0.500 0.464 0.504 0.489 25 0.488 25
27 Douglas County 0.475 4-4-0 0.500 0.446 0.508 0.485 26 0.482 26
28 Rangeview 0.474 2-6-0 0.250 0.589 0.467 0.435 32 0.432 32
29 Arvada West 0.468 6-2-0 0.750 0.286 0.551 0.529 16 0.526 17
30 Prairie View 0.455 3-5-0 0.375 0.495 0.453 0.441 31 0.440 31
31 Aurora Central 0.439 5-3-0 0.625 0.304 0.522 0.484 27 0.479 27
32 Denver East 0.438 4-4-0 0.500 0.386 0.479 0.455 30 0.452 29
33 Westminster 0.434 1-7-0 0.125 0.571 0.468 0.388 34 0.378 34
34 Rocky Mountain 0.429 0-8-0 0.000 0.641 0.437 0.359 38 0.349 38
35 Rock Canyon 0.424 2-6-0 0.250 0.464 0.518 0.411 33 0.397 33
36 Boulder 0.415 0-8-0 0.000 0.607 0.444 0.350 39 0.339 39
37 Mountain Range 0.403 2-6-0 0.250 0.464 0.434 0.383 35 0.376 35
38 Smoky Hill 0.395 0-7-0 0.000 0.592 0.395 0.329 40 0.321 40
39 Northglenn 0.367 2-6-0 0.250 0.389 0.441 0.360 37 0.350 37
40 Overland 0.362 2-6-0 0.250 0.339 0.521 0.370 36 0.351 36
41 Hinkley 0.335 0-8-0 0.000 0.446 0.447 0.298 42 0.279 42
42 Far Northeast Warriors 0.329 2-6-0 0.217 0.339 0.420 0.325 41 0.314 41
Class 4A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Denver South 0.640 8-0-0 1.019 0.488 0.567 0.691 1 0.707 1
2 Broomfield 0.611 6-2-0 0.750 0.595 0.503 0.616 3 0.630 2
3 Pine Creek 0.601 6-2-0 0.769 0.554 0.530 0.617 2 0.628 3
4 Monarch 0.586 5-3-0 0.644 0.607 0.487 0.579 7 0.591 7
5 Pueblo West 0.583 5-3-0 0.625 0.595 0.516 0.579 8 0.586 8
6 Pueblo South 0.581 6-2-0 0.750 0.516 0.541 0.602 6 0.610 6
7 Mesa Ridge 0.572 5-3-0 0.625 0.577 0.511 0.571 10 0.578 10
8 Chatfield 0.561 7-1-0 0.875 0.431 0.508 0.605 5 0.617 5
9 Ponderosa 0.561 7-1-0 0.894 0.429 0.494 0.606 4 0.619 4
10 Fruita Monument 0.555 4-4-0 0.500 0.605 0.509 0.538 16 0.542 16
11 Windsor 0.551 5-3-0 0.625 0.521 0.539 0.562 13 0.564 13
12 Rampart 0.545 6-2-0 0.750 0.472 0.487 0.570 11 0.580 9
13 Wheat Ridge 0.539 3-5-0 0.375 0.648 0.484 0.502 21 0.505 21
14 Heritage 0.536 5-3-0 0.625 0.521 0.476 0.541 15 0.549 15
15 Greeley West 0.524 6-2-0 0.750 0.396 0.555 0.567 12 0.568 12
16 Vista Ridge 0.521 5-3-0 0.625 0.490 0.479 0.532 17 0.538 17
17 Grand Junction Central 0.521 4-4-0 0.500 0.539 0.506 0.515 19 0.516 19
18 Mountain View 0.505 3-5-0 0.359 0.577 0.507 0.481 23 0.478 24
19 Montrose 0.504 3-5-0 0.375 0.559 0.522 0.485 22 0.481 22
20 Loveland 0.502 7-1-0 0.894 0.283 0.546 0.574 9 0.578 11
21 Dakota Ridge 0.497 5-3-0 0.625 0.420 0.524 0.523 18 0.523 18
22 Liberty 0.489 3-5-0 0.375 0.559 0.463 0.466 27 0.466 27
23 Widefield 0.488 5-3-0 0.625 0.424 0.479 0.509 20 0.513 20
24 Skyline 0.476 7-1-0 0.875 0.273 0.481 0.543 14 0.551 14
25 Standley Lake 0.474 4-4-0 0.500 0.452 0.491 0.481 24 0.480 23
26 George Washington 0.460 4-4-0 0.519 0.432 0.458 0.469 26 0.471 26
27 Pueblo Centennial 0.445 2-6-0 0.250 0.523 0.482 0.418 28 0.410 28
28 Cheyenne Mountain 0.441 5-3-0 0.592 0.343 0.485 0.473 25 0.472 25
29 Coronado 0.419 2-6-0 0.250 0.482 0.463 0.398 30 0.390 30
30 Fort Collins 0.419 2-6-0 0.250 0.500 0.425 0.392 31 0.388 31
31 Grand Junction 0.414 1-7-0 0.125 0.538 0.456 0.373 32 0.363 32
32 Niwot 0.414 3-5-0 0.375 0.427 0.427 0.410 29 0.407 29
33 Palmer 0.412 1-7-0 0.125 0.538 0.447 0.370 34 0.360 33
34 Gateway 0.407 1-7-0 0.125 0.523 0.456 0.368 35 0.357 34
35 Brighton 0.396 1-7-0 0.125 0.472 0.513 0.370 33 0.352 35
36 Greeley Central 0.383 0-8-0 0.000 0.556 0.418 0.325 40 0.313 40
37 Sand Creek 0.365 1-7-0 0.125 0.429 0.476 0.344 38 0.327 38
38 Adams City 0.362 2-6-0 0.250 0.393 0.410 0.351 37 0.344 36
39 Air Academy 0.355 1-7-0 0.125 0.409 0.479 0.337 39 0.320 39
40 Thornton 0.352 2-6-0 0.269 0.342 0.456 0.355 36 0.343 37
41 Golden 0.321 1-7-0 0.125 0.393 0.371 0.296 41 0.287 41
42 Littleton 0.245 0-8-0 0.000 0.253 0.473 0.242 42 0.213 42
Class 3A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Discovery Canyon 0.716 8-0-0 1.056 0.618 0.570 0.748 1 0.770 1
2 Pueblo East 0.693 7-1-0 0.913 0.642 0.577 0.710 2 0.727 2
3 Lewis-Palmer 0.681 7-1-0 0.875 0.626 0.596 0.699 3 0.712 4
4 Silver Creek 0.653 8-0-0 1.019 0.521 0.552 0.697 4 0.715 3
5 Palisade 0.639 7-1-0 0.931 0.534 0.556 0.674 5 0.688 5
6 Longmont 0.636 6-2-0 0.769 0.603 0.570 0.647 7 0.657 7
7 Holy Family 0.634 6-2-0 0.769 0.598 0.571 0.646 8 0.655 8
8 Fort Morgan 0.622 7-1-0 0.875 0.532 0.549 0.652 6 0.665 6
9 Palmer Ridge 0.613 6-2-0 0.788 0.576 0.514 0.626 10 0.640 10
10 Mead 0.610 5-3-0 0.625 0.621 0.576 0.607 11 0.611 11
11 Rifle 0.608 7-1-0 0.894 0.516 0.505 0.638 9 0.655 9
12 Evergreen 0.583 4-4-0 0.500 0.669 0.493 0.554 18 0.562 18
13 Erie 0.577 5-3-0 0.625 0.572 0.537 0.578 15 0.583 15
14 Lutheran 0.567 6-2-0 0.750 0.481 0.556 0.596 13 0.601 13
15 Skyview 0.559 5-3-0 0.625 0.560 0.492 0.559 17 0.567 17
16 Vista PEAK Prep 0.555 6-2-0 0.788 0.463 0.505 0.585 14 0.595 14
17 Roosevelt 0.551 3-5-0 0.394 0.654 0.505 0.517 22 0.519 22
18 Conifer 0.551 7-1-0 0.875 0.401 0.528 0.601 12 0.611 12
19 Durango 0.550 5-3-0 0.649 0.502 0.547 0.566 16 0.568 16
20 Centaurus 0.536 3-5-0 0.375 0.633 0.503 0.504 26 0.504 25
21 Pueblo County 0.532 4-4-0 0.519 0.532 0.547 0.532 21 0.531 21
22 Canon City 0.530 2-6-0 0.250 0.652 0.568 0.490 27 0.480 28
23 Eagle Valley 0.518 2-6-0 0.250 0.654 0.515 0.473 29 0.468 29
24 Green Mountain 0.509 4-4-0 0.519 0.516 0.485 0.507 25 0.509 23
25 Harrison 0.496 6-2-0 0.750 0.345 0.546 0.547 19 0.547 19
26 Falcon 0.496 4-4-0 0.540 0.462 0.519 0.507 24 0.506 24
27 Northridge 0.485 4-4-0 0.519 0.416 0.588 0.508 23 0.498 26
28 Thomas Jefferson 0.485 6-2-0 0.750 0.318 0.553 0.540 20 0.539 20
29 Alameda 0.476 1-6-0 0.143 0.672 0.418 0.411 33 0.410 33
30 Denver North 0.464 5-3-0 0.576 0.388 0.502 0.489 28 0.487 27
31 Thompson Valley 0.457 1-7-0 0.125 0.603 0.499 0.409 34 0.398 36
32 Battle Mountain 0.449 3-5-0 0.342 0.496 0.461 0.433 32 0.429 31
33 Glenwood Springs 0.446 4-4-0 0.500 0.414 0.456 0.457 30 0.457 30
34 Kennedy 0.442 2-6-0 0.269 0.542 0.415 0.408 35 0.408 34
35 Mitchell 0.437 3-5-0 0.375 0.450 0.474 0.433 31 0.428 32
36 Lincoln 0.434 2-5-0 0.267 0.520 0.429 0.405 36 0.402 35
37 Woodland Park 0.428 2-6-0 0.250 0.499 0.465 0.404 37 0.397 37
38 Frederick 0.420 1-7-0 0.125 0.529 0.498 0.384 39 0.370 39
39 Sierra 0.409 0-8-0 0.000 0.596 0.446 0.347 41 0.335 41
40 Berthoud 0.390 2-6-0 0.269 0.360 0.570 0.399 38 0.378 38
41 Summit 0.389 2-6-0 0.234 0.413 0.495 0.381 40 0.366 40
42 Pueblo Central 0.372 0-8-0 0.000 0.509 0.469 0.326 42 0.308 42
Class 2A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 La Junta 0.702 8-0-0 1.000 0.649 0.512 0.720 1 0.746 1
2 Resurrection Christian 0.638 8-0-0 1.000 0.500 0.553 0.684 2 0.701 2
3 Kent Denver 0.615 7-1-0 0.894 0.521 0.527 0.647 4 0.662 4
4 Sterling 0.615 5-3-0 0.625 0.674 0.486 0.595 9 0.609 8
5 The Classical Academy 0.608 7-1-0 0.913 0.467 0.586 0.655 3 0.664 3
6 D’Evelyn 0.595 6-2-0 0.769 0.562 0.489 0.606 7 0.621 7
7 Bayfield 0.595 6-2-0 0.788 0.541 0.509 0.613 6 0.626 5
8 University 0.581 5-3-0 0.625 0.625 0.450 0.567 11 0.581 10
9 Delta 0.571 5-3-0 0.625 0.586 0.487 0.566 12 0.576 12
10 Manitou Springs 0.568 6-2-0 0.750 0.482 0.557 0.597 8 0.602 9
11 Weld Central 0.557 7-1-0 0.913 0.386 0.545 0.614 5 0.623 6
12 Platte Valley 0.556 4-4-0 0.500 0.610 0.504 0.538 18 0.542 18
13 Florence 0.555 5-3-0 0.644 0.524 0.529 0.566 13 0.570 13
14 Faith Christian 0.545 5-3-0 0.625 0.541 0.475 0.547 15 0.556 14
15 Basalt 0.538 6-2-0 0.769 0.450 0.484 0.568 10 0.578 11
16 Alamosa 0.531 5-3-0 0.609 0.485 0.546 0.547 16 0.547 16
17 Gunnison 0.525 4-4-0 0.500 0.527 0.548 0.525 19 0.522 20
18 Valley 0.502 5-3-0 0.625 0.452 0.481 0.519 20 0.524 19
19 Eaton 0.501 6-2-0 0.750 0.337 0.581 0.556 14 0.553 15
20 Bishop Machebeuf 0.496 6-2-0 0.750 0.360 0.515 0.542 17 0.545 17
21 Elizabeth 0.480 4-4-0 0.519 0.437 0.527 0.494 21 0.490 21
22 Salida 0.480 2-6-0 0.250 0.577 0.513 0.447 24 0.439 24
23 The Academy 0.472 4-4-0 0.500 0.464 0.460 0.475 22 0.477 22
24 Moffat County 0.457 4-4-0 0.500 0.425 0.477 0.467 23 0.466 23
25 Brush 0.456 1-7-0 0.125 0.592 0.516 0.411 29 0.398 29
26 Lamar 0.453 1-7-0 0.109 0.597 0.510 0.405 30 0.392 30
27 Prospect Ridge Academy 0.444 1-7-0 0.125 0.603 0.446 0.391 31 0.384 31
28 Englewood 0.422 3-5-0 0.375 0.447 0.420 0.414 28 0.413 27
29 Arvada 0.418 4-4-0 0.500 0.355 0.460 0.438 25 0.436 25
30 Ridge View Academy 0.408 1-7-0 0.125 0.526 0.456 0.369 34 0.358 33
31 Roaring Fork 0.407 3-5-0 0.375 0.381 0.491 0.416 27 0.406 28
32 Middle Park 0.403 4-4-0 0.500 0.324 0.463 0.429 26 0.425 26
33 Pagosa Springs 0.401 1-7-0 0.109 0.488 0.518 0.372 32 0.353 34
34 Montezuma-Cortez 0.393 1-7-0 0.125 0.473 0.502 0.367 35 0.350 35
35 Coal Ridge 0.387 1-7-0 0.125 0.467 0.489 0.360 37 0.344 36
36 Aspen 0.383 2-6-0 0.250 0.419 0.444 0.371 33 0.362 32
37 Fort Lupton 0.380 1-7-0 0.125 0.434 0.528 0.362 36 0.342 37
38 The Pinnacle 0.351 0-8-0 0.000 0.482 0.438 0.307 40 0.290 40
39 Sheridan 0.342 1-7-0 0.125 0.383 0.475 0.328 38 0.309 38
40 Jefferson 0.323 0-8-0 0.000 0.424 0.444 0.289 41 0.270 41
41 Denver West 0.323 1-7-0 0.125 0.361 0.444 0.310 39 0.293 39
42 Steamboat Springs 0.311 0-8-0 0.000 0.409 0.425 0.278 42 0.259 42
Class 1A
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Meeker 0.718 8-0-0 1.019 0.646 0.560 0.742 1 0.764 1
2 Strasburg 0.681 8-0-0 1.019 0.574 0.556 0.716 2 0.736 2
3 Paonia 0.671 7-1-0 0.913 0.605 0.560 0.693 3 0.709 4
4 Bennett 0.664 7-1-0 0.875 0.633 0.515 0.674 5 0.694 5
5 Platte Canyon 0.653 8-0-0 1.019 0.537 0.520 0.692 4 0.713 3
6 Cedaredge 0.643 6-2-0 0.788 0.611 0.562 0.653 6 0.665 6
7 Limon 0.627 6-2-0 0.750 0.628 0.502 0.627 8 0.642 8
8 Center 0.610 5-3-0 0.625 0.662 0.493 0.593 11 0.606 11
9 Peyton 0.586 8-0-0 1.000 0.387 0.568 0.652 7 0.662 7
10 Grand Valley 0.575 5-3-0 0.663 0.554 0.527 0.581 12 0.588 12
11 Highland 0.572 5-3-0 0.625 0.595 0.473 0.564 15 0.576 15
12 Buena Vista 0.570 5-3-0 0.663 0.557 0.506 0.575 14 0.584 13
13 Burlington 0.569 6-2-0 0.769 0.465 0.577 0.603 9 0.607 10
14 Crowley County 0.554 6-1-0 0.857 0.416 0.526 0.600 10 0.609 9
15 Monte Vista 0.552 4-4-0 0.519 0.574 0.541 0.544 18 0.545 18
16 Olathe 0.543 4-4-0 0.538 0.557 0.521 0.538 19 0.541 19
17 Rye 0.537 4-4-0 0.500 0.562 0.523 0.528 21 0.529 21
18 Ellicott 0.536 5-4-0 0.556 0.558 0.472 0.528 20 0.535 20
19 Clear Creek 0.532 6-2-0 0.790 0.401 0.534 0.575 13 0.580 14
20 Centauri 0.531 5-3-0 0.644 0.481 0.518 0.548 17 0.551 16
21 Manual 0.526 4-4-0 0.556 0.550 0.450 0.519 23 0.527 22
22 Holyoke 0.523 4-4-0 0.500 0.534 0.521 0.519 22 0.518 23
23 Hotchkiss 0.508 3-5-0 0.394 0.539 0.559 0.498 25 0.490 26
24 Rocky Ford 0.495 6-2-0 0.750 0.328 0.572 0.550 16 0.547 17
25 Front Range Christian 0.491 4-4-0 0.500 0.475 0.514 0.496 26 0.494 25
26 Colorado Springs Christian 0.484 5-3-0 0.625 0.395 0.519 0.513 24 0.512 24
27 Wray 0.484 3-5-0 0.375 0.512 0.536 0.474 27 0.466 27
28 Wiggins 0.476 3-5-0 0.375 0.523 0.481 0.460 28 0.457 28
29 Vail Christian 0.470 1-7-0 0.125 0.611 0.533 0.423 31 0.409 33
30 John Mall 0.467 3-5-0 0.375 0.505 0.482 0.454 29 0.450 29
31 Yuma 0.466 2-6-0 0.250 0.571 0.471 0.431 30 0.426 30
32 St. Mary’s 0.451 0-8-0 0.000 0.671 0.462 0.378 36 0.367 36
33 Cornerstone Christian Academy 0.433 2-6-0 0.250 0.485 0.513 0.416 34 0.404 34
34 Trinidad 0.432 1-7-0 0.125 0.566 0.472 0.388 35 0.377 35
35 Dolores 0.410 3-5-0 0.394 0.372 0.502 0.423 32 0.413 31
36 Lake County 0.410 1-7-0 0.125 0.511 0.493 0.376 37 0.362 37
37 Ignacio 0.409 3-5-0 0.394 0.374 0.494 0.421 33 0.411 32
38 Byers 0.401 1-7-0 0.125 0.526 0.425 0.359 39 0.351 38
39 Estes Park 0.359 0-8-0 0.000 0.491 0.456 0.315 40 0.298 40
40 Lyons 0.330 3-5-0 0.375 0.214 0.516 0.368 38 0.350 39
41 Dolores Huerta Prep 0.329 0-7-0 0.000 0.459 0.399 0.286 41 0.272 41
8-man
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Akron 0.696 6-2-0 0.750 0.738 0.560 0.683 1 0.698 1
2 Dayspring Christian Academy 0.662 6-2-0 0.750 0.643 0.612 0.668 2 0.676 2
3 Sedgwick County 0.617 7-1-0 0.894 0.503 0.570 0.656 3 0.666 4
4 Merino 0.617 6-2-0 0.769 0.574 0.550 0.631 7 0.641 7
5 Pikes Peak Christian 0.609 7-1-0 0.875 0.539 0.485 0.633 6 0.651 6
6 West Grand 0.609 7-1-0 0.875 0.521 0.519 0.639 5 0.653 5
7 Hoehne 0.604 6-2-0 0.750 0.584 0.496 0.610 9 0.624 9
8 Sargent 0.602 8-0-0 1.000 0.446 0.515 0.654 4 0.671 3
9 Norwood 0.591 6-1-0 0.857 0.518 0.472 0.616 8 0.634 8
10 Granada 0.582 6-2-0 0.750 0.530 0.516 0.599 10 0.609 10
11 Haxtun 0.559 5-3-0 0.625 0.529 0.554 0.569 11 0.571 11
12 McClave 0.548 5-3-0 0.625 0.541 0.484 0.550 13 0.558 13
13 Plateau Valley 0.546 4-3-0 0.571 0.585 0.443 0.533 16 0.544 14
14 Holly 0.534 5-2-0 0.714 0.457 0.508 0.560 12 0.566 12
15 Soroco 0.523 5-3-0 0.625 0.470 0.525 0.540 14 0.542 16
16 Simla 0.508 3-5-0 0.375 0.571 0.515 0.487 21 0.484 21
17 Justice 0.503 5-2-0 0.714 0.404 0.491 0.536 15 0.542 15
18 Mancos 0.501 5-3-0 0.625 0.442 0.495 0.521 17 0.524 17
19 Fowler 0.492 4-4-0 0.500 0.488 0.490 0.493 20 0.493 20
20 Springfield 0.484 3-5-0 0.359 0.539 0.500 0.466 23 0.461 24
21 South Park 0.476 2-5-0 0.286 0.585 0.448 0.440 28 0.438 27
22 Gilpin County 0.475 5-3-0 0.625 0.372 0.530 0.509 18 0.506 18
23 Sangre de Cristo 0.471 5-3-0 0.625 0.396 0.468 0.496 19 0.500 19
24 Sanford 0.467 2-6-0 0.250 0.568 0.479 0.433 29 0.427 29
25 Nederland 0.459 3-3-0 0.500 0.448 0.438 0.462 24 0.465 23
26 Caliche 0.458 0-8-0 0.000 0.666 0.498 0.388 31 0.374 31
27 Rocky Mountain Lutheran 0.457 4-4-0 0.500 0.423 0.482 0.468 22 0.467 22
28 Hayden 0.449 3-5-0 0.375 0.474 0.474 0.441 27 0.437 28
29 Kiowa 0.449 3-5-0 0.375 0.446 0.528 0.450 25 0.440 26
30 Wiley 0.444 3-4-0 0.429 0.440 0.469 0.446 26 0.443 25
31 Rangely 0.421 2-6-0 0.250 0.485 0.463 0.399 30 0.391 30
32 Custer County 0.367 2-6-0 0.250 0.378 0.461 0.363 32 0.351 32
33 Swink 0.360 1-7-0 0.125 0.423 0.469 0.339 35 0.323 35
34 Dove Creek 0.360 1-7-0 0.125 0.416 0.481 0.341 34 0.323 34
35 Del Norte 0.354 0-8-0 0.000 0.479 0.458 0.313 37 0.294 37
36 Las Animas 0.350 2-6-0 0.250 0.343 0.466 0.353 33 0.339 33
37 Miami-Yoder 0.335 1-7-0 0.125 0.389 0.436 0.317 36 0.302 36
6-man
Rank Team RPI Record WP OWP OOWP 1/3 Rank 37.5 Rank
1 Kit Carson 0.676 8-0-0 1.000 0.574 0.555 0.710 1 0.729 1
2 Fleming 0.635 8-0-0 1.000 0.512 0.516 0.676 2 0.696 2
3 Stratton/Liberty 0.619 7-1-0 0.875 0.524 0.553 0.651 3 0.663 4
4 Hi-Plains 0.606 6-2-0 0.750 0.563 0.550 0.621 5 0.630 5
5 Cotopaxi 0.601 7-0-0 1.000 0.473 0.459 0.644 4 0.667 3
6 Eads 0.598 6-2-0 0.750 0.553 0.534 0.613 6 0.622 6
7 Cheyenne Wells 0.590 5-3-0 0.625 0.595 0.547 0.589 8 0.594 10
8 Genoa-Hugo 0.582 5-2-0 0.714 0.563 0.486 0.588 9 0.601 8
9 La Veta 0.567 6-1-0 0.857 0.473 0.467 0.599 7 0.615 7
10 North Park 0.563 6-2-0 0.750 0.503 0.498 0.584 11 0.594 9
11 Peetz 0.559 6-2-0 0.750 0.485 0.518 0.584 10 0.593 11
12 Arickaree/Woodlin 0.557 3-4-0 0.429 0.633 0.535 0.532 13 0.532 13
13 Pawnee 0.540 5-3-0 0.625 0.509 0.517 0.550 12 0.554 12
14 Otis 0.510 4-4-0 0.500 0.491 0.557 0.516 14 0.511 15
15 Idalia 0.506 2-6-0 0.250 0.616 0.541 0.469 18 0.460 19
16 Walsh 0.494 3-5-0 0.375 0.529 0.541 0.482 17 0.474 17
17 Sierra Grande 0.490 5-3-0 0.625 0.431 0.474 0.510 15 0.515 14
18 Weldon Valley 0.479 3-5-0 0.375 0.521 0.498 0.464 19 0.460 18
19 Manzanola 0.476 4-3-0 0.571 0.435 0.462 0.490 16 0.493 16
20 Briggsdale 0.471 3-5-0 0.375 0.503 0.501 0.460 20 0.455 20
21 Elbert 0.470 3-5-0 0.375 0.505 0.494 0.458 21 0.453 21
22 Cheraw 0.452 1-6-0 0.143 0.574 0.517 0.411 24 0.398 25
23 Hanover 0.450 3-5-0 0.375 0.475 0.473 0.441 23 0.437 23
24 Branson/Kim 0.447 3-5-0 0.394 0.442 0.508 0.448 22 0.441 22
25 Primero 0.426 2-5-0 0.286 0.480 0.458 0.408 25 0.401 24
26 Prairie 0.425 1-6-0 0.143 0.531 0.497 0.390 26 0.377 26
27 Aguilar 0.392 1-6-0 0.143 0.480 0.466 0.363 27 0.350 27
28 Cripple Creek-Victor 0.386 1-7-0 0.125 0.460 0.499 0.361 28 0.344 28
29 Longmont Christian 0.380 1-7-0 0.125 0.446 0.500 0.357 29 0.339 29
30 Mountain Valley 0.334 0-7-0 0.000 0.439 0.460 0.299 31 0.279 31
31 Colorado School for the Deaf & Blind 0.325 1-5-0 0.192 0.309 0.491 0.331 30 0.311 30

[/toggler]

As you can see, tweaking the formula does perhaps provide a more accurate picture.

By the way, these changes to the formula would have also improved baseball’s seeding last season. For example, Cherokee Trail, the eventual 5A champion, was No. 13 in the final RPI. The Cougars would have been No. 4 in the 1/3 formula, and No. 5 in the 37.5 formula.

We’ve also run these scenarios for volleyball, and it does seem to help that sport, as well.

Personally, I believe the 1/3 formula is the way to go across all sports.

2. Consider a classification modifier in all sports.

4A state softball Valor Christian Thomas Jefferson

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

This isn’t going to be as detailed as the section above, because we haven’t run the data yet, but I believe the addition of a classification modifier in all sports — something football is already using — will only help.

Currently, there are teams that are getting the same amount of points for beating a 15-4 team in 3A as they are for beating a 15-4 team in 5A. More often than not, those two opponents vary in terms of difficulty.

There is a downside here: If this were to be implemented, it would affect multi-class leagues two ways.

First, teams in the higher classification (for example, 4A), would potentially be penalized for having lower class teams (for example, 3A) in their league.

Second, the opposite would also be true. In the example, the 3A teams would get a boost for beating the 4A teams — an opportunity others in their classification may not even have the chance to schedule.

Football’s current classification modifier has a one-time exemption to allow teams to continue to play one traditional rival (or another opponent) without being penalized, and I imagine a similar exemption would exist were this to be implemented in all sports.

3. Use the CHSAANow.com polls in the formula.

Pine Creek Rampart volleyball generic

(Josh Watt/CHSAANow.com)

This is something I’ve advocated for since before the move to RPI, as I believe it would add a much-needed human element to the formula.

The use of the CHSAANow.com polls in the CHSAA RPI can reward teams for big wins, but also for being ranked.

There is already a model we can use to do this. Check out the NAIA modified RPI.

Rangeview boys basketball coach Shawn Palmer actually wrote a column in favor of this very thing last spring. Rangeview spent much of last season No. 1 in the 5A poll, and eventually reached the Final 4 as part of a 26-1 season. They likely would not have been rated very highly by the RPI due to a relatively low strength of schedule that can at least in part be attributed to the league they play in — which had just three of 10 teams finish over .500 last season.

The coaches poll can be a good counter-balance to a situation such as that. Again, the more data the goes into the RPI formula, the more accurate it will be.

Some are hesitant to adopt this as part of the CHSAA RPI for fear that coaches may try and manipulate their rating. Well, for starters, the Association is built on trust and integrity. We’ve got to be able to trust that coaches won’t do that. Secondly, the ballots would be published in a public way so that there is accountability.

[divider]

These probably aren’t the ultimate or only solutions to every issue related to the CHSAA RPI. But I believe they are good first steps, ones we can take to continue to improve the accuracy of the formula.

Ultimately, not everyone is going to be happy with the formula, especially if the end result is that they’re No. 33 out of a 32-team field. These changes should improve the performance of the rating system, and my hope is that committees consider them (along with other ideas) sooner rather than later.

Angelico: What are our athletes taking with them?

5A boys swim state

(Ray Chen/ArrayPhoto.com)

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s we prepare to send our seniors off into the real world, it seems like a good time to ask this question: What are we sending them out with?

I had the good fortune to be able to have lunch with my high school coaches last week and, to my dismay, figured out that it had been 44 years since graduation. That is when I had left the nest that they had created for me.

What I learned at lunch was what I intuitively knew back then, and confirmed this many years later: Mike Larson and Fred Schanberger sent me out into the real world armed with the knowledge that I was capable of much more than I thought, that hard work certainly pays off and is a reward unto itself.

Mostly, they sent us all out with the knowledge that someone important to us really did care about us. They cared about all of us on the team for more than the skills we had developed, or the team we had created, or the awards we had won.

Yes, in spending time with these coaches last week, I learned the depth of their concern for us. I learned that we all went out into the real world as decent, respectable, hardworking young men that would be successful in whatever we chose to do. The gymnastics we learned was really nothing more than a vehicle for them to teach us how to succeed in anything we chose, as long as we loved what we did, worked hard at what we chose to do and made sure that we had fun along the way.

By spending time with my old coaches, the discussion centered on people whose names I had not heard for years. What was amazing was that both of these men continued to follow guys on my team that I had not. It seems they knew about most of their old gymnasts, what they were doing and how they were doing.

These two coaches really cared about all of us old “dirt bags,” as they used to call us. I know that all of us on those teams knew they cared, I just don’t think we had any idea how much. I do know the knowledge of their care and concern is what made each one of us try to “live up” to the high standards and expectations they had of us.

So back to my original question: What are you sending your seniors out into the world with? I can only hope it’s the same things that my high school coaches sent me out with so many years ago.

Paul Angelico is the commissioner of CHSAA.

Guest column: Include the coaches polls in the new RPI formula

Editor’s note: The use of an RPI formula to determine the postseason fields in all team sports is up for final approval at the Legislative Council on Thursday.

Regis Jesuit Rangeview boys basketball

Rangeview boys basketball coach Shawn Palmer. (Jack Eberhard/JacksActionShots.com)

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s a math teacher and boys basketball coach, statistics and formulas drive many of the decisions I make on a daily basis. Based on this, I have a genuine appreciation for planned implementation of the RPI system. I do, however, have some concerns regarding the computer rankings plan CHSAA is planning on using for postseason seeding beginning next season, for all sports.

Entering the week of Jan 11th, the Rangeview boys basketball team was ranked No. 1 in the CHSAANow.com coaches poll, and was also No. 1 in the RPI rankings based on the formula proposed for next season. However, after two victories last week, Rangeview’s RPI ranking dropped two spots while remaining No. 1 in the referenced coaches poll.

As the season continues, if we continue to win games against league opponents, it is likely the placement in the coaches poll will stay at, or near No. 1, while the team’s position in the RPI rankings will continue to drop — based on the records of league opponents.

This does not have any impact to seeding for the 2015-16 season, however, my concern is that future teams in all sports could find themselves in this difficult situation.

My recommendation is consider using a system similar to the BCS college football system, combining both human and RPI rankings. We have a trusted coaches poll already in place for boys and girls basketball. Therefore, using an average of RPI rankings and the respected opinion of our coaching colleagues would provide both integrity and valuable perspective.

Our boys basketball players and coaches have been humbled by the tremendous support we have received this year from our school and community. Our opinion is simply that, and we understand this matter may impact some teams and sports more than others.

I appreciate the consideration of this point of view, and trust CHSAA will continue to make the best decisions for athletes and schools as high school sports thrive in Colorado.

Shawn Palmer is the head coach of Rangeview boys basketball, and has been since 2002.

Mohrmann: Even without a Heisman, McCaffrey is still a special player

Christian McCaffrey Heisman

Stanford’s Christian McCaffrey is all smiles during the Heisman Trophy festivities on Dec. 11. (Dan Mohrmann/CHSAANow.com)

NEW YORK — Generational comparisons are tricky, especially when it comes to sports. When trying to figure out exactly what encompasses the meaning of “best ever,” there tends to be a lot of “ifs” and “buts.”

That’s why a lot of people may not agree with me on this: Christian McCaffrey, now a sophomore star at Stanford, is the best high school football product that Colorado has ever seen.

Whoa, whoa whoa, some of you might say. It’s too early in his career to make such a bold statement. That may be the case, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not true.

Even without the Heisman Trophy.

McCaffrey finished second in Heisman voting, earning 1,539 votes to the 1,832 points received by Alabama’s Derrick Henry, who came away with the award.

(Dan Mohrmann/CHSAANow.com)

Alabama’s Derrick Henry topped Christian McCaffrey for the Heisman Trophy. (Dan Mohrmann/CHSAANow.com)

Henry ran for 1,986 yards on 339 carries while McCaffrey ran for 1,847 on 319. They’re yards per carry were nearly identical. But McCaffrey amassed 3,496 all-purpose yards. Henry finished the year with 2,083.

But it was Henry walking away with the hardware.

But no matter. McCaffrey doesn’t need a Heisman to show just how special he is. This week, McCaffrey became just the fifth Colorado high school product to be named a Heisman finalist. And he should’ve won it. But as we found out this week, the East Coast and SEC bias is real.

That can’t take away what McCaffrey means to his team at Stanford, and to the history of Colorado high school football.

A little over 18 months after graduating from Valor Christian High School, McCaffrey owns the record for all-purpose yards in a single season. He took the 27-year-old record from Barry Sanders.

By the way, Sanders was awarded the Heisman Trophy for his efforts.

But, in his short time at the college level, McCaffrey has already reached heights that no other Colorado product has ascended to. He has a record that is arguably the toughest single-season mark to break.

He should be the favorite to win the Heisman Trophy next season.

At this point, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick has to salivating at the many ways he could utilize McCaffrey.

“People at the next level look for talented football players,” McCaffrey said before Saturday’s ceremony.

That was certainly the case in high school, as well. McCaffrey initially balked at playing for the Cardinal because that’s where his parents went. He wanted to be his own. What helped McCaffrey get to Stanford was hearing what coach David Shaw had in store for him.

“The coaches talk and they talk to you about how they’re going use you coming out of high school,” McCaffrey said. “All you can do is listen.”

Well, listen then execute exactly what they had in mind.

McCaffrey has proven to be more than just a one-trick pony. He racked up 1,847 yards as runner, 540 yards as a receiver and 1,042 yards as a returner.

Even if you took away his returning yards, McCaffrey still totaled 304 more yards from scrimmage than Henry. He can do it all. But he does it for his team and never for himself. It was never his goal to win the Heisman, he wanted to win football games.

“That’s not something you think about when he’s talking to you,” McCaffrey said. “You really have to focus on each day. When you start thinking about getting here (to New York), you start to not focus on the team and the team aspects of the game.”

And that’s where his attention will turn. Stanford plays Iowa in the Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day. The Heisman process is over and the season will go on. Which can only mean we get one more chance to see how truly special McCaffrey is on the football field.

Christian McCaffrey Heisman

Christian McCaffrey figures to be the favorite to win the 2016 Heisman Trophy. (Dan Mohrmann/CHSAANow.com)

Casey: At Valor, Gwozdecky back in his comfort zone — mentoring youth hockey players

Valor Christian hockey George Gwozdecky

George Gwozecky, the new hockey coach at Valor Christian. (Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

HIGHLANDS RANCH — This is where George Gwozdecky belongs.

Yes, he’s that guy who roams the bench with a resume of national championships — that’s plural — backing him up.

Yes, he exudes the same passion from his time leading one of the best collegiate hockey programs in the nation at the University of Denver.

And yes, he absolutely is the NHL-level coach who spent the last two seasons as an assistant with the Tampa Bay Lightning.

But Gwozdecky, now 62, just fits as a mentor of young hockey players. It’s who he is.

And so on Monday night, when he met parents for the first time in his new role as the head hockey coach at Valor Christian, it made sense. Gwozdecky is in his element in a roomful young hockey players and their parents.

This is exactly why George Gwozdecky — who has 592 career wins as a college coach, who has won four collegiate national championships (one as a player, one as an assistant, and two as a head coach) — is now coaching high school hockey.

“That’s been kind of my career path for the majority of my career,” Gwozdecky said on Monday. “To me, it’s about helping these young guys — whether they’re in high school, whether they’re in college — helping them develop a more mature attitude toward life, and (helping them learn) the valuable lessons that higher education teaches, as well as hockey teaches.

“The only two years I didn’t have that type of opportunity were the two years I spent in the National Hockey League — which were two great years. Nothing against it. But my comfort level certainly is the more expanded role of hockey and affecting young peoples lives.”

Valor Christian hockey George Gwozdecky

Gwozdecky meets with players on Monday night at Valor Christian. (Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

On Monday, Gwodecky told parents of how he was drawn to Valor, which is just five minutes from his house. He told parents he wanted to give their kids “a foundation for future greatness.”

He mentioned how the school’s culture of excellence was something he couldn’t pass up.

“In my 30-plus years of coaching Division I college hockey, I have recruited many different high schools, many different prep schools — private, public — and I don’t believe I have ever experienced a kind of atmosphere that Valor has developed here on their campus,” he said.

Many have speculated that Valor would be a pit stop, or a holding pattern, until another job opened up. He met that thought head on.

“I can tell you: this is not a one-and-done thing,” Gwozdecky told the parents. “I am here to build a program.”

A few minutes later, he added, “This school is serious about hockey. You guys should be excited about that.”

And that resonated with the parents. It resonated with the players. Because here was a guy talking not just about winning hockey games, or even one season. He was talking of building a family within a program.

This is, after all, a program which is 5-31-0 over the past two seasons. It’s not Valor Christian football.

And yet Gwozdecky wants it to be. He specifically singled out the school’s ultra-successful football team, and girls basketball — which last season won a title — as programs he sought to model his after. (To be fair, Gwozdecky already has a great history of building collegiate programs at Wisconsin-River Falls, Miami of Ohio, and DU.)

In his new role, Gwozdecky will be on campus at Valor Christian full time. He has an office in the athletic building above the football field. It’s yet another sign of his commitment to building a program, but Gwozdecky said it was a sign of the school’s commitment to hockey.

“Believe me,” he said, “if it was just, ‘Hey, here’s a little stipend, we want you to coach the team this year,’ I wouldn’t be here.

“It’s the commitment they’ve made to hockey on their campus,” he continued. “We’re going to get a full commitment from the school, and certainly that means me being full time, me being here on campus, me being here to have an office where I can sit and talk with the kids. I can mentor them, I can help supervise their workouts. I can be here to help work with the other staff in whatever I can bring them.

“It’s part of a family. I’ve always, during the years that we’ve been successful — whether that’s at Denver, Miami, Michigan State or River Falls — that family atmosphere, those people, those coaches, and that staff coming together was hugely important. For everybody. That’s why I’m here. And that’s why I have an office here.”

Already, Gwozdecky is bringing a part of that family atmosphere to Valor. He said on Monday that Kyle Ostrow, who played for Gwozdecky at DU from 2007-11, will be an assistant.

Asked what he knew of high school hockey in the state at this point, Gwozdecky went back to 1994, when he was hired as the coach at DU.

The sport at the high school level “was almost non-existent” at that time, he said. “But based upon the Avalanche and the impact the Avalanche had, it started to grow. And, in fact, probably ‘grow’ is not a great word. It exploded. There were more arenas being built. High school hockey was being reintroduced to the state, to the region, to the city.”

And yet, as the hockey community in Colorado knows, “If you’re an elite player, at 15, 16, 17 years old, you’re probably playing club hockey,” Gwozdecky said. “For many reasons.”

It’s there that Gwozdecky may spark a major movement in high school hockey’s growth.

“At this point, for our program, we understand that,” Gwozdecky said. “I think, at least our vision, and perhaps the vision of a lot of schools, is to be able to continue to build their program so that the elite players at that age level have a much more difficult decision to make: ‘Should I play for my club team, or should I play for my high school?’

“There’s a lot to be said for playing high school hockey,” the new coach added. “Maybe not right now at Valor, but we’re going make it a tough decision. Hopefully sooner than later.”

Valor Christian hockey George Gwozdecky

Gwozdecky addresses Valor parents. (Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

Casey: Let’s move away from Wild Card points in baseball

Fairview Loveland baseball

Wild Card points may not be the best solution when it comes to qualifying for baseball’s postseason. (Kai Casey/CHSAANow.com)

EDITOR’S NOTE: This column does not reflect an official viewpoint of CHSAA.

[divider]

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n Wednesday, the Class 3A, 4A and 5A baseball district brackets will be set, in part, by Wild Card points. Here’s my question: Why are we still using Wild Card points?

There is much wrong with the system, which is a way to measure a team’s relative strength using a measure of each team’s schedule. In short, it seems to be pretty inaccurate.

Now, know this: The Wild Card points system is what we have for the 2015 season. There’s no changing it now. Everyone knew the rules and parameters of qualifying heading into the season.

But if we’re going to change it moving forward, even for 2016, the baseball committee needs to hear from coaches and administrators ahead of its next meeting in November. That is where the change happens. Otherwise, we’ll be back having this same discussion next spring.

Anyway, a brief history of Wild Card points:

Wild Card points first appeared in the CHSAA system in the mid 1990s when a former athletic director at Kent Denver proposed using them to help determine qualifiers in football. It was modeled after a system being used in Michigan at the time.

Point values are assigned to beating (or losing to) teams with a certain number of wins. Those points are then added up, and divided by a team’s number of games. Teams are ranked by this averaged number.

They have been used by football in some way — whether that’s seeding, determining qualifiers, etc. — ever since. Three years ago, baseball also started to use them.

At that time, baseball determined its postseason field entirely upon automatic qualifiers. As it happened, one team in Class 5A many thought was good enough to be in the postseason was left out. (They also had a good pitcher, so the thinking was they would’ve actually gone deep into the postseason, too.) So that team’s league then proposed using Wild Card points to help determine postseason fields. (There’s a more detailed version of how Wild Card points are used in baseball available here.)

“The committee was attempting to strengthen the quality of teams in the playoffs,” said CHSAA assistant commissioner Bert Borgmann, who oversees baseball, and actually helped calculate Wild Card points for football in the mid-90s.

Things have slightly evolved since then — for instance, win totals for out-of-state opponents who play more than 19 games are now determined by winning percentage — but that’s essentially where we are now.

In my view, Wild Card points only go an inch deep to determining a team’s strength. It supposes that all 16-3 teams are created equal, so long as they’re in the same classification. What if one of those 16-3 teams played a very weak schedule, and the other a very tough schedule? Clearly, the team that went 16-3 against a tougher schedule is better.

What’s scarier, though, is that some coaches have figured out how to game the formula, and have scheduled accordingly.

For example, many teams simply went out and scheduled a high number of out-of-state opponents which equate to 5A enrollment in Colorado. This boosts their Wild Card points, even if they lose. And this is especially prevalent in 4A, where additional 5A games carry a big weight.

There was even an example within the last week of someone creating a false email accounts and using them to pose as an out-of-state team in order to falsely request a forfeit. This appears to be yet another attempt to game the system. (And is currently being dealt with by the CHSAA office.)

“If you’re a mathematician, or your plan your schedule right, you can manipulate this system,” Borgmann said.

Teams in big leagues are at a disadvantage, as well. For starters, they get less of an opportunity to schedule those precious out-of-state games. A bigger problem, though, is the fact that nearly every game played in their league cancels itself out.

If Team A beats Team B, and Team C has played both of them, one of their opponents is getting a loss, and the other is getting a win. Every time. This happens with every league game.

In a non-league scenario, let’s say Team C has also played Team D and Team E. Well, Team D and Team E can both play on the same day, and both gain wins as they won’t necessarily be playing one another — which will help Team C’s Wild Card points.

There are specific glaring examples in this season’s Wild Card points. Not to pick on a particular team, but Monarch in 5A currently sits at No. 4 in the standings. The Coyotes, who are 14-3-1, have had a great season. Their three losses are to Rocky Mountain, Fort Collins and Fairview. And Monarch sits in front of each of them in the Wild Card points.

Worse, Fairview (16-3) actually won the league. And they sit behind not only Monarch, but also Rocky Mountain, a team they also beat. Rocky Mountain is No. 8. Fairview sits in tenth — which means that barring a late change of the standings, the Knights will not host a district this weekend.

There are others. In 4A, Palisade (16-3) beat Durango (6-13) in April, yet Durango is No. 8, and Palisade is No. 10. This is largely due to the fact that Durango has played many more 5A opponents because it plays in the classification-mixed Southwestern League.

Or take Lewis-Palmer (16-2), which sits in No. 12, right behind No. 11 Air Academy (14-4), a team it beat twice just last week.

In any case, it’s easy complain about a system and detail its faults. But here’s the solution: a modified version of a Ratings Percentage Index, commonly known an RPI.

Football seems destined to move toward this system, which is proven across many high school states, as well as by both the NCAA and NAIA. The soccer committee, too, is interested in using it. Volleyball, softball and basketball may also consider it at upcoming meetings.

An RPI takes into account an team’s winning percentage, their opponents’ winning percentage, as well as their opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage. Already, this is a level deeper than Wild Card points.

A modified RPI can sprinkle in other factors for accuracy, such as the venue of a game (home, away, neutral), if a team was ranked by a coaches poll at the time of a game, and so on. These only serve to further add data, and increase the accuracy of a formula to determine a team’s relative strength.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that games against out-of-state opponents belong in the calculation when it comes to qualifying for and seeding an in-state tournament. I’m not saying teams shouldn’t play out-of-state games, because I believe there is immense value in playing them, just that they shouldn’t be factored in.

“Even entering this season, the committee has tried to look ahead to the challenges of finding a more balanced and simplified approach to playoff qualification and seeding,” Borgmann said on Tuesday. “We know that no one system is perfect, but we do know that the current system may have more flaws that previously anticipated.”

The state membership, in recent years, has been calling for a consistent approach in a playoff qualification system across all sports. Well, here’s our chance.

Casey: Time to let high school teams compete in national championships — officially

(Ray Chen/ArrayPhoto.com)

Cherry Creek won a state title on March 7. Last weekend, the Bruins — as a club team — won a national championship. (Ray Chen/ArrayPhoto.com)

EDITOR’S NOTE: This column does not reflect an official viewpoint of CHSAA.

[divider]

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n Monday, within about 30 minutes of one another, two Colorado high school hockey teams won national championships.

It is a massive deal for the sport in this state at the youth — and especially the high school — level. But we can’t celebrate it. We can’t even really acknowledge it. Because both team were forced to participate in the tournament as club teams due to what, in my eyes, is an important issue that the CHSAA membership faces moving forward.

Teams made up of students from the Cherry Creek School District and Regis Jesuit traveled to St. Louis last weekend as part of USA Hockey’s High School National Championships. The Creek squad competed in the Combined Division (teams up of multiple schools); Regis was in the Pure Division (teams that draw from one school).

It’s a prestigious tournament. Regis has been each of the last four years, and actually won another national championship in 2012. Cherry Creek also went last season. It is a big deal to even receive an invite, let alone have the success of actually winning the thing.

But Cherry Creek and Regis Jesuit teams weren’t in St. Louis as high school teams over the weekend. Had they done so, they would have been in violation of a CHSAA bylaw which prohibits teams from representing their high schools outside of their sport’s season. In hockey’s case, that season ended when Cherry Creek won the state title on March 7.

The bylaw, 2300, specifically states that “an individual or team may only represent a member school during the designated competitive sports season.” This phrase was added by the Legislative Council during the 2005-06 school year, though the interpretation has been in the Association through at least the 50s in various bylaws.

Semantics seem to be the determining factor on whether or not a team is allowed to participate in a national tournament.

Both Regis Jesuit and Cherry Creek also operate club hockey programs which compete in “high school” leagues throughout the year. One of the leagues is a non-sanctioned JV league which runs concurrent to the CHSAA season. There’s a varsity league in the fall, another in the spring. And it is through those leagues that the teams qualified for Nationals.

And so both teams traveled to St. Louis as their club teams. Even though the vast majority of both of their rosters and coaching staffs were similar to the ones from the CHSAA season. Even though tournament officials referenced them as Cherry Creek and Regis Jesuit throughout the weekend. Even though both teams wore uniforms using official school colors and logos.

Even so, they technically weren’t representing their high schools. Because they weren’t allowed to. And I think that needs to change.

The bylaw banning school representation outside of a sport’s season is outdated. It is not in sync with the sports landscape in 2015. Shoot, it’s not even consistently applied across all of our sports.

Consider last year’s situation with the Regis Jesuit girls basketball team.

The Raiders, at the time, were among the best teams in the nation. They would go on to win the Class 5A championship with an unbeaten record. The team is in the conversation of the best girls basketball squad in state history. They may even wind up in CHSAA’s Hall of Fame somewhere down the line.

And so, just before the 2014 Great 8, Regis was approached about participating in a prestigious four-team national championship in New York. There was one problem: It was due to take place after the season, which would be in violation of that bylaw.

The CHSAA staff tried to find a way around the bylaw, to no avail. They put forth the idea that Regis could participate as a club team — but officials from the tournament wouldn’t have it. They only wanted teams representing their high schools. And that meant Regis couldn’t go.

What difference would it have made were Regis Jesuit’s girls basketball team allowed to represent their school in an official way, rather than the smoke-and-mirrors approach of a “club” team that just happens to have the same roster, coaches and uniforms?

How is that national tournament any different than the one Regis Jesuit and Cherry Creek hockey just participated in? Or the national meets that take place after the cross country and track seasons every year, which Colorado athletes attend?

Then there’s spirit, which allows teams to compete in a national competition each year in February. Spirit’s state championships are in early December. In hockey’s sense, the season would be over. But spirit’s season of sport, according to its bylaw, doesn’t end until May. So they can go to nationals and represent their school.

Baseball also doesn’t have an issue when some of its teams represent their school in the summer. Why? The sport has the luxury of ending in May. This particular bylaw doesn’t apply in the summer months.

This is all inconsistent. It’s not even really logical.

In my mind, it’s silly that member schools allow teams to go to national tournaments as club teams, when there is virtually no difference if they were to represent their school. Shoot, they already are.

Schools have had chances to change this bylaw in the past, but they have resisted doing so. Until, of course, it’s their team that gets a chance to go to nationals. Then they’re all for it.

We may close our eyes, we may stick our heads in the sand, but a reasonable person can see what’s going on here. The rule needs to change.