BHP Ranking Formula Explanation

STATS EXPLANATION

1. Schools are placed into categories based on traditional strength and of last 2/3 years Top 20 rankings. The Top 20 Schools carry a 5 point weight, The next 5 carries a 4.5 point weight. The rest is then allocated category weights from 4 points down to 1 point.

2. Category Points gets awarded according to the win against the category school,

ie
Win against Affies will earn you 5 points while a win against Bishops will earn you 4 points etc.

Any draw will earn you 80% of opposing schools category point. (i.e Affies and Bishops draw- Affies earns 3.2 points and Bishops earns 4 points as they deserve more points out of the draw being ranked lower)

3. Bonus Points:

For keeping a winning ratio of 80% or more for your games, you earn a 10% point of the games played, ie Grey played 12, won 12, earns themselves a 1,2 extra win bonus points. No win bonus for under 80% and the more games you play, the more your points will be. (If you keep an 80% win ratio).

For winning by 30 points or more you earn bonus points of 0.5. For losing a close match with 5 or less points you earn 80% of the category points.

4. Total points: The Category point plus Bonus Points gets added up to total the points for the match. The total points gained gets divided by the amount of games played to get the average points earned per game. On that average the school’s rank is based. Ranking is first based on best Avg, then Win ratio and then the Points Difference.

5. BHP can adjust the Category points of a school during a season if it is not performing as its grading indicates and this will influence overall results.

43 Comments

  1. 5. BHP can adjust the Category points of a school during a season if it is not performing as its grading indicates and this will influence overall results.

    Not sure if this has ever been asked…if, for argument’s sake Selborne categorized 4, beat Grey who are 5…then Grey go on to have a horrible season, and gets downgraded to 4. Will Selborne’s winning points from earlier in the season also be adjusted accordingly?

    ReplyReply
  2. @Playa: Your team played lekker at Kearsney. That 15 is a menace hey. He runs the show in that team

    They had poor starts in all 3 games and then came back brilliantly. Lots of fight in them. The 7 and 8 also very good and the 1 centre

    ReplyReply
  3. @Speartackle: Griffy thanks you for your comment :mrgreen: Fassi is a special player. I actually gave credit him for turning around what was almost a disaster against Drostdy when he moved to flyhalf. 8 is probably the only ‘big’ player in those forwards – well…by Dale’s standards. Solid man at the back. Lots of potential in that side but they need to stop it with those late comebacks before they lead me to an early grave.

    ReplyReply
  4. @Playa: It looked like they only woke up after 20 minutes in all 3 games and then immediately nullified the opposition’s game plan

    ReplyReply
  5. The only issue I have with the rankings is the 80% of Category points you get for losing within 5. A loss should not be rewarded with a 80% mark, maybe at best 50%. If Vrede plays 10 games against Cat 5, 3 games against Cat 4.5 and 3 games against Cat 4 teams and loose ALL their games within 5. They will end with 3.775 points ans slot into 5th best team of 2016 with a record of Played 16 and lost 16. Although this is unlikely, because Vrede should win a few. This is the one area that should be adjusted. As jy verloor, moenie worry nie boetie, kom haal vir jou n amperse Goue medalje!

    ReplyReply
  6. @Speartackle: Seems to be how they do things this year. It was the same story against Grens when they eventually got away with a win, and also against Brandwag where they were fortunate to walk away with a draw. Looks like they’re applying Mohammed Ali’s rope-a-dope technique. It’s somewhat worked thus far…it will be interesting to see how they do if they woke up 40 points down, 20 minutes into the game 8-O

    ReplyReply
  7. @David: Vrede aren’t going to come within 5 points of any Cat 5, 4.5 or 4 side, so don’t worry about it.

    ReplyReply
  8. @Playa: Dale play very well for the size they are. Spear is correct, they played catch up rugger. That Nr8 tuff customer. Would be nice to see if he could become a fetcher. Got the build and street fighter in him.

    ReplyReply
  9. I was wondering how it was all calculated… I’m playiong the newbie card, and it would seem, according to Spear, that I will get a refesher every year! :mrgreen:

    ReplyReply
  10. @Playa: Yes, the system calculates each individual match point as at the current date. So if any school gets downgraded or upgraded, all results against that school will automatically be adjusted accordingly.

    ReplyReply
  11. BHP’s system is very good for the most part – especially at top 20 level and towards the end of the season. A key weakness is the subjective nature of the category allocation from 4 points down to 1 point. I remember looking at this a few years ago and noticed some anomalies – e.g. many Noordvaal schools were categorised too low and many Cape schools and some KZN schools were categorised too high.

    It would seem that this is still a weakness, as evidenced by the fact that average Cape schools like Brakennfell, Durbanville, Tygerberg (plus maybe DHS from KZN) are ranked way too high. Perhaps KES are ranked so high because they’ve beaten a few overrated Cape Schools? Helpies are ranked only 7 slots above Durbanville, but I am pretty confident that they’d win that encounter by 50+.

    ReplyReply
  12. @Vleis: Beginning of season are never a true indication, even in cases where the log system is 100%. For example, how many times have Arsenal been top of the league in the first 3-4 months of a season for the last 10 years, and where have they ended come the end of the season? :mrgreen:

    ReplyReply
  13. @Playa: Sure, which is why I said that the system is much better towards the end of the season. That said, if teams are not categorised correctly, it has a huge impact on their final score because they do not pick up much points for wins over teams that are categorised too low.

    Unfortunately, your example per above applies to my team too – Liverpool! :cry: :cry: :-x :-x

    ReplyReply
  14. @Vleis: Just for some feedback for you. Here is the total of schools in regions and their categories:

    Cat 5:
    North – 8 Schools
    South – 7 Schools
    East – 4 Schools
    Central – 1 School

    Cat 4.5:
    East – 3 Schools
    North – 1 School
    South – 1 School

    Cat 4:
    East – 5 Schools
    Central – 4 Schools
    South – 4 schools
    North – 2 Schools

    Cat 3.5:
    North – 10 Schools
    Central – 6 Schools
    East – 5 Schools
    South – 2 Schools

    Cat 3:
    North – 31 Schools
    South – 25 Schools
    East – 16 Schools
    Central – 13 Schools

    Even spread over the Cat 2 and 1

    Here is the Avg Cat points per region:
    East – 2.771
    Central – 2,710
    North – 2.770
    South – 2.775

    I don’t think the South is being advantaged at all in any big way. North have 11 schools in top 3 Categories and South has 12. .An avg advantage of 0.005 and 1 more school could be forgiven if we look at perceived strength?..Who has been winning the most Craven Weeks lately?..over all age groups?

    ReplyReply
  15. @Vleis: Furthernore, if we only look at the top 3 Categories where most of the contenders participate against each other, the Avg Cat point per region is as follows:
    North – 4.772
    South – 4.625
    East – 4.458
    Central – 4.200

    Again no distinct advantage for the South, in fact, the TUKS and Virseker series should advantage North a little as they play most of these top three category schools. The key is in keep playing more stronger schools than average schools. Those schools deserve then to be advantaged in the rankings as they play tough games every Saturday with no easy games along the way.

    ReplyReply
  16. @BoishaaiPa: More, het jy al gedink oor my vorige post dat n verloor binne 5 te veel gewig dra? Jy gee dit dieselfde punt as n draw. Maak net nie vir my sin om n verloor soveel punte te gee nie!?

    ReplyReply
  17. @BoishaaiPa: In most tournaments in world rugby they see fit to reward a team losing within 7 with 25%(1) of the possible win points(4). You give the loser 80%. Imagine Superrugby giving the team with a close loss 3.2 log points.

    ReplyReply
  18. @David: Sommige skole verloor 2 of 3 close games n seisoen wat hulle net sowel kon wen. Hulle verdien top punte vir dit. n Draw verdien eintlik ook maks punte van opposisie katogorie.

    ReplyReply
  19. @David: There is a difference calculating log points for games won and analyzing avg match points per game. Log points for win remain the same no matter who you play because all teams play each other. Here we are working with a category system and different criteria comes into play. It is not comparing apples with apples.

    ReplyReply
  20. @BoishaaiPa: I hear you, but your ranking is based on log points and then getting the avg at the end with a slight adjustment here and there. You already adjust the cat points on the strength of a school based on a nr of years. But still giving 80% for a loss is way to nice. If you loose Interschools in August by 1 point. Does it feel that you got 80% of the winning feeling after the game? Of course not! A win is worth alot more than a 100/80% split.

    ReplyReply
  21. Presies, jy VOEL Paul Roos moet erkenning kry vir verloor! Geen stats agter die 80% punt nie. Wys my enige ranking in die wereld wat n verloor so erkenning gee…jy sal dit nie kry nie. Jy doen n great job met rankings maar die een formule maak glad nie sin nie.

    ReplyReply
  22. @BoishaaiPa: Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I haven’t seen the categorisations for a few years, so maybe they’ve improved. Previously, many of the “Saint” schools in Jhb were incorrectly categorised below teams like Brackenfell, Durbanville, etc (from WC) and at the same level as Kloof, Port Natal, etc (in KZN). Not only does this have a negative impact on said “Saint” schools, it also has a negative impact on the Tier 1 schools that play so many games against them – e.g. KES, Jeppe, etc.

    Re WP winning the most Craven Weeks, that has very little to do with how Brackenfell, Durbanville are categorised and everything to do with the strength of the 3 or 4 Wineland schools that make up 80% to 90% of the WP CW team. No one is denying that said schools should be in the top category. Up until a few years ago, Freestate did very well in CW too but that was all down to one team….not the region.

    ReplyReply
  23. I think we need to thank you BoishaaiPa for doing all of this and not try to fault him around every corner.

    If someone has a better system, please provide it…

    ReplyReply
  24. @Carl de Kock: Agreed!! There are quite a few ranking systems (of different websites) in place but I haven’t really seen any explanations how it is being done.

    ReplyReply
  25. @Vleis: Dont know how this will come out correctly if I paste it here, but you can ask Beet to publish this bit of stats I did. Regions vs Regions schools results..Not just the top schools, but all schools at all levels playing each other, based on results from this website. Basically it shows the winratio of each Region against another’s schools. So South has a 57.45% winratio against North. North has a 63,64% winratio against Central etc.

    SOUTH
    vs Region Draw Lose Win Total Win %
    North 2 18 27 47 57.45%
    East 1 8 15 24 62.50%
    Central 1 7 9 17 52.94%
    Total 4 31 50 85 58.82%

    NORTH
    vs Region Draw Lose Win Total Win %
    East 17 18 35 51.43%
    Central 1 7 14 22 63.64%
    South 2 27 18 47 38.30%
    Total 3 51 50 104 48.08%

    EAST
    vs Region Draw Lose Win Total Win %
    North 18 17 35 48.57%
    Central 6 7 13 53.85%
    South 1 15 8 24 33.33%
    Total 1 39 32 72 44.44%

    CENTRAL
    vs Region Draw Lose Win Total Win %
    South 1 9 7 17 41.18%
    North 1 14 7 22 31.82%
    East 7 6 13 46.15%
    Total 2 30 20 52 38.46%

    ReplyReply
  26. South is the only region with a positive (50% or more) winning ratio against all regions combined. (Apologies, South totals formula was not updated)

    SOUTH
    vs Region Draw Lose Win Total Win %
    North 2 18 27 47 57.45%
    East 1 8 15 24 62.50%
    Central 1 7 9 17 52.94%
    Total 4 33 51 88 57.95%

    ReplyReply
  27. Do you probably have this Categories of schools available?
    How do we know where do you as a school fit in?

    ReplyReply
  28. @BoishaaiPa: Ek sal bitter graag die sensitivities wil sien soos jy gewigte verander en die formulas aanpas. Lekker interesant. Thankless job maar gelukkig nie te veel skietgoed daarteen.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply