CALPREPS.COM
Your source for national high school football scores, standings & ratings
2016 Wake Forest (NC) [57.2]
08/19 Beat Panther Creek (Cary, NC) 49-6 [opponent rating: 5.4] [performance: 33.4**]
08/26 Beat Apex (NC) 56-7 [opponent rating: -12.4] [performance: 15.6**]
09/05 Beat Southeast Raleigh (Raleigh, NC) 48-13 [opponent rating: 20.6] [performance: 48.6**]
09/09 Beat Rolesville (NC) 42-0 [opponent rating: 4.4] [performance: 32.4**]
09/23 Beat Broughton [Needham B.] (Raleigh, NC) 35-0 [opponent rating: -1] [performance: 27**]
09/30 Beat Millbrook (Raleigh, NC) 37-0 [opponent rating: 19.5] [performance: 47.5**]
10/06 Beat Wakefield (Raleigh, NC) 45-0 [opponent rating: 23.2] [performance: 51.2**]
10/14 Beat Heritage (Wake Forest, NC) 26-13 [opponent rating: 37.1] [performance: 52.1*]
10/21 Beat Leesville Road (Raleigh, NC) 24-17 [opponent rating: 21] [performance: 36*]
10/28 Beat Sanderson [Jesse O.] (Raleigh, NC) 30-8 [opponent rating: 28.2] [performance: 50.2]
11/04 Beat Enloe [William G.] (Raleigh, NC) 44-0 [opponent rating: -1.1] [performance: 26.9**]
11/18 Beat Panther Creek (Cary, NC) 56-0 [opponent rating: 5.4] [performance: 33.4**] [4AA playoffs]
11/25 Beat Laney [Emsley A.] (Wilmington, NC) 7-6 [opponent rating: 26.1] [performance: 41.1*] [4AA playoffs]
12/02 Beat Heritage (Wake Forest, NC) 35-20 [opponent rating: 37.1] [performance: 52.1] [4AA playoffs]
12/09 Beat Middle Creek (Apex, NC) 20-17 [opponent rating: 50.3] [performance: 65.3*] [4AA playoffs]
12/17 Beat Page [Walter Hines] (Greensboro, NC) 29-0 [opponent rating: 55.2] [performance: 83.2**] [4AA championship]
TREND (COUNTING NON-GRAYED GAMES ONLY): SHARP UPWARD
*Single game performance rating adjusted to 15 points above or below (depending upon win/loss) the rating of the opponent instead of using the true margin of victory. This is done in order to properly credit the win itself as being the most important thing-- short of doing that, a 1-point win would nearly be equal to a 1-point loss, and of course it is not. The actual number used for this, again currently 15, may fluctuate over time as it is derived by analyzing the margin of victory of every game played nationally and taking the 40th percentile of all those margins. (Capped at 15 to avoid early-season small sample size anomalies.)
**Single game performance rating may have been adjusted to 28 points above or below (depending upon win/loss) the rating of the opponent instead of using the true margin of victory. This is done so as to not reward teams for scheduling/running up the score against vastly inferior opponents. The actual number used for this, again currently 28, also may fluctuate over time as it is derived by analyzing the margin of victory of every game played nationally and taking the 63rd percentile of all those margins.
Please note that double-asterisked (and grayed out) games are considered to be less "true results" when ratings are created by the system because the margin of victory needed to be artificially decreased for the reasons mentioned above. As such, performances without the double-asterisk (truer results) are weighted much more heavily by the system in order to create the season rating for each team than are results involving mismatched teams. In other words, in cases where it appears a team is taking a hit to their rating simply because they played a very weak team...the hit indeed exists (and it's important that it does because we strongly believe in strength of schedule) but it is not as large as it appears at first glance. The rating for a team generally just ends up being roughly the average of those non-grayed out games.