The Winner Is Westlake

As a computer operator for college football’s much-maligned bowl championship series, Peter Wolfe is accustomed to controversy.

So Wolfe knew what to expect when The Times asked him to crunch the numbers and rank the Southland’s top high school football teams.

“Just what I need,” he said. “More hate mail.”

Instead of hearing from USC fans climbing the walls because the Trojans were denied a chance to play for the BCS title in the Sugar Bowl, Wolfe incurred the wrath of several high school coaches with his latest computer calculation -- or miscalculation, depending on your position.

Using a formula that relies on common opponents, Wolfe inputted the results of 2,305 games played by 472 teams -- 364 from the Southern Section, 49 from the City Section and 59 from other sections.

And the No. 1 team spit out by the computer was ... Westlake Village Westlake.

Remember, folks, this is science.

Westlake (14-0), the Southern Section Division IV champion, was among three teams that finished the season unbeaten. The Warriors came out ahead of No. 2 Hacienda Heights Los Altos (14-0), the Division VI champion, and No. 4 Riverside North (14-0), the Division V champion, because of a superior strength of schedule.

Ventura St. Bonaventure (13-1), whose 28-6 loss to Westlake in the division final Friday was only its second defeat in its last 70 games, was ranked third.

Westlake was “the clear choice,” according to Wolfe, an associate professor of medicine at UCLA who clearly doesn’t mind getting people riled up.

Several coaches argued that computer rankings are negligible because they are based on cold, hard numbers and lack human reasoning and deduction.

North Coach Lou Randall had a difficult time fathoming how his team, possibly the most dominant in the Southland, could be ranked fourth. The Huskies outscored their opponents by an average of 31 points and routed Norco, 50-7, in the division final.

“It’s kind of hard for me to swallow, because I know how good these kids are,” Randall said. “This team can play with anybody.”

North was hurt by the same factor that kept USC from finishing among the top two in the BCS standings -- strength of schedule. Although the Huskies had quality wins over Division VIII champion Fontana Kaiser and Division I semifinalist Santa Ana Mater Dei, their schedule was rated 84th among 472 teams by the computer.

“Who knew some of the teams we played weren’t going to be as good as they’ve been in the past?” Randall said. “We don’t have any control over that.”

Especially irksome to Randall was North’s ranking behind St. Bonaventure.

“To me, that’s not right,” he said. “I know [St. Bonaventure] lost to Westlake, but come on.”

Wolfe’s computer program also didn’t win any fans at Newhall Hart.

The Indians (11-3) soundly defeated previously unbeaten Mission Viejo, 25-7, in the Division II final Saturday, yet they were ranked No. 7, one spot behind ... Mission Viejo.

“That’s why the BCS doesn’t work,” Hart Coach Mike Herrington said. “When you have head-to-head competition, that should be the No. 1 factor.”

Hart received a boost by having the second-toughest schedule, behind Mater Dei, but three losses kept it from surpassing Mission Viejo (13-1).

Herrington said one of the problems of computer rankings is that they don’t take into account the effect of injuries on a team. Hart played without quarterback Sean Norton for a half in its loss to Los Alamitos, and the Indians did not have Ryan Wolfe, a receiver and defensive back who is one of their best players, until the playoffs.

“But that’s why people advocate a playoff system and want to get rid of the BCS,” Herrington said. “That’s why our system works.”

The problem with the high school playoffs is that there are so many divisions -- 13 in the Southern Section alone -- that reaching a consensus on the Southland’s best teams becomes largely guesswork.

That’s why we called an expert.

Wolfe’s computer formula is called “maximum likelihood estimate,” an established method used in statistics. In this case, the program uses scores to determine how teams stack up based on common opponents.

“The only things that go into it are who played who and who won,” Wolfe said. “It looks at who you played and who that team played ... and off into infinity.”

USC fans cried foul, questioning Wolfe’s impartiality because of his ties to UCLA. But he said there is little chance he could undermine a team, even by accident. That appears especially true when it comes to high school football.

“No one could accuse me of having a bias about these teams, because I’ve never heard of them,” he said. “I have no connection with them.”

And maybe that’s a problem. Los Angeles Loyola (11-3) showed it could compete with the best during its late-season drive to the Southern Section Division I title, yet the Cubs couldn’t crack the top 10. They were rated 14th by the computer.

Loyola Coach Steve Grady dismissed the rating as “something fun to read in the newspaper” but without much merit beyond that.

“I would put us ... against any of the other teams,” said Grady, whose team won its last eight games. “I would not be afraid of playing anyone.”

Herrington’s Hart team defeated Loyola in a nonleague game, but he said, “I don’t know if I would want to play Loyola again, because they were so much improved.”

And you won’t find City Section champion Carson (11-3) in the top 10 either, even though the Colts manhandled previously unbeaten Venice, 30-20, in the final. Venice (13-1) was ranked ninth.

However, the computer rankings did have advocates.

Los Altos Coach Greg Gano couldn’t have been happier about his team’s No. 2 ranking.

“To be honest, I was thinking we would probably be third or fourth,” Gano said. “That’s great.”

Westlake Coach Jim Benkert said he was flattered by his team’s No. 1 ranking, which was earned through several quality victories.

The Warriors beat two division champions (Hart and Sherman Oaks Notre Dame), a finalist (St. Bonaventure), two semifinalists (Agoura and Moorpark) and a quarterfinalist (Redondo).

In fact, Westlake’s strength of schedule was so impressive, it wound up No. 1 in the national computer ratings by Calpreps.com. Concord De La Salle, winner of 151 consecutive games, was second.

“That’s amazing,” Benkert said. “It’s all uncharted ground here. I guess when you go 14-0, good things happen to you.”

Of course, this isn’t the last word on Southland football rankings.

When The Times selects its final top 25, it will be done the old-fashioned way -- by sportswriters. No threat of cold, hard precision there.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Who’s No. 1?

The Times asked Peter Wolfe, who runs one of the computer programs that helps decide the BCS standings, to rank the local high school football teams. Rankings based on 2,305 games played by 472 teams (364 Southern Section teams, 49 Los Angeles City Section, plus 59 outsiders):

*--* Rk. Team Section W-L Rating 1. Westlake SS-Div. IV 14-0 6.236 2. Los Altos SS-Div. VI 14-0 5.464 3. St. Bonaventure SS-Div. IV 13-1 5.078 4. Riverside North SS-Div. V 14-0 5.001 5. SO Notre Dame SS-Div. III 12-2 4.445 6. Mission Viejo SS-Div. II 13-1 4.331 7. Hart SS-Div. II 11-3 4.282 8. Orange Lutheran SS-Div. VI 12-1 4.141 9. Venice L.A. City 13-1 3.974 10. Kaiser SS-Div. VIII 13-1 3.934

*--*

*

Peter Wolfe’s Computer Ratings

Based on 2,305 games played by 472 teams (364 Southern Section teams, 49 Los Angeles City Section, plus 59 outsiders). Scores from calpreps.com.

*--* Rk. Team Section W L T PF PA SOS* Rating 1. Westlake SS-Div. IV 14 0 0 561 117 7 6.236 2. Los Altos SS-Div. VI 14 0 0 515 156 26 5.464 3. St. Bonaventure SS-Div. IV 13 1 0 546 171 22 5.078 4. Riverside North SS-Div. V 14 0 0 626 191 84 5.001 5. SO Notre Dame SS-Div. III 12 2 0 413 228 3 4.445 6. Mission Viejo SS-Div. II 13 1 0 566 181 54 4.331 7. Hart SS-Div. II 11 3 0 540 257 2 4.282 8. Orange Lutheran SS-Div. VI 12 1 0 532 121 87 4.141 9. Venice L.A. City 13 1 0 565 148 106 3.974 10. Kaiser SS-Div. VIII 13 1 0 470 140 232 3.934

*--*

* Strength of schedule