The Bruins went undefeated and won a Colorado state championship, but of course that doesn't mean they were impressive nationally. The Comp Poll left them outside of the national top 45. But, I think they were worthy of a ranking between roughly 7 and 15. They had one of the top 5 OOS wins that involved traveling to the other team's state...yet nobody seems to realize it. Despite low name recogntion value, Cardinal Mooney was an elite team in Florida last year. Mooney not only went unbeaten in Florida*, they went unchallenged. Their last two playoff games were won over Cocoa and Bolles by a combined 92-28. In the state title game, they scored a touchdown on each and every possession of the game. That's right: zero turnovers, zero punts and zero field goals. Only TDs.

About that asterisk: Mooney did lose the kickoff classic. They lost a road game at St. Thomas Aquinas. But, it was immensely difficult for STA to beat them. I watched a highlight video of the game and got the impression STA was fortunate to win at all.

Psychologically, most are too simplistic or dogmatic to accept that the 2025 Cardinal Mooney team was a fully elite team within Florida. But they absolutely were that by any reasonable standard. And Cherry Creek traveled to Florida, leaving behind a very low humidity climate to play in extreme humidity, and beat Mooney. This proved to be an elite OOS win...which was acknowledged as such by no one.

If you're a talent/recruiting freak who likes to look up star-rated players on teams to form your opinion of the team, you'd actually be impressed with Cherry Creek as they were plenty loaded.

Creek's resume and talent easily surpassed the resume and talent of 2021 Graham-Kapowsin or 2017 Chandler, both of whom had eye-opening postseason GEICO Bowl wins. I mention those two teams because they come from western states that are not normally recognized as having nationally elite teams, which is the top argument against Cherry Creek.

Cherry Creek's 2025 team was better than peole give them credit for, and is worthy of some mention here. Here is the full Cardinal Mooney game for those who are interested.

The Bruins went undefeated and won a Colorado state championship, but of course that doesn't mean they were impressive nationally. The Comp Poll left them outside of the national top 45. But, I think they were worthy of a ranking between roughly 7 and 15. They had one of the top 5 OOS wins that involved traveling to the other team's state...yet nobody seems to realize it. Despite low name recogntion value, Cardinal Mooney was an elite team in Florida last year. Mooney not only went unbeaten in Florida*, they went unchallenged. Their last two playoff games were won over Cocoa and Bolles by a combined 92-28. In the state title game, they scored a touchdown on each and every possession of the game. That's right: zero turnovers, zero punts and zero field goals. Only TDs.

About that asterisk: Mooney did lose the kickoff classic. They lost a road game at St. Thomas Aquinas. But, it was immensely difficult for STA to beat them. I watched a highlight video of the game and got the impression STA was fortunate to win at all.

Psychologically, most are too simplistic or dogmatic to accept that the 2025 Cardinal Mooney team was a fully elite team within Florida. But they absolutely were that by any reasonable standard. And Cherry Creek traveled to Florida, leaving behind a very low humidity climate to play in extreme humidity, and beat Mooney. This proved to be an elite OOS win...which was acknowledged as such by no one.

If you're a talent/recruiting freak who likes to look up star-rated players on teams to form your opinion of the team, you'd actually be impressed with Cherry Creek as they were plenty loaded.

Creek's resume and talent easily surpassed the resume and talent of 2021 Graham-Kapowsin or 2017 Chandler, both of whom had eye-opening postseason GEICO Bowl wins. I mention those two teams because they come from western states that are not normally recognized as having nationally elite teams, which is the top argument against Cherry Creek.

Cherry Creek's 2025 team was better than peole give them credit for, and is worthy of some mention here. Here is the full Cardinal Mooney game for those who are interested.

They did beat Highland Park TX the year before too dropping 50 on them, and HP made the TX state title game. And this wasn't in 1A. This was in 5A. So CC has been growing their brand for sure:

Cardinal Mooney was good for a small school. And they did lose their top OL to transfer before the season started. But they didn't have to play any other top in state team. In the regular season. No STA. No Chaminade, Central, MNW, AHP, Venice, etc etc.

Cardinal Mooney's best win wasn't even nationally top 250. Meaning they didn't have to prove it on the field against top competition. Which I get being in the smallest classification.

That being said. Even the computers had them ranked 60th. And they had Cherry Creek ranked 37th nationally. This was after the season.

So I'm not sure how much more credit Cherry Creek should have gotten for a 3 point win against the 60th team than a top 40 ranking. The team they played in the title game was 2nd in the state and still not national top 100.

So again Cherry Creek played one team in the top 100 all year (60th) and won by 3.

So what about that resume screams national top 25? Or in your view, much better than 37th???

I asked the same question but in reverse about Edna Karr.

They played one team in the national top 100 all year from start to finish. The team they played had 5 losses, was without their QB and WR for the game, finished nationally in the 90's, and Karr needed an overtime miracle to win.

End result: Karr is ranked top 10 in the country. How? Based on what? What did they do specifically to earn that ranking? I still haven't gotten an answer

My hot take at the end of last season was that Cherry Creek was more deserving of a top 15 national ranking than Corner Canyon was. They were as talented as any other public team in the country, didn't shy away from OOS competition, and handled business in their own backyard. I'd rather see a team like that rewarded for a once-in-a-generation squad than have folks look past the fact that Corner Canyon got their asses kicked by Lone Peak mid-season because of reputation. If you're going to rank Bixby and Karr high I don't see why Cherry Creek shouldn't be right next to them.

They did beat Highland Park TX the year before too dropping 50 on them, and HP made the TX state title game. And this wasn't in 1A. This was in 5A. So CC has been growing their brand for sure:

Cardinal Mooney was good for a small school. And they did lose their top OL to transfer before the season started. But they didn't have to play any other top in state team. In the regular season. No STA. No Chaminade, Central, MNW, AHP, Venice, etc etc.

Cardinal Mooney's best win wasn't even nationally top 250. Meaning they didn't have to prove it on the field against top competition. Which I get being in the smallest classification.

That being said. Even the computers had them ranked 60th. And they had Cherry Creek ranked 37th nationally. This was after the season.

So I'm not sure how much more credit Cherry Creek should have gotten for a 3 point win against the 60th team than a top 40 ranking. The team they played in the title game was 2nd in the state and still not national top 100.

So again Cherry Creek played one team in the top 100 all year (60th) and won by 3.

So what about that resume screams national top 25? Or in your view, much better than 37th???

So, I'm arguing that the rankings are wrong. I'm not arguing that only Cherry Creek's ranking is wrong, but all other rankings are right. I'm straight up saying the rankings are wrong. And, there's no decent reason to believe the rankings are impeccable or indisputable or anything remotely close to that. The reasons for this view, if they aren't obvious, have been discussed on these boards at length and for years.

You are effectively arguing that the rankings are correct...because of the rankings. The rankings say X, and so therefore the rankings are correct. This is what's known as a circular fallacy of argumentation. You can't show the rankings are correct by using the rankings. "Joe Schmo was elected because he was the best candidate, and we know he was the best candidate because he was elected."

To be clear, based exclusively on the rankings, I have every reason to believe Cherry Creek's rating is *exactly* what it should be. They shouldn't be moved up or moved down even a single spot...based on the rankings. But, I'm arguing the rankings themselves are wrong. You'll need something other than the rankings to show the rankings are correct.

So, I'm arguing that the rankings are wrong. I'm not arguing that only Cherry Creek's ranking is wrong, but all other rankings are right. I'm straight up saying the rankings are wrong. And, there's no decent reason to believe the rankings are impeccable or indisputable or anything remotely close to that. The reasons for this view, if they aren't obvious, have been discussed on these boards at length and for years.

You are effectively arguing that the rankings are correct...because of the rankings. The rankings say X, and so therefore the rankings are correct. This is what's known as a circular fallacy of argumentation. You can't show the rankings are correct by using the rankings. "Joe Schmo was elected because he was the best candidate, and we know he was the best candidate because he was elected."

To be clear, based exclusively on the rankings, I have every reason to believe Cherry Creek's rating is *exactly* what it should be. They shouldn't be moved up or moved down even a single spot...based on the rankings. But, I'm arguing the rankings themselves are wrong. You'll need something other than the rankings to show the rankings are correct.

So you said in the title they are underrated. What rating are you referring to, and what teams rated ahead of them do you feel they should be in front of?

That's how we can dissect it a little more. Let me know the template. What rating and/or rankings are you talking about? And then we can start the process to see if you are on to something. Lol.

My hot take at the end of last season was that Cherry Creek was more deserving of a top 15 national ranking than Corner Canyon was. They were as talented as any other public team in the country, didn't shy away from OOS competition, and handled business in their own backyard. I'd rather see a team like that rewarded for a once-in-a-generation squad than have folks look past the fact that Corner Canyon got their asses kicked by Lone Peak mid-season because of reputation. If you're going to rank Bixby and Karr high I don't see why Cherry Creek shouldn't be right next to them.

They had a bit of bad luck, mostly due to Cardinal Mooney's (lack of) historical reputation and then also the fact that the STA game flew under the radar because it was a kickoff classic. But, as I've maintained every year for over 20 years, in Florida most kickoff classics are played to win and are absolutely good gauges of the quality of teams. Mooney-STA was a total dogfight, and this does tell us those two teams are fairly close in quality. Very few people in Florida debate this, there's just Nolebull here always casting doubt on it. It's just him, that's it as far as people doubting the legitimacy of KOC outcomes.

So you said in the title they are underrated. What rating are you referring to, and what teams rated ahead of them do you feel they should be in front of?

That's how we can dissect it a little more. Let me know the template. What rating are you talking about? And then we can start the process to see if you are on to something. Lol.

I'm referring to the Comp Poll, and thus the ratings figuring into that. I'm saying these rankings should not be seen as "the gospel", or anything that can reliably be used to tell who's better than who.

I offered a general range of where I think they should have been. We can't actually say for sure that *anyone* was better than them, nor can we say for sure who they were better than. The best we can do is offer ranges or tiers, and then still remain humble about it all since we can't be sure.

I'm referring to the Comp Poll, and thus the ratings figuring into that. I'm saying these rankings should not be seen as "the gospel", or anything that can reliably be used to tell who's better than who.

I offered a general range of where I think they should have been. We can't actually say for sure that *anyone* was better than them, nor can we say for sure who they were better than. The best we can do is offer ranges or tiers, and then still remain humble about it all since we can't be sure.

So again, I'm not sure who they beat that would warrant a higher ranking than 37. Cardinal Mooney was really good for their size but they didn't have to prove it on the field. I could care less that they played STA close in a preseason game. That doesn't move the needle. If you are using a close loss in a preseason game as some sort of full season barometer for CM, then we will always be at an impasse in regards to CM not having to prove it.

And CC didn't blow the doors off them. They won by 3. And CM was driving before turning it over on downs for Creek to secure the win. It was a really good win for Creek. I'm not trying to diminish what they did on its face. I'm saying beating CM by 3 shouldn't be the standard criteria for national top 25 status

The Bruins went undefeated and won a Colorado state championship, but of course that doesn't mean they were impressive nationally. The Comp Poll left them outside of the national top 45. But, I think they were worthy of a ranking between roughly 7 and 15. They had one of the top 5 OOS wins that involved traveling to the other team's state...yet nobody seems to realize it. Despite low name recogntion value, Cardinal Mooney was an elite team in Florida last year. Mooney not only went unbeaten in Florida*, they went unchallenged. Their last two playoff games were won over Cocoa and Bolles by a combined 92-28. In the state title game, they scored a touchdown on each and every possession of the game. That's right: zero turnovers, zero punts and zero field goals. Only TDs.

About that asterisk: Mooney did lose the kickoff classic. They lost a road game at St. Thomas Aquinas. But, it was immensely difficult for STA to beat them. I watched a highlight video of the game and got the impression STA was fortunate to win at all.

Psychologically, most are too simplistic or dogmatic to accept that the 2025 Cardinal Mooney team was a fully elite team within Florida. But they absolutely were that by any reasonable standard. And Cherry Creek traveled to Florida, leaving behind a very low humidity climate to play in extreme humidity, and beat Mooney. This proved to be an elite OOS win...which was acknowledged as such by no one.

If you're a talent/recruiting freak who likes to look up star-rated players on teams to form your opinion of the team, you'd actually be impressed with Cherry Creek as they were plenty loaded.

Creek's resume and talent easily surpassed the resume and talent of 2021 Graham-Kapowsin or 2017 Chandler, both of whom had eye-opening postseason GEICO Bowl wins. I mention those two teams because they come from western states that are not normally recognized as having nationally elite teams, which is the top argument against Cherry Creek.

Cherry Creek's 2025 team was better than peole give them credit for, and is worthy of some mention here. Here is the full Cardinal Mooney game for those who are interested.

Vero Beach destroyed Cocoa.

Vero Beach 38 Cocoa 3
Lake Mary 28 Vero Beach 27
Lakeland 32 Lake Mary 13
Raines 51 Vero Beach 3


Would Lakeland have looked like a juggernaut vs that  Florida schedule?

I think

Northwestern
Lakeland
Aquinas
Lakeland


Etc all look like world beaters with Mooney's schedule


Bolles wasn't anything special either. 

I'm referring to the Comp Poll, and thus the ratings figuring into that. I'm saying these rankings should not be seen as "the gospel", or anything that can reliably be used to tell who's better than who.

I offered a general range of where I think they should have been. We can't actually say for sure that *anyone* was better than them, nor can we say for sure who they were better than. The best we can do is offer ranges or tiers, and then still remain humble about it all since we can't be sure.

That's the inherent problem with Polls and Rankings they are based on opinions or Algorithms, not based on watching teams actually play because it's impossible to watch every HSFB team play....

Should they be a Top 25 team?.... Maybe, Top 10-15 not sure, anywhere in the top 10 I highly doubt it.... But who really knows?... If they could find a way to play a FL team maybe they could play a top CA, AZ, UT team, then we would have a real idea of who they are....

Well, they finished at #25 in the No Nonsense poll.

Well, they finished at #25 in the No Nonsense poll.

Yeah that's great and all, but it really comes down to where they finished in the Red Zone Navy Seal top 9 poll. At least from a street cred perspective.That poll is the standard bearer from what I've read.

Yeah that's great and all, but it really comes down to where they finished in the Red Zone Navy Seal top 9 poll. At least from a street cred perspective.That poll is the standard bearer from what I've read.

One of the 75 "just missed"

Yeah that's great and all, but it really comes down to where they finished in the Red Zone Navy Seal top 9 poll. At least from a street cred perspective.That poll is the standard bearer from what I've read.

Now that you've mentioned it I feel like we've all overlooked the obvious most underrated team in the nation.

It's Louisville, Mississippi.