While I value your opinion, I need to set the record straight on a couple of your points. First of all, the rankings are still typed, I use a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet, so yes they may not be on a typewriter if that is what you are referring to, but nonetheless, the data entry is essentially similar. As for getting info from the coaches, I would say that 75% of the information used in the rankings was done by me checking newspapers, results pages, etc. and 25% was emails from people, and of those emails, 75% of them were from fans, and 25% were from coaches. There were really only two coaches who sent me regular emails, and by regular I mean once a week. Those were Lawrence North and Hanover Central, and I was thankful for the emails from both. I would be inclined to argue that the time made up by e-mailing, etc. is more than offset by the addition of the Key Wins and Losses column of the 2009 rankings. By many accounts, the 2009 rankings were as accurate as they have ever been, and this is not to discredit the people who did the job before, because in their time they were all that was available.. however, I find it hard to believe (although not impossible) that people were spending 20 hours a week on the rankings before 2009 and still turning out such an inferior product, and much less often at that. I guess the old saying holds true.. "work smarter, not harder."