Roncalli vs Shortridge and other clearly lopsided sectional games

[foxbat]

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

For years I have advocated for a playoff qualifying format that effectively cuts the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season. This is done regularly in other states. To implement this format:

-add tenth regular season game

-at conclusion of regular season; use ranking system that accounts for W-L record, Opp W-L record, SOS, and Opp SOS that eliminates the field in half 1-32 1A-4A and 1-16 5A and 6A

-Once the field is cut in half, Send the 16 Northern-most teams to one half of the bracket and the 16 Southern-most teams to the other half. Seed 1-16 accordingly where 1 plays 16, 2 plays 15 on the opposite ends of the bracket etc with highest remaining seed hosting until you get to semi-state where games will be hosted at neutral locations

 

I've used Sagarin (as it is readily available) for the last decade to create a mock qualifying tournament with subsequent seeding. In my qualifying format using Sagarin, the above mentioned teams have made it into the field rather easily. I imagine they would make the field in just about every other rating system that uses similar factors. 

Couple of general questions ... not advocating for or against:

• What would this do to the current conference system implemented in Indiana?  Many folks are grouped in a conference by geographic proximity, age-old rivalries, etc.  Several of these are situations where there's an imbalance in ability, yet the schools still play.  In cases where rivalries have remained while the current competitiveness has fluctuated, a qualifying playoff would seem to push these to be less desired and even viable.  Yes, some schools might decide to "stick out" those rivalries, but for some schools a single game could be the difference between making the cut and not making the cut; even if there's a win.  The argument is to add a tougher opponent to counter your rivalry game, but it becomes an issue of figuring out how much you need to offset that rivalry game, you could potentially shoot yourself in the foot in scheduling.
• Given the above, assuming that conferences stayed, would this likely accelerate a major set of conference shakeups and result in, by necessity of play, conferences that would be "whatever's leftover?"  In other words teams in the quarter to third of conferences that are average overall, look for stronger alliances to make sure they don't get caught in the borderline eliminations based on teams they play in conference.  Similar "top thirds" band together or eject the bottom quarter or third in their conference.  What's left are many "bottom thirds," that, in order to have a conference, likely have to travel greater distances or, perhaps even have to play bottom-third teams of higher classes, e.g., a 2A bottom third playing 4A bottom thirds.  We already have some of this currently, but a qualification application might exacerbate this further.  For those that get left out and have to go "independent" they are likely facing more travel distance or incomplete seasons ... which are even more problematic. 
• Many conferences right now are based, if you exclude issues like travel, on more cumulative aspects than just football. For example, some programs are in a conference not only to compete in football, but other sports as well.  Some teams that are in less-than-perfect football conferences tend to be in the conference for the balance of the other sports.  Right now, programs suffer no major potential drawbacks for balancing portfolios; however, might that change or be impacted by a qualification requirement for football?

My two most recent states have been Texas and Indiana, so I'm fairly familiar with the all-in and the forced qualification process and understand the general good/bad in them.  The difference in Texas and Indiana is the lack of conferences outside of the artificial conferences that Texans refer to as districts, so it really doesn't weigh in to the Texas qualification system like it could in a state like Indiana.  Again, not picking one over the other in these questions, but asking some questions that are beyond the discussion we typically had in Texas.

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, Tippy said:

So what!  Here is some of what has happened in state championship games.

2017 - Ben Davis 63 Penn 14

2016 - Pioneer 60 North Vermillion 0

2011 - Carmel 54 Penn 0

2009 - LCC 52 Fountain Central 0

1997 - Jimtown 63 Clarksville 0

Not all games are going to be close games.

Many of those years, re-seeding the tournament after the sectional would have resulted in more competitive games, IMO. For example, conventional wisdom is that there is massive imbalance between South and North in several classes. Re-seeding fixes that, and is more fair.

[TigerFan20]

8-0 Reitz is currently a 55 point favorite against 0-8 Central in the opening round

[Komets2727]

I will always refer to Luers in this argument. I remember a few 3-6 and even 2-7 teams that either won a state title or made a good run in the tournament. Please save the “they were a top 15” sagarin or whatever formula you want to use argument. They weren’t. They lost games to lower tier SAC teams at the time for whatever reason, whether it was due to injury, suspension, whatever the case was, and won titles. Now, I am not saying they were a Frankfort, Southridge, or whatever lower tier team you want, but strength of schedule means jack crap with a 3-6 record. Likewise, I have seen countless 9-0 or 10-0 teams that played a 6-4 Dwenger, Luers, or Snider and get absolutely shellacked in a regional or sectional game. Lastly, you as a consumer have a choice, if you don’t like it, don’t support it and don’t go…

Edited October 11, 2022 by Komets2727

[Footballking16]

7 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

I will always refer to Luers in this argument. I remember a few 3-6 and even 2-7 teams that either won a state title or made a good run in the tournament. Please save the “they were a top 15” sagarin or whatever formula you want to use argument. They weren’t.

Oh really? Show me a 2-7 or 3-6 Luers team that finished outside the top half of Sagarin in their respective class. 
 

I’ll save you the time, it hasn’t happened.

4-4 Luers is currently ranked 10th in Sagarin.

[BTF]

13 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I’ll save you the time, it hasn’t happened.

Fact or speculation?

[PHJIrish]

7 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

Back in @PHJIrishday a Roncalli (formerly Sacred Heart) and Shortridge game would have been a decent matchup!

It would have indeed been a big game!  Too bad we didn't have a playoff system back then.

[Komets2727]

25 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Oh really? Show me a 2-7 or 3-6 Luers team that finished outside the top half of Sagarin in their respective class. 
 

I’ll save you the time, it hasn’t happened.

4-4 Luers is currently ranked 10th in Sagarin.

Prove it

[PHJIrish]

Deja vu all over again.

[FastpacedO]

8 hours ago, PHJIrish said:

It would have indeed been a big game!  Too bad we didn't have a playoff system back then.

My Father still talks about the 1968 game he attended 8-0-1 Indianapolis Cathedral @ 9-0 Indianapolis Washington. Where Cathedral won 20-7. He told me George McGinnis and Steve Downing weren't only great basketball players but pretty darn good football players too.

[Footballking16]

9 hours ago, Komets2727 said:

Prove it

For reference, the 2013 Luers team who finished the regular season 0-9 and ended 2-10 finished 23rd in Sagarin 3A and that was before Carroll and Homestead were annual additions to the schedule.

A Luers team who goes 2-7 or 3-6 playing the schedule they currently do will always finish in the top 32 of class 2A or 3A.
 

http://indianahsfootball.homestead.com/pastfb/2013sagarin.htm#loaded

9 hours ago, BTF said:

Fact or speculation?

Fact

Edited October 11, 2022 by Footballking16

[BTF]

17 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

For reference, the 2013 Luers team who finished the regular season 0-9 and ended 2-10 finished 23rd in Sagarin 3A and that was before Carroll and Homestead were annual additions to the schedule.

A Luers team who goes 2-7 or 3-6 playing the schedule they currently do will always finish in the top 32 of class 2A or 3A.
 

http://indianahsfootball.homestead.com/pastfb/2013sagarin.htm#loaded

Fact

I thought you were referencing the regular season: "A Luers team who goes 2-7 or 3-6 playing the schedule they currently do will always finish in the top 32 of class 2A or 3A." Which begs the question: What were they ranked before the tournament started in 2013?

[Impartial_Observer]

21 hours ago, Bobref said:

I guess what I don’t understand how there would be a loss of revenue. If you added a 10th regular season game and cut the tournament field in half, you’re still playing the same number of total games. Why would revenue be less?

My guess is Shortridge’s gate for a home game would be less than their slice of the sectional pie which could include some very high profile games.  Reasonable chance their slice of a Brebeuf/Roncalli match up could be bigger than a home gate. 

[Footballking16]

3 hours ago, BTF said:

I thought you were referencing the regular season: "A Luers team who goes 2-7 or 3-6 playing the schedule they currently do will always finish in the top 32 of class 2A or 3A." Which begs the question: What were they ranked before the tournament started in 2013?

I've only been tracking what a playoff qualifying format using Sagarin would look like since 2015 so I do not have the end of regular season Sagarin ratings for that year, just the final results that Sagarin has archived. Understanding how Sagarin works, beating 255 West Noble and 154 Heritage for Luers first and second wins in the postseason likely wouldn't have been enough to propel Luers from outside the top 32 all the way up to #23. In fact, it probably hurt Luers overall Sagarin ranking if anything. Although I can't say with 100% conviction, I'm 99.9% positive that 0-9 Luers finished in the top half of Sagarin.

Now, since I've been tracking this since 2015, I can say with 100% certainty that Luers has made the field every year in a hypothetical format that effectively cuts the field in half and that includes the 2019 team that finished 2-7 and lost in the sectional semi-finals and the 2020 team that finished 3-6 and lost in the state finals. 

[Bash Riprock]

22 hours ago, Bobref said:

Please identify the multiple state champs who would not have qualified for post season play under a format that includes 50% of the teams in each class, determined by a formula that recognizes a combination of W-L record and strength of schedule.

Interesting challenge....Roncalli won a state title in 2002 and started the season 0-4.  Would they have qualified for the playoffs that year with a 5-4 regular season record?

2019, Center Grove started out the season 1-4, finished the regular season 4-5 and went to the 6A state championship game losing 20-17 to Carmel, nearly pulling off the win.  Would a 4-5 team with a total of 32 teams in their class qualify for the tournament that year? Most years?  (note: CG beat Warren and Ben Davis in the playoffs in which they lost to both during the regular season....BD pretty handily)

I'm guessing history is not limited to those 2 examples above of teams that have got into the playoffs with .500 or sub .500 records that have made an impact in the playoffs.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bash Riprock

[Footballking16]

5 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

2019, Center Grove started out the season 1-4, finished the regular season 4-5 and went to the 6A state championship game losing 20-17 to Carmel, nearly pulling off the win.  Would a 4-5 team with a total of 32 teams in their class qualify for the tournament that year? Most years?  (note: CG beat Warren and Ben Davis in the playoffs in which they lost to both during the regular season....BD pretty handily)

CG finished the regular season 9th in Sagarin that year I believe. They had a killer schedule. 

[foxbat]

6 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

Interesting challenge....Roncalli won a state title in 2002 and started the season 0-4.  Would they have qualified for the playoffs that year with a 5-4 regular season record?

2019, Center Grove started out the season 1-4, finished the regular season 4-5 and went to the 6A state championship game losing 20-17 to Carmel, nearly pulling off the win.  Would a 4-5 team with a total of 32 teams in their class qualify for the tournament that year? Most years?  (note: CG beat Warren and Ben Davis in the playoffs in which they lost to both during the regular season....BD pretty handily)

I'm guessing history is not limited to those 2 examples above of teams that have got into the playoffs with .500 or sub .500 records that have made an impact in the playoffs.

When you say impact, are you talking about sectional title or higher or something like semi-state or higher?

In 2020, LCC was 2-3 heading into post-season.  Those two wins came against Benton Central and Northwestern.  LCC finished the season 5-4, losing in 1A semi-finals to South Adams.  In 2021, in 2A, LCC finished 5-4 before post-season.  They finished the season 8-5 and picked up a sectional title in 2A ... which provided enough points to keep them in 2A via SF for another cycle.

[MonkeyButt]

Giving 0-9 teams the opportunity play in the playoffs is like giving them a participation trophy for playing in the regular season. Dumb IMO.

[Bash Riprock]

12 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

CG finished the regular season 9th in Sagarin that year I believe. They had a killer schedule. 

they did have a tough schedule....they beat LN, LC, Pike and BD.  (I was wrong in my previous note)  They lost pretty big to New Pal, who did win 4A.  I am not sure those 4 wins would rank them top 10, understanding the SOS matters.

But it is possible had the year been different, the other teams in their class could have had stronger seasons, so there is no guarantee a team like CG in 2019 is a lock for qualifying.  And that would have been a shame to have them on the outside looking in....that young team absolutely did develop over the year, nearly winning a 6A title, setting themselves up for a historic 2 year run.

Its a great discussion...I can see both sides of this debate....my concern is for the teams "on the bubble" that can absolutely make an impact in the playoffs.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Bash Riprock

[Footballking16]

2 minutes ago, MonkeyButt said:

Giving 0-9 teams the opportunity play in the playoffs is like giving them a participation trophy for playing in the regular season. Dumb IMO.

There will be several 0-9 teams who will be participating in the postseason spanning all 6 classes. I agree, it's very dumb. 

[Footballking16]

2 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

they did have a tough schedule....they beat LN, LC, Pike and BD.  (I was wrong in my previous note)  They lost pretty big to New Pal, who did win 4A.  I am not sure those 4 wins would rank them top 10, understanding the SOS matters.

But it is possible had the year been different, the other teams in their class could have had stronger seasons, so there is no guarantee a team like CG in 2019 is a lock for qualifying.  And that would have been a shame to have them on the outside looking in....that young team absolutely did develop over the year, nearly winning a 6A title, setting themselves up for a historic 2 year run.

Unfortunately don't have my old Mac Book where I could readily pull the bracket from 2019 and not sure GID has the archive like they used too. But I posted what a hypothetical playoff format would look like for that year on here and CG was comfortably in. 

[Bash Riprock]

13 minutes ago, foxbat said:

When you say impact, are you talking about sectional title or higher or something like semi-state or higher?

In 2020, LCC was 2-3 heading into post-season.  Those two wins came against Benton Central and Northwestern.  LCC finished the season 5-4, losing in 1A semi-finals to South Adams.  In 2021, in 2A, LCC finished 5-4 before post-season.  They finished the season 8-5 and picked up a sectional title in 2A ... which provided enough points to keep them in 2A via SF for another cycle.

Sectional title or higher....that is an accomplishment.  Even a sectional runner up that gave the expected champion a heck of a game, making them earn it.

[MonkeyButt]

9 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

There will be several 0-9 teams who will be participating in the postseason spanning all 6 classes. I agree, it's very dumb. 

I think it is stupid that they get to the playoffs. It is extra unnecessary games and raises the chances of injuries for the teams that deserve to be there.

[PHJIrish]

IMO, the more football the better.  No one is hurt with the all in,  but someone's going to be hurt by a qualification format.  Let's keep what we have.  It ain't hurtin' anyone.

[Bash Riprock]

7 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Unfortunately don't have my old Mac Book where I could readily pull the bracket from 2019 and not sure GID has the archive like they used too. But I posted what a hypothetical playoff format would look like for that year on here and CG was comfortably in. 

I am not disagreeing with you in 2019...if you say CG was top 10, ok. All I am saying, that may not be the case the year prior or after, depending on how the other 31 teams did in 6A those seasons.  Assuming CG can maintain an in-state difficult schedule for years to come, that will help using your formula.