• Announcements

    • Coach Nowlin

      HEAD COACH OPENING 2018   10/19/2017

      CONFIRMED HEAD COACH CHANGES IN 2018 Lafayette Central Catholic;  Don Collier Brian Nay Hired Kankakee Valley:  Zack Prairie  Derek Thompson Hired  James Broyles Hired Valparaiso:  Dave Coyle Steven Mueller Hired  Bill Marshall Promoted  Evansville North:  Brett Szabo Joey Paridaen Hired from Eastern Greene Hamilton Southeastern:  Scott May  Adam Morris Hired  Peru:  Bob Prescott Romison Saint-Louis Hired North Daviees:  Scott Helms  Trent Fine Hired Evansville Central:  Andy Owens Troy Burgess Hired River Forest: Austen Robison  Joe O'Connell Hired Shelbyville:  Pat Parks Mike Clevenger Hired from Clinton Prairie Rushville:  Scott McMurray Dan Rector Hired  Cathedral: Rick Strieff:  Bill Peebles Hired from Lawrence Central  South Spencer:  Tom Packer John Edge Hired  Bishop Dwenger:  Chris Svarczkopf  Jason Garrett Promoted  Maconaquah: Mark Hartman  Austin Colby Hired  Anderson High School:  Robert Brown Ron Quals Hired  Highland:  Trent Grinder Pete Koulianos Hired from Hanover Central  Southern Wells:  Steve Yencer Greg Mose Hired   Warsaw:  Phil Jenson  Bart Curtis Hired From Mishawaka Lawrence Central:  Bill Peebles John Rodenberg Hired  Eastern Hancock:  Jim O'hara Doug Armstrong Hired Tri-Central:  George Gilbert  Shane Arnold Promoted Franklin County:  Kirk Kennedy  Wes Gillman Hired Hobart:  Ryan Turley  Craig Osika Promoted Anderson Prep Academy Randy Albano  Michael Torgerson Hired Clarksville:  Joby Turner Justin Boser Hired  New Haven  Jim Rowland  Jimmy Linn Promoted  S.B. Clay:  Will Porter Garrett Fields Hired Mt. Vernon (Fortville) Neil Kazmierczak Mike Kirschner Hired Central Noble  Greg Moe  Trevor Tipton Promoted  Clinton Prairie:  Mike Clevenger  Raymond Jones Hired From Fountain Central Ben Davis:  Mike Kirschner Jason Simmons Hired from Noblesville  Parke Heritage :  ????    Brian Moore Hired Mishawaka Marian:  Reggie Glon  Michael Davidson Promoted Hamilton Heights:  Mitch Street  Jon Kirschner Promoted  Knightstown:  Kevin Miller Chad Montgomery Hired Richmond: Ibrahim Tawfeek Tony Lewis Hired Eastern Greene: Joey Paridaen Travis Wray Promoted  Mishawaka: Bart Curtis Keith Kinder Promoted Kokomo:  Brett Colby Richard Benberry Jr. Promoted  Hanover Central:  Pete Koulianos Brian Parker Hired  Oldenburg Academy:  Kevin Ferneding Eric Feller Hired Fountain Central: Raymond Jones  Ryan Hall Hired  Elwood:  Joe Kwisz Chuck Foga Hired Noblesville:  Jason Simmons Justin Roden Hired from East Central  Jeffersonville:  Alfonzo Browning Brian Glesing Hired from Floyd Central Wabash:  Floyd McWhirt  Adam Handley Hired Fairfield:  Bob Miller Matt Thacker Hired East Central:  Justin Roden Don Stonefield (Interim )  Munster:  Leroy Marsh  Jason Grunewald promoted Floyd Central:  Brian Glesing  James Bragg Hired Tell City:  Josh Teague Aaron Clements Hired Pike Central:  Erik Mattingly Dave Stephens Hired Crawford County:  Kevin Mills Jeremy Reynolds Hired Northwestern Steve Dibler  Patrick Rosner hired  Gary West:  Jason Johnson Collin McCullough Hired Indianapolis Washington :  ?    Steve Moorman Hired Indianapolis Attucks: ?   Ibrahim Tawfeek Hired North Newton Jeff Bean Scott Rouch Promoted Madison Grant:  Kyle Booher Brady Turner Promoted 

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, tango said:

That and the possible destruction of existing conferences are the reasons I am not a fan of a qualifier system.  

 

Sure they could, but what school/coach do you think would do or has done that in the 34 years of the all-in format?  A qualifier system could have quirks that might exclude a team that should make the post-season.  It happened in the old cluster system and no qualifier system (human or computer decided) is going to be perfect.  IMO the benefits do not outweigh the risks.  I understand the argument Bobref and others make about it making the regular season better, but I personally just don't believe it.     

True maybe not any 0-9 team but, say a team that is 4-5 at the end of the regular season has a shot at geting  to say to at least semi-state if not state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

I believe that the all-in system has served Indiana well; yes.

That not what I asked. I asked are u in support if the all in system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, warren05 said:

That not what I asked. I asked are u in support if the all in system?

I am a supporter of the all-in system in Indiana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tango said:

.  I understand the argument Bobref and others make about it making the regular season better, but I personally just don't believe it.     

Lots of people didn’t believe the earth was round, either. ... Some still don’t.  :02_v:

3 hours ago, tango said:

That and the possible destruction of existing conferences are the reasons I am not a fan of a qualifier system.  .     

I love the idea of busting up conferences ... although clearly a qualification format would not affect all of them. But many conferences were formed long ago, and conditions, demographics, etc., have changed so much that the only thing holding them together is inertia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

I am a supporter of the all-in system in Indiana.

Are u also a fan of everyone gets a trophy and no one is a loser?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a qualification format is that there would be arguments for why, hypothetically speaking, a 3-6 Pike team deserves to be in over a 5-4 Crown Point team. The argument for Pike is that they play an extremely tough schedule because they're in the best conference in the state. The argument for Crown Point is that they were over .500 and won the games put in front of them. Do we really want to put ourselves in that situation? I don't.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

The problem with a qualification format is that there would be arguments for why, hypothetically speaking, a 3-6 Pike team deserves to be in over a 5-4 Crown Point team. The argument for Pike is that they play an extremely tough schedule because they're in the best conference in the state. The argument for Crown Point is that they were over .500 and won the games put in front of them. Do we really want to put ourselves in that situation? I don't.

Use of a Sagarin-like rating system takes care of that by factoring in both won-loss and strength of schedule. Again, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel. 48 other states have already done the work for us. All we have to do is pick and choose from the years and years of experience they provide. It’s not that difficult. Regardless of what some people want to believe, Indiana is not unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, warren05 said:

Are u also a fan of everyone gets a trophy and no one is a loser?

No; I am a fan of efficiency. The open tournament is the most efficient option for Indiana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bobref said:

Use of a Sagarin-like rating system takes care of that by factoring in both won-loss and strength of schedule. Again, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel. 48 other states have already done the work for us. All we have to do is pick and choose from the years and years of experience they provide. It’s not that difficult. Regardless of what some people want to believe, Indiana is not unique.

Even then, it’s still loaded with biases, because it assumes that the transitive property applies to high school football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bobref said:

Regardless of what some people want to believe, Indiana is not unique.

Au contraire. Indiana is unique because we have an "all in" format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bobref said:

Use of a Sagarin-like rating system takes care of that by factoring in both won-loss and strength of schedule. Again, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel. 48 other states have already done the work for us. All we have to do is pick and choose from the years and years of experience they provide. It’s not that difficult. Regardless of what some people want to believe, Indiana is not unique.

Does it REALLY take care of it though? Human decision-making for the national championship in college football was criticized so they went to a computer system. Then the computers were criticized so we went back to humans. Humans are getting criticized yet again.

In college basketball, a selection committee sits around together for two weeks crunching numbers provided to them in the form of RPI, BPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy rankings and they still end picking ninth place ACC teams with 18-14 records over regular season conference champions with 27-6 records.

My point is that putting a 3-6 team in over a 5-4 team means we're favoring teams who play tough schedules. Many schools could then overreact and all try to put together tough conferences. Many schools will get left out because that's an exclusive club. Putting a 5-4 team in over a 3-6 team with a tough schedule means we don't care who you play. Many schools could then overreact and try to join weaker conferences or weaken the scheduling in the non-conference.

I think allowing everyone in and seeding at least the top two teams in each sectional is the best solution because it's a compromise. But, then again, that's just my opinion.

Edited by Frozen Tundra
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

Does it REALLY take care of it though? Human decision-making for the national championship in college football was criticized so they went to a computer system. Then the computers were criticized so we went back to humans. Humans are getting criticized yet again.

In college basketball, a selection committee sits around together for two weeks crunching numbers provided to them in the form of RPI, BPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy rankings and they still end picking ninth place ACC teams with 18-14 records over regular season conference champions with 27-6 records.

My point is that putting a 3-6 team in over a 5-4 team means we're favoring teams who play tough schedules. Many schools could then overreact and all try to put together tough conferences. Many schools will get left out because that's an exclusive club. Putting a 5-4 team in over a 3-6 team with a tough schedule means we don't care who you play. Many schools could then overreact and try to join weaker conferences or weaken the scheduling in the non-conference.

I think allowing everyone in and seeding at least the top two teams in each sectional is the best solution because it's a compromise. But, then again, that's just my opinion.

No system - including the present one - is free from criticism. There would undoubtedly be a period of adjustment as we change formats. But then schedules, conferences, etc., would normalize. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that there is something different about Indiana that requires a unique solution to these issues. There are dozens of formats to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

Does it REALLY take care of it though? Human decision-making for the national championship in college football was criticized so they went to a computer system. Then the computers were criticized so we went back to humans. Humans are getting criticized yet again.

In college basketball, a selection committee sits around together for two weeks crunching numbers provided to them in the form of RPI, BPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy rankings and they still end picking ninth place ACC teams with 18-14 records over regular season conference champions with 27-6 records.

My point is that putting a 3-6 team in over a 5-4 team means we're favoring teams who play tough schedules. Many schools could then overreact and all try to put together tough conferences. Many schools will get left out because that's an exclusive club. Putting a 5-4 team in over a 3-6 team with a tough schedule means we don't care who you play. Many schools could then overreact and try to join weaker conferences or weaken the scheduling in the non-conference.

I think allowing everyone in and seeding at least the top two teams in each sectional is the best solution because it's a compromise. But, then again, that's just my opinion.

Don’t forget, in the qualification system I’ve proposed that cuts the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season, a 10th regular season game is added. A team like Crown Point could theoretically schedule a tougher opponent with that extra game.

Anyone who criticizes a system that could potentially allow a 3-6 Pike team to get in over a 6-3 Crown Point team in favor of a system that could potentially allow Ben Davis and Warren Central to play in the first round completely misses the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Don’t forget, in the qualification system I’ve proposed that cuts the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season, a 10th regular season game is added. A team like Crown Point could theoretically schedule a tougher opponent with that extra game.

Anyone who criticizes a system that could potentially allow a 3-6 Pike team to get in over a 6-3 Crown Point team in favor of a system that could potentially allow Ben Davis and Warren Central to play in the first round completely misses the point.

I don't favor a system that puts the two best teams in a sectional against each other in the first game. I also don't favor drawing up a sectional in which Ben Davis and Warren Central are together because it makes no geographical sense. Especially when you consider there are enough teams on both sides of Indy to keep them separated.

Edited by Frozen Tundra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

I don't favor a system that puts the two best teams in a sectional against each other in the first game. I also don't favor drawing up a sectional in which Ben Davis and Warren Central are together because it makes no geographical sense. Especially when you consider there are enough teams on both sides of Indy to keep them separated.

Then what is your solution? The all-in format all but renders the regular season meaningless. It doesn’t matter what your record is in the regular season, there’s no protection in the current format.

The next step will be seeding the top two teams in each sectional. After two or three years of that the next step will be a qualification system. There’s already a disproportionally large amount of blowouts in round 1 of sectionals. And really the majority of games that are close are the games were the top 2 or 3 teams play each other in round 1. The second you pit the two best teams on opppsite sides of the bracket, the realization that half the field needs to be eliminated after regular season makes sense.

I’ve done the research the last two years. Teams rated in the bottom half of Sagarin simply don’t win in the postseason....unless they are playing another bottom half team.  That is the biggest myth of the all-in, “new life, new season”. Eliminating the bottom half teams before the start of the playoffs, drastically increases the competitiveness of postseason games throughout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Then what is your solution? The all-in format all but renders the regular season meaningless. It doesn’t matter what your record is in the regular season, there’s no protection in the current format.

The next step will be seeding the top two teams in each sectional. After two or three years of that the next step will be a qualification system. There’s already a disproportionally large amount of blowouts in round 1 of sectionals. And really the majority of games that are close are the games were the top 2 or 3 teams play each other in round 1. The second you pit the two best teams on opppsite sides of the bracket, the realization that half the field needs to be eliminated after regular season makes sense.

I’ve done the research the last two years. Teams rated in the bottom half of Sagarin simply don’t win in the postseason....unless they are playing another bottom half team.  That is the biggest myth of the all-in, “new life, new season”. Eliminating the bottom half teams before the start of the playoffs, drastically increases the competitiveness of postseason games throughout.

Realistically, there's only a handful of teams that can win state. Therefore, might as well only let the top eight teams in each class play for the state title. 

I'm not arguing that a Cinderella story can happen. That's not a football concept and never has been. I'm arguing about who gets let in, how they get let in and why they get let in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those that refuse to believe that a top 50% qualification format would make the regular season better, look at it this way.

Under the current 6 class all-in format, the only accomplishment of lasting significance teams have to play for is a sectional championship. There are 48 sectional champs. How many teams, realistically speaking, have a chance to win a sectional championship? I’d estimate no more than 25% of the field in a given season. But in a top 50% format, how many teams have a realistic shot at being able to say “we’re a playoff qualifier?” Probably more like 75% of the field. So, on the one hand you’ve basically got only 25% of the teams who are playing for something (and the regular season has nothing at all to do with their chance of achieving their goal). On the other hand, you’ve got 75% of the teams who have a shot at really accomplishing something, and the regular season means everything in terms of their chances of getting there. This is not rocket science. If we want to incentivize teams to be the best they can be during the regular season, a qualification format that gives the greatest number of teams a shot is the way to go about it. Not telling them “the regular season has no bearing on the post-season, and the way a ping pong ball bounces is the most significant factor in your chances for success.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

Realistically, there's only a handful of teams that can win state. Therefore, might as well only let the top eight teams in each class play for the state title. 

I'm not arguing that a Cinderella story can happen. That's not a football concept and never has been. I'm arguing about who gets let in, how they get let in and why they get let in.

Then if there’s only realistically a handful of teams who can win state, why not make it the most competitive for those handful of teams? There’s too many de-facto state championship games played at the sectional and regional level. 

And again, a rating system that weighs W-L record, SOS, opponent W-L record, and opponent W-L record benefits all. You could even add a caveat where you must win must win 40% of your games to get in (my system you would have to go 4-6 to be eligible). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just can’t get behind a system or format that doesn’t reward the best regular season teams. Find me another sport at any level of completion where the regular doesn’t a) determine who gets into the postseason and/or b) rewards the best teams with the easiest path. The all-in format does nothing but punish the best regular season teams because the best regular season teams aren’t rewarded for their regular success. That’s why the regular season is more or less “meaningless”. You could go 9-0, win your conference, and be playing another 9-0 conference winner in round 1. That doesn’t make sense to me.

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 Bob - Using science, it is possible to prove the Earth is round.  You may believe the regular season may be more meaningful under a qualifier system, but you simply cannot prove it because there is no way to measure it.  

As much as I respect the genius of Sagarin, the formula is not perfect.  As an example, the year end 3A rankings have Gibson Southern (with a very low 168 SOS) ahead of Ev. Memorial (with a significantly higher 36 SOS), and EM defeated GS in a head to head matchup on the road in the tournament, when the game is more meaningful and all players were presumably giving not just100%, but at least 110%.  A similar argument can be made for Indpls. Brebeuf and W. Lafayette.

Edited by tango
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I just can’t get behind a system or format that doesn’t reward the best regular season teams. Find me another sport at any level of completion where the regular doesn’t a) determine who gets into the postseason and/or b) rewards the best teams with the easiest path. The all-in format does nothing but punish the best regular season teams because the best regular season teams aren’t rewarded for their regular success. That’s why the regular season is more or less “meaningless”. You could go 9-0, win your conference, and be playing another 9-0 conference winner in round 1. That doesn’t make sense to me.

You and I agree on more than you think but we have different ways of going about it. I, too, feel like the regular season has no worth and that the best teams can get screwed in the postseason by having to play each other right off the bat. Columbus East and New Palestine played each other right off the bat two years ago in a 5A sectional while the other three teams (Franklin, Martinsville and Whiteland) got byes into the semifinals. The Columbus East and New Palestine game should have happened no sooner than the sectional championship. East was #4 in the state and New Pal was #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree FT, seedlings Sectionals, while.not perfect, would solve the big problem you describe.  But even if the seeding is imperfect, a team who was maybe seeded lower than they should  have been can prove it because they are in.  A team who is wrongfully excluded under a qualifier system can do nothing but play another meaningless regular season game.  Big difference...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tango said:

 Bob - Using science, it is possible to prove the Earth is round.  You may believe the regular season may be more meaningful under a qualifier system, but you simply cannot prove it because there is no way to measure it.  

As much as I respect the genius of Sagarin, the formula is not perfect.  As an example, the year end 3A rankings have Gibson Southern (with a very low 168 SOS) ahead of Ev. Memorial (with a significantly higher 36 SOS), and EM defeated GS in a head to head matchup on the road in the tournament, when the game is more meaningful and all players were presumably giving not just100%, but at least 110%.  A similar argument can be made for Indpls. Brebeuf and W. Lafayette.

When it is said the regular season is “meaningless”, I’m not suggesting that players, fans, or coaches don’t care. No one is implying that teams aren’t playing to win or that nobody accepts a loss, we’re saying the regular season is meaningless because it doesn’t correlate with the postseason. When the regular season doesn’t a) determine admission to the postseason and/or b) doesn’t determine seeding/opponent it’s meaningless. Your regular season records and accomplishments have zero bearing on the postseason. 

The second regular season games have postseason implications, they have inherently have more meaning. When a win moves you that much closer to a postseason berth and a loss moves you that much closer to elimination, regular season games take on a whole new meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tango said:

I agree FT, seedlings Sectionals, while.not perfect, would solve the big problem you describe.  But even if the seeding is imperfect, a team who was maybe seeded lower than they should  have been can prove it because they are in.  A team who is wrongfully excluded under a qualifier system can do nothing but play another meaningless regular season game.  Big difference...

It wouldn’t solve the big problem. Seeding the sectionals would let to unnecessary blowouts across the state. Adding a tenth game to the regular season is that extra game everyone talks about losing if you do away with the all-in. Two teams who are eliminated going into week 10 have a lot more on the line than a team who is “forced” to play a superior opponent in the all-in, one team gets to end their careers on a winning note. Much better teaching moment in that scenario than being forced to lose 70-0 in the playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

It wouldn’t solve the big problem. Seeding the sectionals would let to unnecessary blowouts across the state. Adding a tenth game to the regular season is that extra game everyone talks about losing if you do away with the all-in. Two teams who are eliminated going into week 10 have a lot more on the line than a team who is “forced” to play a superior opponent in the all-in, one team gets to end their careers on a winning note. Much better teaching moment in that scenario than being forced to lose 70-0 in the playoffs. 

I'd love to poll the players from the schools in the bottom 25% and ask them which one they'd rather have. If they agree with you then that's all the evidence I need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.