• 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

I’d like to poll the ADs of those same schools and see how many would have no problem incurring the expenses of traveling to play a game in Wk. 10 and getting no gate, with no guarantee of a reciprocal game the following year vs getting a share of the Sectional pot as they would under the all-in system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

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.

I’m talking about teachable moments. What’s a more teachable moment: telling an 0-9, 1-8 team whose margin of defeat is an average of 50 points that they are entitled to a postseason game and have to go through another week of practice just to get beat by 50 points one more time or that they have one more game to walk off the field as winners? There’s teaching moments all around in scenario B. For the seniors, it’s likely the last time any of them will ever play football again, leave it all out on the field. For the underclassmen, use the empty feeling of elimination as motivation for next year and hopefully a victory in the last game of the year carries over to the next year. Anytime teams in the bottom 25% and postseason are linked, there’s a problem.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 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. 

Seed the top 2, put them in opposite brackets and ping pong the rest.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I’d like to poll the ADs of those same schools and see how many would have no problem incurring the expenses of traveling to play a game in Wk. 10 and getting no gate, with no guarantee of a reciprocal game the following year vs getting a share of the Sectional pot as they would under the all-in system.

I really hope that isn’t the premise of keeping the all-in.

Share this post


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

I’m talking about teachable moments. What’s a more teachable moment: telling an 0-9, 1-8 team whose margin of defeat is an average of 50 points that they are entitled to a postseason game and have to go through another week of practice just to get beat by 50 points one more time or that they have one more game to walk off the field as winners? There’s teaching moments all around in scenario B. For the seniors, it’s likely the last time any of them will ever play football again, leave it all out on the field. For the underclassmen, use the empty feeling of elimination as motivation for next year and hopefully a victory in the last game of the year carries over to the next year. Anytime teams in the bottom 25% and postseason are linked, there’s a problem.

To me, it's about the kids. I'd rather they tell me what's best for them than any of us. 

Share this post


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

Seed the top 2, put them in opposite brackets and ping pong the rest.  

You’re better off going to a 50% qualification format. There’s already enough blow outs in the first round sectionals as is. Pitting the top 2 on opposite sides only ensures that. Why should an 0-9 team be rewarded by playing a 9-0 team in the “postseason”? Do you really think an 0-9 team suddenly goes into  “elimination” mode after the conclusion of the regular season? Especially when staring down the barrel of a 50, 60 point loss? It’s nonsense. Nobody benefits from that.

4 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

To me, it's about the kids. I'd rather they tell me what's best for them than any of us. 

You’re really telling or trying to convince somebody that prolonging the season one more week just to lose by 60 points is best for the kids? The argument Tango just used about AD’s not willing to give up shared gate revenue has nothing to do with what’s best for the kids. How is telling a group of kids they are entitled to a postseason berth in their best interest? There is no teaching moment in that scenario.

Share this post


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

You’re really telling or trying to convince somebody that prolonging the season one more week just to lose by 60 points is best for the kids? The argument Tango just used about AD’s not willing to give up shared gate revenue has nothing to do with what’s best for the kids. How is telling a group of kids they are entitled to a postseason berth in their best interest? There is no teaching moment in that scenario.

What I'm telling you is that I'd rather the players of those teams decide whether it's worth it or not. They're the ones playing the games.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I really hope that isn’t the premise of keeping the all-in.

That isn’t my premise. It was just a statement.  I’ve stated my opinion and why.  As for blowouts, there are blowouts all across the state every week.  And there would be more in a system where wins and margin of victory impacted whether or not a team qualifies for the tournament.  We had several games last year where we could have scored 60-70 points and humiliated an opponent (regular season and post-season), our coach used those games to give meaningful reps to all players.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

What I'm telling you is that I'd rather the players of those teams decide whether it's worth it or not. They're the ones playing the games.

So the players in the bottom 50% should dictate the postseason format? I know what you’re saying, believe me I do, but the inclusion of the bottom 50%, 25%, whatever just so feelings don’t get hurt doesn’t improve Indiana High School Football. There’s no teaching moments or lessons to be learned for what you’re advocating. 

I mean seriously what’s more likely to impact your life or be a life long lesson; being a member of a team not qualifying for the playoffs after going 4-5 or being a member of a 4-5 team that is entitled to a playoff bid due to the all-in and getting your tail kicked in? 

10 minutes ago, tango said:

That isn’t my premise. It was just a statement.  I’ve stated my opinion and why.  As for blowouts, there are blowouts all across the state every week.  And there would be more in a system where wins and margin of victory impacted whether or not a team qualifies for the tournament.  We had several games last year where we could have scored 60-70 points and humiliated an opponent (regular season and post-season), our coach used those games to give meaningful reps to all players.

To your counterpoint, my format doesn’t include MOV, it includes W-L record, SOS, opponent W-L record, and opponent SOS. Ask yourself logically, why would a team gearing up for a playoff berth jeopardize their starters by keeping them in all game? It’s just an excuse that doesn’t address the real problem.

Share this post


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

So the players in the bottom 50% should dictate the postseason format? I know what you’re saying, believe me I do, but the inclusion of the bottom 50%, 25%, whatever just so feelings don’t get hurt doesn’t improve Indiana High School Football. There’s no teaching moments or lessons to be learned for what you’re advocating. 

I mean seriously what’s more likely to impact your life or be a life long lesson; being a member of a team not qualifying for the playoffs after going 4-5 or being a member of a 4-5 team that is entitled to a playoff bid due to the all-in and getting your tail kicked in? 

I just know the competitor in me would want to give it one more shot. Even if we had no chance to win state, all I'd be thinking about is making the season last as long as I could. Maybe at the very least we win one game and shock the world. Heck, sometimes a crappy team upsetting a really good team is as much of an accomplishment as a state championship because that's the best they can do anyway. But to be, let's say, a 2-7 team that knocked off a 9-0 team, that would make my entire season because you know everyone is going to be talking about it.

Share this post


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

I just know the competitor in me would want to give it one more shot. Even if we had no chance to win state, all I'd be thinking about is making the season last as long as I could. Maybe at the very least we win one game and shock the world. Heck, sometimes a crappy team upsetting a really good team is as much of an accomplishment as a state championship because that's the best they can do anyway. But to be, let's say, a 2-7 team that knocked off a 9-0 team, that would make my entire season because you know everyone is going to be talking about it.

The competitor in you then should have taken advantage of the previous 9 games. If it only takes your last guaranteed game to get up and give it your all, you’ve already lost the argument. You’re making my points for me. When you HAVE to win to get in, it magnifies every regular season game. What’s more rewarding, being on a team who goes 2-7 your first 3 years and subsequently is entitled to a postseason berth or a team who finally goes 6-3 your senior year and qualifies more the postseason? 

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

The competitor in you then should have taken advantage of the previous 9 games. If it only takes your last guaranteed game to get up and give it your all, you’ve already lost the argument. You’re making my points for me. When you HAVE to win to get in it magnifies every regular season game. What’s more rewarding, being on a team who goes 2-7 your first 3 years and subsequently is entitled to a postseason berth or a team who finally goes 6-3 your senior year and qualifies more the postseason? 

What you said isn't what I said. You're implying that I'd be waiting until the final game to "give it my all". What I actually said is that I would want to give it one more shot. Maybe, just maybe, we can all put it together for one game to shock the state. All it takes is one game. Maybe that would be the game. 

Share this post


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

 

I mean seriously what’s more likely to impact your life or be a life long lesson; being a member of a team not qualifying for the playoffs after going 4-5 or being a member of a 4-5 team that is entitled to a playoff bid due to the all-in and getting your tail kicked in? 

To your counterpoint, my format doesn’t include MOV, it includes W-L record, SOS, opponent W-L record, and opponent SOS. Ask yourself logically, why would a team gearing up for a playoff berth jeopardize their starters by keeping them in all game? It’s just an excuse that doesn’t address the real problem.

Frankly, I don’t think that final game, whether it’s a win against another 2-7 team or getting throttled by a 9-0 team is going to impact any kid’s life all that much.  Same for the teachable moments in that final week. 

I’d be interested to see how your model would rank Gibson Southern, Ev. Memorial, Imdpls. Brebeuf and West Lafayette based on last year’s data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frozen Tundra said:

What you said isn't what I said. You're implying that I'd be waiting until the final game to "give it my all". What I actually said is that I would want to give it one more shot. Maybe, just maybe, we can all put it together for one game to shock the state. All it takes is one game. Maybe that would be the game. 

You yourself an hour ago agreed that Cinderella’s don’t happen. The idea that an upset may happen is the reasoning behind the all-in severely diminishes and punishes the deserving teams. The all-in does nothing but punish the deserving teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

You yourself an hour ago agreed that Cinderella’s don’t happen. The idea that an upset may happen is the reasoning behind the all-in severely diminishes and punishes the deserving teams. The all-in does nothing but punish the deserving teams. 

Cinderellas are teams that complete a series of upsets, not just one.

Also, the competitive nature of some players isn't going to allow you to talk sense into them and tell them that it isn't possible to pull an upset or go on a Cinderella run.

Share this post


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

Frankly, I don’t think that final game, whether it’s a win against another 2-7 team or getting throttled by a 9-0 team is going to impact any kid’s life all that much.  Same for the teachable moments in that final week. 

I’d be interested to see how your model would rank Gibson Southern, Ev. Memorial, Imdpls. Brebeuf and West Lafayette based on last year’s data.

All those teams would have been soundly in the field and seeded near the top. My model more or less reflects Sagarin but would include out of state opponents. FWIW GS and Memorial likely would have met at the regional round.

1 minute ago, Frozen Tundra said:

Cinderellas are teams that complete a series of upsets, not just one.

Also, the competitive nature of some players isn't going to allow you to talk sense into them and tell them that it isn't possible to pull an upset or go on a Cinderella run.

Teams in the bottom 25% aren’t just going to magically get up because they are entitled to one more week. I’ve done the research multiple times on how bottom Sagarin teams fare against top Sagarin teams in playoff match-ups and there’s just no logical reason why there should be an inclusion of the bottom half. The data overwhelmingly supports the theory that upsets just don’t happen in any kind of consistent frequency.

Share this post


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

Teams in the bottom 25% aren’t just going to magically get up because they are entitled to one more week. I’ve done the research multiple times on how bottom Sagarin teams fare against top Sagarin teams in playoff match-ups and there’s just no logical reason why there should be an inclusion of the bottom half. The data overwhelmingly supports the theory that upsets just don’t happen in any kind of consistent frequency.

That's why they play the game though. 16 seeds don't ever beat 1 seeds either but that just happened in March.

Share this post


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

That's why they play the game though. 16 seeds don't ever beat 1 seeds either but that just happened in March.

That 16 seed had to QUALIFY for the tournament. That’s the point you’re missing. That 16 seed deserved to be there based on their regular season accomplishments. 

Share this post


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

That 16 seed had to QUALIFY for the tournament. That’s the point you’re missing. That 16 seed deserved to be there based on their regular season accomplishments. 

No I get that. What I'm saying is that we can't look at numbers and stats and say they're the gospel truth. Numbers and stats are based on the past. They can be used to predict the future but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Share this post


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

That 16 seed had to QUALIFY for the tournament. That’s the point you’re missing. That 16 seed deserved to be there based on their regular season accomplishments. 

UMBC qualified by winning an all-in low tier conference tournament, not by what they did in the regular season.  They also took a spot from a team that probably was more deserving based on the regular season. The NCAA basketball tournament is grossly flawed bc low tier conferences get automatic bids.  Power 5 conferences have teams every year that don’t get it but are more deserving than 15+ teams that get in because of all-in conference tournaments.  It has the same flaws as you say the IN system has - first round blow-outs, teams that probably don’t deserve to be there relative to other teams, etc.

Edited by tango

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good debate gents.  Washington DC could learn a thing or two from the GID, that’s for sure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I’m not opposed to seeding the sectional. Again, you need to see perspective of seeding from outside the city. 

Bottom line: Many people views the seeding effort as about 7 key Indianapolis area schools being mad they aren’t the first loser.  

Sorry, you won’t get many people to support seeding or feel sorry for a few big schools being p!sssed they don’t have one more runner-up trophy hanging in the gym. 

Share this post


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

UMBC qualified by winning an all-in low tier conference tournament, not by what they did in the regular season.  They also took a spot from a team that probably was more deserving based on the regular season. The NCAA basketball tournament is grossly flawed bc low tier conferences get automatic bids.  Power 5 conferences have teams every year that don’t get it but are more deserving than 15+ teams that get in because of all-in conference tournaments.  It has the same flaws as you say the IN system has - first round blow-outs, teams that probably don’t deserve to be there relative to other teams, etc.

Those “automatic” bids that you speak of are given to the conferences to allow representation in the NCAA tournament. That is the only guaranteed way into the field. Conferences can elect however they wish to “give” that bid to a member school. They can give it based on regular season conference champion, conference tournament champion, or any school that they deem “deserves” it. 

 

But what you are glossing over is the fact that 1) several conferences actually use qualifying for the conference tourney, and 2) the conference tourneys are SEEDED. Teams have to earn their spot in the conference tourney through their regular season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Giants83 said:

Personally, I’m not opposed to seeding the sectional. Again, you need to see perspective of seeding from outside the city. 

Bottom line: Many people views the seeding effort as about 7 key Indianapolis area schools being mad they aren’t the first loser.  

Sorry, you won’t get many people to support seeding or feel sorry for a few big schools being p!sssed they don’t have one more runner-up trophy hanging in the gym. 

Why shouldn't a postseason format benefit the best teams? That's the question nobody has answered. Can you find me another sport at any level of competition where the best regular season teams aren't the most rewarded teams when it comes to postseason admission/seeding? Why should the postseason protect the undeserving teams and hurt the teams who did the best in the regular season? That's why the regular season is all for nothing with the current all-in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

Why shouldn't a postseason format benefit the best teams? That's the question nobody has answered. Can you find me another sport at any level of competition where the best regular season teams aren't the most rewarded teams when it comes to postseason admission/seeding? Why should the postseason protect the undeserving teams and hurt the teams who did the best in the regular season? That's why the regular season is all for nothing with the current all-in.

But, but, but ... what about if the QB’s girlfriend dumps him in Week 2,and he doesn’t get another one (and start playing well again) until Week 7. 😰😰😰Doesn’t that team deserve the fresh start in the 2nd season?

  • Haha 2

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.