• 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

32 minutes ago, bobref said:

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?

Well depending on who you ask....

But in all seriousness, a 50% qualification format is only going to negatively impact a handful of teams in each class. There will be a handful of legitimate gripes from certain teams who were on the outside looking in, but that’s life. There’s a teachable moment in that scenario.

One of the single biggest myths about going to a qualification system is “teams packing it in after they’ve been eliminated”. If you’re playing football for the sole reason that you’re entitled to a tenth “playoff” game, you’re playing for the wrong reason. 99% of the kids playing in Indiana will see their football playing careers end with their last high school game regardless of the outcome. If you can’t motivate yourself enough to play the remaining games of your career after being eliminated from postseason contention you have bigger issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get how some folks might somehow feel the idea behind this is ultimately to benefit Indianapolis area schools.  As someone who grew up in, arguably, the poorest corner of the state we thought that anything coming out of Indy was for Indy...but that feeling doesn't make it true.  

Even so, I am still for the "all-in" but would like to see Sectionals seeded - at minimum, the top 2 teams.  The reasoning behind seeding Sectionals in an "all-in" tournament is valid..and fair.   Any argument against is based on "feelings" and far, far from "fair".

That said, I do find myself leaning more each year towards where Bobref and Footballking are coming from.  I think it would add some import to certain regular season games that often doesn't exist now.  

At the same time, I could see some schools just deciding to pack it in as regards football since they never see the light of day as regards playoffs.  Alternately, it could have the opposite effect.  If only 50% of the teams make playoffs it could be an inspiration for some of those schools that are usually poor in football - making the playoffs being the reward and goal in itself regardless how far they may get.  

Under the current system, for some schools, I imagine that the first round of Sectionals only offers up "one final Friday night butt-kicking" before hoops season starts.

That said, I am still for the "all-in" but there are some valid reasons for a different approach.

Edited by Lysander
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lysander said:

I get how some folks might somehow feel the idea behind this is ultimately to benefit Indianapolis area schools.  As someone who grew up in, arguably, the poorest corner of the state we thought that anything coming out of Indy was for Indy...but that feeling doesn't make it true.  

I think whenever that statement is made it's tongue in cheek. There  certainly is some merit to that because  you could have 3 or 4 of the 10 best teams in the state in one Indy sectional, but the idea isn't to protect the Indy schools, the idea is to protect the regular season. When your seeding/opponent isn't reflected in the postseason it cheapens the value of the regular season.

 

13 minutes ago, Lysander said:

Under the current system, for some schools, I imagine that the first round of Sectionals only offers up "one final Friday night :p-kicking" before hoops season starts.

I look at it this way. In a qualification format you could theoretically treat each regular season game as a "one final Friday night". Two 4-4 teams playing in week 9 would potentially have a much larger meaning in a qualification format than with the current all-in. In the current format, that fifth win or loss has no bearing on your postseason outlook, while a fifth win or loss could mean everything.

Share this post


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

I think whenever that statement is made it's tongue in cheek. There  certainly is some merit to that because  you could have 3 or 4 of the 10 best teams in the state in one Indy sectional, but the idea isn't to protect the Indy schools, the idea is to protect the regular season. When your seeding/opponent isn't reflected in the postseason it cheapens the value of the regular season.

You think its tongue in cheek because you are fundamentally rational.

Believe me, take a drive down US 52 to Franklin County and see what they have to say about it.  The only thing "in cheek" there is Skoal.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Transplantedpanther said:

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. 

I get all that.  A team from a weak conference "qualifies" by beating the other teams in that weak conference in either the regular season or a conference tourney.  That doesn't help the qualifier argument being made here.  My point is that there is an "all-in" component to March Madness (weak conferences are at least guaranteed 1 spot) and it isn't a perfect comparison to what the qualifier supporters want.  Those weak conferences, no matter how they determine who gets the 1 bid, are taking spots away from better teams from Power 5 conferences who deserve to be in the field.   

I am a fan of seeding.  Reitz shouldn't have played Central in Round 1 last year just like Memorial shouldn't have played Gibson Southern in Round 1 the year before.  If seeding (1-2 or 1-whatever) was adopted, under the current format a team could overcome a bad seed by winning the next game.  A team who doesn't get into the tournament cannot.  Said another way, I'm okay with seeding errors.  I'm not okay with qualification errors.    

The bottom line for me is this:  I have little to no faith that the IHSAA leadership could develop a good qualification system.  They tweaked a very sound IFCA success factor proposal so that it now has too short of a period in determining "success"  sod depending upon whether that 2 years of success is during the 2 year cycle or straddles the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, two schools that have the exact same success could have different results - 1 is bumped, the other wasn't.  That to me isn't a good system.  I also don't want to blow up good conferences like the SIAC.  And my position has nothing to do with Indy vs. non-Indy.  The IHSAA bias is not Indy vs. non-Indy.  Look at the make-up of the designates from the member schools.  Only one category of schools is grossly under-represented and has token representation....

Good luck to the Panthers tonight.  Stay healthy.       

  

12 minutes ago, Lysander said:

You think its tongue in cheek because you are fundamentally rational.

Believe me, take a drive down US 52 to Franklin County and see what they have to say about it.  The only thing "in cheek" there is Skoal.  

I don't care what side you're on, THAT is funny!!!

Edited by tango

Share this post


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

I don't care what side you're on, THAT is funny!!!

Lest someone consider me criticizing my brethren back home, I write this with pinch between cheek and gum.

Staying honest to my raisin'.

Share this post


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

Lest someone consider me criticizing my brethren back home, I write this with pinch between cheek and gum.

Staying honest to my raisin'.

Me too brother, me too.  Tough one to break....  Tried and failed many times....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I get all that.  A team from a weak conference "qualifies" by beating the other teams in that weak conference in either the regular season or a conference tourney.  That doesn't help the qualifier argument being made here.  My point is that there is an "all-in" component to March Madness (weak conferences are at least guaranteed 1 spot) and it isn't a perfect comparison to what the qualifier supporters want.  Those weak conferences, no matter how they determine who gets the 1 bid, are taking spots away from better teams from Power 5 conferences who deserve to be in the field.   

I am a fan of seeding.  Reitz shouldn't have played Central in Round 1 last year just like Memorial shouldn't have played Gibson Southern in Round 1 the year before.  If seeding (1-2 or 1-whatever) was adopted, under the current format a team could overcome a bad seed by winning the next game.  A team who doesn't get into the tournament cannot.  Said another way, I'm okay with seeding errors.  I'm not okay with qualification errors.    

The bottom line for me is this:  I have little to no faith that the IHSAA leadership could develop a good qualification system.  They tweaked a very sound IFCA success factor proposal so that it now has too short of a period in determining "success"  sod depending upon whether that 2 years of success is during the 2 year cycle or straddles the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, two schools that have the exact same success could have different results - 1 is bumped, the other wasn't.  That to me isn't a good system.  I also don't want to blow up good conferences like the SIAC. 

Good luck tonight.  Stay healthy.       

 

  

There isn't qualification errors when ~50% of the field is admitted. You can claim that team 33 could have gotten in over 32 but that's literally life. A postseason bid should be rewarded to those who have good regular season success. There's zero advantage to being team #1 or team #64 in your given class under the current format.

And again, seeding the top two teams would only re-enforce the need for a qualification system. What is the need/incentive for 50, 60 statewide blowouts for the first round of the playoffs? Just to tell kids they have the right to play a postseason game? I just can't get behind that philosophy. If you're going to seed, you're better off just seeding the entire sectional.

Share this post


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

There isn't qualification errors when ~50% of the field is admitted. You can claim that team 33 could have gotten in over 32 but that's literally life. A postseason bid should be rewarded to those who have good regular season success. There's zero advantage to being team #1 or team #64 in your given class under the current format.

And again, seeding the top two teams would only re-enforce the need for a qualification system. What is the need/incentive for 50, 60 statewide blowouts for the first round of the playoffs? Just to tell kids they have the right to play a postseason game? I just can't get behind that philosophy. If you're going to seed, you're better off just seeding the entire sectional.

Again, my biggest fear is the IHSAA screwing up another good IFCA proposal, but indulge me for a moment. Suppose there is one spot left in 2A South and the spot comes down to 2 teams from SW IN.  One is 5-4 with a SOS of 93 and opponent records of 34-27 (not counting 2 out of state opponents).  The other is 7-2 with a SOS of 200 and opponent records of 37-45.  Who gets in? 

Edited by tango

Share this post


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

Again, my biggest fear is the IHSAA screwing up another good IFCA proposal, but indulge me for a moment. Suppose there is one spot left in 2A South and the spot comes down to 2 teams from SW IN.  One is 5-4 with a SOS of 93 and opponent records of 36-27 (not counting 2 out of state schools).  The other is 7-2 with a SOS of 200 and opponent records of 36-36 (not counting 1 out of state school).  Who gets in? 

Then it would depend on the IHSAA proposal. In my proposed format teams are separated into North and South brackets only after the regular season has been completed and that is because North and South aren't equally represented across the board. In my format you would take the top 16 teams in 6A and 5A and then the top 32 teams in 4A-1A and once the field has been established, separate the 16 northern most teams and the 16 most southern most teams and then seed.

In the scenario you proposed it would solely depend on where the ranked in regards to the top 32.

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have officially switched sides and am now against any qualification and seeding initiatives.

The tournament as structured best fits the Indiana style of post season play and generally yields the most optimum results.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I have officially switched sides and am now against any qualification and seeding initiatives.

The tournament as structured best fits the Indiana style of post season play and generally yields the most optimum results.  

 

 

 

How can you come to that conclusion that the current format best fits Indiana? The postseason should be predicated on regular season success and should reward the best teams. Under the current format it does neither. How can you justify two 9-0 teams playing each other in the first round while two 0-9 teams play each other? The only way you can justify that is by coming out and saying the regular season is all for nothing. And it'd be true.

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


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

Then it would depend on the IHSAA proposal. In my proposed format teams are separated into North and South brackets only after the regular season has been included and that is North and South isn't equally represented. In my format you would take the top 16 teams in 6A and 5A and then the top 32 teams in 4A-1A and once the field has been established, separate the 16 northern most teams and the 16 most southern most teams and then seed.

In the scenario you proposed it would solely depend on where the ranked in regards to the top 32.

I edited my post because I screwed up the opponent records on my first try, but I would argue the 5-4 team is far more worthy.  But my gut tells me that an IHSAA proposal would more than likely go with the 7-2 team.  Just FYI, the 5-4 team is Ev. Mater Dei, who plays bigger schools all season and took 2A state champ Southridge to OT in the Sectional final.  The 7-2 team s North Posey, who mainly plays 2A & 3A schools and  lost in Round 1 to Linton (who is 1A enrollment but got bumped up due to success factor).   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I edited my post because I screwed up the opponent records on my first try, but I would argue the 5-4 team is far more worthy.  But my gut tells me that an IHSAA proposal would more than likely go with the 7-2 team.  Just FYI, the 5-4 team is Ev. Mater Dei, who plays bigger schools all season and took 2A state champ Southridge to OT in the Sectional final.  The 7-2 team s North Posey, who mainly plays 2A & 3A schools and  lost in Round 1 to Linton (who is 1A enrollment but got bumped up due to success factor).   

http://gridirondigest.net/topic/58160-what-a-playoff-qualification-system-would-look-like/

Last year around playoff time I showed what a hypothetical playoff would look like in my proposed format. FWIW, Evansville Mater Dei and North Posey were both in the field and by a comfortable margin at that. Mater Dei was the #2 seed in the south and North Posey was the #8 seed.

Records aren't indicative of a teams worth. There are plenty of ranking systems that rank teams on a number of criteria, not just W-L record. I don't think the IHSAA would ever resort to strictly W-L record because conferences are equally balanced.

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


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

How can you come to that conclusion that the current format best fits Indiana? The postseason should be predicated on regular season success and should reward the best teams. Under the current format it does neither. How can you justify two 9-0 teams playing each other in the first round while two 0-9 teams play each other? The only way you can justify that is by coming out and saying the regular season is all for nothing. And it'd be true.

I've read all the arguments and considered all the different points of view.

I do believe there is some truth to the concern that some teams would "pack it in" after being eliminated from postseason play.  Given that we have so many new, young and inexperienced coaches in the game now, this becomes even more of a concern.  Also on that same point, participation rates are falling, and early post season playoff elimination may further exacerbate that growing concern.

The bigger, broader issue, in my view, is that football is just not that big of a deal inside many athletic departments in this day and age.  10,  15 years ago, we had a much more competitive environment with more schools fully engaged in the sport and with goals that included success in the post season.  Today, many schools are just looking to survive the season.  

I also think that football in Indiana has become more local, and regional.  Most schools realize and understand that they cannot compete against the Indy area programs, so they are content to realize success at the local level.  

Bottom line, going to a qualification system will have little to no impact on the final outcome. The best teams will be in the finals, as they have 99% of the time previously.   So why bother?  

 

 

 

Edited by DrivenT

Share this post


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

I've read all the arguments and considered all the different points of view.

I do believe there is some truth to the concern that some teams would "pack it in" after being eliminated from postseason play.  Given that we have so many new, young and inexperienced coaches in the game now, this becomes even more of a concern.  Also on that same point, participation rates are falling, and early post season playoff elimination may further exacerbate that growing concern.

The bigger, broader issue, in my view, is that football is just not that big of a deal inside many athletic departments in this day and age.  10,  15 years ago, we had a much more competitive environment with more schools fully engaged in the sport and with goals that included success in the post season.  Today, many schools are just looking to survive the season.  

I also think that football in Indiana has become more local, and regional.  Most schools realize and understand that they cannot compete against the Indy area programs, so they are content to realize success at the local level.  

 

 

 

 

So how does that benefit Indiana? If a 2-6 team is willing to pack it in for the last week or two what makes you think that aren't willing to pack it in after selection Sunday when staring down the barrel of Indy Chatard or Gibson Southern in round 1 of the playoffs? There's no logical reason why an all-in format should be catered to this point of view. If you can get up for an elimination game, then you can certainly get up for a 9 or 10 game regular season schedule where every game could theoretically be an elimination game. The state tournament is watered down as is. When your path gets easier to the state finals after the first or two weekends there is a problem. Can you offer any kind of support that participation would decline if they weren't entitled to a "10th" game? Are there that many kids playing football for the sole reason of getting an automatic playoff bid? If football isn't that big of a deal inside many athletic departments why would it make a difference then if you had to qualify for the postseason? These sentiments are purely emotional.

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


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

So how does that benefit Indiana? If a 2-6 team is willing to pack it in for the last week or two what makes you think that aren't willing to pack it in after selection Sunday staring down the barrel of Indy Chatard or Gibson Southern? There's no logical reason why an all-in format should be catered to this point of view. The state tournament is watered down as is. When your path gets easier to the state finals after the first or two weekends there is a problem. Can you offer any kind of support that participation would decline if they weren't entitled to a "10th" game? Are there that many kids playing football for the sole reason of getting an automatic playoff bid? If football isn't that big of a deal inside many athletic departments why would it make a difference then if you had to qualify for the postseason? These sentiments are purely emotional.

You are correct on this.  There is considerably less passion for high school football in Indiana today than there was 10 to 20 years ago.  All of the key indicators validate this.

Participation - down

Attendance - down

Media coverage - down 

Social media participation - down

Community involvement - down

And the beat goes on.  

The multiplier - success factor became reality because it was an emotional issue for many first and foremost.  People were passionate about the subject, one way or the other.   If people don't care, they will not press forward on any specific change initiative.  In the case of qualification and seeding, I just don't think many people care.  So it wont move forward.  

 

Edited by DrivenT

Share this post


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

I get all that.  A team from a weak conference "qualifies" by beating the other teams in that weak conference in either the regular season or a conference tourney.  That doesn't help the qualifier argument being made here.  My point is that there is an "all-in" component to March Madness (weak conferences are at least guaranteed 1 spot) and it isn't a perfect comparison to what the qualifier supporters want.  Those weak conferences, no matter how they determine who gets the 1 bid, are taking spots away from better teams from Power 5 conferences who deserve to be in the field.   

I am a fan of seeding.  Reitz shouldn't have played Central in Round 1 last year just like Memorial shouldn't have played Gibson Southern in Round 1 the year before.  If seeding (1-2 or 1-whatever) was adopted, under the current format a team could overcome a bad seed by winning the next game.  A team who doesn't get into the tournament cannot.  Said another way, I'm okay with seeding errors.  I'm not okay with qualification errors.    

The bottom line for me is this:  I have little to no faith that the IHSAA leadership could develop a good qualification system.  They tweaked a very sound IFCA success factor proposal so that it now has too short of a period in determining "success"  sod depending upon whether that 2 years of success is during the 2 year cycle or straddles the end of one cycle and the beginning of another, two schools that have the exact same success could have different results - 1 is bumped, the other wasn't.  That to me isn't a good system.  I also don't want to blow up good conferences like the SIAC.  And my position has nothing to do with Indy vs. non-Indy.  The IHSAA bias is not Indy vs. non-Indy.  Look at the make-up of the designates from the member schools.  Only one category of schools is grossly under-represented and has token representation....

Good luck to the Panthers tonight.  Stay healthy.      

Careful now. You are starting to sound like a P-5 apologist here. But in all seriousness, I look at this and say, fundamentally, we are saying the exact same thing. I agree with you on success factor and time table for it. Was totally messed up by the brass of the IHSAA. That said, let me ask that what I say come to you with your mind open. No predetermination, bias, or any thing else. 

 

It seems to me that as of now, the two biggest hang ups of a qualification system (besides the guaranteed 10th game) is conferences and (unknowingly) predetermined CLASSES. Yeah, I know. Nobody has mentioned classes. But, actually, they kind of have. In talking about team A making it with a 3-6 record while theam B has a chance to left out with a 5-4 record, I have noticed that nine times out of ten, those teams are from the same class. I have even been guilty of it myself. 

 

Like you, I do not so much want to blow up conferences, but as of current, what exactly does a conference championship get you in our current system? With $5, maybe a cup of coffee? That is what I would like to see changed. That is why I say, blow up the predetermined classes for a qualification tournament. Use a similar system to Illinois. 6 wins gets you in the field (with automatic qualifiers going to conference champs), and then fill out the field as needed with 5 win teams down until all spots are determined. Each class can have 32 teams in it, and if 192 teams in 6 classes isn’t enough, there can be 224 teams in 7 classes. And put in the use of a strength of schedule for seeding, it could be a system that could give you everything you are asking for. I hope to have a scale of it up and going by week 6, and update it weekly to show it in action and what we could have. 

 

And one other thing. While classes would be based on enrollment, I do not believe in the big enrollment multipliers that most other states use (1.5-2.0 on p/p schools). I would use (if introduced) a 1.1-1.2 multiplier which should put most p/p schools a fringe between two classes. 

Share this post


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

Careful now. You are starting to sound like a P-5 apologist here. But in all seriousness, I look at this and say, fundamentally, we are saying the exact same thing. I agree with you on success factor and time table for it. Was totally messed up by the brass of the IHSAA. That said, let me ask that what I say come to you with your mind open. No predetermination, bias, or any thing else. 

 

It seems to me that as of now, the two biggest hang ups of a qualification system (besides the guaranteed 10th game) is conferences and (unknowingly) predetermined CLASSES. Yeah, I know. Nobody has mentioned classes. But, actually, they kind of have. In talking about team A making it with a 3-6 record while theam B has a chance to left out with a 5-4 record, I have noticed that nine times out of ten, those teams are from the same class. I have even been guilty of it myself. 

 

Like you, I do not so much want to blow up conferences, but as of current, what exactly does a conference championship get you in our current system? With $5, maybe a cup of coffee? That is what I would like to see changed. That is why I say, blow up the predetermined classes for a qualification tournament. Use a similar system to Illinois. 6 wins gets you in the field (with automatic qualifiers going to conference champs), and then fill out the field as needed with 5 win teams down until all spots are determined. Each class can have 32 teams in it, and if 192 teams in 6 classes isn’t enough, there can be 224 teams in 7 classes. And put in the use of a strength of schedule for seeding, it could be a system that could give you everything you are asking for. I hope to have a scale of it up and going by week 6, and update it weekly to show it in action and what we could have. 

 

And one other thing. While classes would be based on enrollment, I do not believe in the big enrollment multipliers that most other states use (1.5-2.0 on p/p schools). I would use (if introduced) a 1.1-1.2 multiplier which should put most p/p schools a fringe between two classes. 

That sounds like a very sneaky predetermined slotting maneuver.  The pps would shred that in a minute.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Like you, I do not so much want to blow up conferences, but as of current, what exactly does a conference championship get you in our current system?

This. I can't find another sport where a conference/division title doesn't in some way impact your postseason. You win your division in MLB and NFL, you're guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. You win your division in the NBA, you get a protected seed. You win your conference tournament, you make the NCAA tournament. You win your conference in Indiana High School Football? A ping pong ball will determine your postseason opponent, with no protection I may add. It cheapens the value of a conference title.

I don't oppose conferences as winning a conference title is definitely bragging rights, but how many conferences across the state have multi-competitive teams? How many conferences aren't dominated by the same 2-3 teams year in and year out? I truthfully don't know the answer to this, but I can only assume that same team(s) who constantly win their conference and aren't subsequently rewarded in the postseason don't get the full value in what a conference title should represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DrivenT said:

You are correct on this.  There is considerably less passion for high school football in Indiana today than there was 10 to 20 years ago.  All of the key indicators validate this.

Participation - down

Attendance - down

Media coverage - down 

Social media participation - down

Community involvement - down

And the beat goes on.  

The multiplier - success factor became reality because it was an emotional issue for many first and foremost.  People were passionate about the subject, one way of the other.   If people don't care, they will not press forward on any specific change initiative.  In the case of qualification and seeding, I just don't think many people care.  So it wont move forward.  

 

I don't understand how a system that benefits a few (the collection of teams who just missed qualifying) should jeopardize the entire postseason. How is there no emotion in that? Let everyone in while refusing to acknowledge the regular season is backwards.

Edited by Footballking16

Share this post


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

I don't understand how a system that benefits a few (the collection of teams who just missed qualifying) should jeopardize the entire postseason. How is there no emotion in that? Let everyone in while refusing to acknowledge the regular season is backwards.

Theoretically, your argument for a qualification system makes complete and total sense.  

What you are not taking into account is the fact that the game is in decline and in the process of long term contraction.  Any attempts to further limit inclusion will only add fuel to those burning fires.  Qualification systems are exclusionary by nature.  It may have the adverse effect of pushing even more schools out of the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DrivenT said:

You are correct on this.  There is considerably less passion for high school football in Indiana today than there was 10 to 20 years ago.  All of the key indicators validate this.

Participation - down

Attendance - down

Media coverage - down 

Social media participation - down

Community involvement - down

And the beat goes on.  

The multiplier - success factor became reality because it was an emotional issue for many first and foremost.  People were passionate about the subject, one way or the other.   If people don't care, they will not press forward on any specific change initiative.  In the case of qualification and seeding, I just don't think many people care.  So it wont move forward.  

 

I can't speak for anywhere but SW IN, but participation seems fine, attendance, media coverage, social media and community involvement are VERY HIGH down here.  We had a media day with 20+ schools last week.  It was everywhere.  Tv Stations running previews of all teams.  People are chomping at the bit..

Edited by tango

Share this post


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

I can't speak for anywhere but SW IN, but attendance, media coverage, social media and community involvement are VERY HIGH down here.  We had a media day with 20+ schools last week.  It was everywhere.  Tv Stations running previews of all teams.  People are chomping at the bit..

The SIAC and the SAC are both excellent, thriving  leagues and enjoy a very high level of support and media coverage.  Perhaps your shared long distance from Indy might have something to do with that.  

Edited by DrivenT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Transplantedpanther said:

Careful now. You are starting to sound like a P-5 apologist here. 

Like you, I do not so much want to blow up conferences, but as of current, what exactly does a conference championship get you in our current system? 

A - I could care less about basketball.  No I'm no apologist for P-5.  LOL..  

B - Coach Hape tweeted out that SIAC co-championship last year just like we did and Central did, so it must mean something....

I remain convinced that the more moving parts there are in any "system", the more likely it is the IHSAA will screw it up.  

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.