Jump to content

JustRules

Member
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

114 Excellent

About JustRules

  • Rank
    100 Post Club

Personal Information

  • School
    Unbiased Official
  • Affiliation
    Official

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've always thought the all-in random draw format was the worst possible format out there. Then TIFootball comes along with a state championship from the bottom 64 teams in the state using some type of ranking. That is definitely worse. I'm glad he/she came around to the qualify and split option instead. Not great but better than his original option. There is no issue with overlap from one class to the next. It happens in NCAA as well. Not all D1 teams are better than D2 teams and not all D2 teams are better than D3 teams. There is overlap there as well. That's why I think enrollment is a good starting point. It puts teams into general categories. The success factor then does some adjustments for the top programs but also allows for corrections. It could be optimized, but in general I think it does a good job. I'm a fan of a qualifying tournament but ultimately I don't care that much about it. At the end of the season most of the kids who played HS football had very positive experiences and good memories. 10-20 years from now they'll remember the good times and learn from the bad times. I do challenge everyone to tell friends and family outside Indiana about the all-in random draw process, and I doubt any of them will say, "wow, that's a great and creative way to do this." They will most likely think you are kidding and nobody would ever come up with a system like that.
  2. Promotion and relegation may work in a professional league where players sign contracts and teams can be developed and retained over a period of time. In HS football teams turnover a large percentage of their roster every year and for the most part the kids playing varsity this year weren't on varsity 2 years ago. There is nothing wrong with overlap in quality from class the class. The top of one class can compete with the top teams of the next class, likely beat the middle teams of the class above them and the bottom teams from the class above that. The issue the success factor helps with is those teams that are significantly better than all the teams in their current class. Yes it's possible a senior class can help bump a team up, but if that's the case they probably wouldn't compete for a state championship at their current level either. That's where having overlap definitely helps.
  3. I believe last year 143 crews applied and there were 127 games in week 1 so it was more than a handful that didn't get a game. The white hat email in week 8 indicated 146 crews applied so we are up a couple compared to last year. By my count there are 125 games in week 1. That leaves 21 crews who applied but won't get a game. There are 96 games in week 2 so 2/3 of all crews will get at least 2 games.
  4. I believe the clusters were only 4 teams so you made the playoffs based on 3 games of the 10 you played. If you went 9-1 but your 1 loss was to another 2-1 cluster team that finished 6-4 overall you were out and they were in. That's too small of a sample size compared to the overall length of the schedule and too small of a group qualifying.
  5. From what I've heard of the cluster system I'm not sure it's better than the all-in system we have today. But they are in on the same end of the spectrum.
  6. Tech is wonderful and a great way to deliver content, but it's also a great way to manipulate the system. If we had on demand meetings someone could easily log in, start the video, walk away and let the video run and get credit yet not get anything out of it. A live online meeting could also be the same unless they added some kind of interactive check in process throughout the meeting to know you are still there. If they could somehow guarantee engagement throughout I think a tech solution would be great! But otherwise it makes it easier for the box checkers to not hear what they need to hear. We would also lose a lot of the fellowship gained from meeting in person. Online work meetings are great for small groups but large groups are worthless.
  7. I wouldn't say fast tracked. Experiments are only allowed for 3 years so it would have been removed for Indiana this year if the NFHS rules committee hadn't passed it. This was the 5th year it was voted on. The first year Mr. Faulkens submitted it and it failed he wanted to do an experiment, but he found out there is a formal process to get approved for an experiment. It was voted on the next year and failed, but he got approval for the experiment. After the first and second year it was submitted again but failed again. That's why this year's vote was critical for Indiana to retain this rule everyone seems to love.
  8. I think one of the reasons many of the coaches and administrators support the unseeded all-in tournament is the chance you'll draw another weak team in the first round if you are having a bad season. There are a handful of matchups early in the first round where both teams have 2 or fewer wins after 8 weeks. They are ecstatic because now they have a chance for a tournament win. But is that really a great accomplishment? One of them will advance while someone from Brebeuf or Chatard or Cass or Pioneer will be turning in their gear. It's one thing if you get upset in the first round and have to go through that. The format does ultimately crown a champion, but the means to get there is very flawed in many ways.
  9. This is an unscientific poll but 100% of the people I've told about how Indiana does their tournament laughed and accused me of lying. Nobody can believe a state would do this. And I try to present it in a positive light so as to not skew the answers. The most common response is "any system where a 9-0 team could travel to an 0-9 team in the first round of a tournament is completely ridiculous."
  10. Try this exercise. Contact a friend or relative in another state who is a sports fan. Explain the high school tournament process to them. They won't believe you. #1 and #2 playing each other in the first round? I also grabbed a couple other random oddities. Sectional 33 Boone Grove (8-0) at Whiting (2-6) and Sectional 42 Trader's Point (700) at Tri-County (1-7). Also sectional 34 Pioneer at Cass (both 7-1) in the first round of one half of the bracket and Manchester at Bremen (both 2-6) on the other side of the bracket. Nobody would ever come up with this system if they were tasked with designing a post season tournament. It happened to avoid a lawsuit. It does still crown a champion at the end, but it's one of the most ridiculous ways of doing it.
  11. If you had a qualifying tournament you would reduce the tournament by 1 week and could add a week to the regular season. Everyone would still be guaranteed at least 10 weeks. There are many ways you could determine qualifying and I would guess under all of them CG would make the tournament as it stands today. Just using Sagarin as an example (not the one I would propose but it's measureable). They are currently #7 in Sagarin so are well within the 16 if you used it.
  12. The MIC may be down but that means they are only very, very good and there isn't a dominant team. It wouldn't surprise me to see 3 of the final 4 teams from the MIC this year. It also wouldn't surprise me to see no MIC teams out by the semi-finals because there are good teams in those sectionals ready to take the next step. The fact the teams are more even in the MIC shouldn't indicate anything other than there is no dominant team this year. Even the "bad teams' (Pike, LC, LN) are very talented and would win or compete in every other 6A conference.
  13. Any of these potential MIC champions are good enough to win state this year (including CG). Avon and Brownsburg have a good shot. No idea on the teams up north but this could also be the year one of them sneaks in. For the first time in a long time the 6A tournament is wide open!
  14. Illinois had previously voted to change their football structure from a conference structure with qualifying on a complicated formula to a district structure where teams are assigned to districts (similar to our sectionals) and qualify based on the round robin scheduling of the teams in the district. It barely passed. The most recent proposal restores conferences and expands the number of teams in the playoffs. https://football.dailyherald.com/sports/20191010/new-football-playoff-proposal-goes-to-ihsa
  15. Travel overall would be much more significant if they went to north/south or statewide seeding top to bottom compared to the current sectional model. For the most part today's sectionals are geographically close.
×
×
  • Create New...