JustRules

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

But the regular season determined who would be in the playoffs in each of those instances. And it gave the Dodgers and Braves the opportunity to have home field advantage. I guarantee that was important to them in late season games. The fact they didn't capitalize on it is a separate discussion. I will agree with the argument MLB and NBA seasons are way too long, but they do play a major factor in who makes the playoffs and seeding.

R can still only be 10-yards from the kick line so they will be 2.5 yards deep in the end zone. The best option for K is to kick it so it rolls dead inside the 5. They can't legally recover, but they would pin R deep. The other option is to kick it out of bounds so R will accept the 5-yard penalty form the previous spot and rekick (can't put it 25 yards beyond the free kick line and they probably wouldn't accept 5 yards in advance of where it went OOB. Then K could try to onside kick it and recover inside the 2.

Completely agree on seeding. I've worked enough sectional championship games that should have been exciting battles that were 42-7 because one team had an advantageous draw. If they get through an upset so be it.

Lots of different ways other states do it. Some use a points system which seems odd and can be manipulated through scheduling somewhat. Another one I know a couple states use is to play the teams in your conference (all in the same class so Indiana could go with sectional) and your conference record determines your qualification and seeding. Put 5A/6A into 4 8-team sectionals rather than 8 4-team sectionals so each team plays 7 sectional games during the season. This leaves 3 non-sectional games you can schedule with traditional or regional rivals. Qualification and seeding is based 100% on your sectional record so you aren't generally hurt by scheduling a tough non-sectional game (could be used for tie-breakers however). Top 4 teams qualify. #1 from Sectional 1 plays #4 from Sectional 2 and so forth so you aren't playing sectional opponents in the first round. You could still have top teams playing each other in the second or third round if they are geographically close. But this is a way to do it and still decide it on the field rather than through computer algorithms or subjective rankings. The drawback for Hoosiers is you get rid of the traditional conferences. You would also have similar complaints to today's sectional assignments.

Bobref will love this but let's imagine the tournament took the top 16 teams only. Think about how big some of those matchups this week and next become. LN and Pike play next week for example and both could be on the bubble for a playoff spot. It would significantly ratchet up the excitement for that game. And Ben Davis-LC and Ben Davis-North Central would have big ramifications on seeding for all teams involved.

He is moving forward slightly before the snap and not set for one second so you could go with illegal motion or illegal shift. Most of the discussion I've seen about this play is unsportsmanlike conduct for making a mockery of the game. But what an amazingly athletic move by the big guy...both the cartwheels and the splits. Coaches...please don't do this. You force us to come up with something and you definitely won't like it.

That's a fair point when distance is involved. But most people who stop attending once they hit their meeting requirement are close in proximity to the meeting location. And many of the people who do attend are only doing it to check a box and not actually looking to get anything out of it.

Most states have been using a mercy rule for many years. It's an indication we are finally in line with the rest of the country.

Our running clock games (3 of 7) have been 1:48, 1:51, and 2:10 (all running at halftime or early in 3rd quarter). Our average for the season is 2:16. The non-running clock games average 2:30. We had a 2:55 with a lot of scoring and passing and penalties as well as several hydration/cramping time outs. I've talked to crews who have had a running clock at some point in every game.

Carmel hosts a JV swim meet every year so their JV swimmers can compete. Swimmers are seeded in the heats from slowest to fastest (heat 1 are the slowest swimmers and heat 4 are the 8 fastest swimmer by seed time). Every event the 8 swimmers in the last heat are always from Carmel. It probably wouldn't be a lot different if the other teams brought their varsity swimmers.

NFL official are paid fairly well but also put in considerable time each week preparing for games. I'm not sure of exact or current numbers, but my understanding was a first year official is paid around $60k per year and a 20-year veteran working referee is making around $200k. As for the rule and changes in season, the rule itself didn't change but the philosophy or application of the rule likely did. I was talking with one of the NFL guys here in Indy and he said they were being told to be much more technical on the backside holding because these are freak athletes and if they aren't held on the back side they could possibly still get to the runner and make a play. I have no idea if that's the philosophy they changed that reduced the number of fouls in week 3, but it's an example of what could easily change during the season. Another example is a hold at or near the tackle. That rarely has an impact on the play and is generally considered a no call. But if the NFL told the officials early to call it they will. If they did that's possibly what could have been pulled back as well. There are probably similar examples to that I"m not privvy to and likely the source of the conversation on the conference call.