Bobref

That’s the first correct thing you’ve said so far. 😂🤣

Interesting how this sort of statement is repeated often, yet simple math shows it is false.

Like most good ideas, different people like and dislike it for different reasons. But it does address the idea, heard often in these pages, that a qualification format would result in teams eliminated from post-season play “giving up” in their remaining games because they “have nothing to play for.”

If you’re looking for some sort of calculus with which to quantify “more meaningful,” can’t help you there. But, based on years of following Ohio football closely, in addition to Indiana and some Illinois, my feeling is that the “meaningfulness” would probably break down approximately as follows: For 25% of the schools in each class, it will mean a modest increase in meaningfulness. These schools are perennial qualifiers in a “top 50%” format. The modest increase in meaningfulness comes from the jockeying for seeding position, which determines home field advantage. For 50% of the schools in each class, there will be a major increase in meaningfulness. These schools are stuck in the middle, only occasionally good enough to contend for a conference or sectional championship. But most years, not. Under a qualification format, these schools now have a more achievable goal, one toward which they can strive every season. That would make those Week 9 games between 2 4-4 teams a LOT more meaningful than they are right now. It’s those games involving the teams in the middle that, by about Week 4, are taking on some aspects of a playoff game … in September! That’s what we’re shooting for. For the bottom 25%, the change will cause scarcely a ripple. Like the poor, the bottom 25% will always be with us. And I bet your feelings would be exactly the same, even if your team were eliminated from playoff contention by Week 6 under a qualification format, right?

The great thing about calling RTP as a high school R is it’s very hard to criticize the call, since no one is looking there except the R. Everyone else, including the video guy, is following the flight of the ball. You can frequently spot an inexperienced R by watching the movement of his head on pass plays. If you see it turn with the release of the pass, you’re probably dealing with a relative rookie. As an observer, it’s one of the first things I look for when evaluating an R.

There is a big distinction between “meaningless” and “less meaningful.” Every game, practice, weight workout, film session, etc., has some meaning. The point being made is that a playoff qualification format makes regular season games “more meaningful” than they are under the all in format. As I’ve said before, I don’t see how anyone who has ever been involved in playoff football can disagree with that.

Think how many more people you could annoy with the interest generated by multiple “quasi-playoff” games every week!

I hear people talk about “accountability” all the time. How accountability leads to improvement. A qualifying format is the ultimate form of accountability.

So you believe a team like Hammond Noll, for example, that is now 0-7 and has been outscored about 10-1 this season so far, really believes they have a chance to turn it around and make a run, starting with going on the road against a Lake Station team that beat them at Noll 48-7?

Roughing the passer (RTP) fouls have been much in the news this week. The NFL is to the point where there is a serious movement toward making such calls subject to replay review. So, I thought a discussion of RTP from a high school football perspective might be timely … because there are important differences between what you see on Friday nights and what plays out in the NFL. The Rules This is the rule under the National Federation Code: “Defensive players must make a definite effort to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown. No defensive player shall commit any illegal personal contact foul … against the passer.” Also, under NF rules, a passer is, by definition, a “defenseless” player. Differences in rules at the two levels have major implications for calling, and enforcing, roughing the passer penalties. Two principal ones — The NFL provides certain protections while the passer is “in the pocket” vs. outside the pocket. The NF Code makes no such distinction, i.e., the passer gets the same degree of protection everywhere on the field. Nor does the NF Code have specific protections, such as those against “full body weight” and “below the knee” hits. — In the NFL you can have roughing the passer even though no pass actually occurs (Witness the sack of Brady on Sunday, and the strip-sack by the Chiefs on Monday night. In each case, no pass was thrown, but both resulted in roughing penalties.) Under the NF Code, you can only rough a “passer,” i.e., a player who has thrown a legal forward pass. What goes into calling RTP? First and foremost, the only official on the field who is empowered to call roughing the passer is the Referee (R). It’s always a judgment. But there are some guidelines that can help. — Many Rs use the “two step” rule to determine if a hit on the passer is late. If the defensive player contacts the QB after taking 2 or fewer steps following release of the pass, the contact is not late. — Most Rs give a verbal warning that the pass has been thrown, such as “ball’s gone!” or the like. If I can recognize the pass is gone and verbalize it, by that time defensive players should be holding up rather than continuing toward the passer. — I used the “sliding scale” approach when I was an R. The two variables were the nature of the contact, and the timing of the contact. The later the contact, the less force needed to draw a flag. Conversely, a hit that was only borderline late might well draw a flag if it was a particularly vicious hit. — The passer’s status as a “defenseless” player is important. Forcible contact against a defenseless player above the shoulders will almost certainly draw a flag. It can also be a factor in whether a particular foul is deemed “flagrant,” and thereby cause for disqualification Enforcement of RTP Whether something is classified as roughing the passer or a run of the mill personal foul is significant for enforcement purposes, as RTP has some unique enforcement provisions. — Any personal foul against the passer is treated as RTP. For example, if an onrushing defender grabs and twists the QB’s facemask before he actually throws the pass, it is enforced as RTP if the QB subsequently becomes a passer during the down. — Penalties for live ball fouls by the defense during a pass play are usually enforced from the previous spot. For RTP, however, that 15 yd. penalty is added to yardage gained if the pass is completed. And, of course, RTP also carries an automatic 1st down.

Wait a minute. They have nothing to play for in weeks 6-9 now, if you’re talking about games that have meaning in reference to post-season participation. For that matter, you can say the same thing about weeks 1-5.

It’s a simple proposition. If you agree that playoff games — most, if not necessarily all — are played at an elevated level of fan & media interest, player and coach intensity, etc., compared to regular season games, then you must conclude that the more regular season games we can make “playoff like,” the better the regular season will be. Giving a lot of teams, but not all, a chance to qualify for the post-season turns regular season games into “playoff like” games. The logic is inescapable.

The fundamental question is a philosophical, not a mathematical one: just how far are you willing to go to accommodate the chance that a Cinderella will miraculously arise? A top 50% qualification system turns many, many regular season games into quasi-playoff games, with the commensurate increase in intensity, fan appeal, etc. To me, it makes no sense to reject a system that has the potential to raise the level of football played across the state, every week, in favor of one that preserves a chance for a team that has done little in the regular season to dramatically and suddenly transform themselves into a contender. History tells us that chance is statistically insignificant. You’re trading a potential something for a demonstrated nothing.

Seems there are an unusual number of Week 9 big games coming up. 6A is the headliner, of course, with the top 4 teams in action against one another. But there are big games all around the state. East Central vs. Roncalli is quite a matchup. Here in the Region, Hanover Central & Calumet, two resurgent programs, fight it out for the GSSC title. Both are 8-0. Kokomo and Jeff ought to be another good one. And I have to get a plug in for what’s happening to the East of us. Div. 1 #2 and defending champ Lakewood St. Edward travels to Cincinnati to take on #1 Archbishop Moeller. What big game do you have your eye on?

Sure sign of a loser mentality.

Many of those years, re-seeding the tournament after the sectional would have resulted in more competitive games, IMO. For example, conventional wisdom is that there is massive imbalance between South and North in several classes. Re-seeding fixes that, and is more fair.

And here I thought we were talking about what’s best, not what’s expedient.

Aahh… Resort to ad hominem. Probably the surest indicator of the loser in any debate.

No, it’s not. Beginning of a better story.

Pick any formula you want that combines both W-L record and strength of schedule. Harbin, Massey, whatever. And if “infallibility” was a pre-condition to any attempt at improvement, we’d still be living in caves.

If you use a formula like Sagarin’s, yes you can. Not even close.

It matters plenty to a number of different constituencies. But most importantly, it’s better for High School Football in general — a constituency that no one seems to take into account.

Please identify the multiple state champs who would not have qualified for post season play under a format that includes 50% of the teams in each class, determined by a formula that recognizes a combination of W-L record and strength of schedule.

Sounds like a pretty good description of an incentive program to encourage teams to do what’s necessary to qualify for the tournament. The overall effect being to raise the level of play across the board.

I guess what I don’t understand how there would be a loss of revenue. If you added a 10th regular season game and cut the tournament field in half, you’re still playing the same number of total games. Why would revenue be less?