Footballking16

Covid broke this mans brain. 

7 hours ago, Lysander said:

Whatever you folks think, the cream most always rises.  Transferring all over the d@mn place might get you (and your HS) a State Ring BUT it doesn't matter a single bit about whether great athletes get College opportunities.....

In the end, all this transfer BS is about potential State Rings. 

I'd say it's a lot more about exposure and opportunity than a state ring.

3 minutes ago, JustRules said:

I think the reason the all-in only works with a random draw is the teams at the bottom are very unlikely to be competitive in the first round. With a random draw they have the hope they'll draw another team at the bottom so they have a competitive game.

That's literally the only reason why. The IHSAA can sit back and justify a 71-6 drubbing in a "postseason" game, citing the luck of the draw. They no longer can however if/when the sectionals are seeding appropriately. And be doing it the way they have been, they screw deserving teams in the process. It's a joke honestly. 

10 minutes ago, JQWL said:

Do those that believe a qualifier is or at least should be coming think that will apply to all IHSAA sports or just football?

Sectionals at the bare minimum should be seeded 1-8. There's not the same preparation or turn around time in basketball, baseball, volleyball, etc like there is with football. But I'm in favor of the regular season actually meaning something in regards to the postseason. The all-in, blind draw regardless of the sport is a neanderthal format the completely devalues the regular season. It's not done anywhere else but in Indiana. 

25 minutes ago, foxbat said:

That's conjecture.  You'd have an argument if Monrovia made it to the second round or even the sectional final and lost, but in essence, Monrovia did what everyone says you have to do to take that crown; they eventually played the best in that sectional and beat them.

As for seeding them, go ahead and seed them.  It's not costing Indiana anything extra as there is already that "10th game."  Whether it's guaranteed terminal or guaranteed "near terminal," it's still on the books.  You can certainly argue about whether the schools get a "take" of the 10th game, but that's relatively easy to work out.

Again, I've still not seen the reasoning that all-in only works with a random draw.  Perhaps it eventually leads to folks deciding to create a qualifier, but it's not fact that it only works with a random draw.  And maybe it does lead to a qualifier and maybe folks just say, "That's pretty much what we expect the first round to be and now it is pretty much guaranteed."  It just seems odd to me that there are statements of conjecture as fact and wanting to skip to the "foregone conclusion."  What does it hurt to seed first and see where it goes?

Trust me I'm all for seeding 1-8 and that's because I know the next step. As do you, as does the IHSAA, as does everybody else. That's precisely why it hasn't been implemented yet....the IHSAA can't let go of the blind draw because it effectively ends the all-in. 

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I've heard this said before as if it's fact, but I'm not seeing the logic behind it.  To be realistic, when we watch March Madness, very few folks expect that #16 seed to get to the Sweet 16 or, in many cases, even beyond the first round, yet everyone still watches and hopes and prays.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a #16 seed in the history of the tourney that has declined to play because the odds are against them.  Yes, the #16s still had to make a "cut," but outside of FDU and UMBC, #1 vs. #16 is 150-2.  In essence, they likely weathered the play as well as #70 that didn't make the Dance cutoff would have or possibly even #100 or possibly even #120. 

That 16 seed still QUALIFIED for the postseason. They effectively earned that right to get blown out by a #1 seed.

3 minutes ago, foxbat said:

All in, with a seed basically does what others are saying, makes the regular season more important, but not live or die important, while still allowing for lots of chances for the Cinderella story to happen, even if the Prince picks Cinderella for a mosh pit song.  The 10th game basically becomes a first round elimination of, as some would call them, "posers" and then moves on to the things at hand.

Incidentally, answering the question "What's the difference between Monrovia's 2022 and 2020 2-7 regular seasons?" is the reason I'm an all-in fan.  Doesn't happen often, but it's enough to make me see it as having the 10th game of the season played as a tourney game.

2022 Monrovia is a statistical outlier. A complete anomaly. The only team in the 10 years I've tracked the postseason using Sagarin to seed the postseason that has beaten three top 32 teams en route to a sectional championship. That's it. And if I recall, that was a loaded sectional with a bunch of top 32 teams with Monrovia being just outside the top half at the conclusion of the regular season (34th or 35th). But because of the all-in, blind draw, the top 2 teams in that sectional played the first round making their path that much easier from the jump. Had they been seeded 1-8, not sure how Monrovia fares.

But that's beyond the point. Cinderella is a myth when it comes to Indiana high school football, 2022 Monrovia be damned. If you seeded each sectional 1-8 or 1-4 in 5A/6A every year, it would put an end to this nonsense. True seeding would effectively start the qualifier domino. 

20 minutes ago, JQWL said:

2 questions:

Cathedral is independent, correct? Would you feel different about a devalued regular season if they were in a conference?

Do you feel like the current system is holding Cathedral back from post-season success?

1. Yes they are independent. If Cathedral was in a conference, consistently won it, yet still received a tougher postseason draw than the teams who finished in the bottom half....yes I would feel that a  conference title devalues significantly. Winning your conference should be a reward, not a crutch come postseason. You'll never change my mind on that. 

2. Not at all. Prior to the success factor, Cathedral took full advantage of the archaic postseason format but consistently scheduling up and playing top end out of state competition. And why wouldn't they? Win, lose, or draw it doesn't impact your postseason chances or path. Cathedral won many state titles ending the regular season with 4 or 5 losses. In fact they won three straight state titles after finishing the regular season 4-5. Cathedral has since scaled back some of their regular season scheduling now that they play two classes up, but why wouldn't you play the best available competition under the current format?

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

But those other 49 state's athletic associations obviously don't care as much about the kids as the IHSAA does.  Right?

Pretty telling that the IHSAA has continuously decided to completely devalue a 9 week regular season for as long as they have. Glorified scrimmages.  

48 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Your perspective sounds like that of a fan. Nothing wrong with that, but I have never heard of a coach calling any regular season and exhibition. I've also never really heard of any energy in coaching circles to get the "all-in" approach changed.

All coaches adjust. Just like they did from the old cluster system. Just like they did for the success factor. Coaches will adjust once seeding is implemented down the road and then to ultimately a qualifier as that is inevitably the next step after seeding. The all-in cannot exist without the blind draw. 

50 minutes ago, Plymouthfan91 said:

But the regular season isn't even.  The ability to play anyone in the state when you want to isn't possible.  Teams are stuck playing the teams around them so whatever way you use to seed won't be fair.  In the NFL the schedule is chosen by the league but non-conference play in college football/basketball can be chosen by the schools involved.  They can travel and play who ever they want.  They can increase their Net or KenPom or whatever rating the selection committee is using.  High Schools can't do that.

What do you mean they can't seed? Are you telling me that conference basketball schedules are equal? There's 350 some teams and they're able to form a 68 team, end of the year tournament developing a rating system based on numerous factors. Every single other state in the country not named Indiana has some kind of rating or point system that ranks teams accordingly and used for seeding/inclusion for a qualifier. Indiana absolutely CAN do that, they simply choose not too. It's not rocket science if 49 other states have figured it out. 

31 minutes ago, Plymouthfan91 said:

At some point Brownsburg would have to beat #2 team in state to win the championship.  Why not play it first when everyone is healthy.  Win that game and play the winner of the 2-7 teams, which should be a break before your thrid round game.  I don't see the difference of when you play another good team or when you play a "bad" team.  You have to win them all to win a championship.

Why didn’t the Chiefs and the 49ers play the first round of the playoffs? Why don’t we have UConn and Purdue play the first round of the NCAA Tournament this year?

Because in doing so, you have to readily admit that the regular doesn’t matter. No other sport at any level of competition outside the postseason tournaments the IHSAA puts on, treat the regular season in that light. 

Just now, Daniel_Bragg said:

I found Massey Ratings to be quite accurate this past football year.  Their score predictions were also very accurate.

Basically, there are several ratings systems that have proven to be reliable barometers, but we just keep pretending like these things don't exist.

Massey Ratings Description

Agreed. The rating method used to cut the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season AFTER a 10th regular season game is added should be the least of the concerns. There' multiple, reliable ones out there that a multitude of other states use every single year. 

3 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

They aren't, at all. Maybe from a fan's perspective? Idk hard to see where you're coming from with any of this, or have any energy towards some teams not getting in the tourney and that being a good thing for the sport. 

It's definitely meaningful--- how do you think we get prepared for the tourney? There, that refuted your alleged "fact"..... lol 

You're confusing sentimental feeling with real tangible meaning. Everyone loves to beat a rival, never disagreed with that, but your record and subsequent play during the first 9 weeks has ZERO real tangible meaning. 0-9 or 9-0 It.Literally.Doesn't.Matter. You're in the playoffs no matter what and your draw is defined by nothing more than a ping pong ball. You will NEVER be able to refute this under the current format no matter how hard you puff your chest.

And with your second paragraph you've literally just described a glorified 2.5 month long exhibition season. 

9 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Who's handing out trophies now? 

Why play the regular season? Well because it's fun? ... kids enjoy it? children create life-long experiences/memories? children learn a lot from their athletic experience? I could list the reasons for a while. 

There is no one being cheated. 

Who cares whether they play 3 weeks earlier? Again, semantics.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't actually believe I am reading people say a football game is meaningless. Go watch Columbus East/North play--- tell me how meaningless it is. Brownstown/Seymour. Lawrenceburg East Central. Every Evansville game lol 

Meaningless if you aren't a competitor, I guess. Man, that's a tough sell... games are meaningless because everyone gets into a state tourney? That's wild and sort of soft, not going to lie. 

Lol.

You can still have a fun 9 or 10 game regular season all while not being entitled to a postseason game. Novel concept I know. It's done in every other state in America. 

And yes regular season games under the current format are in fact meaningless. Whether you go 9-0 and 0-9, your postseason fate is sealed before the season even starts by virtue of the all-in format and your draw is literally determined by a ping pong ball. Literally nothing that happens in weeks 1-9 has a single bearing on the postseason. They are in fact meaningless and how it relates to the overall course of the season. A literal fact that cannot be refuted. 

Just now, btownqbcoach1 said:

That doesn't even match up. I said seed the sectionals. My god it's HS football, not college or the pros. None of these teams are getting cheated. 

Ben Davis and Brownsburg are 8 mins apart.. I mean, of course, they play a lot in the sectional? 

Why should a postseason qualifier be limited to college and pro's? Literally every other state in America has a qualifier for their high school postseason format. Hell, 20 years ago back in my day you had to qualify for the CYO playoffs as early as 4th grade, they didn't just hand out trophies to everyone. 

And you absolutely are cheating teams when you don't value or recognize their regular season accomplishments. Why play the regular season in the first place if nothing is taken into consideration after the fact? 

As far as Ben Davis and Brownsburg being 8 minutes apart? Who cares. Cut 6A South in half, seed them 1-8 and this game is played in Mid-November like it should be. 

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

It would depend on the criteria used for a qualifier, and I am not sure I have seen one presented here on the GID that I like or honestly even fully understand.

 

A rating formula that accounts for W-L record, Opponent W-L record, SOS, and opponent SOS which includes out of state competition. It's essentially what CalPreps uses. Decide if you want to incorporate margin of victory or not, you can always cap it too.

https://calpreps.com/ratings.htm

6 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

In your opinion, in my opinion every kid that plays HS football should get to play in the sectional. I don't really see any watered-downness. Seems like semantics to me, honestly. To each their own, but I see no way it's going to change. 

A system that allows 0-9 North Newton to play in the postseason falls at the expense of two teams like Brownsburg and Ben Davis playing each other in the 1st round is the very definition of watered-down. It should never happen in a format where the regular season actually has real meaning. 

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

So you are ok with conference memberships in football being a possible victim of a postseason qualification process?

Why would that matter? If you're in an all 4A conference and go 2-8 in the regular season against 4A competition you likely aren't nor should you qualify for the postseason. If you're a 2A school playing in a predominantly 4A-6A conference and go .500 you're still likely one of the top half 2A teams.

I'm not sure why you would think conference memberships would fall apart? Raw W-L record would almost never be the sole criteria used in a qualifier and a 4A school looking to game the system by joining a 1A/2A conference would likely suffer the consequences. 

5 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Agreed.  I just worry that such a qualification process will change how schools look at a conference title, because now playing those same 6-7 conference schools every season may reduce your chance to qualify for a postseason berth, based on whatever algorithm is used.  This could have the very real chance of schools dropping conference memberships, at least in football.   

 

How can anyone look at a conference title under the current format and say it means a thing? There are literally teams every year who win their conference and get a harder playoff draw than a team who finishes dead last. It doesn't make any sense. I've never seen at any other level of athletic competition where winning you conference/league/division/etc doesn't give you the best possible outcome to succeed in the postseason over your peers. 

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

I don't know.  For most programs a state title is very much realistically out of their grasp while a conference championship can be a  much more achievable goal to strive for.   

What about qualifying for the postseason? Would certainly spice up the regular season for those team who don’t have a shot at a state or conference title.

3 minutes ago, Daniel_Bragg said:

Well now we're having two different conversations.  The Sectionals should have been seeded a long time ago.  In 2024, it's embarrassing really, that the IHSAA continues to play dumb on this issue.

Seeding the sectionals is the next logical step to a qualifier. How many straight years of Ben Davis beating Avon by 40-50 points on one side of the bracket and Brownsburg beating Pike by 40-50 points on the other side does it take for common sense to prevail and say it’s pointless to call these first round games the “postseason”?

The all-in can only exist with the blind draw. It’s the only way to justify blowouts against teams who have no business playing in a postseason tournament to begin with. And it’s usually at the expense of a top team getting taken out early by another top team. It’s laughable.

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Conference titles?

Back in my day we had 10-game regular seasons and liked it!

 

Brownsburg went undefeated in the toughest conference in the state yet drew a road playoff game against the #2 team in the state, in the first round no less.

Should tell you everything you need to know about the value of a conference championship under the current format. 2-7 Avon who finished dead last in said conference and also a 4 TD loser to Brownsburg drew another 2-7 team IN THE SAME SECTIONAL.

Make it make sense.

3 hours ago, JQWL said:

It always amazes me on a forum that should be for promoting football in Indiana, the amount of people on this forum that either want to eliminate teams completely or eliminate teams from playing games. There is nothing wrong with the all-in. Kids get very few football games to play in their entire lives and once it's done, it's done. Let's not try and minimize the experience just so fans can feel like it "means more."

How does proposing a qualifier equal eliminating teams from playing games? In a proposed qualifier that eliminates half the field at the conclusion of the regular season with an added 10th game, every team is guaranteed the same number of games as the old system. Nothing changes other than the amount of unnecessary blowouts in the opening round of the playoffs from teams who have no business playing in the postseason to begin with. 

4 hours ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Do you even have an example of a team losing every game by 50 points? 

I'm still failing to see what you gain, the regular season always matters, it literally prepares you for the tourney.

But the bottom line---- Every kid should be able to play in the sectional and that's not going to change, no real sense in entertaining the idea.  

North Newton went 0-9 in the regular season last year. Average margin of defeat was 50 points on the head. Shut out in 5 of 9 regular season games. Lost 71-6 in opening round of sectionals likely at the expense of a North Judson/Pioneer first round match-up that pitted at the time two top 15 Sagarin teams in 1A against each other.

Why should every kid be able to play in a sectional game? A postseason berth should be earned, not the other way around. Every team making the postseason under the guise of the blind draw and really screwing with dynamicity and the competitiveness of the tournament has never really made sense to me. It's a watered down tournament.  

The all-in only works under the mirage of the blind draw. Take away the blind draw and the need to allow every team into the postseason after being sold on some fairy tale dream of a new season disappears. 

1 hour ago, scarab527 said:

Seeding is the first step in the removal of the all-in. A couple years of complete first round blowouts where one team has to travel 1 hour+ will have people ready for a qualifier. The all-in only makes sense with the random draw. 

Agreed. Been saying this for years. It’s the only reason why seeding hasn’t been implemented. And that’s to delay the inevitable.