Footballking16

10 minutes ago, tango said:

I’ll bet you $1000 that MD beats South Spencer by more than 21 points.  That is the Sagarin, +3 for home field for SS.

I don’t know a thing about either team. And I never once digressed that Sagarin was 100% accurate or the end be all. But it’s a lot more accurate (and non-bias) than the human eye. 
 

I respectfully decline.

2 minutes ago, cg_holmeaid said:

CG secondary is getting torched. Also doesn’t help that the offense keeps shooting themselves in the foot every time they get inside the 20

Center Grove not show up? Looking ahead? LN that good?

Might be eating my words...

LN up 13-0 2nd Quarter

40 minutes ago, sr1 said:

Are you telling us that Cathedral's sectional game against a 2-5 Terre Haute South is going to be more intense than their week two game against the defending 6A state champion Carmel?

Cathedral should never be playing a 2-5 TH South team in any level of the playoffs. 
 

And I’m talking in general speak. Playing the defending big class state champion is the most extreme example in this scenario. A more plausible scenario is two 3-3 teams playing in week 7. Winner of this game more than likely controls its own playoff destiny while the loser is on the outside looking in with work to do. It’s a playoff level type game in of itself. In our current format, both teams already know their first round sectional opponent. That’s what I’m talking about.

30 minutes ago, Bobref said:

You cannot convince the “all in” people with common sense.

I was on the field for over 500 varsity football games. Approximately 100 or so were playoff games. If you think there’s no difference in the level of competition or intensity, on the field, on the sidelines, and in the stands, between a regular season game, the first game of the sectional, and a sectional championship game, quite simply, you’re wrong. I can’t explain it any more simply than that.

I don’t get it either Bob.

8 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

And you will never convince me that a qualification system make one bit of difference in the level of play.  I may be the one in the minority....I know @Bobref agrees with you.

Again you're missing the point. In a qualification based system, the level of play rises naturally. Would you disagree with me that a sectional game and a week 2 game are on the same level of intensity?

That's semi-rhetorical but you get my point. 

20 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

We will have to agree to disagree because you aren't going to get it.  I guess different folks are motivated differently.  A game is never meaningless, we battle for the W...that is all that is needed.

Trust me I get it. You will never convince me that a game that has implications doesn't mean more than a game that doesn't have any implications. Could just be me and if I'm in the minority so be it. 

Of course any game is going to be competitive. When one team wins and one team loses there is always going to be a level of competition. That's natural and isn't subjected to high school football. But this isn't or has never been my argument. 

16 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

The argument made here year after year is that kids will somehow play harder, or that the games will magically become more competitive.  You see you and I have a completely different perspective on what "meaningful" is.  We do all we can regardless of what it qualifies us for.  I can tell you there is nothing you can do in SWI to make the games mean more to anyone.  There are valid arguments for a qualification system but "factually" speaking, "meaning" is not one of them.  

That isn't the argument. The argument is that under the current system regular season games (in regards to the postseason) are effectively meaningless and you can't argue otherwise. Regardless if you're 9-0, 0-9, 0-0 your regular season performance isn't indicative of your postseason. Every team is admitted to the postseason and your draw is determined by a ping pong ball. Not your W-L record, not your SOS, not a conference title, etc....but a ping pong ball. 

11 minutes ago, tango said:

Which might illustrate the problem.  Sagarin is not fool-proof.  The Sag numbers for the SIAC teams (and Summit) are all artificially low because they don't play any non-conference games. 

It's a ton more accurate than you think. I wish the archives were still around but there was a 3-4 year period where I seeded each sectional based on Sagarin rating and you didn't need a full set of fingers on either hand to count how many bottom half Sagarin rated teams beat top half Sagarin rated teams. Fool-proof no, is anything? But it's a lot more reliable than people give it credit for. 

12 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

If you live in a part of the state where a qualification playoff system will make your regular season games more "meaningful" ....I sincerely feel so so sorry for you. 

How can you argue against that though, regardless of where you live? Any system that doesn't acknowledge regular season performance is in fact "meaningless". I'm not sure how you can factually argue otherwise. You could be #1 in the state, go undefeated during the regular season, win your conference title, and be "rewarded" with an away playoff game in the first round. That actually happened last year. #1 Avon went undefeated last year, was the #1 rated Sagarin team in the state heading into the playoffs and drew #2 Sagarin Brownsburg (a team they beat earlier in the year) on the road no less, and subsequently loss. Tell me how any of the 9 previous games Avon played meant a damn thing in regards to the postseason. You can't.

9 minutes ago, jets said:

STOP IT!! This always happens every year when seeding gets talked about - the "playoff qualification mafia" shows up and tries to make this a conversation about them - IT IS NOT!! 

We can still let everyone in and seed the darn thing!! 

You're confusing the two.

I think most, if not everyone is in favor of some type of seeding. You're not really re-inventing the wheel here. But you also miss the unintended consequences of seeding. I see it, the IHSAA sees it, and that's why it hasn't or won't happen. Seeding will eventually lead to a qualification format whether you like it or not. My guess is we see neither (for the reasons I've stated above) and we're stuck with the blind draw. 

23 minutes ago, WWFan said:

I would even just say seed top 2 and blind draw the rest. If its about preserving the best match up to the end then they should get there. If #1 is upset by #3 in the first round then they just weren't as good as paper said. 

Even if you preserve the top 2, you increase the chance of unnecessary games. I would guesstimate that in the average sectional (relative to the sectional) there's 1, maybe 2 dominant teams, 2-4 average teams, and then the rest who have no business being in a postseason to begin with. Under the current format, the only way unnecessary first round blowouts are avoided are when the best teams play each other and the worst teams play each other. Cut the sectionals in half, seed 1-4, and it's a much more (usually) exciting and meaningful format.

12 minutes ago, Purdue Pete said:

If they play bluffton’s schedule they might be (maybe should be) left out.  They went and picked up the... case in point they picked up prairie heights in place of the jets tonight 

This season in general is an outlier...

8 minutes ago, Basementbias said:

True, but say that 9-0 Bluffton team is considered not to be in the top half due to a poor ACAC & non conference opponent schedule. I've saw rare instances that this was the case in Ohio were 9-0 Bluffton mentioned before is not in the tournament due to opponents records & SOS. In a few of those cases, those teams had 9 conference games, so that is why the might MAC of small Ohio HS football chose not to play a full conference schedule even though they could, because they feared that happening to them.

Again, extreme outliers that are exactly that, outliers. Ohio also has 2x as many high schools playing football schools than the state of Indiana. I can hardly envision a scenario where a 9-0 team in Indiana isn't at least one of the 32 top rated schools in their respective class regardless of the schedule. 

8 minutes ago, Basementbias said:

I could see your point if they had a cluster system where everyone in each sectional played one another. However, let's pretend we're in the current format & the SAC had a MIC like year and Luers goes 0-9 but only loses each game by 7 or less. That Luers team would probably beat all 7 other sectional opponents by double digits, including say a 9-0 Bluffton squad. Far fetched, but just one example that I hate to see qualifying like Ohio does (except this year due to Covid).

There's absolutely zero way that any playoff qualification method or rating system would be based solely on W-L record. It would be a combination of multiple factors including SoS, opponents W-L record, opponent SoS, etc. I'd have a hard time believing that even a winless Luers team that played a bunch of 4A and 5A schools competitive week in and week out wouldn't still be a top half rated 2A team.

14 minutes ago, jets said:

What I'm trying to say is - I don't think those are strong enough points to keep from vastly improving our tourney. I really think the IHSAA is just stubborn and "by gawd that's the way we've always done it" (the WORST excuse for anything) 

How is letting a 9-0 team play a team that's 0-9 whom they already beat by 70 points earlier in the year exactly improving the tournament? You want to improve the tournament? Force teams to qualify and seed accordingly. 

13 minutes ago, jets said:

So your argument AGAINST seeding is it leads to less blowouts?? Ok, tell that to the 8-1 team playing a 9-0 team first round. 

An 8-1 team should NEVER be playing a 9-0 team in the first round the same way an 0-9 team has no business being in a playoff to begin with. A playoff qualification format (with subsequent seeding) solves both those issues. I don't see what the problem is?

9 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't see any reason why seeding would lead to playoff qualifications in Indiana. This is because the state has just the right amount of teams playing football to host a 5 or 6 round playoff.

 

No reason why seeding an all-in tournament can't be done.

Because at what point does it become practical to let the IHSAA allow unnecessary 60-70 point blowouts in a "postseason" game? There's 48 sectionals in this state. If you pitted 1 vs 8 and 2 vs 7 in all sectionals in classes 1A-4A, you would be looking at colossal blowouts with running clocks at half time in just about every one of those games. What purpose does that serve anyone. Why not just cut the field in half at the end of the regular season and let 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 in more competitive sectional format.

I mean yes, you are theoretically correct, you could do seeding and not go to a qualification format...but at the expense of what? This is the reason the IHSAA hasn't, and won't go to seeding, to try and avoid as many blowouts as possible with a "blind draw" as justification.

1 hour ago, jets said:

2. It's going to lead to a qualification process?? (It doesn't HAVE to) 

The unintended consequences of seeding would make the first round of the playoffs redundant to the point where the next logical step is a qualifier. The IHSAA doesn't want that.

If the sectionals were seeded appropriately, 85-90% of the opening round games statewide would result in 50-60 point blowouts. That is the definition of redundant. It's unnecessary and doesn't do anybody any good. The only way the IHSAA today can justify why a team that has gone 0-9 in the regular season surrendering 500+ points is allowed to play again is because of the all-in, blind draw. There's an off-chance that an 0-9 team meets another 0-9 team and a blowout is avoided. 

If you seeded the sectionals, the next and only logical move would be to eliminate the field in half after the end of the regular season. The IHSAA isn't ready for that.

14 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said:

we posted at same time:   

I was calling LN the trap game for CG: 

Not a chance Cathedral let's thier game tonight come anywhere near competitive after the last 3 weeks they have had. 

LN is going to have to hit a couple home runs early or else this will get ugly. CG will assert their will on the ground. 

15 minutes ago, DT said:

I care.  I like to watch highly recruited players in live game action.  Thats why Ill drop the 10 bucks tonight to watch CG-LN.  

CG-Cathedral would be a much better matchup in Week 1 or 2.  Maybe they can get that right.  

It's a good showcase no doubt, but Center Grove will score every time they have the ball until their starters come out. LN doesn't have the line depth on either side of the ball to contain, let alone stop Center Grove. This will be a 42/35-7 type game at half with a running clock that shortly follows. 

8 minutes ago, DT said:

I hope youre right. Ill be watching and id like to see a competitive game.  

BTW - LN has more highly recruited athletes than does Cathedral based on attached rankings.  The entertainment value of tonights game should be quite good.  https://247sports.com/Season/2021-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=highschool

Who cares? Cathedral is an exponentially better football team than Lawrence North this year. And you saw first hand last week that # of D1 athletes (Merrillville) doesn't mean much. Cathedral starts more juniors than seniors and by the time it's all said and done you'll see a Cathedral team next Friday that sends 5-6 kids D1 by the time they graduate.  

8 minutes ago, DT said:

CGs priorities are as follows :

1. State title

2. MIC title

3. National ranking

The Cathedral game has no bearing on the two primary goals.

Yes, everyone will play, but as I stated, Moore will back off the accelerator and give his starters some rest

The Warren game was moved out of week 9 for these very same injury concerns.  Roncalli.  cathedral.  Whiteland.  Deaf School.  Doesnt matter.  Intensity level will be ereduced.

You've already cemented this Center Grove team as the best team in the history of Indiana. With 6A being as down as it is, Center Grove should be able to walk to a 6A title, injuries or not. The only way this Center Grove team goes down as one of the best of all-time is to finish with a high national ranking, and the only way that happens is if they beat Cathedral, who is also nationally ranked. 

Center Grove will have a MIC title secured by the time the Cathedral game kicks off, so that point is irrelevant and Center Grove can still win a state title even if they lose to Cathedral. The only way this Center Grove team goes down as one of the best teams in the "History of Indiana" (as you have proclaimed) is by beating Cathedral. There isn't a chance in hell either coach steps off the accelerator in this game for that reason. Winner of this game goes down as the best team in the state of Indiana this year as both teams are winning their respective class titles this year. 

8 minutes ago, DT said:

I'm surprised they've played six times.   Not very memorable.  I do recall some complaints about injuries and slippery sidelines

Everyone is banged up in week 9, that's the nature of the sport. I will bet our posting privileges that there isn't a single starter on either team that sits this game (unless already previously injured) next week. 

This series has seen everything from shootouts to defensive slug fests to OT thrillers. Far from unmemorable.

8 minutes ago, DT said:

This game reminds me of some of the old ND -USC games at the end of the regular season.  ND already had a nice bowl bid locked up and USC had already clinched the PAC 8 title.  The game was basically window dressing.   

You must have missed the last 6 Cathedral-Center Grove games. Nothing window dressing about any of the prior meetings.