Footballking16

6 minutes ago, DT said:

Im speaking to those who are pushing only for seeding.  Its a bad idea.  

Seeding would lead to a qualification system. The IHSAA under the all-in format can justify first round blowouts because of the "luck of the draw". They no longer could if sectionals were seeded appropriately. I've done this exercise the last 3 or 4 years and and you need but 1 or 2 fingers to count the number of upsets that occur where a bottom half rated Sagarin team beats a top half Sagarin team. This theory where every team should be included because "every team starts 0-0 with new life come week 10 has a chance" simply doesn't exist. 

11 minutes ago, DT said:

The proponents of seeding would have us watch a 1 vs 8 opening round game between Chatard and Crawfordsville.  

Chatard by 75?

 

 

The proponents of seeding AND a qualifying format would likely get to watch a Chatard/Yorktown and Guerin/Brebeuf first round match-up and West Lafayette (and North Mont) would likely be in a completely different bracket and would get to face the winner of this group at the semi-state or state finals where it should rightfully take place. Crawfordsville wouldn't even be in the picture.

Things to ponder....

7 minutes ago, tango said:

I get it.  I just don't think it makes those games any better. 

How is a virtual play-in game not better than a game where the final outcome means absolutely nothing? Under my proposed system Lawrence North is literally playing for their playoff lives while Pike has a chance to play spoiler.

20 minutes ago, Stoner said:

It doesnt have to make your top 100 reasons. 

But I'm guessing its in the top 2 or 3 of the 150+ omitted schools' athletic directors.

You get an additional home game essentially every other year where you get to keep ALL the gate revenue.

In a qualifying system, every single game whether it be home or away now has actual value or real meaning. That alone should boost gate revenue.

Keeping the current system because of shared gate revenue while completely watering down the entire postseason isn't right.

13 minutes ago, tango said:

I know nothing about the fan bases for Lawrence North and Pike.  How many fans has Lawrence North had for their 8 games up to now?  I suspect about that many will show up this week for their Wk. 9 game and about that same amount would show up this week if a playoff spot was on the line.  

 

Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you one thing though; Week 9 along with the first 8 weeks has actual value under a qualification system. Under the current system it's nothing more than a 9th exhibition game. 

6 minutes ago, Stoner said:

And any system like the one you're stumping for that offers half the field a now-meaningless10th game and reduced revenues is an extremely tough sell to those schools

So literally the system(s) that the other 49 ststes + DC use? 

Why should our postseason cater to the teams that don't deserve be anywhere near a postseason? That makes zero sense. A split gate revenue under the all-in format doesn't make my top 100 reasons as to why Indiana should go a qualifier. It's irrelevant.

3 minutes ago, DT said:

Bad publicity is still publicity

The IHSAA would rather have people complaining about the seeding process than not talking about it at all.  Its a great discussion point.  

You don't think the same discussions would occur only to the tune of "who should be in" or "who should be out"?

Not really one of your brightest points.

11 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

Speaking of Reese, I know he's injured.  Will he be redshirted this year?

He played Saturday and laid some absolute wood on a kick off although it was ultimately called back due to an offsides. Not sure if he's still in the running to redshirt with the new 4 game rule but he has seen the field in at least more than 1 game. That I'm sure of.

2 minutes ago, DT said:

In Indiana, all is quiet.  Everyone is satisfied.

Any system that pits the literal two best teams in the entire state against each other in the opening round in which the winner gets either a soon to be 1-8 team or a 3-6 team for the sectional title is absolute failure. It's not just broken, it's fundamentally flawed. 

2 minutes ago, MuleDriver said:

With half the field eliminated how are we going to fill all the weeks up till thanksgiving weekend with games. Add a few regular season games i guess? 

Add a tenth regular season game and everything stays the same.

Our current week 10 is the first round of sectionals for 1A-4A and a few 5A schools.

15 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said:

But when you look at the draw, I mean, statistically speaking, the Avon/Brownsburg game is not a surprise as only 4 teams vs 8 teams

In a qualifier system that eliminates half the field at the conclusion of the regular season, not that hard to seed teams 1-8 in a North bracket and 1-8 in a South bracket once the field has been established. 

13 minutes ago, DT said:

It would be good to know how they feel about it.  Perhaps they are envious of the Indiana model.  

Do some research and enlighten us.  You may be in for a surprise.  

Can't imagine there's much envy when 49 other states + DC have a qualifying/seeding format.

Indiana isn't the one that "gets it".

4 minutes ago, tango said:

Seeding and a qualifier are different issues.  I could see seeding happening because it could help all schools in a Sectional financially.  A qualifier isn't a lot of schools get revenue whether they are competitive or not so there is no incentive to support a system that is very likely going to exclude them on an annual basis.  

There's where I disagree. A qualifier makes regular season games meaningful. More meaningful games equals more incentive to attend. It yields more interest. 

For an example, under my proposal that eliminates half the field after the conclusion of the regular (using Sagarin) Lawrence North at 2-6 who is in the top half of Sagarin is currently out of the playoff picture because they haven't accumulated the necessary 3 wins to earn qualification status. Lawrence North hosts Pike this Friday and it's essentially a play-in game. On the surface, a 2-6 team playing a 1-7 team isn't a huge draw especially since both teams are automatically in the playoffs with their opponents already determined. But under a qualifying system, this games now has actually interest and something to be played for.  

Just now, DT said:

Are they happy with it?

I don't know as I haven't polled the 4+ million Kentuckian's  for their opinion. I can't imagine they'd be thrilled with the two best teams playing each other in the first round.

7 minutes ago, DT said:

Another basketball first state.  

I know, and they somehow have managed to go to a seeding/qualifier format. That's my point.

Just now, Impartial_Observer said:

I'm not sure which part of:

You missed?

I didn't miss anything. You can control profitability by going to a qualifier/seeding system where it doesn't come down to the roll of the dice (or ping pong ball). That's my point.

1 minute ago, Impartial_Observer said:

By week 10, weather is often a factor as well. We had two unbeaten conference rivals Friday night in rain and falling temps. If this game is played in good conditions, it's standing room only. As it was there were plenty of seats available. Sectional splits are always a roll of the dice, who/when/where dictate profitability. 

You know what doesn't dictate profitability? Two undefeated teams playing round 1 while two winless or 1 win teams play round 1. 

3 minutes ago, DT said:

90% of the population of Rhode Island is centered around one large metropolitan area.  Similar to Canada.  

Ok Kentucky? 

1 minute ago, DT said:

I was in favor of qualification for many years, but changed my position when I came to the undeniable conclusion that outcomes would not change.  There are only a handful of schools in each class that have a real chance at hoisting the championship trophy.  Changing from the all in to the qualification will not affect that outcome in any way.  So why change?

Makes the playoffs that much more enjoyable. Games should get tougher and more competitive as the postseason progresses, not easier. It's the opposite many a times with the current format. 

4 minutes ago, DT said:

Unfortunately, there will never be a Hickory Huskers on the gridiron.  It just cant happen.  

Those status are all ruled by the reality of remote geographic topography.  Travel is the overriding factor that limits their options.  Not a good comparison.  

Yeah, Rhode Island, the smallest state in the country is that difficult to navigate. Kentucky?

3 minutes ago, tango said:

@Footballking16 - You are assuming the non-qualifying schools (1) even schedule the 10th game; and (2) would draw enough fans to even pay officials.  I'll give you an example from Sectional 24 (where 7 schools will split revenue).  Last Friday we played Ev. Harrison (0-8, no chance of qualifying under any legitimate qualifier system).  They had less than 25 fans in the stands for a game.  As is, Ev. Harrison has a legitimate chance to win a tournament game (against 4-4 Boonville), advance to the 2nd round against Memorial (we drew the bye), and will get the benefit of 1/7 of the revenue from games involving Reitz @ Central (where I'm sure a 1000 or so Memorial fans will attend and add to what should already be a well-attended game), Northview @ Jasper, Rd. 2 games involving Memorial and either Ev. Harrison or Boonville and most likely Central @ either Jasper or Northview, and a probable Sectional final being Central @ Memorial.  The regular season game between Central and Memorial was standing room only, so let's say 4,000 fans for that one alone.  There is no way a "Bowl Game" between 2 struggling non-qualifiers is going to generate the same revenue as 1/7 of those kinds of Sectional match-ups.  

Granted, I don't disagree that money shouldn't be the driving force, but the reality is that money is going to be the biggest factor in whether the principals and ADs support any change. 

 

I'd bet a tenth regular season game generates more revenue for the home side than 1/7th of the revenue they accrue for the entire sectional. 

The Cluster System and the All-in are on two extreme ends on the spectrum of bad ideas. The Cluster System left out deserving teams and only included a small percent of the actual field. They compounded the Cluster System and made it worse with the implementation of the all-in rendering the regular season meaningless. Believe it or not, there can be a happy medium and that is a qualification system that cuts the field in half at the end of the regular season. 

Formulate a rating system that factors in W-L record, opponents W-L record, SOS, and opponents SOS and add a caveat that a team must win at least 3+ games in order to qualify and you'll be hard to press to make a case that a team deserving to get in was truly snubbed. 

1 minute ago, DT said:

I think you have to take state athletic culture into account.

Indiana is NOT a football state.  Texas, Florida, Ohio, PA, Louisiana are football states.  Basketball culture is embedded in the DNA of our state.  That is a good thing, something to be embraced, as the Texans and Ohioans and Floridians embrace their football culture.  

Why should a basketball first state treat football the same way a football first state treats football?

Indiana layers its treasured and beloved basketball formula on top of the football tournament - and it works perfectly.

When contraction whittles football down to the targeted 280 schools, perhaps then a new format will need to be addressed.  Until then, the current model is perfect for the state, a basketball first state.  

 

Are Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Alaska football states? How have they figured it out? Our neighbors to the south are a basketball state. Why haven't they been held back?

8 minutes ago, Lysander said:

In 50% of our 6 classes (Classes 1A-6A), there is a game being played the first round that might well have been a game that should have been played in LOS on Thanksgiving weekend per Sagarin (and I’m tired of hearing all of the bonehead b!tching about Sagarin....as if some polled Sportswriter or Coach in Angola knows ANYTHING about the relative strength of a team in Evansville or vice versa.....give me a break).

6A: Sagarin #1 Avon v. Sagarin #2  Brownsburg

3A: Sagarin #1 Chatard v. Sagarin #3 Brebeuf

2A: Sagarin #1 Lewis Cass v. Sagarin No. 2 Pioneer

Rather than football fans being able to enjoy the ability to see these games live, they will as likely as not be watching some 2-7 teams pound away at each other.....with one of them actually living to play another day.  While 50% of those 6 teams cited above Seniors will be turning in their gear having played their last game ever.  

Teams and kids that have spent years honing their skills to play at the highest levels in their class denied the chance to play in a high profile and electric  Sectional, Regional, Semi-State or even State Championship game.  

But we would rather let ping pong balls decide....because “it’s the only fair way”.  

Its flatly wrong and we all know it.

And don’t give me this crap about “Football Gods”, “Sh!t Happens”, etc., etc.

This situation exists because WE allow it to.....not some fictional Football God.  We are just too damn lazy and indifferent to do anything about it.

If we really are honest to God fans of the game why do we tolerate this?

 

 

PREACH!!!

2 minutes ago, DT said:

I certainly see your point.

I've been thinking about the Center grove - Cathedral game this week.  

There is nothing on the line in this game.

Will the teams go all out, or play it safe and preserve their health for the tournament.?

Can you do both at the same time.  

CG changed its week 9 scheduling slot with Warren because both schools beat each other up and were worn down heading in to tournament play.  Im not that CG did themselves any favors by swapping out WC for Cathedral.  

 

Except for last year, the games between Cathedral and Center Grove have been pretty exciting given the final score. Cathedral and Center Grove both have byes the following week. I suspect one of Cathedral's best players will be held out this week for precautionary reasons as he was injured against Brebeuf.