Footballking16

3 minutes ago, Bullhorn99 said:

Meaningless for who?

For every IHSAA member school.
 

Show me another postseason format in any sport at any level where your regular season record doesn’t determine your seed/draw/opponent come postseason. A team in Indiana could theoretically not play a single regular season game and still compete in the postseason. It’s madness, make it make sense.

8 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Missouri's high school football tournament is all-in. There are a few basketball state tournaments that are all-in beside ours.

Blind draw, all-in, regular season doesn’t mattter? Might want to double check that as they seed districts 1-8.

4 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

As has been said on here many times already, using a qualifying and seeded playoff system will not eliminate blowouts.  Every year under that system there will be several blowout games between 1 & 16 seeds and 2 & 15 seeds, etc.  Now, of course, the losing team will have earned the right to be blown out.  But still...

A qualifying and seeded playoff format rewards regular season success which isn't the case, at all, under the current format. The regular season is essentially meaningless in the current climate. If you get blown out as a 16 seed, at least you've earned that right to be there, that's something half your peers couldn't lay claim too.

A qualifying and seeded playoff format also protects teams who achieve regular season success. Gone will be the days where the top 2 teams in each class play in the first round. Imagine Duke and Kentucky playing in the first round of the NCAAT while Alcorn State and IUPUI. You'd laugh. It's no different with the all-in.

I can't accept a postseason format that a) renders the regular season meaningless and b) doesn't reward regular season success. You won't find another postseason format in any sport at any level where this is the case outside postseason tournaments that the IHSAA put on. 

3 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

That happens so infrequently that it's statistically irrelevant.  Ha!  😆  Sorry, couldn't resist!!  

Carry on...

You are correct, it's not likely to happen.

But playing to actually earn a coveted postseason spot beats the hell out of the "entitled" 70-0 drubbing in a postseason game that shouldn't ever happen in the first place.

17 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Let’s be honest here, there are so many teams that before the year starts, have no chance to do anything at all in the regular season, much less the playoffs. The list is enormous. Does that mean that the school just should not play football at all? Prairie Heights, Fremont, South Side, Northrop, and countless other schools are in this boat. With open enrollment in many areas and kids openly being recruited, this isn’t changing. Let the kids dream a bit, even if it’s just 1 week and results in a 56-0 pasting.

Look at college football, realistically there are 8-10 teams a year, usually the same ones every year, that have a chance for the playoff. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, you can almost pencil in before it starts, and sometimes an up start and that’s it. Does that make the rest of the season irrelevant and not fun? No. It does make it very predictable and boring though. Same in high school football, especially in 6A, Indy dominates because of numbers. 

How much better is it as college football fan of say a school like Kansas right now? Historically awful program that up until last week was undefeated and ranked in the top 25? 

Think how cool it would be for an historically awful football program in the state of Indiana to play in actual meaningful regular season games that were building blocks to qualifying for a coveted playoff spot? Imagine a team that regularly starts 0-4, 0-5 starting off 3-0 or 4-0 with a light at the end of the tunnel. And not just for the players and coaches, but for the students, the fans, and the whole community? 

13 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Nice job of skewing his numbers. It clearly states from 1985-1999, not from 1985 to today. Big difference. Look, I am a huge proponent of not playing crappy teams, hence read my posts about Snider wasting a few games a year playing South Side, Wayne, Northrop, etc… I am excited that SAC teams are getting a couple games a year during the regular season to play competitive teams starting in 2023. Let South Side play someone they actually have a chance to compete with. Let the big boys play teams that are going to get them ready for the playoffs. 

Ok double that then for hypothetical sake, although I know that number isn’t near as high as I have been tracking it since 2015. 62 sectional winners out of 1680 sectionals is still 3%. It’s a statistical anomaly. This idea that a 1-8, 2-7 team is going to somehow turn it on in week 10 because they’ve been given new life is a literal fallacy.
 

Sure, there have been a few teams like Cathedral or Luers or Roncalli who play above their class/competition during the regular season who go on runs but those teams are entirely better than their record suggest. Bottom half Sagarin teams beating top half Sagarin teams come tournament time are extremely rare to begin with and bottom half teams making it out of sectionals are even rarer, unless it’s aided by playing a bunch of other bottom half Sagarin rated teams. 

3 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Go read the topic started by Stoner which clearly shows that 31 sectional champions in 15 years were ranked outside the top 32 that would not have qualified using sagarin ratings. This includes Luers who were state runners up. Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Not sure what you are arguing about… The stats are right in front of you 

I read it.

The 31 sectional champions don’t represent a fraction of all the sectional champions. Think about.
 

There’s 48 sectional champions a year. We’ve played 35 state tournaments since 1985. Out of a possible 1,680 sectional champions, 31 have been bottom ranked Sagarin rated teams. That comes out to 1%. TWO have made it passes regionals. Like I said Monday, Cinderella in high school football is a myth. It doesn’t exist. 
 

Keep Trying.

4 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Yes, smugness by some of the “all knowing” sets some back to the caveman days… You give them facts and they ignore and stick with their “argument” 

Still waiting for that Luers team that won state despite being a bottom half Sagarin rated team? Been 3 days now.

And the fact that you have to go back 26 years to find the one team to go on a Cinderella run as a justification for the all-in (and it was Luers of all teams) just goes to show you have no leg to stand on. 

28 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

Except if you look most of these teams would’ve had to have beat teams in the top half of the Sagarin ratings to win the sectional, just judging from their rankings in the class and their rankings in the sectional. 

Back track some more then try again. 

I’ve never said a team rated outside the top half of Sagarin hasn’t won a sectional. I said it’s extremely rare. Finding a couple one off examples from tournaments that have nearly 50 sectionals from 25-35 years ago furthers that point. It doesn’t justify keeping an archaic playoff format. If one guy going 100 mph survives a car crash it doesn’t justify raising the speed limit to 100 mph.

I will gladly track the W-L record of this years postseason between top half Sagarin rated teams vs bottom half Sagarin teams and if history holds you won’t need a full set fingers to count the number of “upsets” that occur. And you might not even need a single finger to count the number of bottom half Sagarin rated sectional winners other than the the teams who advance by virtue of not playing a top half rated Sagarin team. There are unfortunately a few sectionals this year that feature schools who are all ranked outside the top half. Somebody has to advance in that scenario.

1 hour ago, Irishman said:

@Stoner Good work....thanks for posting that. I think there are flaws to ANY system that requires qualifying for the playoffs. The IHSAA under Bobby Cox, in my opinion was way ahead of the game in going the all in path. 

 

That said, I am curious though...and just playing devil's advocate with this; so please don't take this as me attacking the post. Looking at a number of teams on the list where the season ended with a sectional title, how many of their playoff wins were against teams who were ranked similarly or lower in Sagarin's algorithm? 
Just as an example of my question, 
"1995 Lapel (1A Sectional Champs), Sagarin Class Rank 39th of 54, Ranked 3rd in Sectional"

With either 7 or 8 teams in a given sectional at that time, how many teams did Lapel play that were ranked lower than them? 

 

 

 

This will go unnoticed by many people, especially @Komets2727 @scarab527

There are pockets of sectionals littered across the state where many and/or all the teams will be ranked outside the top half by Sagarin. Because games are played, someone eventually HAS to win. That’s the flaw with the all-in blind draw. Those teams shouldn’t be in the postseason and winning a sectional with a bunch of other teams who also shouldn’t be in the postseason isn’t justification for keeping an archaic postseason format.

1 hour ago, Komets2727 said:

Maybe you ought to go look at another thread started by someone where they did the research and showed at least 15-20 sectional champions that wouldn’t have qualified via Sagarin, and additionally multiple teams that went further into the playoffs that wouldn’t have qualified even state champions… this list includes Luers…

Link?

Luers has never won a state championship in which they were outside the top 32 of their respective class at the conclusion of the regular season. Not once.

On 10/9/2022 at 6:51 AM, temptation said:

Cathedral @ Center Grove:  A possible semi state preview has some asking the annual question of “will we see both teams’ full playbook” with bragging rights being the only thing at stake.  This is about as close to a coin flip game as you can get in my opinion.  Can’t wait.  I’ll go with the Irish in what some might consider a slight upset.  20-17 Cathedral.

8 weeks in and still forget CG isn't in the MIC?!?!?! Just messing with ya.

Agree it's a coin flip game but I think it's a higher scoring outcome. 

3 minutes ago, attheendoftheday said:

Whether the 2 best teams play in round 1 or in the sectional championship game, it should still be a great game right?  Still going to be a winner and a loser?  Still have lots of paying customers?  It's not that big of a deal to play round 1 as opposed to round 2/3.  How many hs football shirts do you see that say "sectional finalist" 2019?

Then why play the regular season?

2 minutes ago, attheendoftheday said:

I like the current "all-in" format.  Here's a thought no one has brought up yet.  If the 1-8 team and the 0-9 team draw each other in round 1, one of them will then get an 11th game which will be a blowout loss more than likely, but a playoff win is a playoff win.  In a program rebuild this would be a critical step in the right direction for some teams as sad as it sounds.

Example:  Sectional 36 if Elwood drew Blackford this year, dozens and dozens of people would come out to see the rematch of the 13-6 final score game earlier this season. : )

How does that enhance Indiana high school football? Two teams who are a combined 1-17 playing each other while two teams who are undefeated playing in the same round doesn't sit right with me nor should it with anybody else. It's silly. It doesn't happen anywhere but Indiana.

1 minute ago, Komets2727 said:

Go back a couple years ago to Luers in 2020. 3-6 regular season, bad losses to Concordia and pretty much every other team in the SAC including a bad North Side squad, struggled with Northrop and Wayne, they were bad yet come playoff time they went to the state title game and lost to Western Boone 36-35 in a game that Luers absolutely gave away. They weren’t anywhere close to the top 15 based on any computer or sagarin rating. Not hard to do the research…

The 2020 Luers team that went 3-6 in the regular season would have made any playoff format that effectively cut 2A in half from 64 to 32 teams at the conclusion of the regular season. Acting like a 3-6 Luers team wasn't a top 32 2A Sagarin team shows your ignorance on how these ratings work.

Next. 

23 hours ago, foxbat said:

Some of those 10-team districts in Texas can have your season over before you even get to the halfway point.  6-4 could mean staying at home come playoffs ... even 7-3

What percentage of Texas teams qualify for the postseason? I don't see a scenario where a 6-4 or 7-3 team is left out of the playoffs in Indiana under a format that cuts the field in half unless it's a 5A or 6A school playing in a largely dominated small class conference. 

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Only a very small percentage of Indiana teams play out of state schools, no need to cater to those.

If you can use Sagarin for Indiana teams you can certainly use CalPreps or Massey. In fact, they are already out there.

https://masseyratings.com/hsf/in/ratings

http://calpreps.com/2022/ratings/Indiana_all.htm

Just now, Bash Riprock said:

interesting data....

With Sagarin, certainly helps to be in a strong conference with quality non-conference games.  May get tougher for independents...

I don't think Sagarin would ever be used for an Indiana qualifying format because it doesn't include Out of State opponents. But there are rating systems very similar to Sagarin; Massey, Calpreps, Harbin, etc.....that all factor out of state competition. 

22 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I am not disagreeing with you in 2019...if you say CG was top 10, ok. All I am saying, that may not be the case the year prior or after, depending on how the other 31 teams did in 6A those seasons.  Assuming CG can maintain an in-state difficult schedule for years to come, that will help using your formula.

That is true. Sagarin is different each and every year.

For point of reference this year, 1-7 Avon who has played the toughest schedule in the state sits just outside the top 16 at 18. Have an outside chance of playing their way in Friday. 

2 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

they did have a tough schedule....they beat LN, LC, Pike and BD.  (I was wrong in my previous note)  They lost pretty big to New Pal, who did win 4A.  I am not sure those 4 wins would rank them top 10, understanding the SOS matters.

But it is possible had the year been different, the other teams in their class could have had stronger seasons, so there is no guarantee a team like CG in 2019 is a lock for qualifying.  And that would have been a shame to have them on the outside looking in....that young team absolutely did develop over the year, nearly winning a 6A title, setting themselves up for a historic 2 year run.

Unfortunately don't have my old Mac Book where I could readily pull the bracket from 2019 and not sure GID has the archive like they used too. But I posted what a hypothetical playoff format would look like for that year on here and CG was comfortably in. 

2 minutes ago, MonkeyButt said:

Giving 0-9 teams the opportunity play in the playoffs is like giving them a participation trophy for playing in the regular season. Dumb IMO.

There will be several 0-9 teams who will be participating in the postseason spanning all 6 classes. I agree, it's very dumb. 

5 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

2019, Center Grove started out the season 1-4, finished the regular season 4-5 and went to the 6A state championship game losing 20-17 to Carmel, nearly pulling off the win.  Would a 4-5 team with a total of 32 teams in their class qualify for the tournament that year? Most years?  (note: CG beat Warren and Ben Davis in the playoffs in which they lost to both during the regular season....BD pretty handily)

CG finished the regular season 9th in Sagarin that year I believe. They had a killer schedule. 

3 hours ago, BTF said:

I thought you were referencing the regular season: "A Luers team who goes 2-7 or 3-6 playing the schedule they currently do will always finish in the top 32 of class 2A or 3A." Which begs the question: What were they ranked before the tournament started in 2013?

I've only been tracking what a playoff qualifying format using Sagarin would look like since 2015 so I do not have the end of regular season Sagarin ratings for that year, just the final results that Sagarin has archived. Understanding how Sagarin works, beating 255 West Noble and 154 Heritage for Luers first and second wins in the postseason likely wouldn't have been enough to propel Luers from outside the top 32 all the way up to #23. In fact, it probably hurt Luers overall Sagarin ranking if anything. Although I can't say with 100% conviction, I'm 99.9% positive that 0-9 Luers finished in the top half of Sagarin.

Now, since I've been tracking this since 2015, I can say with 100% certainty that Luers has made the field every year in a hypothetical format that effectively cuts the field in half and that includes the 2019 team that finished 2-7 and lost in the sectional semi-finals and the 2020 team that finished 3-6 and lost in the state finals. 

9 hours ago, Komets2727 said:

Prove it

For reference, the 2013 Luers team who finished the regular season 0-9 and ended 2-10 finished 23rd in Sagarin 3A and that was before Carroll and Homestead were annual additions to the schedule.

A Luers team who goes 2-7 or 3-6 playing the schedule they currently do will always finish in the top 32 of class 2A or 3A.
 

http://indianahsfootball.homestead.com/pastfb/2013sagarin.htm#loaded

9 hours ago, BTF said:

Fact or speculation?

Fact

7 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

I will always refer to Luers in this argument. I remember a few 3-6 and even 2-7 teams that either won a state title or made a good run in the tournament. Please save the “they were a top 15” sagarin or whatever formula you want to use argument. They weren’t.

Oh really? Show me a 2-7 or 3-6 Luers team that finished outside the top half of Sagarin in their respective class. 
 

I’ll save you the time, it hasn’t happened.

4-4 Luers is currently ranked 10th in Sagarin.