Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Blind Draw - An Absolute Tragedy


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Woody_Hayes said:

Thank you, Commissioner Cox, for weighing in on the discussion. lol

45 was one of the few to come out reasonably close.  Adjust for FC/RP/Covington and it would be just about right.  The semi finals could look basically the same as they would if it were seeded and the favorites won.  Even keeps the two favorites on opposite sides and the most likely darkhorse on the side of the bracket with what would be the #2 seed.  The ping pongers were pretty good for sectional 45. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seeding process is a very unique scenario.  How do you do it?  The sectional that I mainly follow (45) is a prime example.  NV beat the Wolfs head to head, has the same regular season record, is the only undefeated team in WRC play, and  yet somehow the Wolfs are rated higher in sagarin.  And NV played at least 1 better team (light years better btw) in non-WRC play then the Wolfs did.  South Putnam is in this sectional and has played a MUCH tougher schedule than any of the other teams...and you could very easily argue Cloverdale has played a tougher schedule as well.  How do you seed that?  That was the point I was trying to make.  

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jets said:

That’s the problem with trying to gain any traction with the seeding discussion- you “qualification” nuts (ie Bobref) always try and make it about that. 

Lets start with making what we have better- and that’s seeding the sectionals. And it’s really pretty simple 

Avon/Brownsburg is a game that a minimum should be played at the regional level, if not SS or the finals. Only Indiana does the #1 team in the state who went undefeated and won their conference get to play on the on the road in the first round of the postseason, against the 2nd best team in the state no less. That’s unfathomable. It’s wrong.

I fully support the IHSAA seeding the sectionals because it’s the first step to a qualification format which I fully endorse. The number of blowouts in round 1 if the sectionals were seeded properly would only further the case for a qualification system. In fact I believe that is the ONLY reason why the sectionals aren’t seeded, because the IHSAA would then have to justify the current all-in format.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jets said:

That’s the problem with trying to gain any traction with the seeding discussion- you “qualification” nuts (ie Bobref) always try and make it about that. 

Lets start with making what we have better- and that’s seeding the sectionals. And it’s really pretty simple 

Count me in the group with Bob.  If you do a full seeding, then week 1 becomes a bloodbath.  Look at your PAC brother Pike Central.  In a traditional sectional 32, no matter who is the #1 HH, GS, or Southridge, no one wants to see a 69-6, 74-0, or 70-3 repeat.  Only the IHSAA screwy geography prevents that this year by moving PC to 30.

In my opinion, seeding and qualification (and I'm in favor of a low standard - like 2 or 3 wins or certain Sagarin rank) go hand in hand. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a lot  thoughts  with the Blind draw and seeding. what I found I like the best is to  keep the blind draw. Every one getting in is what made Basketball great for all these years and if it works their it works here.  The few things I would likes to see change is not so much seed the first round but to let the better teams be home and let them treat like a normal home game their is nothing like Friday night lights and something is lost when u getting the playoff.  This would put more meaning to thereagler seasion , Also would  like to see in 5 and 6 do away with sectionals with only  4 teams it make it same teams ever year for the most part it you go to start to regional then you have 8 teams and it would make it very interesting

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gridiron_Junkie said:

THIS P'S Me OFF. Every year the same discussion.  So two top teams have to play in the first round and not for the Championship boo hoo hoo. It doesn't matter you have to play someone in the first round or you have to play them in the last round. S#!$ happens, its life.

So you're good with no reward for a great regular season? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dmizers3 said:

So you're good with no reward for a great regular season? 

Playing in a conference with inferior competition doesn’t qualify as a great season necessarily. Sagarin ratings tells a big story and a 5-4 Cathedral team might just be better than a 9-0 weak conference champion. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BCstate said:

Playing in a conference with inferior competition doesn’t qualify as a great season necessarily. Sagarin ratings tells a big story and a 5-4 Cathedral team might just be better than a 9-0 weak conference champion. 

Meaning what? You clearly don't understand the concept of seeding then. Teams that play tougher schedules, like Cathedral,  get rewarded with higher seeding.  No one suggested looking at record alone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BCstate said:

Playing in a conference with inferior competition doesn’t qualify as a great season necessarily. Sagarin ratings tells a big story and a 5-4 Cathedral team might just be better than a 9-0 weak conference champion. 

See my post above and the sagarin ratings and their flaws!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, wrcsage said:

The seeding process is a very unique scenario.  How do you do it?  The sectional that I mainly follow (45) is a prime example.  NV beat the Wolfs head to head, has the same regular season record, is the only undefeated team in WRC play, and  yet somehow the Wolfs are rated higher in sagarin.  And NV played at least 1 better team (light years better btw) in non-WRC play then the Wolfs did.  South Putnam is in this sectional and has played a MUCH tougher schedule than any of the other teams...and you could very easily argue Cloverdale has played a tougher schedule as well.  How do you seed that?  That was the point I was trying to make.  

It's not unique at all. Every other state has figured it out. Many different ways to do it, any one of which is better than this system. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, hick said:

45 was one of the few to come out reasonably close.  Adjust for FC/RP/Covington and it would be just about right.  The semi finals could look basically the same as they would if it were seeded and the favorites won.  Even keeps the two favorites on opposite sides and the most likely darkhorse on the side of the bracket with what would be the #2 seed.  The ping pongers were pretty good for sectional 45. 

I’m indifferent about this year’s draw. Should’ve known what was coming when I ran into Covington’s QB at the County Market today. He’s a great kid, by the way.

Recently I’ve had some great draws. Before that, I’ve had some of the worst draws possible. In either scenario, the draw affected the tournament. That sucks and is incredibly ignorant.

There is a reason why Indiana is the only state that does our play-off this way. It’s not because our blind draw is “unique”. It’s because the IHSAA is a lazy cash cow.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gridiron_Junkie said:

THIS P'S Me OFF. Every year the same discussion.  So two top teams have to play in the first round and not for the Championship boo hoo hoo. It doesn't matter you have to play someone in the first round or you have to play them in the last round. S#!$ happens, its life.

It most certainly does matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

There’s plenty you can do, seeding the sectionals is a start. Every single state in the Union has figured out a rating system that determines qualification to the postseason with the exception of Indiana. It ain’t rocket science.

Seeding the sectionals would be the starting domino to a qualification system that eliminates half the field after the conclusion of the regular season.

From your lips to the Commissioner’s ear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that the “it doesn’t matter whether you play them in the first round or the third” folks probably haven’t considered: by the time the sectional championship rolls around you’re working with officiating crews who are in the top 1/3 of the crews in the state. Guess what you get in the first round. Who do you want working the Cass-Pioneer game?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bobref said:

 Who do you want working the Cass-Pioneer game?

you don't think that IHSAA office would assign a Sectional final / Regional/ Semi State / State level crew to these big 1st round matchups?   Cmon man......  

only 4 "tragedies" this year.   Not bad if I say so myself.   :classic_biggrin:

also:   For our annual whine fest about the tournament proceedings, sponsored here by Gridiron Digest, don't forget to think about being a booster, where else can you find yourselves a community of folks with varied opinions, strong or otherwise all in 1 spot.   

😎

https://gridirondigest.net/clients/donations/1-2019-20-budget/

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Coach Nowlin said:

you don't think that IHSAA office would assign a Sectional final / Regional/ Semi State / State level crew to these big 1st round matchups?   Cmon man......  

If only that were so. In the first couple of rounds, it’s often more about geographic proximity, since officials get paid mileage for the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I would counter that one of the better crews was Butch Jones ( I know retired now) from Cass County himself.

Plenty of good Lafayette / Kokomo area crews to work that one per se. 

Same in Indy with Chatard/Brebeuf week 1 game 

Avon/Brownsburg is Semi Final round so half the crews are gone anyways 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

 

I fully support the IHSAA seeding the sectionals because it’s the first step to a qualification format which I fully endorse. The number of blowouts in round 1 if the sectionals were seeded properly would only further the case for a qualification system. In fact I believe that is the ONLY reason why the sectionals aren’t seeded, because the IHSAA would then have to justify the current all-in format.

I could careless if the sectionals were seeded, but because of what footballtalking said is why I don't support it. Why do you want to take another week of football away from kids? Especially in 5A and 6A? So that way only 16 teams make it per class? That sounds real fun! 

1 hour ago, oldtimeqb said:

Count me in the group with Bob.  If you do a full seeding, then week 1 becomes a bloodbath.  Look at your PAC brother Pike Central.  In a traditional sectional 32, no matter who is the #1 HH, GS, or Southridge, no one wants to see a 69-6, 74-0, or 70-3 repeat.  Only the IHSAA screwy geography prevents that this year by moving PC to 30.

In my opinion, seeding and qualification (and I'm in favor of a low standard - like 2 or 3 wins or certain Sagarin rank) go hand in hand. 

So since you want to use a sectional 32 team, I'll do the same. In 2010 Bosse only won 2 games during the regular season. Because they were a terrible team? No, because they play in a conference with 4A, 5A and private schools. Yet, they won their sectional, beating Memorial who had been to the State Championship the two previous seasons. 

 

So let's say we do a qualification system. If you're a team in a tougher conference or a smaller school in a conference with larger schools, are you leaving now? Why the world would you schedule a tough opponent in non-conference? No need for Brownsburg to schedule Ben Davis. What about a team with injuries? Especially one that may get that player back? So if you use a system similar to Illinois, I don't believe Center Grove is getting in this year. Tough luck I guess! In the end though, it boils down to why should you take a game away from kids, Mr. Scrooge? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vicvinegar said:

I could careless if the sectionals were seeded, but because of what footballtalking said is why I don't support it. Why do you want to take another week of football away from kids? Especially in 5A and 6A? So that way only 16 teams make it per class? That sounds real fun! 

So since you want to use a sectional 32 team, I'll do the same. In 2010 Bosse only won 2 games during the regular season. Because they were a terrible team? No, because they play in a conference with 4A, 5A and private schools. Yet, they won their sectional, beating Memorial who had been to the State Championship the two previous seasons. 

So let's say we do a qualification system. If you're a team in a tougher conference or a smaller school in a conference with larger schools, are you leaving now? Why the world would you schedule a tough opponent in non-conference? No need for Brownsburg to schedule Ben Davis. What about a team with injuries? Especially one that may get that player back? So if you use a system similar to Illinois, I don't believe Center Grove is getting in this year. Tough luck I guess! In the end though, it boils down to why should you take a game away from kids, Mr. Scrooge? 

If you had a qualifying tournament you would reduce the tournament by 1 week and could add a week to the regular season. Everyone would still be guaranteed at least 10 weeks.

There are many ways you could determine qualifying and I would guess under all of them CG would make the tournament as it stands today. Just using Sagarin as an example (not the one I would propose but it's measureable). They are currently #7 in Sagarin so are well within the 16 if you used it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vicvinegar said:

I could careless if the sectionals were seeded, but because of what footballtalking said is why I don't support it. Why do you want to take another week of football away from kids? Especially in 5A and 6A? So that way only 16 teams make it per class? That sounds real fun! 

So since you want to use a sectional 32 team, I'll do the same. In 2010 Bosse only won 2 games during the regular season. Because they were a terrible team? No, because they play in a conference with 4A, 5A and private schools. Yet, they won their sectional, beating Memorial who had been to the State Championship the two previous seasons. 

 

So let's say we do a qualification system. If you're a team in a tougher conference or a smaller school in a conference with larger schools, are you leaving now? Why the world would you schedule a tough opponent in non-conference? No need for Brownsburg to schedule Ben Davis. What about a team with injuries? Especially one that may get that player back? So if you use a system similar to Illinois, I don't believe Center Grove is getting in this year. Tough luck I guess! In the end though, it boils down to why should you take a game away from kids, Mr. Scrooge? 

Actually yes, a 16 team tournament with 16 good teams would be much more fun.  You certainly wouldn't have to deal with 60+ point sectional championships(New Pal v Anderson last year). But I guess you'd prefer just a few more regular season games and no tournament.  I mean why would we want the season shortened and have games "taken away from kids" just because they lost.  And to address your other point, qualifications would not be based solely on W-L records.   Strength of schedule matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JustRules said:

If you had a qualifying tournament you would reduce the tournament by 1 week and could add a week to the regular season. Everyone would still be guaranteed at least 10 weeks.

There are many ways you could determine qualifying and I would guess under all of them CG would make the tournament as it stands today. Just using Sagarin as an example (not the one I would propose but it's measureable). They are currently #7 in Sagarin so are well within the 16 if you used it.

I do not know the rules for Illinois, but I've been told that you generally have to win 5 or 6 games. So assuming that is true, UNDER ALL of them, that is not true. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dmizers3 said:

Actually yes, a 16 team tournament with 16 good teams would be much more fun.  You certainly wouldn't have to deal with 60+ point sectional championships(New Pal v Anderson last year). But I guess you'd prefer just a few more regular season games and no tournament.  I mean why would we want the season shortened and have games "taken away from kids" just because they lost.  And to address your other point, qualifications would not be based solely on W-L records.   Strength of schedule matters.

You'll have to forgive me, I don't remember saying that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...