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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

It’s time to bring back the Cluster System- but this time, one big change...


Recommended Posts

The biggest drawbacks with the cluster was that it could have brought an end to many traditional conferences, and only one team qualified per cluster.

Poor Elkhart Central was a perfect example. They finished 9-1 both years of the cluster, but because their one loss was to the cluster champion, Penn, Elkhart did not qualify.

Was it settled on the field? Yes. But did Elkhart deserve a shot at the postseason? Most definitely.

Even if more teams qualify from each cluster, scheduling challenges would end most conferences. Happened in KY, TN and about to happen in IL. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rudy said:

The biggest drawbacks with the cluster was that it could have brought an end to many traditional conferences, and only one team qualified per cluster.

Poor Elkhart Central was a perfect example. They finished 9-1 both years of the cluster, but because their one loss was to the cluster champion, Penn, Elkhart did not qualify.

Was it settled on the field? Yes. But did Elkhart deserve a shot at the postseason? Most definitely.

Even if more teams qualify from each cluster, scheduling challenges would end most conferences. Happened in KY, TN and about to happen in IL. 

In 1983... North Judson went 9-1... Lost 14-17 in over time to Winamac... Who won their cluster. ..at 10-0

 

Winamac went 9-1 in 1984 and didn't make it, they lost to North Judson 6-14...Judson won their cluster. ..at 10-0

Im glad they don't have something like that anymore. 

Edited by Ultimate Warrior
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rudy said:

Poor Elkhart Central was a perfect example. They finished 9-1 both years of the cluster, but because their one loss was to the cluster champion, Penn, Elkhart did not qualify.

Was it settled on the field? Yes. But did Elkhart deserve a shot at the postseason? Most definitely. 

How is that fundamentally different from losing in the first round of the playoffs?

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

11 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

How is that fundamentally different from losing in the first round of the playoffs?

Losing in the first round of the playoffs, you make the playoffs.  Not advancing from a cluster, you don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, XStar said:

Losing in the first round of the playoffs, you make the playoffs.  Not advancing from a cluster, you don't.  

And the school gets it share of the revenue from all Sectional games.  This is one of the factors the "qualifier proponents" can't adequately address.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tango said:

And the school gets it share of the revenue from all Sectional games.  This is one of the factors the "qualifier proponents" can't adequately address.  

Add a tenth regular season game and there's that problem solved. Whose to say schools that haven't qualified for the playoffs can't play a "bowl game" the week the playoff's start and split that revenue 50-50 instead of 4 to 8 different ways? Not implementing a qualifier at the sake of schools not receiving a quarter of gate revenue (for an already watered down system) isn't a good reason to stick with the all-in, blind draw.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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. 

 

Edited by tango
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

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. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

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

I'm not sure which part of:

4 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Sectional splits are always a roll of the dice, who/when/where dictate profitability. 

You missed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

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.

Not the context of my OP, but whatever.

Come up with a system, take it to your principal, get on the agenda for the November IIAAA meeting, present it, get the votes and get it on the IHSAA meeting agenda in May. I'm not arguing one way or the other, I don't care. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

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. 

I disagree, but say you are right.  That means 50% of the non-qualifiers (who are the visiting teams in Wk. 10) are guaranteed to get $0 or even lose money on a 10th game.  I'm no math wizard, but 1/7 of the revenue split from 6 games (or 1/8 of 7 in a 8-team Sectional) is going to be more than $0 or a loss.  Even if the 2 schools decide to split the gate, I'm pretty confident 1/7 of 6 games is going to be more than 1/2 of 1 game involving non-qualifiers, at least based upon what I've seen down here in SW IN over the last 30 years.

 

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

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.

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.  

I'm with IO, I honestly don't care, but I don't think the pro-qualifier arguments are entirely sound. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

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.  

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.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

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. 

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

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...