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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Multiplier vs Success Factor - Multiplier is the Pure Choice


Guest DT

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Correct.

There should never be a tournament where a successful school like South Adams has to play against a school like Penn, which would be the case this year if the tournament was based on Sagarin rating and not enrollment. 

And yet yesterday I asked you why you so firmly believe this.  You still have yet to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muda69 said:

And yet yesterday I asked you why you so firmly believe this.  You still have yet to answer.

Because that isn't right for South Adams or any school for that matter. The goal of any postseason tournament is to crown the best team. Making a tournament for the 64 worst teams in the state where one inevitably is going to be crowned a state champion while a successful team like South Adams has to play against schools 10x their enrollment ain't right. How hard is that to comprehend? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Correct.

There should never be a tournament where a successful school like South Adams has to play against a school like Penn, which would be the case this year if the tournament was based on Sagarin rating and not enrollment. If South Adams become too successful, they should be promoted to the next flight of competition playing against with 500-600 kids. Good thing we already have this and it is known as the success factor.

They absolutely could beat Jeffersonville, but that doesn't mean Brownstown should have to play in a tournament with schools like Dwenger, New Pal, and Cathedral simply because they're better than Jeffersonville.

Keep in mind - as Ive stated, this is first look and the fomula would need to be improved to catch some outliers... However, They wouldn't according to Saragin and the cut off of each tourney. Heck, New Pal is one of the top teams in the state and would play in the "6a" tourney. Matter of fact, Dwenger, New Pal, and Cathedral would all be in the top tournament. Brownstown would be playing in the "4a" tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TIFootball said:

Keep in mind - as Ive stated, this is first look and the fomula would need to be improved to catch some outliers... However, They wouldn't according to Saragin and the cut off of each tourney. Heck, New Pal is one of the top teams in the state and would play in the "6a" tourney. Matter of fact, Dwenger, New Pal, and Cathedral would all be in the top tournament. Brownstown would be playing in the "4a" tournament.

I totally get that. But you're going to kill off the rooting interest of Indiana high school doing it this way. You're going to be crowing 2-3 state champions a year who have no business being in a postseason tournament to begin with and you're going to completely water down the level of play and excitement. Teams like Dwenger and Chatard are usually good enough to be in the top 32 of Sagarin and would play in the best tournament, but they would have no virtual shot of winning a title due to numbers. It's not fair to either of those successful schools.

Classifications are based on enrollment for a reason. Obviously there are some teams who are vastly better than others of similar size, and the ones that are get promoted to the next level. It's the fairest and most practical way to keep competitive balance alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TIFootball said:

Week 9 would be my thought - let the conference schedules play out - so post season.

If I am a borderline team, what is stopping me from playing younger players the last two weeks to give them experience and resting my starters. In a round about way, they are intentionally losing so that they would be a 2a school rather than a 3a school. It would help the young players get playing time and let the older kids be 100% healthy for a tournament run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I totally get that. But you're going to kill off the rooting interest of Indiana high school doing it this way. You're going to be crowing 2-3 state champions a year who have no business being in a postseason tournament to begin with and you're going to completely water down the level of play and excitement. Teams like Dwenger and Chatard are usually good enough to be in the top 32 of Sagarin and would play in the best tournament, but they would have no virtual shot of winning a title due to numbers. It's not fair to either of those successful schools.

Classifications are based on enrollment for a reason. Obviously there are some teams who are vastly better than others of similar size, and the ones that are get promoted to the next level. It's the fairest and most practical way to keep competitive balance alive. 

Once again, I'm just looking at Saragin as a first look tool - would need to be improved to catch outliers

I understand your point, but don't totally agree. So if I understand, you think we should go to a qualifying metric and not include all teams in tournament play? I could support that.

I do not agree that anything gets watered down more than it already is. For some, I can see where they would think that after being power houses in lower class for years (SF does help - but only to a point). I would argue the opposite. I think it would bring more competitiveness as teams could compete. Would the lower class be a watered down version of Indiana football - sure just as it is now, but the upper echelon of teams would make for 2-3 highly engaging tournaments.

Enrollments are manipulated by recruiting and open enrollment - time to end the manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MarshallCounty said:

If I am a borderline team, what is stopping me from playing younger players the last two weeks to give them experience and resting my starters. In a round about way, they are intentionally losing so that they would be a 2a school rather than a 3a school. It would help the young players get playing time and let the older kids be 100% healthy for a tournament run.

how do they know they are a borderline team? I would doubt the ISHAA would post tournament rankings throughout the season. Keep in mind I'm not saying the end product is the Saragin ratings, just a good look at A ranking system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TIFootball said:

I understand your point, but don't totally agree. So if I understand, you think we should go to a qualifying metric and not include all teams in tournament play? I could support that.

yes

 

3 minutes ago, TIFootball said:

I do not agree that anything gets watered down more than it already is. For some, I can see where they would think that after being power houses in lower class for years (SF does help - but only to a point). I would argue the opposite. I think it would bring more competitiveness as teams could compete. Would the lower class be a watered down version of Indiana football - sure just as it is now, but the upper echelon of teams would make for 2-3 highly engaging tournaments.

When you have a tournament with the worst 64 teams in the state and one is ultimately crowned a state champion, your postseason is watered down

 

4 minutes ago, TIFootball said:

Enrollments are manipulated by recruiting and open enrollment - time to end the manipulation.

To an extent, but not nearly enough to game the system. I will assure you private schools aren't capping their enrollments to stay in a lower class for athletic purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TIFootball said:

how do they know they are a borderline team? I would doubt the ISHAA would post tournament rankings throughout the season. Keep in mind I'm not saying the end product is the Saragin ratings, just a good look at A ranking system.

After a few years, you could get a good feeling of what schools would be borderline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

When you have a tournament with the worst 64 teams in the state and one is ultimately crowned a state champion, your postseason is watered down

I see your point - but it gives them something to play for - call it the Toilet Bowl if you like - but it's competitive - even a watered down version.

Or do a hybrid of selection qualification with the power rankings - then it would be more like Illinois model. I'd entertain that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TIFootball said:

Once again, I'm just looking at Saragin as a first look tool - would need to be improved to catch outliers

I understand your point, but don't totally agree. So if I understand, you think we should go to a qualifying metric and not include all teams in tournament play? I could support that.

I do not agree that anything gets watered down more than it already is. For some, I can see where they would think that after being power houses in lower class for years (SF does help - but only to a point). I would argue the opposite. I think it would bring more competitiveness as teams could compete. Would the lower class be a watered down version of Indiana football - sure just as it is now, but the upper echelon of teams would make for 2-3 highly engaging tournaments.

Enrollments are manipulated by recruiting and open enrollment - time to end the manipulation.

I think where @Footballking16 was going with this is that, if you had an all-in type tournament that started by taking the top teams and placing them in a Gold level, just for naming purposes and to get away from enrollment classifications, and the next in a Silver level, and the next in a Bronze, by the time you got down to the Lead level you'd be dealing with a division that would have a lot of 0-fer and 1-fer-2-fer teams that would be in that division and you have them playing all the way up to Thanksgiving and occupying a time slot at LOS Thanksgiving weekend.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MarshallCounty said:

After a few years, you could get a good feeling of what schools would be borderline.

That's very true - good point. Most teams have conference goals and "intentionally" losing and risking conference losses - some may I guess.

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I think where @Footballking16 was going with this is that, if you had an all-in type tournament that started by taking the top teams and placing them in a Gold level, just for naming purposes and to get away from enrollment classifications, and the next in a Silver level, and the next in a Bronze, by the time you got down to the Lead level you'd be dealing with a division that would have a lot of 0-fer and 1-fer-2-fer teams that would be in that division and you have them playing all the way up to Thanksgiving and occupying a time slot at LOS Thanksgiving weekend.

So maybe a better option is to qualify, then split. I can support that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I think where @Footballking16 was going with this is that, if you had an all-in type tournament that started by taking the top teams and placing them in a Gold level, just for naming purposes and to get away from enrollment classifications, and the next in a Silver level, and the next in a Bronze, by the time you got down to the Lead level you'd be dealing with a division that would have a lot of 0-fer and 1-fer-2-fer teams that would be in that division and you have them playing all the way up to Thanksgiving and occupying a time slot at LOS Thanksgiving weekend.

More or less, yes. Who would support that? That's watering down the postseason. It's dull and unexciting. Yes the the Gold and Silver and maybe Bronze (for practical purposes) would be good tournaments but the overall interest in high school football from a fan and even more importantly a player perspective would significantly decrease.

2 minutes ago, TIFootball said:

So maybe a better option is to qualify, then split. I can support that.

Yes I've been very vocal in that regard. Go to a rating system that effectively cuts the field in half at the end of the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Because that isn't right for South Adams or any school for that matter. The goal of any postseason tournament is to crown the best team. Making a tournament for the 64 worst teams in the state where one inevitably is going to be crowned a state champion while a successful team like South Adams has to play against schools 10x their enrollment ain't right. How hard is that to comprehend? 

A non-answer.  And you stubbornly seem to stick to the notion that the higher a school enrollment's the higher the competitiveness of that school's football program.  Hasn't the like of your precious Cathredral proved that notion wrong, time and time and time again?

Yesterday I posted the following:

Quote

Others in this thread seem to believe it is reprehensible for a school to play another school 10x it's enrollment in the state tournament, but playing a school that is 5-6x the enrollment is ok.    What is the cutoff point?    Is the difficulty level really exponential when you compare school enrollments in regards to high school football, or it more like a bell curve?

Nobody seems to want to take that on, probably because it is just easy to assume the smaller a school's overall enrollment is then the less competitive it's football program must be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

A non-answer.  And you stubbornly seem to stick to the notion that the higher a school enrollment's the higher the competitiveness of that school's football program.  Hasn't the like of your precious Cathredral proved that notion wrong, time and time and time again?

Yesterday I posted the following:

Nobody seems to want to take that on, probably because it is just easy to assume the smaller a school's overall enrollment is then the less competitive it's football program must be.

 

I already answered your question. Cathedral is an OUTLIER. That's why they are playing up a class. Just because Cathedral (an outlier) can punch above their weight, doesn't mean every other team can. That's why the success factor exists. I can't dumb this down anymore.

Edited by Footballking16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TIFootball said:

That's very true - good point. Most teams have conference goals and "intentionally" losing and risking conference losses - some may I guess.

So maybe a better option is to qualify, then split. I can support that.

Ultimately, this would likely be the start of a non all-in tournament.  If you've ever seem some of these travel team baseball tournaments where teams play pool play Thursday, Friday, Saturday and then qualify to play in the trophy bracket or a consolation bracket based on pool results, it's not unusual to see teams in that consolation bracket "no show" on Sunday rather than stick around another night in a hotel to play in that bracket.  If there's a blue/red ring available at LOS, then they would likely stay and play, but I could easily see a scenario where LOS Thanksgiving events come down to a single day featuring three/four games as opposed to the two-day event that it is.  I'm not sure how much traction that would gain in Indiana; especially given the sampling from folks on GID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Ultimately, this would likely be the start of a non all-in tournament.  If you've ever seem some of these travel team baseball tournaments where teams play pool play Thursday, Friday, Saturday and then qualify to play in the trophy bracket or a consolation bracket based on pool results, it's not unusual to see teams in that consolation bracket "no show" on Sunday rather than stick around another night in a hotel to play in that bracket.  If there's a blue/red ring available at LOS, then they would likely stay and play, but I could easily see a scenario where LOS Thanksgiving events come down to a single day featuring three/four games as opposed to the two-day event that it is.  I'm not sure how much traction that would gain in Indiana; especially given the sampling from folks on GID.

interesting theory - and yes, I've seen it in elite middle school football tourneys the same way. However, I don't think this would be an issue for high school team sports. If a qualifying system is used at the end of the season, it would remove the bottom teams from tournament play. I don't think we need to cut it in half, but the top 4 possibly. And if the general consensus is to have all teams play in tournament, I still think its more competitive for a power ranking system than current format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still like the purity of The Multiplier.  

It addresses the one true overriding issue - PP dominance of post season play.  

Unfortunately, the PPs see it as punitive.

They should wear it as a badge of courage and excellence.  And superiority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TIFootball said:

Keep in mind - as Ive stated, this is first look and the fomula would need to be improved to catch some outliers... However, They wouldn't according to Saragin and the cut off of each tourney. Heck, New Pal is one of the top teams in the state and would play in the "6a" tourney. Matter of fact, Dwenger, New Pal, and Cathedral would all be in the top tournament. Brownstown would be playing in the "4a" tournament.

Chatard is 8th in Sagarin and 4th in CalPreps.  They would be in 6A.  Brebeuf and West Lafayette would be in 6A.  East Central, East Noble and Delta would be in 6A.

Lewis Cass and Pioneer would be in 5A playing the likes of Columbus East and Penn.

Current 5A Munster would be playing 1A Spring Valley per Sagarin for the 1A championship.  

No more excellence like we have witnessed in 1A like the Pioneer, LCC, Sheridan years.

Yeah......sign me up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lysander said:

Chatard is 8th in Sagarin and 4th in CalPreps.  They would be in 6A.  Brebeuf and West Lafayette would be in 6A.  East Central, East Noble and Delta would be in 6A.

Lewis Cass and Pioneer would be in 5A playing the likes of Columbus East and Penn.

Current 5A Munster would be playing 1A Spring Valley per Sagarin for the 1A championship.  

No more excellence like we have witnessed in 1A like the Pioneer, LCC, Sheridan years.

Yeah......sign me up!

 

4 minutes ago, Lysander said:

Keep in mind - as Ive stated, this is first look and the fomula would need to be improved to catch some outliers

ye of little vision :)

Conversation has evolved - keep up lol !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought the all-in random draw format was the worst possible format out there. Then TIFootball comes along with a state championship from the bottom 64 teams in the state using some type of ranking. That is definitely worse. I'm glad he/she came around to the qualify and split option instead. Not great but better than his original option.

There is no issue with overlap from one class to the next. It happens in NCAA as well. Not all D1 teams are better than D2 teams and not all D2 teams are better than D3 teams. There is overlap there as well. That's why I think enrollment is a good starting point. It puts teams into general categories. The success factor then does some adjustments for the top programs but also allows for corrections. It could be optimized, but in general I think it does a good job.

I'm a fan of a qualifying tournament but ultimately I don't care that much about it. At the end of the season most of the kids who played HS football had very positive experiences and good memories. 10-20 years from now they'll remember the good times and learn from the bad times. I do challenge everyone to tell friends and family outside Indiana about the all-in random draw process, and I doubt any of them will say, "wow, that's a great and creative way to do this." They will most likely think you are kidding and nobody would ever come up with a system like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know how many times I have to state the obvious but, folks, WE CAN’T EVEN AGREE TO SEED THE TOP 2 TEAMS IN SECTIONALS.

Now we are actually having a conversation about enumerating every single team 1 through 320?

And why exactly are we doing it?  

So we’ll get to see one of the worst 64 teams in the State trundle off with a State ring?

There is nothing about the proposed system that promotes excellence.  

 

 

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

5 minutes ago, JustRules said:

I've always thought the all-in random draw format was the worst possible format out there. Then TIFootball comes along with a state championship from the bottom 64 teams in the state using some type of ranking. That is definitely worse. I'm glad he/she came around to the qualify and split option instead. Not great but better than his original option.

There is no issue with overlap from one class to the next. It happens in NCAA as well. Not all D1 teams are better than D2 teams and not all D2 teams are better than D3 teams. There is overlap there as well. That's why I think enrollment is a good starting point. It puts teams into general categories. The success factor then does some adjustments for the top programs but also allows for corrections. It could be optimized, but in general I think it does a good job.

I'm a fan of a qualifying tournament but ultimately I don't care that much about it. At the end of the season most of the kids who played HS football had very positive experiences and good memories. 10-20 years from now they'll remember the good times and learn from the bad times. I do challenge everyone to tell friends and family outside Indiana about the all-in random draw process, and I doubt any of them will say, "wow, that's a great and creative way to do this." They will most likely think you are kidding and nobody would ever come up with a system like that.

Thanks for your input JustRules. I'm not sure where random all in came from, but it's a conversation starter. The end goal is to have meaningful tournament play and even out the competition. As Cathedral gentleman pointed out, and rightfully so, the bottom 1-2 "splits" could easily be cut. The remaining are split off by some power ranking (Not Saragin, it was a first glance at ANY ranking system). I believe some variation of this would be better than the current point based factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lysander said:

I don’t know how many times I have to state the obvious but, folks, WE CAN’T EVEN AGREE TO SEED THE TOP 2 TEAMS IN SECTIONALS.

Now we are actually having a conversation about enumerating every single team 1 through 320?

 

 

 

You are correct. I think they CHOOSE not to seed based on how the pairings come out historically (disrupts the ping pong balls :) ). What I'm discussing is how can we change the entire system to have more competitive play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JustRules said:

I've always thought the all-in random draw format was the worst possible format out there. Then TIFootball comes along with a state championship from the bottom 64 teams in the state using some type of ranking. That is definitely worse. I'm glad he/she came around to the qualify and split option instead. Not great but better than his original option.

To be fair to Muda....he's been crowing about this awful format for years. 

  • Like 1
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...