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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Playoff Qualification Story (MI)


Guest

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Bonecrusher said:

That's correct, Texas schools are playing for conference (district) championships.

To address GOLDRUSH's point the difference is in Indiana the conference championship is for bragging rights only (IIRC); in Texas your finishing place determines your seeding in playoffs, so there's more on the line and teams are more motivated to win the conf./dist. championship or place as high as possible.

And again I ask, "what about independents?"  Cathedral is an independent.  Would you leave them out of the playoffs because they aren't in a conference?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, itiswhatitis said:

And again I ask, "what about independents?"  Cathedral is an independent.  Would you leave them out of the playoffs because they aren't in a conference?

Most likely, like Texas, the districts would be created as artificial groupings ... usually with a tie to proximity, but not the only thing.  It would potentially end up diminishing the role of conferences in some places, or as in the case of Texas, pretty much all together.  Of course, new rivalries would pop up due to being forced into districts and those games carrying not just bragging rights implications, but specific post-season tournament implications.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Most likely, like Texas, the districts would be created as artificial groupings ... usually with a tie to proximity, but not the only thing.  It would potentially end up diminishing the role of conferences in some places, or as in the case of Texas, pretty much all together.  Of course, new rivalries would pop up due to being forced into districts and those games carrying not just bragging rights implications, but specific post-season tournament implications.

"Artificial"???  Then why all of the talk about conference wins being important?  Sounds to me like with the "artificial" district thing there would be no need for conferences any more.  I'm not trying to trash the idea, just trying to wrap my mind around it and how it may (or may not) apply to Indiana football.  Just so it isn't back to the cluster system or something similar.  That was really, really bad juju.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, itiswhatitis said:

"Artificial"???  Then why all of the talk about conference wins being important?  Sounds to me like with the "artificial" district thing there would be no need for conferences any more.  I'm not trying to trash the idea, just trying to wrap my mind around it and how it may (or may not) apply to Indiana football.  Just so it isn't back to the cluster system or something similar.  That was really, really bad juju.

You are correct in the assertion that the need for conferences diminishes drastically under the Texas model.  If implemented in an Indiana environment, it wouldn't necessarily preclude the existence of conferences, but it could certainly alter their make-up or even the relevance of the games in those.  Some folks would argue, with an all-in format, the conference model games are already diminished to playing for pride or bragging rights as opposed to post-season relevance.  There are also some conferences where, because of the make-up, a district model would probably fundamentally change the conference ... almost to the point of maybe disbanding.  The Hoosier Conference, which has 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A in it, would likely see about half the teams get peeled off in one form or another.  There would, potentially depending on the size of the districts, be room for a couple of other non-district games thrown in, but for some programs that wouldn't help retain them in the conference.  Western is currently the lone 4A program in the HC and LCC is the lone 1A program in the conference.  If Indiana went to 8-team districts in class/grouping, those two teams would only be able to schedule, at most two non-district games with the rest of the HC to still potentially be able to qualify for post-season.  The HC crossover game would go away and, you might find that proximity might mean that the same two teams might be scheduled over and over ... e.g., in the case of LCC, West Lafayette and Benton Central.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

You are correct in the assertion that the need for conferences diminishes drastically under the Texas model.  If implemented in an Indiana environment, it wouldn't necessarily preclude the existence of conferences, but it could certainly alter their make-up or even the relevance of the games in those.  Some folks would argue, with an all-in format, the conference model games are already diminished to playing for pride or bragging rights as opposed to post-season relevance.  There are also some conferences where, because of the make-up, a district model would probably fundamentally change the conference ... almost to the point of maybe disbanding.  The Hoosier Conference, which has 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A in it, would likely see about half the teams get peeled off in one form or another.  There would, potentially depending on the size of the districts, be room for a couple of other non-district games thrown in, but for some programs that wouldn't help retain them in the conference.  Western is currently the lone 4A program in the HC and LCC is the lone 1A program in the conference.  If Indiana went to 8-team districts in class/grouping, those two teams would only be able to schedule, at most two non-district games with the rest of the HC to still potentially be able to qualify for post-season.  The HC crossover game would go away and, you might find that proximity might mean that the same two teams might be scheduled over and over ... e.g., in the case of LCC, West Lafayette and Benton Central.  

When considering all of that, I see why the IHSAA keeps the all in format. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

When considering all of that, I see why the IHSAA keeps the all in format. 

The district model has been there a long time in Texas ... easily back into the 70s when I was a youngster playing junior high ball.  I think, given where Indiana is with conferences and the all-in model, it would be hard to implement a district model given the disruption and/or dissolution of the conference model and the flexibility that it tends to provide.  With that said, if a district model did find its way to the Hoosier state, I wouldn't be surprised if it came concurrently with a reduced-participation/qualification to the post-season.  There'd actually be little reason to impose a district model, at the detriment to conferences and several potential rivalries, and still retaining an all-in model.  Having come from the Texas model, I must say that I rather enjoy the all-in model, but do understand the issues of putting some "skin on the bones" of the regular season games, so I'm not adverse to retaining an all-in and doing some type of seeding or first-game homefield guarantee or even a combination to add some relevance to the regular season play ...maybe something like 1 & 2 are guaranteed to be on opposite sides of the bracket and also get home field for the first game of sectionals.  Could also see, if a more pragmatic way could be determined for "ranking/rating" rather than using the bottom/top team-in-the-bracket for homefield tie breakers, you'd use use the ranking/rating.  Do that into regionals and you'd see folks playing for keeps ... of course you'd have to find a ranking that takes out the differentials or scrap the mercy rule if that's the route taken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Indiana ever did go with playoff qualification & seeding, conferences would become meaningless.  Indiana conferences with three or in some cases four different classifications of schools in them and those classes don't face each other in the post season.  So what's the purpose of the conference, besides bragging rights?  Bragging rights don't get you a sectional/regional/state champ trophy.

There are a bunch of different sized schools thrown together in more of an apples-to-oranges setup than apples-to-apples IMO.  I never understood mixing classifications in a conference even when I was in school in the early-mid 80's.  The ACAC teams were fairly close together, but still had two classes in there IIRC.  I don't get how a 1A team, or even a 2A, is supposed to compete with a 4A team for a conference championship.  That would be the equivalent of a 2A or 3A competing with a 5A team down here.  Besides the handful of obvious lopsided match-ups (good small school vs. weak big school), just not gonna happen.  You put a strong 5A against a strong 2/3A and that 5A school is going to eat the smaller one for supper.

There has to be something I'm missing.  The Hoosier conference has 1A LCC tied for 2nd place (betw both div's) with a 4A school!  That would be insanity down here.  Does the conference put a weak 4A with average 3A's and good 1/2A's?  Sorry, not trying to be disrespectful just want to be able to wrap my head around these different classes in conferences.

Edited by Bonecrusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, foxbat said:

The district model has been there a long time in Texas ... easily back into the 70s when I was a youngster playing junior high ball.  I think, given where Indiana is with conferences and the all-in model, it would be hard to implement a district model given the disruption and/or dissolution of the conference model and the flexibility that it tends to provide.  With that said, if a district model did find its way to the Hoosier state, I wouldn't be surprised if it came concurrently with a reduced-participation/qualification to the post-season.  There'd actually be little reason to impose a district model, at the detriment to conferences and several potential rivalries, and still retaining an all-in model.  Having come from the Texas model, I must say that I rather enjoy the all-in model, but do understand the issues of putting some "skin on the bones" of the regular season games, so I'm not adverse to retaining an all-in and doing some type of seeding or first-game homefield guarantee or even a combination to add some relevance to the regular season play ...maybe something like 1 & 2 are guaranteed to be on opposite sides of the bracket and also get home field for the first game of sectionals.  Could also see, if a more pragmatic way could be determined for "ranking/rating" rather than using the bottom/top team-in-the-bracket for homefield tie breakers, you'd use use the ranking/rating.  Do that into regionals and you'd see folks playing for keeps ... of course you'd have to find a ranking that takes out the differentials or scrap the mercy rule if that's the route taken. 

I believe with a reduced participation/qualification format, there would be some teams that will never qualify.  I see those teams probably closing up their programs after a few years and that would be a shame.  Kids would feel, "what's the use since we never qualify?" and the numbers would start dwindling.    Or in other cases, they might just transfer somewhere else and contribute to the dwindling numbers even more.  With the all in format they get a chance to play in at least one game in the tournament.  And don't give me that tired crap about, "why not just give everyone a participation trophy"?  It's not just about winning, it's about those kids makings memories to take with them into adulthood   I know former players are out there and have those memories because I've talked with a few of them over the years and not all of them were from winning programs either.  You can see their eyes light up when they start talking about it.  It's just another part of high school football that I enjoy.  I can see why people want to seed the sectionals.  I also like how Ohio does their playoffs.  They use neutral sites.  It works for them.  The 2 teams playing in the game might be several miles from the neutral site.   And the fans from the neutral site get a chance to watch a playoff game especially after their team has been eliminated.  Like I said, it works for Ohio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

I believe with a reduced participation/qualification format, there would be some teams that will never qualify.  I see those teams probably closing up their programs after a few years and that would be a shame.  Kids would feel, "what's the use since we never qualify?" and the numbers would start dwindling.    Or in other cases, they might just transfer somewhere else and contribute to the dwindling numbers even more.  With the all in format they get a chance to play in at least one game in the tournament.  And don't give me that tired crap about, "why not just give everyone a participation trophy"?  It's not just about winning, it's about those kids makings memories to take with them into adulthood   I know former players are out there and have those memories because I've talked with a few of them over the years and not all of them were from winning programs either.  You can see their eyes light up when they start talking about it.  It's just another part of high school football that I enjoy.  I can see why people want to seed the sectionals.  I also like how Ohio does their playoffs.  They use neutral sites.  It works for them.  The 2 teams playing in the game might be several miles from the neutral site.   And the fans from the neutral site get a chance to watch a playoff game especially after their team has been eliminated.  Like I said, it works for Ohio.

If that were the case, there would be ample evidence of it in other states. There’s nothing unique about the psyche of Indiana football players ... except the entitlement mentality that the all in format breeds. In Ohio, for example, 192 teams make the playoffs out of a total of 712, slightly more than 1/4 of the schools. Can you cite a single instance of a school dropping football because of repeated failures to make the playoffs? Anywhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bobref said:

If that were the case, there would be ample evidence of it in other states. There’s nothing unique about the psyche of Indiana football players ... except the entitlement mentality that the all in format breeds. In Ohio, for example, 192 teams make the playoffs out of a total of 712, slightly more than 1/4 of the schools. Can you cite a single instance of a school dropping football because of repeated failures to make the playoffs? Anywhere?

I never said it HAS happened, I said I could see it happening here in Indiana.  That was a speculation.  There are MANY smaller schools (and a few larger ones) who have had very little to no success with winning seasons let alone doing well in the tournament.  It's so easy to sit on "high" and tell those programs, "Get better or get over it".  It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and talk big talk especially when you are in a solid program.  Spend some time in a small town with a small program who hasn't had success.  See how much it means to those kids to play even ONE game in the tournament.  You want to take that away from them? Sorry, but I'm not that cold hearted.  And by your math you want only 84 teams in Indiana in the tournament (25%) just so we can be like Ohio?  That smacks of junior high mentality.  "Mom, all of the other kids have one, why can't I?"  If you are so set on being like Ohio, why don't you get on the IHSAA committee and try to push your "Let's be like Ohio" dream tournament through them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, itiswhatitis said:

I never said it HAS happened, I said I could see it happening here in Indiana.  That was a speculation.  There are MANY smaller schools (and a few larger ones) who have had very little to no success with winning seasons let alone doing well in the tournament.  It's so easy to sit on "high" and tell those programs, "Get better or get over it".  It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and talk big talk especially when you are in a solid program.  Spend some time in a small town with a small program who hasn't had success.  See how much it means to those kids to play even ONE game in the tournament.  You want to take that away from them? Sorry, but I'm not that cold hearted.  And by your math you want only 84 teams in Indiana in the tournament (25%) just so we can be like Ohio?  That smacks of junior high mentality.  "Mom, all of the other kids have one, why can't I?"  If you are so set on being like Ohio, why don't you get on the IHSAA committee and try to push your "Let's be like Ohio" dream tournament through them? 

I am long on the record as proposing a top 50% qualification system, which would put approximately 160 Indiana schools in the playoffs. The rest of your post is simply a rehash of the hurt feelings/entitlement mentality which is the product of 30+ years of the all in format. It has been demonstrated statistically in each of approximately the last 5-6 years that such a format will essentially not deprive anyone of anything. I'll do it again this year, but I don't realistically hope to convince anyone with facts. After all, speculation is, apparently, much more persuasive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

I never said it HAS happened, I said I could see it happening here in Indiana.  That was a speculation.  There are MANY smaller schools (and a few larger ones) who have had very little to no success with winning seasons let alone doing well in the tournament.  It's so easy to sit on "high" and tell those programs, "Get better or get over it".  It's easy to sit behind a keyboard and talk big talk especially when you are in a solid program.  Spend some time in a small town with a small program who hasn't had success.  See how much it means to those kids to play even ONE game in the tournament.  You want to take that away from them? Sorry, but I'm not that cold hearted.  And by your math you want only 84 teams in Indiana in the tournament (25%) just so we can be like Ohio?  That smacks of junior high mentality.  "Mom, all of the other kids have one, why can't I?"  If you are so set on being like Ohio, why don't you get on the IHSAA committee and try to push your "Let's be like Ohio" dream tournament through them? 

 

29 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I am long on the record as proposing a top 50% qualification system, which would put approximately 160 Indiana schools in the playoffs. The rest of your post is simply a rehash of the hurt feelings/entitlement mentality which is the product of 30+ years of the all in format. It has been demonstrated statistically in each of approximately the last 5-6 years that such a format will essentially not deprive anyone of anything. I'll do it again this year, but I don't realistically hope to convince anyone with facts. After all, speculation is, apparently, much more persuasive.

I've only had a few psych and soc classes, but I'm pretty sure you guys just have opinions and not mentalities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I am long on the record as proposing a top 50% qualification system, which would put approximately 160 Indiana schools in the playoffs. The rest of your post is simply a rehash of the hurt feelings/entitlement mentality which is the product of 30+ years of the all in format. It has been demonstrated statistically in each of approximately the last 5-6 years that such a format will essentially not deprive anyone of anything. I'll do it again this year, but I don't realistically hope to convince anyone with facts. After all, speculation is, apparently, much more persuasive.

Not a rehash.  My feelings on the topic.  It's supposed to be about making Indiana High School football better.  How does that happen when you force a certain percentage of the programs to qualify for the tournament?   Oh wait, I know....."get better or get over it".  How arrogant.   I talk with folks from Ohio almost every week and have heard from many who do not like the Ohio format.  Yeah, in spite of your agenda, there are those IN OHIO who do NOT like it!  I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard, "I wish we had an all in format".  Your only perspective is from schools like St X., the ones who will qualify EVERY year regardless.  It's easy to look down your nose and tell everyone else to "be like us".  After all, we MUST be like Ohio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, itiswhatitis said:

Not a rehash.  My feelings on the topic.  It's supposed to be about making Indiana High School football better.  How does that happen when you force a certain percentage of the programs to qualify for the tournament?   Oh wait, I know....."get better or get over it".  How arrogant.   I talk with folks from Ohio almost every week and have heard from many who do not like the Ohio format.  Yeah, in spite of your agenda, there are those IN OHIO who do NOT like it!  I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard, "I wish we had an all in format".  Your only perspective is from schools like St X., the ones who will qualify EVERY year regardless.  It's easy to look down your nose and tell everyone else to "be like us".  After all, we MUST be like Ohio. 

Or any other state. There’s a reason we stand alone ... and it’s not because we’re smarter than everyone else.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Or any other state. There’s a reason we stand alone ... and it’s not because we’re smarter than everyone else.

Oh it's about Ohio.  I've seen your posts before.  But back on topic:  I've yet to see a proposal that doesn't have to do with conference play or something similar.  Again, I have to ask, "what about the independents?"  Cathedral comes to mind.  Are you going to eliminate Cathedral because they are not in a conference?  Like that's gonna happen!  Not in this lifetime.  I also read a suggestion in this topic about having artificial districts which would pretty much eliminate any need for conferences.  So much for making conference play meaningful.  And wouldn't that eliminate some old rivalries?   I saw a proposal a few years back that had to do with using the Sagarin ratings (or something like similar) and evaluating the 320 teams 1 - 320 regardless of class.  That kind of made sense to me because teams would be closer to each other in competition.  I believe it would have been done near the end of the year.  Let's keep the conferences and let the rivalries remain!  Rank the teams 1 - 320 and maybe THEN eliminate the teams to trim down the field.  For 32 teams in each class you would need 192 teams.   So in that scenario, teams 193 - 320 would not make the tournament.  I know that is more than half (50%), but it would even out the 5A and 6A classes and there would be no need to propose a 10th game or any need for a  bye.  And you could get rid of the classes and just have divisions I - VI.  So in this proposal you could have a few smaller schools actually playing in the bigger division (Division I/Division II) if their Sag rating was high enough.  There would be no need for a success factor in this situation either.  We know teams have up and down years.  They would actually be their own success factor by their ratings changing from year to year or being too low to make the field.  So teams with ratings 1 - 32 would be Division !, teams 33 - 64 would be in Division !!, and so one regardless of class.  And that, would eliminate your all in and should make some people giddy.  The only drawback I see is, you would probably have teams hopping around to different divisions from year to year, again, depending on your rating.  As I've said, "nothing is perfect".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bonecrusher said:

If Indiana ever did go with playoff qualification & seeding, conferences would become meaningless.  Indiana conferences with three or in some cases four different classifications of schools in them and those classes don't face each other in the post season.  So what's the purpose of the conference, besides bragging rights?  Bragging rights don't get you a sectional/regional/state champ trophy.

There are a bunch of different sized schools thrown together in more of an apples-to-oranges setup than apples-to-apples IMO.  I never understood mixing classifications in a conference even when I was in school in the early-mid 80's.  The ACAC teams were fairly close together, but still had two classes in there IIRC.  I don't get how a 1A team, or even a 2A, is supposed to compete with a 4A team for a conference championship.  That would be the equivalent of a 2A or 3A competing with a 5A team down here.  Besides the handful of obvious lopsided match-ups (good small school vs. weak big school), just not gonna happen.  You put a strong 5A against a strong 2/3A and that 5A school is going to eat the smaller one for supper.

There has to be something I'm missing.  The Hoosier conference has 1A LCC tied for 2nd place (betw both div's) with a 4A school!  That would be insanity down here.  Does the conference put a weak 4A with average 3A's and good 1/2A's?  Sorry, not trying to be disrespectful just want to be able to wrap my head around these different classes in conferences.

I'm not as familiar with most other conferences and only vaguely familiar with the HC due to LCC's involvement there, but I'd venture a guess that the HC is fairly unique in its make-up ... more on that in a bit.  The addition of 4A Western is more recent, but it hasn't fundamentally altered the conference power structure as a lone entity.  Regarding 1A teams, prior to LCC rejoining in 2011, Sheridan was the 1A lone-wolf having rejoined the conference in 200.  As for titles, realize that LCC has been, recently, in the HC since 2011. If you go back to when Sheridan joined in 2000, the spread of titles is fairly broad across programs and across classifications:

  • 1A - 9 titles spread across two programs
  • 2A - 9 titles spread across four programs
  • 3A - 10 titles spread across four programs
  • 4A - No titles

The numbers add up to more than 20 because in some years there were two teams that shared a title and, in some cases, like 2000 and 2001, three teams split the title.  Also, in 2015, Hamilton Heights won the East and LCC won the West, a split title ... this was before the conference crossover games were implemented in 2016 to crown a definitive conference champion in the age of the two-division Hoosier Conference.

The HC has also been prominently represented at LOS in the past 19 years and potentially likely this season too with West Lafayette, Cass, and LCC still looming in post-season tournament play.  Since 2000, Hoosier Conference teams have been active at LOS on Thanksgiving weekend in 12 games and walking away with blue rings in 9 of them.  Just in the past decade, the HC has had representation at LOS in 8 games in 6 years and walked away with 6 blue rings ... across three classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since no one commented on my other post, just for fun I looked at this week's Sags.  I looked at the state rankings and NOT class rankings.  In a proposal of only allowing the top 192 teams in the tournament by where they are ranked you can look at the Sags and see where everyone is listed.  To use as an example, let's say there are 6 divisions with 32 teams each.  In this week's rankings, Lewis Cass is ranked 32nd so they would play in Division I (the top 32 ranked teams).  And before you start with the "no way a 2A team can complete with 5A and 6A teams, you have to keep class football out of the equation.  It is where they are ranked not school size.  If they are good enough to be ranked that high, then that is who they should play against in the tournament.  Every year we hear some fans boasting how their team is so good they could beat every team in the next class above them (and occasionally 2 classes).  This type of proposal would give them a chance to prove it.  So get rid of the classes and just rank everyone, 1 - 320.  I am not going to post all 192 teams. If you want to know where your team is, go to Harrell's and look at the sags.  I only considered 6 divisions with 32 teams each.  That is where the 192 teams came from  It could be broken down into more divisions if they needed to.  The one big problem I see is the matchups geographically and every year it would change..  With 192 teams making the tournament field (96 games) that would leave 128 schools to use as neutral sites when it became necessary.  So that should help out with the long road trips.  Someone would have a big job sitting down figuring out the draw and the sites every year.  As I said in my other post, it would eliminate the all in (which some people want) and it would help the current 5A and 6A classes with the bye week.  No more need for that and no more need for a success factor.  Teams' rankings change from year to year.  This year you may play in a higher division than next year and so forth.  Oh and these Sags are after one tournament game.  I would think with the proposed tourney field would need to be taken from the end of the season.  So using this week's Sags they are off by one week, but it was fun listing 6 divisions and see who was where.  Also a few surprises as to who was still in the current tournament and some of those teams who wouldn't even make the field of 192.  Okay I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, foxbat said:

I'm not as familiar with most other conferences and only vaguely familiar with the HC due to LCC's involvement there, but I'd venture a guess that the HC is fairly unique in its make-up ... more on that in a bit.  The addition of 4A Western is more recent, but it hasn't fundamentally altered the conference power structure as a lone entity.  Regarding 1A teams, prior to LCC rejoining in 2011, Sheridan was the 1A lone-wolf having rejoined the conference in 200.  As for titles, realize that LCC has been, recently, in the HC since 2011. If you go back to when Sheridan joined in 2000, the spread of titles is fairly broad across programs and across classifications:

  • 1A - 9 titles spread across two programs
  • 2A - 9 titles spread across four programs
  • 3A - 10 titles spread across four programs
  • 4A - No titles

The numbers add up to more than 20 because in some years there were two teams that shared a title and, in some cases, like 2000 and 2001, three teams split the title.  Also, in 2015, Hamilton Heights won the East and LCC won the West, a split title ... this was before the conference crossover games were implemented in 2016 to crown a definitive conference champion in the age of the two-division Hoosier Conference.

The HC has also been prominently represented at LOS in the past 19 years and potentially likely this season too with West Lafayette, Cass, and LCC still looming in post-season tournament play.  Since 2000, Hoosier Conference teams have been active at LOS on Thanksgiving weekend in 12 games and walking away with blue rings in 9 of them.  Just in the past decade, the HC has had representation at LOS in 8 games in 6 years and walked away with 6 blue rings ... across three classes.

Good info there....  The reason I picked HC was because it was referenced in a previous post and has four classifications in it - looked to be a good example, and I figured someone could explain.  The  HC conference titles have indeed been spread fairly evenly which is what we want, in theory.

What I still have trouble with is how a 1A can beat out several 3A's for a title, or beat enough 3A's to share a title with someone.  If the 2A school my kids attended were in the same district with a 4A (I know impossible down here, but for argument's sake..), unless it was a very weak 4A, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance to win that district because there's absolutely no way we could beat that 4A school.  Second place would be the best we could hope for.  We've beat our share of 3A's, but would not like our chances against any but the bottom-of-the-barrel 4A's.  We typically suit up between 20-25 for varsity, a typical 4A here will dress twice that many.  Probably half of our kids play both ways - 4A is almost exclusively 2 platoon.  See what I'm getting at?  It would be foolishness to put teams that far apart together in a conference or district down here, but up there ya'll seem to be making it work.  How?  Less disparity between classifications?  I wouldn't think so, but have not seen the cutoffs.

I feel kinda silly for asking, but there's got to be something I'm not factoring in to this....

Edited by Bonecrusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Bonecrusher said:

Good info there....  The reason I picked HC was because it was referenced in a previous post and has four classifications in it - looked to be a good example, and I figured someone could explain.  The  HC conference titles have indeed been spread fairly evenly which is what we want, in theory.

What I still have trouble with is how a 1A can beat out several 3A's for a title, or beat enough 3A's to share a title with someone.  If the 2A school my kids attended were in the same district with a 4A (I know impossible down here, but for argument's sake..), unless it was a very weak 4A, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance to win that district because there's absolutely no way we could beat that 4A school.  Second place would be the best we could hope for.  We've beat our share of 3A's, but would not like our chances against any but the bottom-of-the-barrel 4A's.  We typically suit up between 20-25 for varsity, a typical 4A here will dress twice that many.  Probably half of our kids play both ways - 4A is almost exclusively 2 platoon.  See what I'm getting at?  It would be foolishness to put teams that far apart together in a conference or district down here, but up there ya'll seem to be making it work.  How?  Less disparity between classifications?  I wouldn't think so, but have not seen the cutoffs.

I feel kinda silly for asking, but there's got to be something I'm not factoring in to this....

It's not that silly a question.  You are right that Texas squads and Indiana squads look different even given class levels.  Realize that Texas 1A only goes as high as 104 students, after that, it goes to 2A. Also, 1A is six-man ball, so the first 11-man ball is 2A.  In that case, think of 2A in Texas as being 1A in Indiana in most cases. 

Also, realize that we are only talking about a unique subset of teams that would be competing in a conference like the Hoosier Conference in its current incarnation where a 1A squares off against 3A and possibly 4A competition on a regular basis.  Early on, the Hoosier Conference was actually a lot more 1A/2A teams with McCutcheon and Harrison tossed in for locale.  Many of those teams eventually moved to other conferences and finally settled into what is now the Hoosier Heartland Conference.  Sheridan made a return back to the HC in 2000 and then headed to the Hoosier Heartland when LCC left the Hoosier Heartland and entered the Hoosier again in 2011.  As might be expected, when you look at the two teams that were/are in the Hoosier Conference roaming among 3A/4A types of competition as 1A teams, you are talking about two 1A teams that had/have seven state title appearances and six state titles between the two of them WHILE they were member of the Hoosier Conference.  A couple of other teams have started to flex their muscle that way and I could potentially see a team like Pioneer maybe deciding to go the route that Sheridan and LCC have gone in latching into something like the Hoosier.  Maybe even Linton if their numbers brought them down to 1A again, although the problem there would be how far south they are.

I think what you see in most conferences nowadays in Indiana is something where the schools tend to be within a single class of each other usually a 1A/2A mix or 2A/3A mix or 3A/4A and usually tied to proximity, but again the Hoosier is rare ... which makes it a pretty intriguing/noteworthy conference.  It would also likely cease to exist in its unique structure if something like districts went into effect in Indiana like in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, foxbat said:

It's not that silly a question.  You are right that Texas squads and Indiana squads look different even given class levels.  Realize that Texas 1A only goes as high as 104 students, after that, it goes to 2A. Also, 1A is six-man ball, so the first 11-man ball is 2A.  In that case, think of 2A in Texas as being 1A in Indiana in most cases. 

Also, realize that we are only talking about a unique subset of teams that would be competing in a conference like the Hoosier Conference in its current incarnation where a 1A squares off against 3A and possibly 4A competition on a regular basis.  Early on, the Hoosier Conference was actually a lot more 1A/2A teams with McCutcheon and Harrison tossed in for locale.  Many of those teams eventually moved to other conferences and finally settled into what is now the Hoosier Heartland Conference.  Sheridan made a return back to the HC in 2000 and then headed to the Hoosier Heartland when LCC left the Hoosier Heartland and entered the Hoosier again in 2011.  As might be expected, when you look at the two teams that were/are in the Hoosier Conference roaming among 3A/4A types of competition as 1A teams, you are talking about two 1A teams that had/have seven state title appearances and six state titles between the two of them WHILE they were member of the Hoosier Conference.  A couple of other teams have started to flex their muscle that way and I could potentially see a team like Pioneer maybe deciding to go the route that Sheridan and LCC have gone in latching into something like the Hoosier.  Maybe even Linton if their numbers brought them down to 1A again, although the problem there would be how far south they are.

I think what you see in most conferences nowadays in Indiana is something where the schools tend to be within a single class of each other usually a 1A/2A mix or 2A/3A mix or 3A/4A and usually tied to proximity, but again the Hoosier is rare ... which makes it a pretty intriguing/noteworthy conference.  It would also likely cease to exist in its unique structure if something like districts went into effect in Indiana like in Texas.

Don't think they would consider driving 3 hours to a game every week (well for the away games).  I think Linton likes being independent and can set their own schedule that way.  As you know, they have upgraded it from years past.  I don't think they would shy away from playing HC teams, but do not see them ever joining the conference.  Being in a conference is like buying real estate:  location, location, location.  Obviously the HC is fortunate to have some great programs all within the same location.  Other conferences are not as fortunate.  From a fan's point of view, I actually like the Miners being in 2A.  I think it's where they "belong".   Personally, I hope they never go back to 1A..  Kind of a "been there, done that" thing if you get my meaning.  Now I want to see them win a 2A title. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, foxbat said:

It's not that silly a question.  You are right that Texas squads and Indiana squads look different even given class levels.  Realize that Texas 1A only goes as high as 104 students, after that, it goes to 2A. Also, 1A is six-man ball, so the first 11-man ball is 2A.  In that case, think of 2A in Texas as being 1A in Indiana in most cases. 

Also, realize that we are only talking about a unique subset of teams that would be competing in a conference like the Hoosier Conference in its current incarnation where a 1A squares off against 3A and possibly 4A competition on a regular basis.  Early on, the Hoosier Conference was actually a lot more 1A/2A teams with McCutcheon and Harrison tossed in for locale.  Many of those teams eventually moved to other conferences and finally settled into what is now the Hoosier Heartland Conference.  Sheridan made a return back to the HC in 2000 and then headed to the Hoosier Heartland when LCC left the Hoosier Heartland and entered the Hoosier again in 2011.  As might be expected, when you look at the two teams that were/are in the Hoosier Conference roaming among 3A/4A types of competition as 1A teams, you are talking about two 1A teams that had/have seven state title appearances and six state titles between the two of them WHILE they were member of the Hoosier Conference.  A couple of other teams have started to flex their muscle that way and I could potentially see a team like Pioneer maybe deciding to go the route that Sheridan and LCC have gone in latching into something like the Hoosier.  Maybe even Linton if their numbers brought them down to 1A again, although the problem there would be how far south they are.

I think what you see in most conferences nowadays in Indiana is something where the schools tend to be within a single class of each other usually a 1A/2A mix or 2A/3A mix or 3A/4A and usually tied to proximity, but again the Hoosier is rare ... which makes it a pretty intriguing/noteworthy conference.  It would also likely cease to exist in its unique structure if something like districts went into effect in Indiana like in Texas.

If most of the conferences only have two classifications, that would definitely be more do-able IMHO.  I was thinking that maybe a lot of them looked like the HC, which apparently isn't the case. 

I used 2A & 4A, since, like you say 2A is the TX equivalent of IN 1A.  Another thing which just occured to me is that down here each class, except 6A, is split into two divisions.  Class 2A D1 are bigger schools than 2A D2, and so on.  So for 11-man football, you really have nine classifications, but it's such a big state that it makes sense.  So, with a little fudge factor I can see how the IN classifications could be a little closer together.

Thx for the explanation.

Edited by Bonecrusher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

From a fan's point of view, I actually like the Miners being in 2A.  I think it's where they "belong".   Personally, I hope they never go back to 1A.

I agree.

Even last year - and I can’t even begin to tell you how many people were asking me, “What’s wrong with this team?” - look how they fared against the 1A teams on their schedule. And last year was a “down year” by Linton standards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ts32 said:

will I agree.

Even last year - and I can’t even begin to tell you how many people were asking me, “What’s wrong with this team?” - look how they fared against the 1A teams on their schedule. And last year was a “down year” by Linton standards. 

I think it was the tougher schedule happening at the same time with a down year.  I know the program went 20 years without a losing record so having a losing season makes people want to search for answers as to "why"?   If they were still playing their old schedule, they probably would have won 7 or 8 games but lost in the tournament.  I mentioned in another post I've noticed the Miners are back in the state top 50 in average points per game, average points allowed per game and margin of victory.  To me that is an indication that they are now playing with the competition and in some cases ahead of the competition.  I would still like to see the schedule tweaked a bit more.  Drop a couple of teams and add a couple more.  I know some people still want those old "rivalries" or teams from the local area, but when it's one sided, it's time for a change.  I'd love to see the Miners play an Edgewood, or Northview, or one of the Bloomington schools, or Vincennes Lincoln.  Heck I'd even like to see them play Jasper.   While the Miners haven't had much success in the 2A tournament (yet) they will.  They'll get accustomed to the competition.  They did in 1A.  Took them a while to win the sectional but they did.  Took them a while to win regional, but they did.  Took them FOREVER (LOL) to win Semi-state, but they did.  They will start winning in 2A.  Can't say for certain when, but they'll get there. 

Edited by itiswhatitis
  • 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...