Playoff Qualification Story (MI)

[itiswhatitis]

I should have said they are scoring more, giving up less and a bigger winning margin against better competition.  Also should have added while the players may change from year to year, as long as that coaching staff stays, the Miners will keep on rolling along.  Can't say enough good things about Coach Ollie and his staff.  They are one of the best in the state.  And I REALLY like this year's Linton team.  Hard to pick just a few guys.  So many are making plays on both sides of the ball.  You don't hear the same few names over and over.  Good depth.

Edited October 30, 2019 by itiswhatitis

[JustRules]

On 10/28/2019 at 4:07 PM, 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.

Those are the same teams that never win a tournament game in the current format. Is that any different or better? Unless they draw another weak team which I think is the primary reason many coaches still support it and there isn't a rush to change it. With the random draw aspect there's a chance I could draw another weak opponent and get a tournament win. There were several examples of that last week and probably some in the 5A/6A this week.

I was looking it from a different angle last night. If half of the 6A schools qualified and Sagarin was used to rank them, Columbus East would not qualify at 7-2 and neither would Penn at 5-4 or Columbus North at 5-4. But the matchup between Lawrence North (3-6) and Lawrence Central (2-7) features 2 teams who would have qualified. They would have played higher ranked teams though if the teams were seeded. Now they have a chance to advance to the sectional championship because they drew each other. In another sectional #1 is playing #2.

Rather than ranking the top 16 though let's look at the top 4 in each regional. This is how they would shake out:

Sectional 1/2
Warsaw at Lafayette Jeff
Penn at Merrillville
First out: Crown Point (73.18)

Sectional 3/4
HSE at Carmel
Homestead at Fishers
First out: Westfield (92.99)

Sectional 5/6
Zionsville at Avon
Ben Davis at Brownsburg
First out: Pike (79.19)

Sectional 7/9
Lawrence North at Warren Central
North Central at Center Grove
First out: Lawrence Central (85.3)

An interesting geographic note. Westfield would be out in the Sectional 3/4 regional, but they would be the #1 seed in the Sectional 1/2 regional and LC would be #3. Geography has it's privileges (or disadvantages depending on your perspective).

[itiswhatitis]

18 minutes ago, JustRules said:

Those are the same teams that never win a tournament game in the current format. Is that any different or better? Unless they draw another weak team which I think is the primary reason many coaches still support it and there isn't a rush to change it. With the random draw aspect there's a chance I could draw another weak opponent and get a tournament win. There were several examples of that last week and probably some in the 5A/6A this week.

I was looking it from a different angle last night. If half of the 6A schools qualified and Sagarin was used to rank them, Columbus East would not qualify at 7-2 and neither would Penn at 5-4 or Columbus North at 5-4. But the matchup between Lawrence North (3-6) and Lawrence Central (2-7) features 2 teams who would have qualified. They would have played higher ranked teams though if the teams were seeded. Now they have a chance to advance to the sectional championship because they drew each other. In another sectional #1 is playing #2.

Rather than ranking the top 16 though let's look at the top 4 in each regional. This is how they would shake out:

Sectional 1/2
Warsaw at Lafayette Jeff
Penn at Merrillville
First out: Crown Point (73.18)

Sectional 3/4
HSE at Carmel
Homestead at Fishers
First out: Westfield (92.99)

Sectional 5/6
Zionsville at Avon
Ben Davis at Brownsburg
First out: Pike (79.19)

Sectional 7/9
Lawrence North at Warren Central
North Central at Center Grove
First out: Lawrence Central (85.3)

An interesting geographic note. Westfield would be out in the Sectional 3/4 regional, but they would be the #1 seed in the Sectional 1/2 regional and LC would be #3. Geography has it's privileges (or disadvantages depending on your perspective).

I've always liked the all in because it is unique.  I've liked the fact that the "little guy"(regardless of class) still has a shot.  It may be like hitting the lottery type shot in some cases, but the shot is still there for them.   I have softened my stance somewhat and wouldn't be opposed to a qualifier as long as it was equitable.  And that is where I have a problem.  I've yet to see anyone propose something that would be fair across the board to everyone.  One problem is you can't use conference play as part of the equation. That doesn't cut it due to it being impossible to line them all up as equals not to mention there are independents.  I am keen to the idea of using the Sags (or something similar) to rank the teams and then take the field from there.  No more classes.  They could be put into divisions instead or something similar.  There are some bigger schools that could then compete with smaller schools and vice versa without getting their brains bashed in and or proving they belong against bigger competition.  I'm just not sure what you could use fairly with ranking everyone.  But I believe it would help to improve Indiana football.  It isn't just about the smaller enrollment schools.  There are 3A, 4A, and 5A teams that don't have very good programs in comparison to the other members of their respective classes.  So, just get rid of the classes.  That kind of thought process is intriguing to me.

Bobref - if you read this, please don't have a heart attack over my change-in-attitude towards a qualifier.  LOL

[JustRules]

1 hour ago, itiswhatitis said:

I've always liked the all in because it is unique.  I've liked the fact that the "little guy"(regardless of class) still has a shot.  It may be like hitting the lottery type shot in some cases, but the shot is still there for them.   I have softened my stance somewhat and wouldn't be opposed to a qualifier as long as it was equitable.  And that is where I have a problem.  I've yet to see anyone propose something that would be fair across the board to everyone.  One problem is you can't use conference play as part of the equation. That doesn't cut it due to it being impossible to line them all up as equals not to mention there are independents.  I am keen to the idea of using the Sags (or something similar) to rank the teams and then take the field from there.  No more classes.  They could be put into divisions instead or something similar.  There are some bigger schools that could then compete with smaller schools and vice versa without getting their brains bashed in and or proving they belong against bigger competition.  I'm just not sure what you could use fairly with ranking everyone.  But I believe it would help to improve Indiana football.  It isn't just about the smaller enrollment schools.  There are 3A, 4A, and 5A teams that don't have very good programs in comparison to the other members of their respective classes.  So, just get rid of the classes.  That kind of thought process is intriguing to me.

Bobref - if you read this, please don't have a heart attack over my change-in-attitude towards a qualifier.  LOL

I personally think the best system would be to scrap the existing conferences and go with 8 team sectional assignments (8 team regional for 5A/6A). 7 of your games are against the other teams in your sectional and then 3 non-conference games. The top 4 teams in each sectional advance to the playoffs based on your sectional record. That way you can schedule whoever you want and it won't affect your playoff qualification except for maybe the 12th tie breaker criteria if needed. Then #1 from one sectional hosts #4 from the next sectional and #2 hosts #3. No computers or rankings. It's all based on what happens on the field. Teams are rewarded in both qualifying and hosting for a successful regular season. Because of geography you will have some better teams in one sectional/regional not make it because they have tougher competition in their area while a lesser team qualifies because of the competition in their area. This is no different than today with competition within a sectional.

Getting over not having conferences any longer would be the biggest hurdle. If you can't get past that you will never support this model. I've lived where they don't have conferences and it was fine. But this is what people here are used to and people are generally resistant to change unless it benefits them.

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

I've always liked the all in because it is unique. 

If we appointed a justice of the peace to the SCOTUS, that would be unique, too. But there’s a good reason that hasn’t happened. “Unique” is not a synonym for “good,” or “fair,” or even “reasonable.” There’s a reason our system is unique, and it has nothing to do with any of those.

I've liked the fact that the "little guy"(regardless of class) still has a shot.  It may be like hitting the lottery type shot in some cases, but the shot is still there for them. 

it’s not, in any realistic sense. It has been demonstrated statistically many times before, and will be demonstrated again after the playoffs this year. “Cinderella” is a myth.

 I have softened my stance somewhat and wouldn't be opposed to a qualifier as long as it was equitable.  And that is where I have a problem.  I've yet to see anyone propose something that would be fair across the board to everyone.

Fairness, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. Somehow, 49 other states and DC have come up with systems that work. The notion that, for some reason, Indiana can’t is disrespectful to the football people in this state who, given the opportunity, will come up with a system that works. If, on the other hand, your definition of “fair” is a system that everyone loves, that is just totally unrealistic.

 

[itiswhatitis]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

 

Cinderella a myth?  I don't think you could convince the 2005 Northwood team to give back their state trophy because they actually didn't win it.  No way a 3 - 6 team can win the state championship because Cinderella doesn't exist.  So you would force your fairness on someone else who doesn't behold through your eyes?  I look at it like the movie, 12 Angry Men.  If it hadn't been for the ONE, they would have executed the guy.  Indiana is THE ONE in regards to the other 49.  I never said it would be something that everyone would love.  It's obvious by posts on this forum that not everyone loves the all in either.  What?  I get no points for my other post and suggestion for a playoff?  Gee thanks for noticing, Mr. Counselor..

[Bobref]

43 minutes ago, itiswhatitis said:

Cinderella a myth?  I don't think you could convince the 2005 Northwood team to give back their state trophy because they actually didn't win it.  No way a 3 - 6 team can win the state championship because Cinderella doesn't exist.  So you would force your fairness on someone else who doesn't behold through your eyes?  I look at it like the movie, 12 Angry Men.  If it hadn't been for the ONE, they would have executed the guy.  Indiana is THE ONE in regards to the other 49.  I never said it would be something that everyone would love.  It's obvious by posts on this forum that not everyone loves the all in either.  What?  I get no points for my other post and suggestion for a playoff?  Gee thanks for noticing, Mr. Counselor..

There it is! Nice to see a qualification format opponent raise the “Northwood argument” again this year. As has been pointed out every year, that Northwood team was easily in the top 50% of its class by Sagarin rating (or any other reasonable system that includes a combination of won-loss record and strength of schedule). So, in the playoff format I have suggested, they would easily have been in. 

Cinderella is not just dead. She’s had a stake driven through her heart.

Don’t hedge your bets. Pick a side.

[itiswhatitis]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

There it is! Nice to see a qualification format opponent raise the “Northwood argument” again this year. As has been pointed out every year, that Northwood team was easily in the top 50% of its class by Sagarin rating (or any other reasonable system that includes a combination of won-loss record and strength of schedule). So, in the playoff format I have suggested, they would easily have been in. 

Cinderella is not just dead. She’s had a stake driven through her heart.

Don’t hedge your bets. Pick a side.

They were?  Gee Wally, go figure.  Nice to have that information.   Forget about Cindy.  What I can't wrap my mind around is:  if you want to push being like Ohio, aren't there "points" a team has to be awarded to qualify for the tournament?  Aren't those points won from conference wins?  So would a conference win in the CIC, or HC would carry more weight than a win by a team in the Patoka Lake Conference or the White River Conference?   How do you make those equitable?  (Notice I did NOT use the word "fair"?)  Or is a conference win just a conference win in general?  And are teams awarded points for "good" losses too?   If we are talking conferences, again I have to ask, "what about independents"?  Or would a team like Cathedral just be invited because of their SOS?  OH wait, you did mention win/loss and SOS didn't you?  So why not just use the Sags to rank all 320 teams and then have a cutoff at a certain number?   Don't even mess with having classes any more.  Just take the top 160 or whatever and place them in divisions (I am being serious for suggesting it).  I would think that would make things more equitable/interesting having teams regardless of enrollment, but closer in the Sag ratings, play each other in the tournament.  Yes, more equitable.  Right now the current Sags show that Lewis-Cass is ranked 32nd in the state rankings.  For example, let's say the top 32 teams are division one.  In that example, Lewis-Cass would be the last team in Division one.  Their Sag ranking says they would play against mostly 6A teams.  If they are so good to be ranked so high, then isn't that who they should be playing in the tournament?  Their tournament competition should match who they play during the season, no?  

[Footballking16]

27 minutes ago, itiswhatitis said:

They were?  Gee Wally, go figure.  Nice to have that information.   Forget about Cindy.  What I can't wrap my mind around is:  if you want to push being like Ohio, aren't there "points" a team has to be awarded to qualify for the tournament?  Aren't those points won from conference wins?  So would a conference win in the CIC, or HC would carry more weight than a win by a team in the Patoka Lake Conference or the White River Conference?   How do you make those equitable?  (Notice I did NOT use the word "fair"?)  Or is a conference win just a conference win in general?  And are teams awarded points for "good" losses too?   If we are talking conferences, again I have to ask, "what about independents"?  Or would a team like Cathedral just be invited because of their SOS?  OH wait, you did mention win/loss and SOS didn't you?  So why not just use the Sags to rank all 320 teams and then have a cutoff at a certain number?   Don't even mess with having classes any more.  Just take the top 160 or whatever and place them in divisions (I am being serious for suggesting it).  I would think that would make things more equitable/interesting having teams regardless of enrollment, but closer in the Sag ratings, play each other in the tournament.  Yes, more equitable.  Right now the current Sags show that Lewis-Cass is ranked 32nd in the state rankings.  For example, let's say the top 32 teams are division one.  In that example, Lewis-Cass would be the last team in Division one.  Their Sag ranking says they would play against mostly 6A teams.  If they are so good to be ranked so high, then isn't that who they should be playing in the tournament?  Their tournament competition should match who they play during the season, no?  

You got way sidetracked. 

Revise a rating system that includes W-L, opponent W-L, SOS and opponent SOS, add a tenth regular season game, and eliminate half the field at the conclusion of the regular season. Take the 16 most northern team 1-4A) and the 16 most southern teams (1-4A) and seed them accordingly.

[Bobref]

15 hours ago, itiswhatitis said:

They were?  Gee Wally, go figure.  Nice to have that information.   Forget about Cindy.  What I can't wrap my mind around is:  if you want to push being like Ohio, aren't there "points" a team has to be awarded to qualify for the tournament?  Aren't those points won from conference wins?  So would a conference win in the CIC, or HC would carry more weight than a win by a team in the Patoka Lake Conference or the White River Conference?   How do you make those equitable?  (Notice I did NOT use the word "fair"?)  Or is a conference win just a conference win in general?  And are teams awarded points for "good" losses too?   If we are talking conferences, again I have to ask, "what about independents"?  Or would a team like Cathedral just be invited because of their SOS?  OH wait, you did mention win/loss and SOS didn't you?  So why not just use the Sags to rank all 320 teams and then have a cutoff at a certain number?   Don't even mess with having classes any more.  Just take the top 160 or whatever and place them in divisions (I am being serious for suggesting it).  I would think that would make things more equitable/interesting having teams regardless of enrollment, but closer in the Sag ratings, play each other in the tournament.  Yes, more equitable.  Right now the current Sags show that Lewis-Cass is ranked 32nd in the state rankings.  For example, let's say the top 32 teams are division one.  In that example, Lewis-Cass would be the last team in Division one.  Their Sag ranking says they would play against mostly 6A teams.  If they are so good to be ranked so high, then isn't that who they should be playing in the tournament?  Their tournament competition should match who they play during the season, no?  

Ohio uses the Harbin system. You get points for a win based on the class of the team you beat. You also get “secondary” points based on the success the team you beat has. So conferences have nothing to do with it. But I use Ohio as an example because that’s the system I’m familiar with. There are many, many other systems available for use. My only criterion is that the system take into account strength of schedule in some way, so that W-L record is not everything.

[whiteshoes]

On 10/25/2019 at 12:24 PM, hhpatriot04 said:

I would favor starting a week earlier and allowing teams to pick a bye week. I believe Kentucky employees this or a similar system. 

A lot of states provide bye weeks, including Georgia who allow two.    My suggestion would be to start earlier, allow a bye week for all teams and let 6A and 5A go to a ten game regular season schedule.

[hhpatriot04]

45 minutes ago, whiteshoes said:

A lot of states provide bye weeks, including Georgia who allow two.    My suggestion would be to start earlier, allow a bye week for all teams and let 6A and 5A go to a ten game regular season schedule.

It's been said before, but now that teams are able to practice with pads and scrimmage throughout the summer, the Scrimmage Day (Week 0) could be eliminated and become Week 1. Other than playing more games in hotter temperatures, I don't see why a bye week would be bad. 

[gindie]

On 10/28/2019 at 11:18 PM, 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?

Actually, Ohio didn't think there were enough winners, so about 5 years ago they added another (7th) full class (not like Indiana's 6A half-size class).  So, now there are 224 teams in the tournament, a little over 30%.  All first round games (which are coming up this weekend) are played at the better ranked teams, then they go to neutral sites for the rest of the playoffs.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by gindie

[Bobref]

13 hours ago, gindie said:

Actually, Ohio didn't think there were enough winners, so about 5 years ago they added another (7th) full class (not like Indiana's 6A half-size class).  So, now there are 224 teams in the tournament, a little over 30%.  All first round games (which are coming up this weekend) are played at the better ranked teams, then they go to neutral sites for the rest of the playoffs.

Forgot about that. I really only look at Div. 1 & 2, since the schools I follow are St. Ed's, where I went to school, and Avon Lake, where I grew up ... to the extent I actually did grow up.