OK - I'm just going to do it - SEEDING!

[jets]

STOP IT!! This always happens every year when seeding gets talked about - the "playoff qualification mafia" shows up and tries to make this a conversation about them - IT IS NOT!! 

We can still let everyone in and seed the darn thing!! 

[Footballking16]

23 minutes ago, WWFan said:

I would even just say seed top 2 and blind draw the rest. If its about preserving the best match up to the end then they should get there. If #1 is upset by #3 in the first round then they just weren't as good as paper said. 

Even if you preserve the top 2, you increase the chance of unnecessary games. I would guesstimate that in the average sectional (relative to the sectional) there's 1, maybe 2 dominant teams, 2-4 average teams, and then the rest who have no business being in a postseason to begin with. Under the current format, the only way unnecessary first round blowouts are avoided are when the best teams play each other and the worst teams play each other. Cut the sectionals in half, seed 1-4, and it's a much more (usually) exciting and meaningful format.

[Footballking16]

9 minutes ago, jets said:

STOP IT!! This always happens every year when seeding gets talked about - the "playoff qualification mafia" shows up and tries to make this a conversation about them - IT IS NOT!! 

We can still let everyone in and seed the darn thing!! 

You're confusing the two.

I think most, if not everyone is in favor of some type of seeding. You're not really re-inventing the wheel here. But you also miss the unintended consequences of seeding. I see it, the IHSAA sees it, and that's why it hasn't or won't happen. Seeding will eventually lead to a qualification format whether you like it or not. My guess is we see neither (for the reasons I've stated above) and we're stuck with the blind draw. 

[US31]

Does the IHSAA get the money for 1st round sectional ticket sales???🤔

[Titan32]

If you live in a part of the state where a qualification playoff system will make your regular season games more "meaningful" ....I sincerely feel so so sorry for you. 

[tango]

 

1 hour ago, kingtut said:

The number 1 and 2 teams in Sectional 40,Tell City and Linton, according to Sagaran, meet in the first round at Tell City.  

Which might illustrate the problem.  Sagarin is not fool-proof.  The Sag numbers for the SIAC teams (and Summit) are all artificially low because they don't play any non-conference games.       

6 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

If you live in a part of the state where a qualification playoff system will make your regular season games more "meaningful" ....I sincerely feel so so sorry for you. 

I agree 100% Titan32.  

10 minutes ago, US31 said:

Does the IHSAA get the money for 1st round sectional ticket sales???🤔

No.  The IHSAA starts getting money at Regional.  Sectional schools split sectional gate.  

[Footballking16]

12 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

If you live in a part of the state where a qualification playoff system will make your regular season games more "meaningful" ....I sincerely feel so so sorry for you. 

How can you argue against that though, regardless of where you live? Any system that doesn't acknowledge regular season performance is in fact "meaningless". I'm not sure how you can factually argue otherwise. You could be #1 in the state, go undefeated during the regular season, win your conference title, and be "rewarded" with an away playoff game in the first round. That actually happened last year. #1 Avon went undefeated last year, was the #1 rated Sagarin team in the state heading into the playoffs and drew #2 Sagarin Brownsburg (a team they beat earlier in the year) on the road no less, and subsequently loss. Tell me how any of the 9 previous games Avon played meant a damn thing in regards to the postseason. You can't.

[Footballking16]

11 minutes ago, tango said:

Which might illustrate the problem.  Sagarin is not fool-proof.  The Sag numbers for the SIAC teams (and Summit) are all artificially low because they don't play any non-conference games. 

It's a ton more accurate than you think. I wish the archives were still around but there was a 3-4 year period where I seeded each sectional based on Sagarin rating and you didn't need a full set of fingers on either hand to count how many bottom half Sagarin rated teams beat top half Sagarin rated teams. Fool-proof no, is anything? But it's a lot more reliable than people give it credit for. 

[Titan32]

44 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

How can you argue against that though, regardless of where you live? Any system that doesn't acknowledge regular season performance is in fact "meaningless". I'm not sure how you can factually argue otherwise. You could be #1 in the state, go undefeated during the regular season, win your conference title, and be "rewarded" with an away playoff game in the first round. That actually happened last year. #1 Avon went undefeated last year, was the #1 rated Sagarin team in the state heading into the playoffs and drew #2 Sagarin Brownsburg (a team they beat earlier in the year) on the road no less, and subsequently loss. Tell me how any of the 9 previous games Avon played meant a damn thing in regards to the postseason. You can't.

The argument made here year after year is that kids will somehow play harder, or that the games will magically become more competitive.  You see you and I have a completely different perspective on what "meaningful" is.  We do all we can regardless of what it qualifies us for.  I can tell you there is nothing you can do in SWI to make the games mean more to anyone.  There are valid arguments for a qualification system but "factually" speaking, "meaning" is not one of them.  

[Footballking16]

16 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

The argument made here year after year is that kids will somehow play harder, or that the games will magically become more competitive.  You see you and I have a completely different perspective on what "meaningful" is.  We do all we can regardless of what it qualifies us for.  I can tell you there is nothing you can do in SWI to make the games mean more to anyone.  There are valid arguments for a qualification system but "factually" speaking, "meaning" is not one of them.  

That isn't the argument. The argument is that under the current system regular season games (in regards to the postseason) are effectively meaningless and you can't argue otherwise. Regardless if you're 9-0, 0-9, 0-0 your regular season performance isn't indicative of your postseason. Every team is admitted to the postseason and your draw is determined by a ping pong ball. Not your W-L record, not your SOS, not a conference title, etc....but a ping pong ball. 

[Titan32]

20 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

That isn't the argument. The argument is that under the current system regular season games (in regards to the postseason) are effectively meaningless and you can't argue otherwise. Regardless if you're 9-0, 0-9, 0-0 your regular season performance isn't indicative of your postseason. Every team is admitted to the postseason and your draw is determined by a ping pong ball. Not your W-L record, not your SOS, not a conference title, etc....but a ping pong ball. 

We will have to agree to disagree because you aren't going to get it.  I guess different folks are motivated differently.  A game is never meaningless, we battle for the W...that is all that is needed.

[Footballking16]

20 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

We will have to agree to disagree because you aren't going to get it.  I guess different folks are motivated differently.  A game is never meaningless, we battle for the W...that is all that is needed.

Trust me I get it. You will never convince me that a game that has implications doesn't mean more than a game that doesn't have any implications. Could just be me and if I'm in the minority so be it. 

Of course any game is going to be competitive. When one team wins and one team loses there is always going to be a level of competition. That's natural and isn't subjected to high school football. But this isn't or has never been my argument. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Footballking16

[Titan32]

Just now, Footballking16 said:

Trust me I get it. You will never convince that a game that has implications doesn't mean more than a game that doesn't have any implications. Could just be me and if I'm in the minority so be it. 

And you will never convince me that a qualification system make one bit of difference in the level of play.  I may be the one in the minority....I know @Bobref agrees with you.

[Footballking16]

8 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

And you will never convince me that a qualification system make one bit of difference in the level of play.  I may be the one in the minority....I know @Bobref agrees with you.

Again you're missing the point. In a qualification based system, the level of play rises naturally. Would you disagree with me that a sectional game and a week 2 game are on the same level of intensity?

That's semi-rhetorical but you get my point. 

[sr1]

46 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Again you're missing the point. In a qualification based system, the level of play rises naturally. Would you disagree with me that a sectional game and a week 2 game are on the same level of intensity?

That's semi-rhetorical but you get my point. 

Are you telling us that Cathedral's sectional game against a 2-5 Terre Haute South is going to be more intense than their week two game against the defending 6A state champion Carmel?

[Bobref]

45 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Again you're missing the point. In a qualification based system, the level of play rises naturally. Would you disagree with me that a sectional game and a week 2 game are on the same level of intensity?

That's semi-rhetorical but you get my point. 

You cannot convince the “all in” people with common sense.

I was on the field for over 500 varsity football games. Approximately 100 or so were playoff games. If you think there’s no difference in the level of competition or intensity, on the field, on the sidelines, and in the stands, between a regular season game, the first game of the sectional, and a sectional championship game, quite simply, you’re wrong. I can’t explain it any more simply than that.

[Footballking16]

30 minutes ago, Bobref said:

You cannot convince the “all in” people with common sense.

I was on the field for over 500 varsity football games. Approximately 100 or so were playoff games. If you think there’s no difference in the level of competition or intensity, on the field, on the sidelines, and in the stands, between a regular season game, the first game of the sectional, and a sectional championship game, quite simply, you’re wrong. I can’t explain it any more simply than that.

I don’t get it either Bob.

[Footballking16]

40 minutes ago, sr1 said:

Are you telling us that Cathedral's sectional game against a 2-5 Terre Haute South is going to be more intense than their week two game against the defending 6A state champion Carmel?

Cathedral should never be playing a 2-5 TH South team in any level of the playoffs. 
 

And I’m talking in general speak. Playing the defending big class state champion is the most extreme example in this scenario. A more plausible scenario is two 3-3 teams playing in week 7. Winner of this game more than likely controls its own playoff destiny while the loser is on the outside looking in with work to do. It’s a playoff level type game in of itself. In our current format, both teams already know their first round sectional opponent. That’s what I’m talking about.

[tango]

6 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

It's a ton more accurate than you think. I wish the archives were still around but there was a 3-4 year period where I seeded each sectional based on Sagarin rating and you didn't need a full set of fingers on either hand to count how many bottom half Sagarin rated teams beat top half Sagarin rated teams. Fool-proof no, is anything? But it's a lot more reliable than people give it credit for. 

I’ll bet you $1000 that MD beats South Spencer by more than 21 points.  That is the Sagarin, +3 for home field for SS.

[Footballking16]

10 minutes ago, tango said:

I’ll bet you $1000 that MD beats South Spencer by more than 21 points.  That is the Sagarin, +3 for home field for SS.

I don’t know a thing about either team. And I never once digressed that Sagarin was 100% accurate or the end be all. But it’s a lot more accurate (and non-bias) than the human eye. 
 

I respectfully decline.

[Plymouthfan91]

I think we all can also agree that the number of quality officiating crews available for sectional games would be better we had a play-in tournament.  I also think that if this was done we should offer the opportunity for those who don't make it to play a 10th game.  Play them on the Saturday after the first round playoff Friday games are played.  Allow schools to find an opponent that they are even with.  It would be great to see two 0-9 teams who are struggling play and get a chance for that first W.  These games could be anywhere in the state.  Imagine Lake Station vs. Cloverdale.  Two teams that are struggling getting a chance to play for that Win.

[MarshallCounty]

Yawn...

[hhpatriot04]

On 10/9/2020 at 7:09 PM, jets said:

Don't post much on here. Enjoying reading about different teams/conferences. 

If there is one subject that I would qualify myself as "passionate" about - it is SEEDING the Sectionals. 

I just don't get it (?) as to why they are NOT. I think almost every person I've come across says "Ya, that would make a lot of sense" or "Ya I'd like to see that get done" 

SOOOOOO - what is the IHSAA drawback to it?? What are their reasonings?? 

1. It doesn't have the coaches support?? (I find that hard to believe) 

2. It's going to lead to a qualification process?? (It doesn't HAVE to) 

I've honestly yet to hear a good argument against it.....

"Oh it'd be too hard to figure out if teams don't play each other and/or different conferences" - BOGUS- you can/wrestling coaches do it all the time. 

 

You're wrestling side is showing. I think @Rudy typically posts a seeded tournament (not changing sectionals) using either Sagarin or his power rankings?

I'm for the coaches seeding 16 teams in two sectionals, then using Sagarin to seed semistates, so the best teams play for a state title at Lucas and not having semistates often deciding state championships... It dilutes the quality of the state finals and penalizes the second best team if they are arbitrarily in the half of the state as the best team. Semistates would be at predetermined neutral sites and played on Saturday with 2-3 games per site.

[tango]

20 hours ago, Titan32 said:

And you will never convince me that a qualification system make one bit of difference in the level of play.  I may be the one in the minority....I know @Bobref agrees with you.

I agree with you

[oldtimeqb]

20 hours ago, Bobref said:

You cannot convince the “all in” people with common sense.

I was on the field for over 500 varsity football games. Approximately 100 or so were playoff games. If you think there’s no difference in the level of competition or intensity, on the field, on the sidelines, and in the stands, between a regular season game, the first game of the sectional, and a sectional championship game, quite simply, you’re wrong. I can’t explain it any more simply than that.

You and @Footballking16 are arguing a point that no one has claimed to be true. @Titan32 said 

Quote

If you live in a part of the state where a qualification playoff system will make your regular season games more "meaningful" ....I sincerely feel so so sorry for you. 

The only person that even tried to compare Week 2 vs. a sectional game was FootballKing.  His point was a regular season game in Indiana vs a regular season game in Illinois or Ohio with a qualifying system.  Personally, I do not like the "all-in" format for our football tournament. (It really shouldn't be called a playoff, to be honest.) 

I do agree with Titan32's main premise - the current regular season DOES mean something.  If someone thinks it doesn't, then I am afraid they are missing out on the big picture of HS football.