Ohio is the Laboratory for the All In Format

[dmizers3]

7 hours ago, PHJIrish said:

Basketball also?

I don't think basketball should be all in either.  I also don't know of a state where it isn't.   But "because its always been that way" isn't a valid reason for not changing. 

[DanteEstonia]

3 hours ago, dmizers3 said:

I don't think basketball should be all in either.  I also don't know of a state where it isn't.   But "because its always been that way" isn't a valid reason for not changing. 

At least you are consistent across all sports. 

[Bonecrusher]

"All in" = Everyone gets a trophy mentality.

Playoffs are a privilege, not a right IMHO.

[scarab527]

10 minutes ago, Bonecrusher said:

"All in" = Everyone gets a trophy mentality.

Playoffs are a privilege, not a right IMHO.

How is it an “everyone gets a trophy mentality” when every player knows they have to win 2-3 games to get a trophy?

Edited December 2, 2020 by scarab527

[dmizers3]

16 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

How is it an “everyone gets a trophy mentality” when every player knows they have to win 2-3 games to get a trophy?

Because if you're 1-8 or in hoops 5-15 what have you done to earn a playoff spot?

[scarab527]

5 minutes ago, dmizers3 said:

Because if you're 1-8 or in hoops 5-15 what have you done to earn a playoff spot?

No kid on a 1-8 team believes they have ‘earned’ a playoff spot. But if that 1-8 team wins a sectional, however unlikely that may be, they earned that trophy. 

[FastpacedO]

2 minutes ago, dmizers3 said:

Because if you're 1-8 or in hoops 5-15 what have you done to earn a playoff spot?

I guess I don't quite understand, who says you have to earn spots into playoffs? I mean I know there are pro, college, and High School states that do a playoff format that you have to earn your way in. That being said there is more than 1 playoff format: Single elimination, step ladder, double elimination, best of format, and Round Robin. As much as there is pointed at Ohio because they have a playoff you have to earn your way in, they do that because there are 700+ High Schools playing football. The numbers in Texas and California are very high too. Running an all in format wouldn't be possible without shortening the regular season (see Ohio this year 6 Reg season games). In Indiana there are about 320 football playing high schools so hosting an all in with 9 regular season games is doable. Yes I know many say it would make regular season more meaningful, but you could make it more meaningful with a seeeding process and home field advantage 2. There is not just "1" way to host a playoff. The term playoff in the dictionary doesn't specify you have to earn your way in, its simply a system of games after the regular season to decide which teams advance to play for the championship. 

[foxbat]

10 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

No kid on a 1-8 team believes they have ‘earned’ a playoff spot. But if that 1-8 team wins a sectional, however unlikely that may be, they earned that trophy. 

All-in kind of reminds me of travel baseball tourneys except that there's a seeding component in travel baseball tourneys.  You play all of your pool games on Friday/Saturday and possibly Thursday/Wednesday depending on the size of the tourney and then the elimination starts on Sunday in the brackets.  You are typically guaranteed pool +1 number of games with the +1 being the first bracket game.  After that, win and stay or lose and you go home.

[Bonecrusher]

42 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

How is it an “everyone gets a trophy mentality” when every player knows they have to win 2-3 games to get a trophy?

I didn't say everyone literally gets a trophy, it's that mentality that opens up the playoffs to everyone instead of the better/best teams (i.e. "We don't want to leave anyone out").  IMHO playoffs are a reward for the best performing teams to show their stuff against other best performing teams (best performing = winning).  Like I said previously, post-season should be a privilege, not a right.  I'm tired of people not wanting anyone to get their feelings hurt, so "let's let them all in".   Not a good life lesson there.

If a 0-9, 1-8, etc. team rips through the playoffs, there's a problem with that sectional that needs addressed, or that team has a crazy hard schedule/conference that needs to be looked at.

Sorry, that's how I feel and ain't no one changing my mind.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Bonecrusher

[scarab527]

4 minutes ago, Bonecrusher said:

Sorry, that's how I feel and ain't no one changing my mind.

Lol that’s all you needed to say. 

[Bonecrusher]

20 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

Lol that’s all you needed to say. 

You're right.

Believe it or not, I think I can understand where the opposing view is coming from - just don't agree with it.  Fortunately, we can agree to disagree.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Bonecrusher

[scarab527]

8 minutes ago, Bonecrusher said:

You're right.

Believe it or not, I think I can understand where the opposing view is coming from - just don't agree with it.  Fortunately, we can agree to disagree.

Trust me, I agree with you about participation trophies. I just don’t think those considerations apply in this situation.

[dmizers3]

5 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

I guess I don't quite understand, who says you have to earn spots into playoffs? I mean I know there are pro, college, and High School states that do a playoff format that you have to earn your way in. That being said there is more than 1 playoff format: Single elimination, step ladder, double elimination, best of format, and Round Robin. As much as there is pointed at Ohio because they have a playoff you have to earn your way in, they do that because there are 700+ High Schools playing football. The numbers in Texas and California are very high too. Running an all in format wouldn't be possible without shortening the regular season (see Ohio this year 6 Reg season games). In Indiana there are about 320 football playing high schools so hosting an all in with 9 regular season games is doable. Yes I know many say it would make regular season more meaningful, but you could make it more meaningful with a seeeding process and home field advantage 2. There is not just "1" way to host a playoff. The term playoff in the dictionary doesn't specify you have to earn your way in, its simply a system of games after the regular season to decide which teams advance to play for the championship. 

Don't disagree with most of what you said.  And yes clearly in Indiana the all in format is doable.  I would just prefer a 10 game regular season with seeded playoffs of a max of 32 teams per class qualifying. Doesn't make either way right or wrong, that's just my preference. I think you should have to "earn" your way in.

[PHJIrish]

6 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

I guess I don't quite understand, who says you have to earn spots into playoffs? I mean I know there are pro, college, and High School states that do a playoff format that you have to earn your way in. That being said there is more than 1 playoff format: Single elimination, step ladder, double elimination, best of format, and Round Robin. As much as there is pointed at Ohio because they have a playoff you have to earn your way in, they do that because there are 700+ High Schools playing football. The numbers in Texas and California are very high too. Running an all in format wouldn't be possible without shortening the regular season (see Ohio this year 6 Reg season games). In Indiana there are about 320 football playing high schools so hosting an all in with 9 regular season games is doable. Yes I know many say it would make regular season more meaningful, but you could make it more meaningful with a seeeding process and home field advantage 2. There is not just "1" way to host a playoff. The term playoff in the dictionary doesn't specify you have to earn your way in, its simply a system of games after the regular season to decide which teams advance to play for the championship. 

Yep!

[DanteEstonia]

11 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

As much as there is pointed at Ohio because they have a playoff you have to earn your way in, they do that because there are 700+ High Schools playing football. The numbers in Texas and California are very high too. Running an all in format wouldn't be possible without shortening the regular season (see Ohio this year 6 Reg season games). In Indiana there are about 320 football playing high schools so hosting an all in with 9 regular season games is doable.

Minnesota and Indiana have similar demographics, and they both have all-in tournaments. 

[Bobref]

17 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

I guess I don't quite understand, who says you have to earn spots into playoffs? I mean I know there are pro, college, and High School states that do a playoff format that you have to earn your way in. That being said there is more than 1 playoff format: Single elimination, step ladder, double elimination, best of format, and Round Robin. As much as there is pointed at Ohio because they have a playoff you have to earn your way in, they do that because there are 700+ High Schools playing football. The numbers in Texas and California are very high too. Running an all in format wouldn't be possible without shortening the regular season (see Ohio this year 6 Reg season games). In Indiana there are about 320 football playing high schools so hosting an all in with 9 regular season games is doable. Yes I know many say it would make regular season more meaningful, but you could make it more meaningful with a seeeding process and home field advantage 2. There is not just "1" way to host a playoff. The term playoff in the dictionary doesn't specify you have to earn your way in, its simply a system of games after the regular season to decide which teams advance to play for the championship. 

And this is the problem. There is an entire generation of coaches and fans who have never known anything but the all in, and who, as a result, have been infected with the “entitlement” mentality. It is exactly the opposite of the valuable lessons football is supposed to teach us: that nothing comes without earning it, and that you only get back what you put into it.

If the practical reality of trying to run an all in tournament with that many schools is the only reason states like Ohio don’t have an all in tournament, what about those states that have a lower number of football playing schools than Indiana? There are 33 states that have a lower population than Indiana, and about the same number that have fewer schools. What’s their excuse? Ohio has had their taste of the all in. If it’s a superior system, people are going to start beating the drum for change. But I certainly don’t hear anything like that coming from the East.

The fact is, the all in format makes the regular season less than it could be. The adherence to the all in system limits Indiana football. Do you even know the history of the all in format? It wasn’t a measured decision, arrived at after conscious deliberation on the question of what is best for Indiana football. It was done to settle a lawsuit, and to avoid any criticism of the IHSAA over selection or seeding. Not very good reasons. But the “justification” for the all in has been lost to time, as the vast majority of coaches, administrators and fans have never known anything else. We went from 64 schools in the playoffs (a little over 20% of the schools) to over 300. If the problem was that not enough schools made the post-season, then increase the number. But the IHSAA just basically threw up their hands and caved to the easy way, the way that doesn’t require anything more than just showing up. Interesting, we laud the high school football experience for what it teaches kids about life: work hard and you will be rewarded, you get what you earn, etc. But our all in format teaches them the opposite: you can give less than your all, including basically giving nothing, and still make the tournament. By doing so, we are missing the chance to reinforce those life lessons. And it’s those valuable lessons football teaches that justify us letting our kids do to one another that which would get them arrested if it happened on the street.

[FastpacedO]

44 minutes ago, Bobref said:

And this is the problem. There is an entire generation of coaches and fans who have never known anything but the all in, and who, as a result, have been infected with the “entitlement” mentality. It is exactly the opposite of the valuable lessons football is supposed to teach us: that nothing comes without earning it, and that you only get back what you put into it.

If the practical reality of trying to run an all in tournament with that many schools is the only reason states like Ohio don’t have an all in tournament, what about those states that have a lower number of football playing schools than Indiana? There are 33 states that have a lower population than Indiana, and about the same number that have fewer schools. What’s their excuse? Ohio has had their taste of the all in. If it’s a superior system, people are going to start beating the drum for change. But I certainly don’t hear anything like that coming from the East.

 

I certainly don't have entitlement. I simply said I don't understand where the thought comes that playoffs are an earned thing. Yes some states do it that way, but playoffs simply is a system of games after the regular season to decide which teams advance to play for the championship. There are multiple ways to hold a playoff.

 

You won't hear anything positive about the all in format used by Ohio this year. There are 2 reasons for that. The first is they did not like having 6 only 6 regular season games. The second and most important is how the seeding was decided in each Region. Leaving it to coaches votes where a conference could intentionally vote other teams lower to gain homefield advantage in the later games. Like I said you can have an all in format and make regular season games have more meaning by seeding and using ability to gain homefield advantage. You can also have a earn your way in playoff, but they would have to come up with something similar to Ohio's Harbin points because Sagarin will NOT work as it doesn't account for out of state opponents.

[boilerfan87]

Do away with conferences. Utilize sectionals as districts. Top 4 or 6 teams (1A-4A) from each make the playoffs (based on district standings). Playoffs feature cross sectional matchups based on seeds based on district standings. 10 game regular season. 7 district games, 3 non-district games to schedule as you choose. No formulas. No controversy. 

It's far fetched but it's essentially what Kentucky does molded to fit Indiana. Districts change every two years when enrollments are reclassified. Many of the sectionals are conference opponents anyway. 3 open weeks give you the opportunity to schedule a rival if they aren't in your district. You can schedule easy or tough, whichever serves your school best. 

It'll never pass, but this experience was the best I've ever had as a coach. I've been on both ends of the spectrum in Indiana. Having had the opportunity to see it done different, it makes no sense how Indiana does it. 

I don't expect many to agree, and that is fine. Just one man's opinion.

[Bonecrusher]

1 hour ago, boilerfan87 said:

Do away with conferences. Utilize sectionals as districts. Top 4 or 6 teams (1A-4A) from each make the playoffs (based on district standings). Playoffs feature cross sectional matchups based on seeds based on district standings. 10 game regular season. 7 district games, 3 non-district games to schedule as you choose. No formulas. No controversy. 

It's far fetched but it's essentially what Kentucky does molded to fit Indiana. Districts change every two years when enrollments are reclassified. Many of the sectionals are conference opponents anyway. 3 open weeks give you the opportunity to schedule a rival if they aren't in your district. You can schedule easy or tough, whichever serves your school best. 

It'll never pass, but this experience was the best I've ever had as a coach. I've been on both ends of the spectrum in Indiana. Having had the opportunity to see it done different, it makes no sense how Indiana does it. 

I don't expect many to agree, and that is fine. Just one man's opinion.

You haven't ever lived in Texas, have you lol?  This is almost, to the letter, what they're doing - and I'd imagine other states with qualification-style playoffs are similar.

Top 4 teams from each district make playoffs.  Districts are normally 6 or 7 teams, so they're getting the top half to two-thirds from each district.  There are a lot of folk down here that say 4 teams are too many.  10 game season, 4 or 5 non-district games to start with, then 5 or 6 district games - and those are what get you into the post season and determine seeding.  Most of the "good" teams try to schedule a few really tough opponents for non-district.  Toughen up the kids, learn a few things from some better competition, etc.  Something I would think the Snider's/Homestead's/Carroll's would, or really should, do if that were an option.

FWIW I don't think there will be an end to this debate.  I'll admit there are legit arguments on both sides, but don't see people being swayed from one to the other.

[DanteEstonia]

2 hours ago, boilerfan87 said:

Do away with conferences. Utilize sectionals as districts. Top 4 or 6 teams (1A-4A) from each make the playoffs (based on district standings). Playoffs feature cross sectional matchups based on seeds based on district standings. 10 game regular season. 7 district games, 3 non-district games to schedule as you choose. No formulas. No controversy. 

It's far fetched but it's essentially what Kentucky does molded to fit Indiana. Districts change every two years when enrollments are reclassified. Many of the sectionals are conference opponents anyway. 3 open weeks give you the opportunity to schedule a rival if they aren't in your district. You can schedule easy or tough, whichever serves your school best. 

Indiana did this for two years; it's the cluster system.

[Bobref]

2 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

I certainly don't have entitlement. I simply said I don't understand where the thought comes that playoffs are an earned thing. Yes some states do it that way, but playoffs simply is a system of games after the regular season to decide which teams advance to play for the championship. There are multiple ways to hold a playoff.

 

You won't hear anything positive about the all in format used by Ohio this year. There are 2 reasons for that. The first is they did not like having 6 only 6 regular season games. The second and most important is how the seeding was decided in each Region. Leaving it to coaches votes where a conference could intentionally vote other teams lower to gain homefield advantage in the later games. Like I said you can have an all in format and make regular season games have more meaning by seeding and using ability to gain homefield advantage. You can also have a earn your way in playoff, but they would have to come up with something similar to Ohio's Harbin points because Sagarin will NOT work as it doesn't account for out of state opponents.

You’re certainly correct that an entity is free to design any playoff system it wants, for whatever reason. That’s why 99.9% of the playoff systems in football require a demonstration of regular season success in order to participate in post-season games leading to a championship. What those people know, and what Indiana refuses to acknowledge, is that a playoff system is a tool by which to elevate the caliber of play in the regular season. That is the opportunity we are missing.

7 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Indiana did this for two years; it's the cluster system.

And it would have worked after a few tweaks, including increasing the size of the playoff pool, but for two things:

1.  The IHSAA found a way to avoid any criticism of the selection or seeding outcomes, something which had been widespread.

2.  Blind and unthinking allegiance to the conference system, which would have been disrupted in a major way.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Bobref

[scarab527]

5 hours ago, Bobref said:

And this is the problem. There is an entire generation of coaches and fans who have never known anything but the all in, and who, as a result, have been infected with the “entitlement” mentality. It is exactly the opposite of the valuable lessons football is supposed to teach us: that nothing comes without earning it, and that you only get back what you put into it.

If the practical reality of trying to run an all in tournament with that many schools is the only reason states like Ohio don’t have an all in tournament, what about those states that have a lower number of football playing schools than Indiana? There are 33 states that have a lower population than Indiana, and about the same number that have fewer schools. What’s their excuse? Ohio has had their taste of the all in. If it’s a superior system, people are going to start beating the drum for change. But I certainly don’t hear anything like that coming from the East.

The fact is, the all in format makes the regular season less than it could be. The adherence to the all in system limits Indiana football. Do you even know the history of the all in format? It wasn’t a measured decision, arrived at after conscious deliberation on the question of what is best for Indiana football. It was done to settle a lawsuit, and to avoid any criticism of the IHSAA over selection or seeding. Not very good reasons. But the “justification” for the all in has been lost to time, as the vast majority of coaches, administrators and fans have never known anything else. We went from 64 schools in the playoffs (a little over 20% of the schools) to over 300. If the problem was that not enough schools made the post-season, then increase the number. But the IHSAA just basically threw up their hands and caved to the easy way, the way that doesn’t require anything more than just showing up. Interesting, we laud the high school football experience for what it teaches kids about life: work hard and you will be rewarded, you get what you earn, etc. But our all in format teaches them the opposite: you can give less than your all, including basically giving nothing, and still make the tournament. By doing so, we are missing the chance to reinforce those life lessons. And it’s those valuable lessons football teaches that justify us letting our kids do to one another that which would get them arrested if it happened on the street.

While I genuinely appreciate the history lesson, I disagree for a couple reasons:

1. I don’t think the all-in format breeds entitlement whatsoever. True, the tournament has gotten rid of the idea of ‘earning your way’ into the playoffs. But the tournament has replaced the idea of earning the playoffs with earning sectional/regional/state trophies. I doubt any kid in Indiana feels any sense of ‘entitlement’ about winning one of these trophies. A by-product of this is you also don’t get the “well at least we made the playoffs” excuse you see in other states, and teams put priority on winning those playoff trophies because none of them think just getting to the playoffs is something to be proud of. This makes kids not settle and not be complacent, which I would definitely consider a good life lesson. 

2. I do not think the all-in format diminishes the regular season at all either. The kids want to win every single game they play in, the fact everyone makes the playoffs does not change that. Also add in the fact that the all-in format has resulted in many teams scheduling the hardest in-season competition they can find. If we went to a qualifying format, you’d see teams schedule more cupcake games and drop some of those great regular season matchups (CG-Cathedral, for example). If anything, the all-in format ends up increasing the level of competition in the regular season, as teams strive to play the best opponents to gear themselves up for the tournament. 

3. The current tournament leads to some unpredictable results. This year, you had 3-6 Leurs, 5-4 WeBo, and 4-5 Zionsville all make runs to the state finals. Would these teams have made it into a qualifying playoff format? How many big upsets or wild runs to LOS would we be missing out on by adopting a qualifying structure? 

 

[trojan14]

Personally, I like the all-in format, but I've been reading all the replies and attempting to have an open mind about those opinions that are different than my own.  Here is the conclusion I've come up with:

We don't have playoffs in Indiana.  We have a tournament.  The IHSAA tournament--meaning the members of the IHSAA are invited to participate in the tournament.  If you go to the IHSAA website, the graphic on the left side of the page lists "State Tournament Shortcuts".  

With that said, tournaments happen all the time in many sports and nobody seems to have a major problem with them.  Why the problem with this tournament?  

[boilerfan87]

3 hours ago, Bonecrusher said:

You haven't ever lived in Texas, have you lol?  This is almost, to the letter, what they're doing - and I'd imagine other states with qualification-style playoffs are similar.

Top 4 teams from each district make playoffs.  Districts are normally 6 or 7 teams, so they're getting the top half to two-thirds from each district.  There are a lot of folk down here that say 4 teams are too many.  10 game season, 4 or 5 non-district games to start with, then 5 or 6 district games - and those are what get you into the post season and determine seeding.  Most of the "good" teams try to schedule a few really tough opponents for non-district.  Toughen up the kids, learn a few things from some better competition, etc.  Something I would think the Snider's/Homestead's/Carroll's would, or really should, do if that were an option.

FWIW I don't think there will be an end to this debate.  I'll admit there are legit arguments on both sides, but don't see people being swayed from one to the other.

Not, Texas, unfortunately. I almost made the jump - I  had an offer near El Paso, I believe - but family kept me closer in Kentucky. That's my experience with it. 

2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Indiana did this for two years; it's the cluster system.

You and I have discussed this before. If 6 of 8 out of your "district" make it, that is far different than the old cluster system. I personally have no issue with with all 8 of the district teams making the tournament as a starting point for seeding purposes. Plus, in this proposal, everyone in 5A/6A would make it since they already have 4 team "districts." 

1 hour ago, scarab527 said:

3. The current tournament leads to some unpredictable results. This year, you had 3-6 Leurs, 5-4 WeBo, and 4-5 Zionsville all make runs to the state finals. Would these teams have made it into a qualifying playoff format? How many big upsets or wild runs to LOS would we be missing out on by adopting a qualifying structure? 

 

In my proposal, all those guys make it. WeBo was already undefeated vs. sectional 37 opponents in the regular season. Luers was as well against sectional 35 opponents. Zionsville is 5A so all 5A teams would make it in this proposal. It would be all about district standings and I say top 4 or 6 out of 8 would make it. If you do 4, you maintain your simple playoff structure. If you did 6, the top 2 teams would have a bye on week 1 of playoffs. 

[scarab527]

58 minutes ago, boilerfan87 said:

In my proposal, all those guys make it. WeBo was already undefeated vs. sectional 37 opponents in the regular season. Luers was as well against sectional 35 opponents. Zionsville is 5A so all 5A teams would make it in this proposal. It would be all about district standings and I say top 4 or 6 out of 8 would make it. If you do 4, you maintain your simple playoff structure. If you did 6, the top 2 teams would have a bye on week 1 of playoffs. 

? Luers hadn’t played any sectional opponents in the regular season. WeBo only played one in Southmont.