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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Proposal to Make Enrollment based Adjustments to Class 5A and 6A


Guest DT

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Thank you for actually doing this. I figured it would look something like this and looks even visually. This entire argument is a farce. Dummying down 6A does nothing to enhance either the 5A or 6A tournament. 

And amazingly enough, there's been several programs in the last 5 years with enrollments WHO WERE 5A programs or barely in 6A by enrollment who have won a sectional: Zionsville 2019 (played Ben Davis tough in regionals), Valpo (close loss to Carmel in Semistate), Cathedral (4A Enrollment) (lost to Ben Davis in Regionals and lost to Avon in OT in regionals), Ft. Wayne Snider (two close losses to Carmel in regionals). YET I bet fans of these programs were not complaining or moaning about losing to a team that had an enrollment advantage. 

Edited by MICFan34
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MICFan34 said:

And amazingly enough, there's been several programs in the last 5 years with enrollments WHO WERE 5A programs or barely in 6A by enrollment who have won a sectional: Zionsville 2019 (played Ben Davis tough in regionals), Valpo (close loss to Carmel in Semistate), Cathedral (4A Enrollment) (lost to Ben Davis in Regionals and lost to Avon in OT in regionals), Ft. Wayne Snider (two close losses to Carmel in regionals). YET I bet fans of these programs were not complaining or moaning about losing to a team that had an enrollment advantage. 

It's not an enrollment problem. Never has been. Two best teams in the HCC this year were also the two smallest enrollment schools. Both made it to their respective state finals. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am kind of talking to myself here, but I could get on board with a 24 team class 6A as long as the tournament was seeded. Otherwise, I just cannot get behind the proposal knowing a team could go 0-9 or 1-8 and host a sectional championship. I provided a bracket earlier showing how last year's 6A tournament with 24 teams could have been arranged by taking two pods of 12 teams (North/South). Here are all three of the potential brackets depending on how you would want to split them up. Seeding determined by Sagarin ratings at the end of last years tournament because I cannot find what the ratings were after the regular season.

In my opinion, 3 team sectionals are not great at all when it comes to matchups. I either like the potential for 4, 6-team Regionals or my previously shown 2, 12-team North/South split.

 

image.png.25cc9bca3dbb037362a9e50e04006629.png

image.png.3f22af7a3a1a6374299f55caf629f939.png

image.png.ae39a05f1e7f62c31b439ec4b1f702d6.png

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

I know I am kind of talking to myself here, but I could get on board with a 24 team class 6A as long as the tournament was seeded. Otherwise, I just cannot get behind the proposal knowing a team could go 0-9 or 1-8 and host a sectional championship. I provided a bracket earlier showing how last year's 6A tournament with 24 teams could have been arranged by taking two pods of 12 teams (North/South). Here are all three of the potential brackets depending on how you would want to split them up. Seeding determined by Sagarin ratings at the end of last years tournament because I cannot find what the ratings were after the regular season.

In my opinion, 3 team sectionals are not great at all when it comes to matchups. I either like the potential for 4, 6-team Regionals or my previously shown 2, 12-team North/South split.

 

image.png.25cc9bca3dbb037362a9e50e04006629.png

image.png.3f22af7a3a1a6374299f55caf629f939.png

image.png.ae39a05f1e7f62c31b439ec4b1f702d6.png

 

Not sure I could get on board w a team only having to win 4 games to be crowned a state champion. If you’re going that route where a team only needs to win 4 games, better off cutting 6A in half at the end of the regular season. Would at least be a more competitive tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

I know I am kind of talking to myself here, but I could get on board with a 24 team class 6A as long as the tournament was seeded. Otherwise, I just cannot get behind the proposal knowing a team could go 0-9 or 1-8 and host a sectional championship. I provided a bracket earlier showing how last year's 6A tournament with 24 teams could have been arranged by taking two pods of 12 teams (North/South). Here are all three of the potential brackets depending on how you would want to split them up. Seeding determined by Sagarin ratings at the end of last years tournament because I cannot find what the ratings were after the regular season.

In my opinion, 3 team sectionals are not great at all when it comes to matchups. I either like the potential for 4, 6-team Regionals or my previously shown 2, 12-team North/South split.

 

image.png.25cc9bca3dbb037362a9e50e04006629.png

image.png.3f22af7a3a1a6374299f55caf629f939.png

image.png.ae39a05f1e7f62c31b439ec4b1f702d6.png

 

I like the 4 regional set up.  Nice work.  No need for sectionals in the 24 team class.

4 wins at this level to win a championship is sufficient.  Only takes 2 to win in college D1 playoff and 3 to win NFL super bowl.  All games are more meaningful, and we will likley see fewer 60-0 first round blowouts, which are really a waste and happen far to often in all classes

Just now, DT said:

I like the 4 regional set up.  Nice work.  No need for sectionals in the 24 team class.

4 wins at this level to win a championship is sufficient.  Only takes 2 to win in college D1 playoff and 3 to win NFL super bowl.  All games are more meaningful, and we will likely see fewer 60-0 first round blowouts, which are really a waste and happen far to often in all classes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DT said:

I like the 4 regional set up.  Nice work.  No need for sectionals in the 24 team class.

4 wins at this level to win a championship is sufficient.  Only takes 2 to win in college D1 playoff and 3 to win NFL super bowl.  All games are more meaningful, and we will likley see fewer 60-0 first round blowouts, which are really a waste and happen far to often in all classes

Negative Ghostrider....they had to win all season to get there....not just about 2 or 3 wins.

Kind of interesting....for people pushing for a supposed increase of a trophy chance for some teams by pushing them to a lower division, this proposal had no problem taking sectional titles away from the top class

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Not sure I could get on board w a team only having to win 4 games to be crowned a state champion. If you’re going that route where a team only needs to win 4 games, better off cutting 6A in half at the end of the regular season. Would at least be a more competitive tournament.

28 minutes ago, DT said:

I like the 4 regional set up.  Nice work.  No need for sectionals in the 24 team class.

4 wins at this level to win a championship is sufficient.  Only takes 2 to win in college D1 playoff and 3 to win NFL super bowl.  All games are more meaningful, and we will likley see fewer 60-0 first round blowouts, which are really a waste and happen far to often in all classes

24 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

Negative Ghostrider....they had to win all season to get there....not just about 2 or 3 wins.

Kind of interesting....for people pushing for a supposed increase of a trophy chance for some teams by pushing them to a lower division, this proposal had no problem taking sectional titles away from the top class

I think the same thing @Footballking16 - but that is why I can ONLY get behind the idea if the tournament was seeded. If it is not seeded, I agree that a team only having to win 4 games to be crowned a state champion is tough for me to get behind. However, I would have no issues seeing the top 2 schools in each 4, 6-team regionals be awarded a bye and the opportunity to host the sectional championship game. I think that rewards the teams who have successful regular seasons, which would also take care of @Bash Riprock point of having "to win all season" to get to that point. Want the opportunity to have a bye and host the sectional championship? Win your regular season games.

Interesting that @Footballking16 you would rather see 6A go to a 16 team tournament as opposed to this 24 team option. Especially since 16 team tournament would equal only having to win 4 games to be crowned as a state champion... which you said you could not get on board with. 🤔

Again - to reiterate my stance - only way I am on board with any sort of restructuring/reduction of class 6A is if the tournament is seeded. If not - there is no point.

Edited by NLCTigerFan07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

nteresting that @Footballking16 you would rather see 6A go to a 16 team tournament as opposed to this 24 team option. Especially since 16 team tournament would equal only having to win 4 games to be crowned as a state champion... which you said you could not get on board with. 🤔

If you only need to win 4 games to be crowned state champion, I'd prefer a qualifier that cuts the field in half. 16 teams means 4 games for everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

If you only need to win 4 games to be crowned state champion, I'd prefer a qualifier that cuts the field in half. 16 teams means 4 games for everyone. 

As opposed to a qualifier that gives the ~top 8 teams only a bye? Like you realize there would be a pool of 16 other teams that could theoretically win a state championship playing 5 games.

Why remove (punish) 16 teams completely from participating as opposed to rewarding 8 teams and letting everyone still play in the tournament?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

As opposed to a qualifier that gives the ~top 8 teams only a bye? Like you realize there would be a pool of 16 other teams that could theoretically win a state championship playing 5 games.

Why remove (punish) 16 teams completely from participating as opposed to rewarding 8 teams and letting everyone still play in the tournament?

Because teams that go 0-9, 1-8 don't deserve to be in a tournament that crowns a state champion in the first place. But that is for a different time and thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

Because teams that go 0-9, 1-8 don't deserve to be in a tournament that crowns a state champion in the first place. But that is for a different time and thread. 

Fair enough - but yes - that is a different discussion altogether.

So your view is that instead of moving class 6A to 24 teams and seeding the tournament - you would rather keep the 32 team set up currently, but then only allow the top 16 to qualify for the tournament? I guess if that's the case - I would just rather see 5A and 6A be combined again and have the top 32 teams of that 64 team class qualify for the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

It's not an enrollment problem. Never has been. Two best teams in the HCC this year were also the two smallest enrollment schools. Both made it to their respective state finals. 

If a school of 4000 and a school of 2000 have the same work ethic from the coaches to the players, the bigger school wins 9 out of 10. Whatever Eric Moore is doing at Center Grove, he could do it better at Carmel.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

It's not an enrollment problem. Never has been. Two best teams in the HCC this year were also the two smallest enrollment schools. Both made it to their respective state finals. 

Two lowest free and reduced lunch rates also....😘

Welcome aboard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

Fair enough - but yes - that is a different discussion altogether.

So your view is that instead of moving class 6A to 24 teams and seeding the tournament - you would rather keep the 32 team set up currently, but then only allow the top 16 to qualify for the tournament? I guess if that's the case - I would just rather see 5A and 6A be combined again and have the top 32 teams of that 64 team class qualify for the tournament.

I'm saying that is an alternative to the 24 team playoff. 6A is fine as is and doesn't need tweaked for the betterment of 8 teams on the premise of an enrollment disadvantaged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BTF said:

If a school of 4000 and a school of 2000 have the same work ethic from the coaches to the players, the bigger school wins 9 out of 10. Whatever Eric Moore is doing at Center Grove, he could do it better at Carmel.

Non-sequitur.

The teams that have 2,000 students aren't losing to the mega-school enrollments with 4,000 students. The teams with 2000-2500 students (namely from the north) are losing to teams with 2500-2800 students in the sectional rounds. It's a non-issue. Columbus North can't complain about playing in a tournament with schools like Ben Davis or Warren because they aren't good enough to make it that far. They can't beat schools like Center Grove and Franklin Central in their own sectional with like-size enrollments. 

The whole premise of the argument is flawed. 6A doesn't have a mega-enrollment problem. Half of the mega-enrollment schools are average to just downright bad. 6A has a Carmel, Center Grove, Warren, and Ben Davis problem. Nothing more, nothing less. Moving the 8 smallest schools to 5A doesn't solve that problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DT said:

I like the 4 regional set up.  Nice work.  No need for sectionals in the 24 team class.

4 wins at this level to win a championship is sufficient.  Only takes 2 to win in college D1 playoff and 3 to win NFL super bowl.  All games are more meaningful, and we will likley see fewer 60-0 first round blowouts, which are really a waste and happen far to often in all classes

 

Agree. I think 4 regionals of 6 teams would be fine for 6A

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Footballking16 said:

Non-sequitur.

The teams that have 2,000 students aren't losing to the mega-school enrollments with 4,000 students. The teams with 2000-2500 students (namely from the north) are losing to teams with 2500-2800 students in the sectional rounds. It's a non-issue. Columbus North can't complain about playing in a tournament with schools like Ben Davis or Warren because they aren't good enough to make it that far. They can't beat schools like Center Grove and Franklin Central in their own sectional with like-size enrollments. 

The whole premise of the argument is flawed. 6A doesn't have a mega-enrollment problem. Half of the mega-enrollment schools are average to just downright bad. 6A has a Carmel, Center Grove, Warren, and Ben Davis problem. Nothing more, nothing less. Moving the 8 smallest schools to 5A doesn't solve that problem. 

You've finally come around on socioeconomic status' factor in athletic success.  Stop running from it and embrace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, temptation said:

You've finally come around on socioeconomic status' factor in athletic success.  Stop running from it and embrace it.

I haven't.

Last time I checked Noblesville and Lake Central have terrible football teams and HSE and Fishers are pretty decidedly average given their enrollment disparity among some of their peers. They all seem to be missing that one "It" factor though.....hmmm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Half of the mega-enrollment schools are average to just downright bad. 

Bishop Luers and Adams Central are pretty good. Maybe put them all in the same class? 

IF you have DOUBLE the enrollment of your counterpart, THEN you have a higher likelihood of having success against that opponent. Why is this so hard? It's why we have classes in the first place. It sounds to me like you want to go back to a three class system or even just one. 

Are you an attorney? You're going to hold on to your stance no matter what math and common sense says. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Moving the 8 smallest schools to 5A doesn't solve that problem. 

Maybe it does in some eyes.....perhaps reclassifying 6A to only 24 teams helps ensure their teams don't make it up to 6A.......

If there was truly a concern about enrollment differential causing unfair competition (and you've demonstrated repeatedly that is not the case with the top 8 schools), then there wouldn't be a proposal that would still expose a number schools to the enrollment gap in 6A.  One would simply break off the top 8 and play them in a tournament if enrollment was truly the concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BTF said:

Bishop Luers and Adams Central are pretty good. Maybe put them all in the same class? 

IF you have DOUBLE the enrollment of your counterpart, THEN you have a higher likelihood of having success against that opponent. Why is this so hard? It's why we have classes in the first place. It sounds to me like you want to go back to a three class system or even just one. 

Are you an attorney? You're going to hold on to your stance no matter what math and common sense says. 

You keep citing a scenario that doesn't come into play? Of the 8 the smallest schools in 6A, how many of them consistently have their seasons ended by schools with double their enrollment? Only on rare instances is that the case because the 8 smallest schools in 6A aren't good enough to advance out of their sectional against teams with like-size enrollments to begin with.

When it comes to a team like Columbus North or Warsaw, it's irrelevant that they play in a tournament with Carmel or Ben Davis because Columbus North can't beat CG or Franklin Central and Warsaw can't beat Carroll or Homestead in their respective sectionals. If Columbus North or Warsaw were routinely making it to SS and losing to schools with twice their enrollment then you'd might have a leg to stand on. But there's absolutely no earthly rhyme or reason why a school like Columbus North or Warsaw should be moved down a class because they can't beat times that have similar enrollments to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

Maybe it does in some eyes.....perhaps reclassifying 6A to only 24 teams helps ensure their teams don't make it up to 6A.......

If there was truly a concern about enrollment differential causing unfair competition (and you've demonstrated repeatedly that is not the case with the top 8 schools), then there wouldn't be a proposal that would still expose a number schools to the enrollment gap in 6A.  One would simply break off the top 8 and play them in a tournament if enrollment was truly the concern.

This is why I am convinced the real goal of these proposals is to get the big bullies out of the way of the supporters' favorite schools.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Grover said:

This is why I am convinced the real goal of these proposals is to get the big bullies out of the way of the supporters' favorite schools.  

It's exactly what it is. Just come out and say you want Carmel, Center Grove, Ben Davis, and Warren in their own 4 team division. Don't dance around it and dress it up as a mega-enrollment issue. Half the mega-enrollment schools, when it comes to football at least, aren't worth a salt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I haven't.

Last time I checked Noblesville and Lake Central have terrible football teams and HSE and Fishers are pretty decidedly average given their enrollment disparity among some of their peers. They all seem to be missing that one "It" factor though.....hmmm.

 

"It" = becoming private?

Just say it, you know you want to...(in fact, you already did above...)

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...