Jump to content

Indianapolis Star Polls Central Indiana Football Coaches On Seeding the IHSAA Tournament


Recommended Posts

In 2012 the IFCA formed a 14 member committee with myself and Ryan Gallogly {Brebeuf HS} as Co-Chairmans. We put together a 3- part proposal to the IHSAA that included- Part 1- 6th class, Part 2- Success Factor and Part 3- seeding {see below}.

I polled all the football playing schools Principals, AD's and Head Coaches in the state on all 3 proposals. Principals- 83% of the principals voted  & 85% voted YES, AD's- 86% of the AD's voted & 85% voted YES, Head Coaches- 96%of the head coaches voted & 91% voted YES. 

We presented are proposal the indiana Athletic Directors committee and they voted 24-0 in favor of are 3 part proposal. Then we presented it to the IHSAA and they approved the 6th class, they approved their version of the success factor {ours was for 4 years not 2} and they did not approve seeding. 

 

0?ui=2&ik=b5280c58f0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1739061635052051687&th=18226357d7c99ce7&view=fimg&fur=ip&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8n6paVs5-5tpZl0Fwevp7oRzIA4z5PpN4DcFJ3s0rcLfxncWOUiAjiWqw0Z0NGoxm2vzTyc_cZ_wslvOJ9v1OsaQVD0FqkBn-2AJ5fjRT0nQal-0BSW7_7jsQ&disp=emb0?ui=2&ik=b5280c58f0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1739063518098275268&th=1822650e4616bbc4&view=fimg&fur=ip&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ98ltgX3BcIRjjr37j-hoEcKRz1N33KAu0u-wmBdf4hrdAp4wOmUMCOn28hkMQI41f-04gOLZS7Egb9J2trn_qDbIqXsmqKVJi2X8PJBhIU3F3azQR_E2AfNAA&disp=emb

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, coachmay said:

In 2012 the IFCA formed a 14 member committee with myself and Ryan Gallogly {Brebeuf HS} as Co-Chairmans. We put together a 3- part proposal to the IHSAA that included- Part 1- 6th class, Part 2- Success Factor and Part 3- seeding {see below}.

I polled all the football playing schools Principals, AD's and Head Coaches in the state on all 3 proposals. Principals- 83% of the principals voted  & 85% voted YES, AD's- 86% of the AD's voted & 85% voted YES, Head Coaches- 96%of the head coaches voted & 91% voted YES. 

We presented are proposal the indiana Athletic Directors committee and they voted 24-0 in favor of are 3 part proposal. Then we presented it to the IHSAA and they approved the 6th class, they approved their version of the success factor {ours was for 4 years not 2} and they did not approve seeding.

FC9B0E90-174E-451F-AD1B-D6CAF5BD578B.gif.ae15ef52a11311a4169e54e7f119627c.gif

You would think that in this day and age…getting people to even be 60/40 in favor of something and not arguing against each other like madmen is nearly impossible….and you mean to tell me we have 90%+ in agreement and they were like “nah” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Coach May. That is an overwhelming amount of support from all of the people who should be the most important in the decision making process when it comes to this stuff. How the IHSAA is unable to recognize this is quite unfortunate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coachmay said:

In 2012 the IFCA formed a 14 member committee with myself and Ryan Gallogly {Brebeuf HS} as Co-Chairmans. We put together a 3- part proposal to the IHSAA that included- Part 1- 6th class, Part 2- Success Factor and Part 3- seeding {see below}.

I polled all the football playing schools Principals, AD's and Head Coaches in the state on all 3 proposals. Principals- 83% of the principals voted  & 85% voted YES, AD's- 86% of the AD's voted & 85% voted YES, Head Coaches- 96%of the head coaches voted & 91% voted YES. 

We presented are proposal the indiana Athletic Directors committee and they voted 24-0 in favor of are 3 part proposal. Then we presented it to the IHSAA and they approved the 6th class, they approved their version of the success factor {ours was for 4 years not 2} and they did not approve seeding. 

 

0?ui=2&ik=b5280c58f0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1739061635052051687&th=18226357d7c99ce7&view=fimg&fur=ip&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8n6paVs5-5tpZl0Fwevp7oRzIA4z5PpN4DcFJ3s0rcLfxncWOUiAjiWqw0Z0NGoxm2vzTyc_cZ_wslvOJ9v1OsaQVD0FqkBn-2AJ5fjRT0nQal-0BSW7_7jsQ&disp=emb0?ui=2&ik=b5280c58f0&attid=0.1.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1739063518098275268&th=1822650e4616bbc4&view=fimg&fur=ip&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ98ltgX3BcIRjjr37j-hoEcKRz1N33KAu0u-wmBdf4hrdAp4wOmUMCOn28hkMQI41f-04gOLZS7Egb9J2trn_qDbIqXsmqKVJi2X8PJBhIU3F3azQR_E2AfNAA&disp=emb

 Coach May, we’ve always been told that 70% support from the Coaches and a blessing from the IIAAA was the basis for making changes. Did the committee offer any insight into why no seeding? Is this something the IFCA will advance again?

Edited by Impartial_Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, In regards to seeding, they felt if they seeded for football they would need to seed all sports and all sports didn't have sagarin ratings. We didn't understand this line of reasoning since all sports also don't have 6 classes. The AD's loved the idea of seeding since there was a chance to make more money at the sectional level which went directly to the schools in each sectional.

 

In regards to the success factor, Bobby Cox liked the 2 year plan over our 4 year plan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coachmay said:

Then we presented it to the IHSAA and they approved the 6th class, they approved their version of the success factor {ours was for 4 years not 2} and they did not approve seeding. 

When you say it was presented “to the IHSAA,” I presume you mean the Board, composed of high school administrators, including ADs?

How did your proposed plan deal with the seeding issue?

Edited by Bobref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, coachmay said:

If I remember correctly, In regards to seeding, they felt if they seeded for football they would need to seed all sports and all sports didn't have sagarin ratings. We didn't understand this line of reasoning since all sports also don't have 6 classes. The AD's loved the idea of seeding since there was a chance to make more money at the sectional level which went directly to the schools in each sectional.

 

In regards to the success factor, Bobby Cox liked the 2 year plan over our 4 year plan.

I suspect that it was the issue of too much, too fast with Mr. Cox.  I always got the impression that he was not a big fan of big change and SF was a big change, at least for the time, and four years probably seemed like an eternity.  With some of the tweaking that we've seen recently and with some of the better understanding now that folks have actually seeing SF in action, what are your thoughts about the potential for a "re-presentation" of a four-year period ... for going up and coming down ... to the IHSAA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, foxbat said:

I suspect that it was the issue of too much, too fast with Mr. Cox.  I always got the impression that he was not a big fan of big change and SF was a big change, at least for the time, and four years probably seemed like an eternity.  With some of the tweaking that we've seen recently and with some of the better understanding now that folks have actually seeing SF in action, what are your thoughts about the potential for a "re-presentation" of a four-year period ... for going up and coming down ... to the IHSAA?

Was the only difference in proposals the amount of time and points? Or was there more to the 4 year cycle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, coachmay said:

the idea of seeding since there was a chance to make more money at the sectional level which went directly to the schools in each sectional.

Don't really understand how seeding would result in more money.  Two top ten teams squaring off are going to fill the stands whether it is in the first week of the sectional or last week.  If there is any difference, I don't think it would be much at all in most circumstances.  Particularly now that most sectional championship games are broadcast online.  If they REALLY want to increase paid attendance, they should quit broadcasting the games.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, DumfriesYMCA said:

Was the only difference in proposals the amount of time and points? Or was there more to the 4 year cycle.  

It's my understanding that the four-year cycle was comparable/adjusted to the original two-year with regard to points needed to move up/down, but required the points over a four-year period.  The big advantage/thought to the idea of the four-year approach for moving up, is it basically mitigated the concerns that once-in-a-lifetime really good class could propel an otherwise average program into the clutches of SF and punish later classes that didn't have similar firepower.  @CoachGalloglycan provide more  details on the reasoning though ... I'm working off of second-hand knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XStar said:

Two top ten teams squaring off are going to fill the stands whether it is in the first week of the sectional or last week.  If there is any difference, I don't think it would be much at all in most circumstances.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite agree with it. Sure, two big hitters squaring off will fill the stands in any round, but I think you will get MORE butts in seats if those two face off in round three versus round one.

There are plenty of folks out there that have huge loyalty to teams and you'd be hard pressed to get them to break away their first round game to travel to another game, big ticket or not. Impossible if they actually have a kid or family member on their team playing that night. Now, if their own team gets knocked out first or second round, that fan would be much more inclined to roll a county or two over to watch the two heavyweights duke it out since their own team is done. And I'd venture they would be a little, or even much, less inclined to make that trek if it ends up being a game that will likely end up lopsided since one of the only two real contenders has been knocked out first round.

In my highly uninformed opinion with absolutely no evidence to back any statements up, the first round of any given sectional should more or less be attended, overall, roughly equally throughout that sectional, no matter the randomness, or not, of the matchups. That is to say, if you're going to have about 8000 fans attending the first round of sectional X, you probably won't swing the pendulum too far one way or the other if the two top teams meet in that round or not. Local fans will be local fans. I'm hitting GS whether they are playing Heritage Hills first round or Washington (no offense Washington). But if GS is sitting at home the week of the sectional championship, I'm more likely to be at that championship game if it is the 1-2 seed versus the 1-5 or 2-4. I think that's how you get your better attendance later in the rounds, the marquee matchup.

Of course there are plenty of football fans that aren't particularly loyal to any school close to where they live, so they'll certainly hit up whatever matchup looks best whether it is week one or week three, and maybe even travel several hours for it  But I'd imagine the vast majority of first round games are attended by the family, friends, and loyal (and maybe even the casual) fans of the two teams playing whether it is a 1-8 game, a 4-5, or whatever. I really feel seeding would be more likely to get more folks traveling to games in the championship round once their own team is out. Not everyone is quite as diehard as some folks here on the GID, so it oftentimes just takes more hype to get them on the road once their own season is over.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Esso Ayche said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite agree with it. Sure, two big hitters squaring off will fill the stands in any round, but I think you will get MORE butts in seats if those two face off in round three versus round one.

There are plenty of folks out there that have huge loyalty to teams and you'd be hard pressed to get them to break away their first round game to travel to another game, big ticket or not. Impossible if they actually have a kid or family member on their team playing that night. Now, if their own team gets knocked out first or second round, that fan would be much more inclined to roll a county or two over to watch the two heavyweights duke it out since their own team is done. And I'd venture they would be a little, or even much, less inclined to make that trek if it ends up being a game that will likely end up lopsided since one of the only two real contenders has been knocked out first round.

In my highly uninformed opinion with absolutely no evidence to back any statements up, the first round of any given sectional should more or less be attended, overall, roughly equally throughout that sectional, no matter the randomness, or not, of the matchups. That is to say, if you're going to have about 8000 fans attending the first round of sectional X, you probably won't swing the pendulum too far one way or the other if the two top teams meet in that round or not. Local fans will be local fans. I'm hitting GS whether they are playing Heritage Hills first round or Washington (no offense Washington). But if GS is sitting at home the week of the sectional championship, I'm more likely to be at that championship game if it is the 1-2 seed versus the 1-5 or 2-4. I think that's how you get your better attendance later in the rounds, the marquee matchup.

Of course there are plenty of football fans that aren't particularly loyal to any school close to where they live, so they'll certainly hit up whatever matchup looks best whether it is week one or week three, and maybe even travel several hours for it  But I'd imagine the vast majority of first round games are attended by the family, friends, and loyal (and maybe even the casual) fans of the two teams playing whether it is a 1-8 game, a 4-5, or whatever. I really feel seeding would be more likely to get more folks traveling to games in the championship round once their own team is out. Not everyone is quite as diehard as some folks here on the GID, so it oftentimes just takes more hype to get them on the road once their own season is over.

I agree with this.  I’m sure it’s like this in other parts of Indiana, but the 812 definitely shows up when it’s a big game regardless of it’s their team.  Especially if it’s a bigger rivalry for the sectional championship. 

those are the games that sell out quick and then they have to roll out extra bleachers/sell as standing room only 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Esso Ayche said:

There are plenty of folks out there that have huge loyalty to teams and you'd be hard pressed to get them to break away their first round game to travel to another game, big ticket or not. Impossible if they actually have a kid or family member on their team playing that night. Now, if their own team gets knocked out first or second round, that fan would be much more inclined to roll a county or two over to watch the two heavyweights duke it out since their own team is done. And I'd venture they would be a little, or even much, less inclined to make that trek if it ends up being a game that will likely end up lopsided since one of the only two real contenders has been knocked out first round.

I'd be more inclined to agree with this 10 years ago but I think now that people can stay home any given Friday night and watch almost any tournament game online I think there are far fewer fans that head out to a specific game when they don't have direct ties to a team.  Not saying that there are none.  Just I don't think there are many.  Particularly when the weather is bad, I've taken advantage of YouTube or whatever a time or two over the past few years.  In later rounds when there might be multiple games of interest, it's a win-win.  And you can also switch to a competitive game if the game you thought would be a good one is a blowout.  If you go, you don't get to switch if the game is not competitive.  

If they want to increase paid attendance, they need to stop broadcasting the games.  That's a far bigger issue than the handful of fans that, if the stars align right, may attend a championship game that they would not attend in the first round for whatever reason.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, XStar said:

If they want to increase paid attendance, they need to stop broadcasting the games.  That's a far bigger issue than the handful of fans that, if the stars align right, may attend a championship game that they would not attend in the first round for whatever reason.

On point.  But look for this situation to be changed soon! 

Far too much and too many times, the "Sectional Championship" is in Round One due to the 'ping pong balls'  The regular season should count for something! 

Yes, the IHSAA gets their "dime" following the Sectional levels.....But I think with abundance of the ability to watch an unlimited number of games online at the Sectional level ..for free... This will be addressed sooner, rather than later.  

Enjoy the freedom now, it won't be this way for the ensuing years....  There is far too much to be gained by charging for the viewing in the comfort of one's home, than by the continuation of  allowing the ability of viewing on line for free, at EVERY level!   

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

On point.  But look for this situation to be changed soon! 

Far too much and too many times, the "Sectional Championship" is in Round One due to the 'ping pong balls'  The regular season should count for something! 

Yes, the IHSAA gets their "dime" following the Sectional levels.....But I think with abundance of the ability to watch an unlimited number of games online at the Sectional level ..for free... This will be addressed sooner, rather than later.  

Enjoy the freedom now, it won't be this way for the ensuing years....  There is far too much to be gained by charging for the viewing in the comfort of one's home, than by the continuation of  allowing the ability of viewing on line for free, at EVERY level!   

 

 

IHSAAtv.org was PPV-only throughout the tournament, and it's now PPV (and exclusive) for the semistate round in both football and basketball (and they redid the basketball tournament to take a round away from the regional and move it to the semistate, thus tripling the number of semistate games and PPV-exclusive games)

The part you don't know - the rights fee to do a video webcast is $300/game, paid by the broadcaster (it's more - often double - for a linear TV broadcast, and it's $72 for a radio/Internet audio broadcast ... the audio fee is up from $50 three years ago). The broadcaster is required to air the game without paywall for the sectional and regional. So the IHSAA gets its money, but it comes directly from the broadcasters. As long as the IHSAA believes it's making more money off that than it can off, say, a 50/50 split of PPV revenues, then they'll continue to charge the rights fees and require the games be freely aired. But I expect that to change in the near future - the 2021 basketball tournament was PPV-only (but that year was also limited capacity in many gyms and the PPV was seen as a way to recoup $$ and production costs for the broadcasters). 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2022 at 3:58 PM, temptation said:

Has any statewide data been collected recently?  One would have to think that central Indy coaches would be heavily in favor but do they speak for the rest of the state?

And of course the million dollar question every time this topic comes up:  HOW?

Just ask wrestling coaches - it is really not that hard. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, crimsonace1 said:

IHSAAtv.org was PPV-only throughout the tournament, and it's now PPV (and exclusive) for the semistate round in both football and basketball (and they redid the basketball tournament to take a round away from the regional and move it to the semistate, thus tripling the number of semistate games and PPV-exclusive games)

The part you don't know - the rights fee to do a video webcast is $300/game, paid by the broadcaster (it's more - often double - for a linear TV broadcast, and it's $72 for a radio/Internet audio broadcast ... the audio fee is up from $50 three years ago). The broadcaster is required to air the game without paywall for the sectional and regional. So the IHSAA gets its money, but it comes directly from the broadcasters. As long as the IHSAA believes it's making more money off that than it can off, say, a 50/50 split of PPV revenues, then they'll continue to charge the rights fees and require the games be freely aired. But I expect that to change in the near future - the 2021 basketball tournament was PPV-only (but that year was also limited capacity in many gyms and the PPV was seen as a way to recoup $$ and production costs for the broadcasters). 

Great info. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jets said:

Just ask wrestling coaches - it is really not that hard. 

Precisely. 

Even without Sagarins (or MaxPreps ratings in sports where there are no Sagarins), you can seed pretty easily using record, head-to-head meetings, common opponents. Wrestling coaches do it every year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jets said:

Just ask wrestling coaches - it is really not that hard. 

THANK YOU!!!!

If 8-9 Wrestling coaches can seed 14 different weight classes in a 1 evening.

Then, 8 coaches can seed a single sectional in about 20 minutes. Don't even have to be present. Each coach ranks the Section 1-7 (doesn't include his own). Emails it to Sectional Host. The host compiles them, and send it back to the coaches. Even make how each school ranked known to the other head coaches.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CoachDurham said:

THANK YOU!!!!

If 8-9 Wrestling coaches can seed 14 different weight classes in a 1 evening.

Then, 8 coaches can seed a single sectional in about 20 minutes. Don't even have to be present. Each coach ranks the Section 1-7 (doesn't include his own). Emails it to Sectional Host. The host compiles them, and send it back to the coaches. Even make how each school ranked known to the other head coaches.

What stops the coach from the 2nd best team in the sectional ranking the best team last?  Or the coach of the worst team from ranking the best team last to try to avoid a beatdown in the opening round?  Lots of games can be played with that method.  Not to mention that the playoffs are meant to determine who the best team is.  Not to cater to pre-determined notions.  If we've already determined the best team, let's just skip the playoffs.  

Edited by XStar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XStar said:

What stops the coach from the 2nd best team in the sectional ranking the best team last?  Or the coach of the worst team from ranking the best team last to try to avoid a beatdown in the opening round?

The other coaches. See also: Wrestling

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XStar said:

What stops the coach from the 2nd best team in the sectional ranking the best team last?  Or the coach of the worst team from ranking the best team last to try to avoid a beatdown in the opening round?  Lots of games can be played with that method.  Not to mention that the playoffs are meant to determine who the best team is.  Not to cater to pre-determined notions.  If we've already determined the best team, let's just skip the playoffs.  

If the results are known between all the sectional coaches, I'd think the stigma of looking like a total a**hat would be deterrent enough.  But we know that isn't always guaranteed.  Perhaps automatically throwing out the two highest and lowest seeds for each team might be useful in keeping the odd vote or two out?

Sure, March Madness has really always been a bust in my book.  Just award the national title to the #1 rank team at the end of the season and be done with it.  /s

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XStar said:

What stops the coach from the 2nd best team in the sectional ranking the best team last?  Or the coach of the worst team from ranking the best team last to try to avoid a beatdown in the opening round?  Lots of games can be played with that method.  Not to mention that the playoffs are meant to determine who the best team is.  Not to cater to pre-determined notions.  If we've already determined the best team, let's just skip the playoffs.  

The process of seeding teams isn’t saying that the 1 seed is going to win it all or that the tournament is going to play out exactly how the teams are seeded, especially not in a single-elimination format. Seeding is based on numbers and how teams look on paper based on their regular season results. It is a way of evaluating the success, or lack thereof, of teams during the regular season. The purpose is to reward the best regular season teams by making their road to a championship a bit easier than those that didn’t perform as well.

This also rewards fans as it gives them the best possible matchups further along in the tournament. Does it always work out that way? Obviously not. See March Madness for example. However, the goal is to give more value to the regular season, reward teams that played well during the regular season, and give the fans a more exciting tournament.

This isn’t a knock on you when I say this but I struggle to understand the opposition to seeding. Seeding is used in pretty much every professional and collegiate sport in the USA. It’s not a difficult concept. It is effective.

And if we’re going to devalue the regular season by letting every team in the state tournament, then let’s counteract it by putting some value into it by seeding the teams. Conference championships are great but what does that really mean in relation to the postseason? Not to mention, there are quite a few schools that don’t even belong to a conference.

So let’s give some meaning to the nine-week regular season. Even if we only seed the top two teams in each sectional and put them on opposite sides of the bracket then at least that’s something. With all the analytics and advanced metrics we have at our disposal today, I just don’t understand how we couldn’t make it work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

The other coaches. See also: Wrestling

I haven't a clue how wrestling works.  I'm just playing it out through the lens of a football coach who has stake in how things could be seeded and how that could influence their seeding.

I'm not for seeding at all, but if they did go to that why not just used something like Sagarin or another computer ranking system.  It could be flawed or have certain holes in it but those can always be tweaked to get to where you want.  When you start allowing humans and bias into the process you can expect trouble.  

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...