Roncalli vs Shortridge and other clearly lopsided sectional games

[Footballking16]

3 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Go read the topic started by Stoner which clearly shows that 31 sectional champions in 15 years were ranked outside the top 32 that would not have qualified using sagarin ratings. This includes Luers who were state runners up. Is reading comprehension a problem for you? Not sure what you are arguing about… The stats are right in front of you 

I read it.

The 31 sectional champions don’t represent a fraction of all the sectional champions. Think about.
 

There’s 48 sectional champions a year. We’ve played 35 state tournaments since 1985. Out of a possible 1,680 sectional champions, 31 have been bottom ranked Sagarin rated teams. That comes out to 1%. TWO have made it passes regionals. Like I said Monday, Cinderella in high school football is a myth. It doesn’t exist. 
 

Keep Trying.

[Komets2727]

4 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I read it.

The 31 sectional champions don’t represent a fraction of all the sectional champions. Think about.
 

There’s 48 sectional champions a year. We’ve played 35 state tournaments since 1985. Out of a possible 1,680 sectional champions, 31 have been bottom ranked Sagarin rated teams. That comes out to 1%. TWO have made it passes regionals. Like I said Monday, Cinderella in high school football is a myth. It doesn’t exist. 
 

Keep Trying.

Nice job of skewing his numbers. It clearly states from 1985-1999, not from 1985 to today. Big difference. Look, I am a huge proponent of not playing crappy teams, hence read my posts about Snider wasting a few games a year playing South Side, Wayne, Northrop, etc… I am excited that SAC teams are getting a couple games a year during the regular season to play competitive teams starting in 2023. Let South Side play someone they actually have a chance to compete with. Let the big boys play teams that are going to get them ready for the playoffs. 

[Footballking16]

13 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Nice job of skewing his numbers. It clearly states from 1985-1999, not from 1985 to today. Big difference. Look, I am a huge proponent of not playing crappy teams, hence read my posts about Snider wasting a few games a year playing South Side, Wayne, Northrop, etc… I am excited that SAC teams are getting a couple games a year during the regular season to play competitive teams starting in 2023. Let South Side play someone they actually have a chance to compete with. Let the big boys play teams that are going to get them ready for the playoffs. 

Ok double that then for hypothetical sake, although I know that number isn’t near as high as I have been tracking it since 2015. 62 sectional winners out of 1680 sectionals is still 3%. It’s a statistical anomaly. This idea that a 1-8, 2-7 team is going to somehow turn it on in week 10 because they’ve been given new life is a literal fallacy.
 

Sure, there have been a few teams like Cathedral or Luers or Roncalli who play above their class/competition during the regular season who go on runs but those teams are entirely better than their record suggest. Bottom half Sagarin teams beating top half Sagarin teams come tournament time are extremely rare to begin with and bottom half teams making it out of sectionals are even rarer, unless it’s aided by playing a bunch of other bottom half Sagarin rated teams. 

[Bobref]

The fundamental question is a philosophical, not a mathematical one: just how far are you willing to go to accommodate the chance that a Cinderella will miraculously arise? A top 50% qualification system turns many, many regular season games into quasi-playoff games, with the commensurate increase in intensity, fan appeal, etc. To me, it makes no sense to reject a system that has the potential to raise the level of football played across the state, every week, in favor of one that preserves a chance for a team that has done little in the regular season to dramatically and suddenly transform themselves into a contender. History tells us that chance is statistically insignificant. You’re trading a potential something for a demonstrated nothing.

[FinePrint]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

The fundamental question is a philosophical, not a mathematical one: just how far are you willing to go to accommodate the chance that a Cinderella will miraculously arise? A top 50% qualification system turns many, many regular season games into quasi-playoff games, with the commensurate increase in intensity, fan appeal, etc. To me, it makes no sense to reject a system that has the potential to raise the level of football played across the state, every week, in favor of one that preserves a chance for a team that has done little in the regular season to dramatically and suddenly transform themselves into a contender. History tells us that chance is statistically insignificant. You’re trading a potential something for a demonstrated nothing.

Definitely agree.  The question is philosophical.  But obviously many different philosophical positions on this topic.  

I really wonder just how many games by week eight or nine have the potential to move a team up or down enough in the ratings to get them in or leave them out.  It seems by the last couple weeks of the season very little movement happens in the rankings.  Would it be realistic to say that a handful of teams in each class could change their ranking enough to alter their post-season position?  So maybe we have 30 games per week out of 160 that could potentially have an impact on whether or not a team makes the playoff?  And of course by week eight we then have 150 teams that have nothing to play for.  Probably 100 of those teams are eliminated after week 3.  

Personally, I just don't see how a qualification system makes football better for Indiana high school football players across the board.

[Bobref]

1 minute ago, FinePrint said:

Personally, I just don't see how a qualification system makes football better for Indiana high school football players across the board

It’s a simple proposition. If you agree that playoff games — most, if not necessarily all — are played at an elevated level of fan & media interest, player and coach intensity, etc., compared to regular season games, then you must conclude that the more regular season games we can make “playoff like,” the better the regular season will be. Giving a lot of teams, but not all, a chance to qualify for the post-season turns regular season games into “playoff like” games. The logic is inescapable.

[FinePrint]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Giving a lot of teams, but not all, a chance to qualify for the post-season turns regular season games into “playoff like” games. The logic is inescapable.

Inescapable maybe.  But not inarguable.  

How does this make football better for every Indiana high school football player?  Isn't that the point of high school athletics?  It's about players,  not fan appeal.  If 7,500 players in the state have nothing to play for after week 5, how is that better for them?

[Bobref]

2 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

If 7,500 players in the state have nothing to play for after week 5, how is that better for them?

Wait a minute. They have nothing to play for in weeks 6-9 now, if you’re talking about games that have meaning in reference to post-season participation. For that matter, you can say the same thing about weeks 1-5.

[FinePrint]

10 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Wait a minute. They have nothing to play for in weeks 6-9 now, if you’re talking about games that have meaning in reference to post-season participation. For that matter, you can say the same thing about weeks 1-5.

Currently, every game in the regular season is an opportunity to improve because every team has a chance to win a game or two in the tournament, depending on their draw.  My team has been consistently poor, and in 80% of their seasons they would be eliminated halfway through.  But the players on the team how have something to play for right up until the last game.  And coaches have something to coach toward.

[00NWP]

Reading this thread, it is of my opinion, people whom are opposed to the all in format are those individuals whom want to watch "good" football games and be entertained.  I think if there could be a poll sent to every kid playing football...those kids playing for not so "good" teams would vote for the all in format.  On the other side, I think those kids playing for "good" teams, would vote against the all in format.  For the most part, most kids playing football know they are never going to make it far into the postseason and just love playing football.  The all in format allows for those kids whom will never put pads on again after high school to play another game.  They dont care if everyone thinks and knows they are going to lose...they just like playing the game.  Why would kids play for teams that dont win a single game one year, stay on the team for the next year...because they love playing football.  In my opinion, those individual whom are against half of the teams in the State not being eligable for post season...are kinda of just being selfish.  Football is an awsome sport to play...not just watch.  Let the kids play...the best teams will work themselves out in sectionals...if the 1 / 2 teams play first...who cares...if they truely are the best, they would have to play one another eventually anyway.  Just my two cents.

[Komets2727]

Let’s be honest here, there are so many teams that before the year starts, have no chance to do anything at all in the regular season, much less the playoffs. The list is enormous. Does that mean that the school just should not play football at all? Prairie Heights, Fremont, South Side, Northrop, and countless other schools are in this boat. With open enrollment in many areas and kids openly being recruited, this isn’t changing. Let the kids dream a bit, even if it’s just 1 week and results in a 56-0 pasting.

Look at college football, realistically there are 8-10 teams a year, usually the same ones every year, that have a chance for the playoff. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, you can almost pencil in before it starts, and sometimes an up start and that’s it. Does that make the rest of the season irrelevant and not fun? No. It does make it very predictable and boring though. Same in high school football, especially in 6A, Indy dominates because of numbers. 

[Footballking16]

17 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Let’s be honest here, there are so many teams that before the year starts, have no chance to do anything at all in the regular season, much less the playoffs. The list is enormous. Does that mean that the school just should not play football at all? Prairie Heights, Fremont, South Side, Northrop, and countless other schools are in this boat. With open enrollment in many areas and kids openly being recruited, this isn’t changing. Let the kids dream a bit, even if it’s just 1 week and results in a 56-0 pasting.

Look at college football, realistically there are 8-10 teams a year, usually the same ones every year, that have a chance for the playoff. Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, you can almost pencil in before it starts, and sometimes an up start and that’s it. Does that make the rest of the season irrelevant and not fun? No. It does make it very predictable and boring though. Same in high school football, especially in 6A, Indy dominates because of numbers. 

How much better is it as college football fan of say a school like Kansas right now? Historically awful program that up until last week was undefeated and ranked in the top 25? 

Think how cool it would be for an historically awful football program in the state of Indiana to play in actual meaningful regular season games that were building blocks to qualifying for a coveted playoff spot? Imagine a team that regularly starts 0-4, 0-5 starting off 3-0 or 4-0 with a light at the end of the tunnel. And not just for the players and coaches, but for the students, the fans, and the whole community? 

[foxbat]

25 minutes ago, 00NWP said:

Reading this thread, it is of my opinion, people whom are opposed to the all in format are those individuals whom want to watch "good" football games and be entertained.  I think if there could be a poll sent to every kid playing football...those kids playing for not so "good" teams would vote for the all in format.  On the other side, I think those kids playing for "good" teams, would vote against the all in format.  For the most part, most kids playing football know they are never going to make it far into the postseason and just love playing football.  The all in format allows for those kids whom will never put pads on again after high school to play another game.  They dont care if everyone thinks and knows they are going to lose...they just like playing the game.  Why would kids play for teams that dont win a single game one year, stay on the team for the next year...because they love playing football.  In my opinion, those individual whom are against half of the teams in the State not being eligable for post season...are kinda of just being selfish.  Football is an awsome sport to play...not just watch.  Let the kids play...the best teams will work themselves out in sectionals...if the 1 / 2 teams play first...who cares...if they truely are the best, they would have to play one another eventually anyway.  Just my two cents.

I'm not sure this is all-together true.  Players on teams that are good might worry that their season gets upended in the first week of post-season due to having to face another good team, but most of them are more likely to grouse about the fact that the sectionals aren't seeded, at most, than the all-in format.  The VAST majority of players that I've interacted with from good programs have the mindset "In order to be the best, you have to beat the best" and they don't really care when that occurs in the post-season.  On the other side of the coin, realistic or not, not-so-great teams dream of redemption in post-season ... regardless of whether they've got a snowball's chance or not.  I think you are right that many kids in not-so-good programs would favor all-in, but for good teams, I think it's a push at best and, more likely, not really something they think about much.

[foxbat]

I'm posting this again down here because it got lost in the numbers.  I believe there are more meta issues at play and am curious what the broader landscape issue would be in a reduced post-season.

 

 

[FinePrint]

12 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Think how cool it would be for an historically awful football program in the state of Indiana to play in actual meaningful regular season games that were building blocks to qualifying for a coveted playoff spot? Imagine a team that regularly starts 0-4, 0-5 starting off 3-0 or 4-0 with a light at the end of the tunnel. And not just for the players and coaches, but for the students, the fans, and the whole community? 

That happens so infrequently that it's statistically irrelevant.  Ha!  😆  Sorry, couldn't resist!!  

Carry on...

[Footballking16]

3 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

That happens so infrequently that it's statistically irrelevant.  Ha!  😆  Sorry, couldn't resist!!  

Carry on...

You are correct, it's not likely to happen.

But playing to actually earn a coveted postseason spot beats the hell out of the "entitled" 70-0 drubbing in a postseason game that shouldn't ever happen in the first place.

[FinePrint]

3 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

You are correct, it's not likely to happen.

But playing to actually earn a coveted postseason spot beats the hell out of the "entitled" 70-0 drubbing in a postseason game that shouldn't ever happen in the first place.

As has been said on here many times already, using a qualifying and seeded playoff system will not eliminate blowouts.  Every year under that system there will be several blowout games between 1 & 16 seeds and 2 & 15 seeds, etc.  Now, of course, the losing team will have earned the right to be blown out.  But still...

[Footballking16]

4 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

As has been said on here many times already, using a qualifying and seeded playoff system will not eliminate blowouts.  Every year under that system there will be several blowout games between 1 & 16 seeds and 2 & 15 seeds, etc.  Now, of course, the losing team will have earned the right to be blown out.  But still...

A qualifying and seeded playoff format rewards regular season success which isn't the case, at all, under the current format. The regular season is essentially meaningless in the current climate. If you get blown out as a 16 seed, at least you've earned that right to be there, that's something half your peers couldn't lay claim too.

A qualifying and seeded playoff format also protects teams who achieve regular season success. Gone will be the days where the top 2 teams in each class play in the first round. Imagine Duke and Kentucky playing in the first round of the NCAAT while Alcorn State and IUPUI. You'd laugh. It's no different with the all-in.

I can't accept a postseason format that a) renders the regular season meaningless and b) doesn't reward regular season success. You won't find another postseason format in any sport at any level where this is the case outside postseason tournaments that the IHSAA put on. 

[FinePrint]

5 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

A qualifying and seeded playoff format rewards regular season success which isn't the case, at all, under the current format. The regular season is essentially meaningless in the current climate. If you get blown out as a 16 seed, at least you've earned that right to be there, that's something half your peers couldn't lay claim too.

A qualifying and seeded playoff format also protects teams who achieve regular season success. Gone will be the days where the top 2 teams in each class play in the first round. Imagine Duke and Kentucky playing in the first round of the NCAAT while Alcorn State and IUPUI. You'd laugh. It's no different with the all-in.

I can't accept a postseason format that a) renders the regular season meaningless and b) doesn't reward regular season success. You won't find another postseason format in any sport at any level where this is the case outside postseason tournaments that the IHSAA put on. 

I haven't always been on board, but I have changed by opinion to a degree about seeding.  You don't have to go to a qualifying system to seed the top two teams.  I think it makes sense to seed the top two teams in each sectional so they would never meet until the championship game.  I'm also okay with re-seeding the remaining teams after sectional play.  So if there is any level of seeding, that would make the regular season meaningful.  In my mind, this is a reasonable compromise.

[Stoner]

50 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

 You won't find another postseason format in any sport at any level where this is the case outside postseason tournaments that the IHSAA put on. 

Missouri's high school football tournament is all-in. There are a few basketball state tournaments that are all-in beside ours.

[Footballking16]

8 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Missouri's high school football tournament is all-in. There are a few basketball state tournaments that are all-in beside ours.

Blind draw, all-in, regular season doesn’t mattter? Might want to double check that as they seed districts 1-8.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Footballking16

[Bobref]

2 hours ago, FinePrint said:

Currently, every game in the regular season is an opportunity to improve because every team has a chance to win a game or two in the tournament, depending on their draw.  My team has been consistently poor, and in 80% of their seasons they would be eliminated halfway through.  But the players on the team how have something to play for right up until the last game.  And coaches have something to coach toward.

So you believe a team like Hammond Noll, for example, that is now 0-7 and has been outscored about 10-1 this season so far, really believes they have a chance to turn it around and make a run, starting with going on the road against a Lake Station team that beat them at Noll 48-7? 

[Bullhorn99]

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

. . . The regular season is essentially meaningless in the current climate.

Meaningless for who?

[Footballking16]

3 minutes ago, Bullhorn99 said:

Meaningless for who?

For every IHSAA member school.
 

Show me another postseason format in any sport at any level where your regular season record doesn’t determine your seed/draw/opponent come postseason. A team in Indiana could theoretically not play a single regular season game and still compete in the postseason. It’s madness, make it make sense.

[FinePrint]

6 minutes ago, Bobref said:

So you believe a team like Hammond Noll, for example, that is now 0-7 and has been outscored about 10-1 this season so far, really believes they have a chance to turn it around and make a run, starting with going on the road against a Lake Station team that beat them at Noll 48-7? 

Nope.  No chance.  But I believe Caston - who is 0-8, believes they have a chance to beat 7-1 West Central in their sectional opener.  Their game on August 19 was an 18 point loss, Caston's closest game of the season.  I think Caston's football team is probably pretty excited about playing that game!