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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Cinderella is a myth


Recommended Posts

End of week 8 up until kickoff of the opening round of sectionals always brings up the qualifier debate, one I'm deeply passionate about. One of the biggest talking points for keeping the all-in is this roundabout myth that bottom half Sagarin teams flourish in the state tournament. Short answer is....they don't. If sectionals were seeded accordingly it would only further my point that a qualifier that cuts the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season is more than an appropriate measure for the IHSAA to put out a more competitive and exciting product come tournament time. I have decided to once again track every postseason outcome (especially games that feature a top half Sagarin rated team vs a bottom half Sagarin rated team), and if history repeats itself, will only further the narrative for a new postseason format.

6A

Sectional 1

Crown Point (7) vs Portage (28)

Lake Central (23) vs Lafayette Jefferson (16)

Sectional 2

FW Carroll (9) vs Penn (14)

Elkhart (21) vs Warsaw (17)

Sectional 3

Fishers (8) vs FW Northrop (29)

Homestead (22) vs HSE (4)

Sectional 4

Westfield (10) vs Carmel (5)

Zionsville (20) vs Noblesville (18)

Sectional 5

Brownsburg (2) vs Ben Davis (6)

Avon (19) vs Pike (24)

Sectional 6

Lawrence North (13) vs Cathedral (1)

North Central (27) vs Lawrence Central (12)

Sectional 7

Tech (30) vs Perry Meridian (25)

Warren Central (11) vs Southport (31)

Sectional 8

Center Grove (3) vs Franklin Central (15)

Columbus North (26) vs Jeffersonville (32)

5A

SECTIONAL 9 

Munster (30) at Merrillville (5)

Hammond Central (25) at Hammond Morton (32)

SECTIONAL 10 

Valparaiso (9) at LaPorte (23)

Chesterton (7) at Michigan City (19)

SECTIONAL 11 

Concord (15) at Goshen (28)

South Bend Adams (26) at Mishawaka (8)

SECTIONAL 12 

Anderson (27) at Fort Wayne North (6)

Fort Wayne Snider (1) at Fort Wayne Dwenger (16)

SECTIONAL 13 

McCutcheon (21) at Decatur Central (11)

Plainfield (13) at Harrison (West Lafayette) (10)

SECTIONAL 14 [BRACKET]

Franklin (4) at Terre Haute South (12)

Terre Haute North (24) at Whiteland (2)

SECTIONAL 15 [BRACKET]

Seymour (22) at Bloomington North (18)

Bloomington South (3) at Columbus East (20)

SECTIONAL 16 

Floyd Central (29) at Evansville North (17)

Castle (14) at New Albany (31)

4A

SECTIONAL 17 

Lowell (26) at Culver Academy (42)

Kankakee Valley (43) at New Prairie (10)

Gary West (28) at Hobart (16)

Highland (45) at East Chicago Central (62)

SECTIONAL 18 

Wawasee (46) at Logansport (25)

Northridge (18) at South Bend Riley (41)

NorthWood (5) at South Bend Washington (56)

South Bend St. Joseph (38) at Plymouth (53)

SECTIONAL 19 

East Noble (30) at Angola (23)

Fort Wayne South (50) at Leo (17)

New Haven (29) at DeKalb (39)

Columbia City (6) at Fort Wayne Wayne (32)

SECTIONAL 20 

Mississinewa (27) at Marion (54)

Huntington North (44) at Muncie Central (36)

Kokomo (11) at Frankfort (61)

Western (24) at Jay County (52)

SECTIONAL 21 

Brebeuf Jesuit (4) at Northview (21)

Lebanon (20) at Mooresville (8)

Indianapolis Roncalli (2) at Indianapolis Shortridge (59)

Indianapolis Washington (63) at Indianapolis Attucks (58)

SECTIONAL 22 

Richmond (57) at Connersville (37)

Beech Grove (31) at New Castle (40)

New Palestine (1) at Mount Vernon (Fortville) (9)

Pendleton Heights (19) at Greenfield-Central (12)

SECTIONAL 23 

Bedford North Lawrence (35) at Shelbyville (49)

Martinsville (13) at Greenwood (33)

Silver Creek (51) at Jennings County (48)

Edgewood (60) at East Central (3)

SECTIONAL 24 

Evansville Memorial (14) at Evansville Bosse (47)

Boonville (22) at Evansville Harrison (34)

Evansville Central (55) at Evansville Reitz (7)

Jasper (15) at Winner Game 1

3A

SECTIONAL 25 

Twin Lakes (60) at West Lafayette (2)

Boone Grove (50) at Calumet (31)

Griffith (46) at River Forest (48)

Hanover Central (6) at Rensselaer Central (34)

SECTIONAL 26 

Mishawaka Marian (42) at West Noble (23)

Lakeland (44) at Knox (16)

South Bend Clay (64) at Jimtown (24)

Fairfield (39) at John Glenn (37)

SECTIONAL 27 

Norwell (1) at Heritage (27)

Fort Wayne Concordia (32) at Woodlan (38)

Yorktown (14) at Delta (28)

Bellmont (59) at Garrett (36)

SECTIONAL 28 

Indianapolis Chatard (3) at Northwestern (53)

Hamilton Heights (13) at Maconaquah (47)

Guerin Catholic (9) at Oak Hill (10)

Tippecanoe Valley (18) at Peru (56)

SECTIONAL 29 

Western Boone (5) at Crawfordsville (54)

Tri-West (8) at Danville (25)

Monrovia (45) at Purdue Polytechnic (63)

Speedway (19) at North Montgomery (21)

SECTIONAL 30 

Vincennes Lincoln (17) at Gibson Southern (7)

Owen Valley (12) at Mount Vernon (Posey) (26)

Princeton (62) at West Vigo (57)

Washington (61) at Pike Central (58)

SECTIONAL 31 

Lawrenceburg (4) at South Dearborn (22)

Greensburg (43) at Rushville (52)

Indian Creek (30) at Franklin County (41)

Batesville (40) at Centerville (33)

SECTIONAL 32 

Scottsburg (49) at Corydon Central (51)

North Harrison (29) at Southridge (11)

Madison (35) at Heritage Hills (15)

Charlestown (19) at Salem (55)

2A

SECTIONAL 33 

Whiting (41) at LaVille (3)

Wheeler (45) at Bremen (30)

Hammond Noll (61) at Lake Station (57)

Andrean (7) at Winner Game 1

SECTIONAL 34 

Winamac (43) at Lafayette Central Catholic (10)

Rochester (11) at Seeger (24)

Benton Central (48) at Delphi (40)

Lewis Cass (13) at Winner Game 1

SECTIONAL 35 

Prairie Heights (51) at Fort Wayne Luers (8)

Churubusco (9) at Central Noble (39)

Eastside (5) at Wabash (47)

Manchester (46) at Whitko (60)

SECTIONAL 36 

Eastbrook (19) at Frankton (33)

Elwood (59) at Alexandria (37)

Bluffton (23) at Blackford (54)

Tipton (27) at Eastern (Greentown) (22)

SECTIONAL 37 

Linton-Stockton (2) at South Vermillion (25)

North Knox (31) at Southmont (16)

Sullivan (12) at North Putnam (32)

Greencastle (36) at Cascade (15)

SECTIONAL 38 

Indianapolis Ritter (44) at Shenandoah (21)

Heritage Christian (14) at Northeastern (20)

Winchester (52) at Lapel (26)

Eastern Hancock (35) at Union County (50)

SECTIONAL 39 

Triton Central (1) at Christel House Manual (56)

Brownstown Central (28) at Brown County (58)

Switzerland County (55) at Indianapolis Scecina (4)

Clarksville (38) at Eastern (Pekin) (49)

SECTIONAL 40 

Forest Park (42) at North Posey (17)

Mitchell (53) at Paoli (29)

Tell City (34) at Crawford County (62)

Perry Central (18) at Evansville Mater Dei (6)

1A

SECTIONAL 41 

Bowman Academy (49) at South Central (Union Mills) (55)

North Newton (54) at Culver (27)

Triton (10) at Pioneer (29)

North Judson (3) at South Newton (33)

SECTIONAL 42 

Clinton Central (56) at Traders Point Christian (24)

North Vermillion (23) at Covington (42)

Park Tudor (14) at Clinton Prairie (32)

Fountain Central (30) at Attica (59)

SECTIONAL 43 

Frontier (43) at Taylor (51)

West Central (21) at Caston (45)

Tri-County (53) at Tri-Central (34)

Carroll (Flora) (15) at North White (37)

SECTIONAL 44 

Fremont (39) at South Adams (16)

Adams Central (2) at Southwood (12)

North Miami (31) at Madison-Grant (13)

Northfield (18) at Southern Wells (46)

SECTIONAL 45 

Union City (57) at Sheridan (8)

Indiana Deaf (38) at Indianapolis Tindley (44)

Wes-Del (47) at Hagerstown (36)

Monroe Central (28) at Winner Game 1

SECTIONAL 46 

Knightstown (58) at Edinburgh (40)

South Decatur (48) at Milan (26)

North Decatur (4) at Tri (11)

Cambridge City Lincoln (60) at Winner Game 1

SECTIONAL 47 

South Putnam (6) at Indianapolis Lutheran (1)

Riverton Parke (19) at North Central (Farmersburg) (41)

Covenant Christian (7) at Parke Heritage (50)

Cloverdale (52) at Winner Game 1

SECTIONAL 48 

South Spencer (20) at Tecumseh (5)

Springs Valley (17) at Providence (9)

West Washington (25) at Eastern Greene (35)

North Daviess (22) at Winner Game 1

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

If sectionals were seeded accordingly it would only further my point that a qualifier that cuts the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season is more than an appropriate measure for the IHSAA to put out a more competitive and exciting product come tournament time.

This is a worthwhile effort that, I hope, will drive a stake through the heart of this myth once and for all. I am in lockstep with @Footballking16’s thinking on this issue. But while he is no doubt right in his conclusion, I place more emphasis on what such a qualifying format would do for the regular season. By raising the stakes for many, many regular season games, the whole season becomes more competitive. The level of interest and the caliber of play would rise accordingly. Better for everyone.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bobref said:

This is a worthwhile effort that, I hope, will drive a stake through the heart of this myth once and for all. I am in lockstep with @Footballking16’s thinking on this issue. But while he is no doubt right in his conclusion, I place more emphasis on what such a qualifying format would do for the regular season. By raising the stakes for many, many regular season games, the whole season becomes more competitive. The level of interest and the caliber of play would rise accordingly. Better for everyone.

Agreed 

 

all in format is good for Indiana with only like 330 teams…would just be great to see the regular season mean something for everyone.  
 

maybe it’s just my opinion….but for many conferences we already have an idea who are the favorites, and often, it takes an undefeated conference effort to win the conference.  
 

i genuinely feel like there are a number of teams who take their foot off the gas a little once they get a conference loss or two.  And some of those teams could definitely finish the year at like 7-2/6-3 and make a good run…but I think they often finish out somewhere around 4-5/5-4 because they lose a bit of an edge.

 

i just have to agree that if we seeded maybe we would see some of these teams pushing themselves more because they know 1 more win could mean being on the opposite side of the bracket….and imo once you get to a trophy game in week 12 and beyond…it’s anyones ball game.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, is this an argument to qualify for the tournament or just for it to be seeded? There seems to be a bit of both sentiments in the comments. I think seeding is probably a good idea, but all teams should still participate. Keep in mind several conferences that cover 3 different classes, a 1A school might be getting beat up by bigger schools and then make a run in the tournament. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 5GetsYou1 said:

Just curious, is this an argument to qualify for the tournament or just for it to be seeded? There seems to be a bit of both sentiments in the comments. I think seeding is probably a good idea, but all teams should still participate. Keep in mind several conferences that cover 3 different classes, a 1A school might be getting beat up by bigger schools and then make a run in the tournament. 

Seeding the sectionals 1-4 in 5A-6A and 1-8 in the remaining classes would be the precursor to a qualifying format the cuts the field in half at the conclusion of the regular season after a tenth game is added. 

A qualifying format that uses a rating system that factors in W-L, opp W-L, SOS, and opp SOS will give weight to smaller schools who play in larger classes. Luers and Mater Dei are prime examples. 4-5 Luers finished 8th in 2A Sagarin despite going 4-5 and in previous tournaments as recently as 2019 and 2020 qualified comfortably despite going 2-7 and 3-6. 

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

5 minutes ago, 5GetsYou1 said:

Just curious, is this an argument to qualify for the tournament or just for it to be seeded? There seems to be a bit of both sentiments in the comments. I think seeding is probably a good idea, but all teams should still participate. Keep in mind several conferences that cover 3 different classes, a 1A school might be getting beat up by bigger schools and then make a run in the tournament. 

I agree. Not sure why there needs to be a qualifier. No other IHSAA sport has a qualifier for post-season play. I feel like we forget these games are for the kids and not necessarily for the fans that think every game should be a contest of epic proportions. Seed them so the best teams get the most games. I have no problem with that. I do wish they would have a rule where there are no rematches in Round 1. We play so few games, just play someone else.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DumfriesYMCA said:

i genuinely feel like there are a number of teams who take their foot off the gas a little once they get a conference loss or two.  And some of those teams could definitely finish the year at like 7-2/6-3 and make a good run…but I think they often finish out somewhere around 4-5/5-4 because they lose a bit of an edge.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could figure out a way to make those regular season games between two 3-3 teams really exciting and meaningful by raising the stakes for which they are played? Oh, wait …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Wouldn’t it be great if we could figure out a way to make those regular season games between two 3-3 teams really exciting and meaningful by raising the stakes for which they are played? Oh, wait …

I agree it would be great to make these games really exciting. That being said in reality the reason why States like Ohio and Texas have a qualify tournament isn't really to make football better and more exciting although that is the bi-product of having the qualify. The true reason these states have a qualifying format playoff instead of a post season tournament is because the have so many schools playing football they have to have a qualifying format. In all honesty Indiana with 330 football playing schools that is a lower number that can do an all in format. Ohio and Texas don't have that luxury. While I personally think a Qualifying playoff format would be great I think anyone would have a difficult time getting the IHSAA to do that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

I agree it would be great to make these games really exciting. That being said in reality the reason why States like Ohio and Texas have a qualify tournament isn't really to make football better and more exciting although that is the bi-product of having the qualify. The true reason these states have a qualifying format playoff instead of a post season tournament is because the have so many schools playing football they have to have a qualifying format. In all honesty Indiana with 330 football playing schools that is a lower number that can do an all in format. Ohio and Texas don't have that luxury. While I personally think a Qualifying playoff format would be great I think anyone would have a difficult time getting the IHSAA to do that. 

Nationwide there are states with far less schools and smaller populations that have qualifying formats. Wyoming has a qualifying format. As does Alaska. They have a qualifying format because teams that go 0-9 don't deserve to play a postseason game. Cambridge City Lincoln is the lowest rated Sagarin team in the entire state. Not only is CC Lincoln playing in the postseason, they have a first round bye. That's an utter travesty. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

I agree it would be great to make these games really exciting. That being said in reality the reason why States like Ohio and Texas have a qualify tournament isn't really to make football better and more exciting although that is the bi-product of having the qualify. The true reason these states have a qualifying format playoff instead of a post season tournament is because the have so many schools playing football they have to have a qualifying format. In all honesty Indiana with 330 football playing schools that is a lower number that can do an all in format. Ohio and Texas don't have that luxury. While I personally think a Qualifying playoff format would be great I think anyone would have a difficult time getting the IHSAA to do that. 

This

 

11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Well, 2 people want change, neither of whom are affiliated with the athletic department of an Indiana High School. If the schools themselves want change, they should petition the IHSAA and put it to a vote among member schools.

Yeah I know I have no influence.  And at this point I’m not going to argue tooth and nail for it….it makes little difference.  
 

i do think however that if we just continue to talk about it and get more people onto the idea that eventually it’s going to happen.  
 

fans push the topic…the media takes up the topic and presses coaches about it…coaches eventually push to make the change…oh wait….ihsaa denies motion 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Nationwide there are states with far less schools and smaller populations that have qualifying formats. Wyoming has a qualifying format. As does Alaska. They have a qualifying format because teams that go 0-9 don't deserve to play a postseason game. Cambridge City Lincoln is the lowest rated Sagarin team in the entire state. Not only is CC Lincoln playing in the postseason, they have a first round bye. That's an utter travesty. 

Curious about this.  An 0-9 team playing is an utter travesty, yet you're fine with a 2-7 Luers making the cut.  How many games should a team need to win in the regular season to get them into the playoff?  This year Pioneer won only 2 games, but is ranked 29 by Sagarin.  They would make it in.  But their wins were over an 0-9 team and a 2-7 team.  If the regular season means something, shouldn't teams have to WIN in the regular season to qualify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bobref said:

This is a worthwhile effort that, I hope, will drive a stake through the heart of this myth once and for all. I am in lockstep with @Footballking16’s thinking on this issue. But while he is no doubt right in his conclusion, I place more emphasis on what such a qualifying format would do for the regular season. By raising the stakes for many, many regular season games, the whole season becomes more competitive. The level of interest and the caliber of play would rise accordingly. Better for everyone.

Though I am for coming up with a qualifier for teams to get to the playoffs it would need to be stipulated that only conference records and not overall records should be one factor for teams to make it to state. If it is an overall record then scheduling tougher out of conference teams would virtually cease for many schools. But there is also the issue with the Independent schools. In FL independent schools (no conference affiliation) do not get to play in the state playoffs. Which means the distance restriction would need to be lifted to allow schools that want stay independent to play a national schedule. So there are some other things to consider, but regardless the IHSAA needs to get with it and stop handing out "season participation trophies" via a sectional playoff spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobref is always beating the drum for playoff qualifications, but in the same breath speaks about the lack of officials.  With a tourney cut in half (potentially), you would have a REAL officiating problem.  Folks who are not getting tourneys will continue to quit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

Curious about this.  An 0-9 team playing is an utter travesty, yet you're fine with a 2-7 Luers making the cut.  How many games should a team need to win in the regular season to get them into the playoff?  This year Pioneer won only 2 games, but is ranked 29 by Sagarin.  They would make it in.  But their wins were over an 0-9 team and a 2-7 team.  If the regular season means something, shouldn't teams have to WIN in the regular season to qualify?

Luers plays in a conference with 4A, 5A, and 6A schools. This is exactly what Sagarin does and why you can't treat W-L records as gospel when comparing teams statewide unless each team is playing the same schools week in and week out. Implementing a qualification format may force teams to switch conference alliances for better or worse and in my proposal a tenth regular season would be added to either beef up your schedule or secure an additional win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, temptation said:

Bobref is always beating the drum for playoff qualifications, but in the same breath speaks about the lack of officials.  With a tourney cut in half (potentially), you would have a REAL officiating problem.  Folks who are not getting tourneys will continue to quit.

Adding a tenth regular season game effectively solves this problem as the field is effectively cut in half after week 10 anyway. 

Edited by Footballking16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Switzerland regarding this topic however I'm not sure using Sagarin or only one system in general is as an example helping ones argument.  For example does a school like 3-6 Evansville Harrison qualify for the tournament using Sagarin? In Calpres and Massey they are class ranked 33 and 30 respectively whilst ranked 34 in Sagarin. If using Massey do they qualify?  Averaging out all three systems they are class ranked 32.333. Does that make them qualify?

Most importantly, this Friday they will face a 6-3 Boonville team. This game is intriguing for this type of topic because it's not a stretch to say Harrison has a legitimate chance to win that game. However, in a qualifier, using Sagarin or Calpreps they don't even have a chance to play this Friday? 

I'm curious here. I'm under the assumption ranking systems really wouldn't play a role in determining the tournament seeding or qualifier but more so coaches accomplishing the task?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Luers plays in a conference with 4A, 5A, and 6A schools. This is exactly what Sagarin does and why you can't treat W-L records as gospel when comparing teams statewide unless each team is playing the same schools week in and week out. Implementing a qualification format may force teams to switch conference alliances for better or worse and in my proposal a tenth regular season would be added to either beef up your schedule or secure an additional win. 

So you are okay with a team that won 2 games against two of the worst teams in the state making the playoff where a team that finished 7-1 (Indiana Deaf) does not.  How does that support your premise that the regular season should mean something?

You didn't answer my question.  Do you believe teams should have to WIN regular season games in order to qualify?  If so, now many games?  Would you be okay with a team that finishes 0-9 qualifying for the playoff?  Above you said it's a travesty, but it sounds like if it were Luers you'd be okay with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, temptation said:

Bobref is always beating the drum for playoff qualifications, but in the same breath speaks about the lack of officials.  With a tourney cut in half (potentially), you would have a REAL officiating problem.  Folks who are not getting tourneys will continue to quit.

You should stay in your lane. Those people who have left officiating have done so not so much because of lack of tournament advancement, in itself. Rather, they have done so because they perceive the tournament advancement system to be unfair … and I agree with them. Changing the tournament format would also be the logical time to change the selection and advancement criteria.

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, FinePrint said:

You didn't answer my question.  Do you believe teams should have to WIN regular season games in order to qualify?  If so, now many games?  Would you be okay with a team that finishes 0-9 qualifying for the playoff?  Above you said it's a travesty, but it sounds like if it were Luers you'd be okay with it.

Define win. Like as in a single game, 2, 3, etc? From where I'm sitting both Luers and Pioneer won games. If you're asking if I believe teams need to win a minimum number of games to qualify I say no because schedules and conferences aren't created equal.

What would Luers record look like if they played Indiana Deaf's schedule? What would ID record look like if they played Luers schedule? This is why rating systems like Sagarin exist. Using raw W-L numbers is a terrible way to accurately rank teams given that schedules aren't created equal.

And using a rating system that factors in W-L record, opp W-L record, SOS, and Opp SOS is an effective ranking system to use to counter the detractors who simply say teams who start 0-3 and 0-4 will simply quit with no hope of making the postseason. 

Edited by Footballking16
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bobref said:

You should stay in your lane. Those people who have left officiating have done so not so much because of lack of tournament advancement, in itself. Rather, they have done so because they perceive the tournament advancement system to be unfair … and I agree with them. Changing the tournament format would also be the logical time to change the selection and advancement criteria.

I have no lane…live a life without lanes.

  • Like 1
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...