Cinderella is a myth

[Titan32]

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

The answer is 3.66.  

Or 42.  Take your pick.

 

I like your averaging idea...but throw Sagarin out the window.  I can't be used due to the out of state issue...it's a non-starter.

[Bobref]

15 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

I like your averaging idea...but throw Sagarin out the window.  I can't be used due to the out of state issue...it's a non-starter.

Are you familiar with Ohio’s Harbin formula? To me, it seems to do as good a job of combining W-L record and strength of schedule as any. It’s explained here, for the uninitiated: http://www.redridersportsblog.com/2010/10/ohsaa-harbin-computer-pointsa-tutorial.html

[Donnie Baker]

21 hours ago, temptation said:

You still evaluating unproven quarterbacks and anointing them while giving them nicknames such as “the chosen one?”

“Expertise.”

Ref and lawyer =Never wrong.

STATE LAW!

[oldtimeqb]

57 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Are you familiar with Ohio’s Harbin formula? To me, it seems to do as good a job of combining W-L record and strength of schedule as any. It’s explained here, for the uninitiated: http://www.redridersportsblog.com/2010/10/ohsaa-harbin-computer-pointsa-tutorial.html

I find this fascinating. So thanks for sharing. 

Out of curiosity, how does out of state factor in? Does Elder get more points for beating Roncalli as opposed to Chatard? If my understanding is correct, Elder would also get second level points from beating Roncalli who beat Louisville Male. That’s a lot of tracking divisions across multiple states.

[812FB]

15 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

Computer polls are only imputing and calculating data. There’s no bias in the algorithms like you see with the human element. A computer model is much more likely to spit out an accurate reading for a team like Luers despite being 4-5 than a coach in Southern Indiana who has nothing to go by other than W-L record. You’re taking the bias out of the equation by using computers. Computers aren’t a 100% science but they’re generally better than the human element.

 

I’ve always proposed in my format that a tenth regular season game be added (for those detractors who think that high school athletes are somehow entitled to a tenth game) and the field then be effectively cut in half. That leaves landlocked conferences like the SIAC and SAC one OOC game a year.

 

Sagarin unfortunately does not factor in GS win over the team from Kentucky or any of the data from the teams they played. Hurts GS in this scenario. It significantly helped a team like Chatard in the Massey Poll who played Elder and Christian Brothers, two teams who are both highly rated in national polls.

Yeah, these are all good ideas to address the unit-containment issue. 3-6 Evansville Harrison might end up above the cut off threshold to get punched in if they'd play a game outside of the SIAC. But proposing a game to fix the unit-containment won't address Sagarin's second out of state opponent defect. Which you have pointed out regarding Gibson Southern. And all SIAC schools would absolutely have to avoid scheduling any out of state schools, which might be an issue down here in 812 SIAC land.

[812FB]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

The answer is 3.66.  

Or 42.  Take your pick.

 

Well, it goes without question 42 is the answer, to everything.

I was under the assumption based on the conversation we've been having only one programed CRS (a computer) vs an application written to play chess is the discussion. I'm now at the understanding you have a desire to take averages of three separate programs (computers)? If that's the case, that somewhat balances out the most obvious defect that all CRS have in the state of Indiana. It still isn't effective and solved by "a computer" or computers. It's taking the subjective human element into solving the math objective by intervening with separate algorithms, that are not as effective due to unit-containment. This also points out the inefficiencies in taking multiple programs written to get the outcome, unlike an application being written for a game of chess and the stark differences between the two math objectives.

[Bobref]

36 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

I find this fascinating. So thanks for sharing. 

Out of curiosity, how does out of state factor in? Does Elder get more points for beating Roncalli as opposed to Chatard? If my understanding is correct, Elder would also get second level points from beating Roncalli who beat Louisville Male. That’s a lot of tracking divisions across multiple states.

Out of state schools are treated the same as in-state schools in the Harbin system. Not sure where the division cutoffs lie, but an Ohio team would get more points for beating Roncalli vs. beating Chatard because Roncalli has a better W-L record, and is in a larger school classification.

[oldtimeqb]

3 hours ago, Whiting89 said:

What’s wrong with adopting the Illinois format? Fully transparent no outside  rankings used (Sagarin). What’s even more intriguing with the Illinois format is that you don’t know what class you are till the qualifiers are determined. 
sorry luers you’d probably have to switch conferences under this firmst

source

https://www.ihsa.org/data/fb/playoffs.htm

I've always been fascinated with the Illinois system, as I have had cousins and extended family compete in IHSA playoffs. 

1. Only wins matter (school size is irrelevant until after selecting the 256 participants.)  6 wins and you're in.  Usually 80-90% of 5 win teams get in as well. 

2. A P/P multiplier is used and only then are the teams put into 8 classes by school size.

3. Once classed, then they are seeded by W-L with Opponents W-L/ Defeated Opponents W-L as the tie breakers.

The craziest thing to me is that they do all 3 - select, class, and seed - in about a 24 hour window.  Teams do not know their opponent for Friday until Sunday afternoon.  That to me would be the worst part.   

 

[Muda69]

40 minutes ago, 812FB said:

Well, it goes without question 42 is the answer, to everything.

I was under the assumption based on the conversation we've been having only one programed CRS (a computer) vs an application written to play chess is the discussion. I'm now at the understanding you have a desire to take averages of three separate programs (computers)? If that's the case, that somewhat balances out the most obvious defect that all CRS have in the state of Indiana. It still isn't effective and solved by "a computer" or computers. It's taking the subjective human element into solving the math objective by intervening with separate algorithms, that are not as effective due to unit-containment. This also points out the inefficiencies in taking multiple programs written to get the outcome, unlike an application being written for a game of chess and the stark differences between the two math objectives.

No, no desire at all.  I just answered your question.

 

 

[Footballking16]

1 hour ago, 812FB said:

Yeah, these are all good ideas to address the unit-containment issue. 3-6 Evansville Harrison might end up above the cut off threshold to get punched in if they'd play a game outside of the SIAC. But proposing a game to fix the unit-containment won't address Sagarin's second out of state opponent defect. Which you have pointed out regarding Gibson Southern. And all SIAC schools would absolutely have to avoid scheduling any out of state schools, which might be an issue down here in 812 SIAC land.

The purpose of this post wasn't necessarily to stir discussion for potential bubble teams like Harrison. Any format that cuts the field in half and/or uses a qualifier is going to leave some teams out, that's the nature of the business. That's also why it makes regular season games for meaningful. Teams can play their way in or out the last few weeks of the season.

Rather this post was designed to illustrate that the all-in isn't necessary because Cinderella runs in  Indiana High School football don't exist. Detractors of a qualifier believe that everyone should be included because the postseason signals a sign of new life and teams that were non-existent in the regular season are somehow going to turn it on come "week 10". It doesn't work that way. There will be a few upsets (5 or less) in the first round where a bottom half Sagarin rated team beats a top half Sagarin rated team and you will see some bottom half teams advance a round, sometimes two, given the nature of the blind draw that allows for bottom half Sagarin rated team to play other each other, but when the dust settles, sectionals are almost exclusively chalk. If the sectionals were seeded all the way through accordingly, the myth that Cinderella exists would instantly die. You'd have running clocks in almost every game that feature the top 2 teams playing the bottom 2 teams. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Footballking16

[foxbat]

6 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Out of state schools are treated the same as in-state schools in the Harbin system. Not sure where the division cutoffs lie, but an Ohio team would get more points for beating Roncalli vs. beating Chatard because Roncalli has a better W-L record, and is in a larger school classification.

I'm not familiar with Ohio football's breakdowns, but are divisions the same as classifications in Indiana ... except inverse?  Also, does Ohio have self-selected conferences like Indiana or do they have more assigned district/region competition like Texas does?

In briefly reading the description/process, the pros seem to be:

• Difference of victory doesn't matter, so it would not reward/encourage run-ups. 
• Provides some benefit to scheduling teams in higher classes; albeit that doesn't necessarily correlate to better competition. 
• Pretty objective in the scoring.

The cons that I see though seem to be:

• Teams don't seem to be overly rewarded for taking risks.  Since a loss to a team, even by a single point, means you get no points at all for the game and, worse, no future points for the rest of the season from that team, it tends to push teams to be conservative in their scheduling.  For traditional powerhouses, they will likely be less risk-averse, but then again they tend to be anyway.  For average teams, they will tend to be more risk-averse in a system like this than in an all-in format.  As an example, LCC scheduled St. Joe Ogden from IL back in 2004 and 2005 resulting in two losses of 42-0 and 51-33.  It provided a couple of opportunities to play out-of-state as well as higher level competition.  They also scheduled Jeff in 2017 and got blown out at home 54-0.  Even as a more competitive team, it would seem that a scoring system like Harbin would have "persuaded" LCC to avoid those scheduling choices, whereas an all-in format provides no negative consequences to taking such as risk/opportunity ... at least not as it pertains to the post-season.
• It would seem that teams need to be able to have some analytics knowledge to be able to adequately assess the potential impact of scheduling and, with the nature of high school ball being what it is, it will be harder to get a benefit from that analysis, not only season-to-season, but over time.  This could cause action contrary to the first bullet point, but with little ROI in being too risky as opposed to "just risky enough."
• Conferences, in their current form, in Indiana would likely provide some impediment to the system.

In the write-up, the team being referenced, Orrville, seemed to be 6-2 after eight weeks of play and had "enough points (but barely) to be one of the top 8 teams in the region."  Orrville had 14.075 and the cutoff for Region 14 was 13.85.  I could be misreading the article and the overall impact, but 6-2 after eight games and being "barely" in the qualifying groups seems to produce some angst.

[Footballking16]

6 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm not familiar with Ohio football's breakdowns, but are divisions the same as classifications in Indiana ... except inverse?  Also, does Ohio have self-selected conferences like Indiana or do they have more assigned district/region competition like Texas does?

In briefly reading the description/process, the pros seem to be:

• Difference of victory doesn't matter, so it would not reward/encourage run-ups. 
• Provides some benefit to scheduling teams in higher classes; albeit that doesn't necessarily correlate to better competition. 
• Pretty objective in the scoring.

The cons that I see though seem to be:

• Teams don't seem to be overly rewarded for taking risks.  Since a loss to a team, even by a single point, means you get no points at all for the game and, worse, no future points for the rest of the season from that team, it tends to push teams to be conservative in their scheduling.  For traditional powerhouses, they will likely be less risk-averse, but then again they tend to be anyway.  For average teams, they will tend to be more risk-averse in a system like this than in an all-in format.  As an example, LCC scheduled St. Joe Ogden from IL back in 2004 and 2005 resulting in two losses of 42-0 and 51-33.  It provided a couple of opportunities to play out-of-state as well as higher level competition.  They also scheduled Jeff in 2017 and got blown out at home 54-0.  Even as a more competitive team, it would seem that a scoring system like Harbin would have "persuaded" LCC to avoid those scheduling choices, whereas an all-in format provides no negative consequences to taking such as risk/opportunity ... at least not as it pertains to the post-season.
• It would seem that teams need to be able to have some analytics knowledge to be able to adequately assess the potential impact of scheduling and, with the nature of high school ball being what it is, it will be harder to get a benefit from that analysis, not only season-to-season, but over time.  This could cause action contrary to the first bullet point, but with little ROI in being too risky as opposed to "just risky enough."
• Conferences, in their current form, in Indiana would likely provide some impediment to the system.

In the write-up, the team being referenced, Orrville, seemed to be 6-2 after eight weeks of play and had "enough points (but barely) to be one of the top 8 teams in the region."  Orrville had 14.075 and the cutoff for Region 14 was 13.85.  I could be misreading the article and the overall impact, but 6-2 after eight games and being "barely" in the qualifying groups seems to produce some angst.

Strength of conference likely dictates who some of these teams schedule out of conference. I know in the past some of these GCL South and North teams haven't been afraid to schedule anyone out of conference because if you want 3-4 of your conference games you're sitting pretty. 

[812FB]

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

The purpose of this post wasn't necessarily to stir discussion for potential bubble teams like Harrison. Any format that cuts the field in half and/or uses a qualifier is going to leave some teams out, that's the nature of the business. That's also why it makes regular season games for meaningful. Teams can play their way in or out the last few weeks of the season.

Rather this post was designed to illustrate that the all-in isn't necessary because Cinderella runs in  Indiana High School football don't exist. Detractors of a qualifier believe that everyone should be included because the postseason signals a sign of new life and teams that were non-existent in the regular season are somehow going to turn it on come "week 10". It doesn't work that way. There will be a few upsets (5 or less) in the first round where a bottom half Sagarin rated team beats a top half Sagarin rated team and you will see some bottom half teams advance a round, sometimes two, given the nature of the blind draw that allows for bottom half Sagarin rated team to play other each other, but when the dust settles, sectionals are almost exclusively chalk. If the sectionals were seeded all the way through accordingly, the myth that Cinderella exists would instantly die. You'd have running clocks in almost every game that feature the top 2 teams playing the bottom 2 teams. 

I might be mistaken but isn't a bubble team also considered a Cinderella? I'd be interested to see not only the bottom half stats but also the stats bubble teams that would or wouldn't qualify. I'm willing to throw down some cash that you'll see running clocks with a field cut in half as well. I could be mistaken but I like my chances. So if we do indeed see the same type of stats of what you deem Cinderella teams with bubble teams should the field be cut again?

Personally, I just enjoy watching football. And I'm interested to see how 812 football does during the tournament. Just like any tournament on the planet the good teams weed out the bad teams week after week. Some teams are better than others. That's sports. 

[oldtimeqb]

2 hours ago, foxbat said:

I'm not familiar with Ohio football's breakdowns, but are divisions the same as classifications in Indiana ... except inverse?  Also, does Ohio have self-selected conferences like Indiana or do they have more assigned district/region competition like Texas does?

In briefly reading the description/process, the pros seem to be:

• Difference of victory doesn't matter, so it would not reward/encourage run-ups. 
• Provides some benefit to scheduling teams in higher classes; albeit that doesn't necessarily correlate to better competition. 
• Pretty objective in the scoring.

The cons that I see though seem to be:

• Teams don't seem to be overly rewarded for taking risks.  Since a loss to a team, even by a single point, means you get no points at all for the game and, worse, no future points for the rest of the season from that team, it tends to push teams to be conservative in their scheduling.  For traditional powerhouses, they will likely be less risk-averse, but then again they tend to be anyway.  For average teams, they will tend to be more risk-averse in a system like this than in an all-in format.  As an example, LCC scheduled St. Joe Ogden from IL back in 2004 and 2005 resulting in two losses of 42-0 and 51-33.  It provided a couple of opportunities to play out-of-state as well as higher level competition.  They also scheduled Jeff in 2017 and got blown out at home 54-0.  Even as a more competitive team, it would seem that a scoring system like Harbin would have "persuaded" LCC to avoid those scheduling choices, whereas an all-in format provides no negative consequences to taking such as risk/opportunity ... at least not as it pertains to the post-season.
• It would seem that teams need to be able to have some analytics knowledge to be able to adequately assess the potential impact of scheduling and, with the nature of high school ball being what it is, it will be harder to get a benefit from that analysis, not only season-to-season, but over time.  This could cause action contrary to the first bullet point, but with little ROI in being too risky as opposed to "just risky enough."
• Conferences, in their current form, in Indiana would likely provide some impediment to the system.

In the write-up, the team being referenced, Orrville, seemed to be 6-2 after eight weeks of play and had "enough points (but barely) to be one of the top 8 teams in the region."  Orrville had 14.075 and the cutoff for Region 14 was 13.85.  I could be misreading the article and the overall impact, but 6-2 after eight games and being "barely" in the qualifying groups seems to produce some angst.

I like the objective/ non score run up methodology as opposed to margin of victory being a key component of a ranking system. 

Although I don't like the 'win or nothing' component of the system, especially with win points being based on size.  I think teams like Jennings County (4A), Evansville Bosse/Harrison/Central (4A), Richmond (4A) and Shelbyville (4A) suddenly would have more opponents requesting to play them.  And Jeffersonville, New Albany, and Southport would have their phones ringing off the hook.   

[foxbat]

2 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

I like the objective/ non score run up methodology as opposed to margin of victory being a key component of a ranking system. 

Although I don't like the 'win or nothing' component of the system, especially with win points being based on size.  I think teams like Jennings County (4A), Evansville Bosse/Harrison/Central (4A), Richmond (4A) and Shelbyville (4A) suddenly would have more opponents requesting to play them.  And Jeffersonville, New Albany, and Southport would have their phones ringing off the hook.   

I wonder if there's a way to take into account the win differential, but only from the losing side to address the "win or nothing" aspect.  First, differential would add nothing if you are the winner ... so it takes out any post-season incentive for running up the score.  For a team that loses, perhaps there's a sliding scale for points based on differential ... e.g., within 3 points you get 85% of the points if you had won, within 7 points you get 75%, within 10 you get 50%, within 14 you get 40%, lose by anything more you get nothing. 

I wouldn't suspect the Richmonds, Shelbyvilles, Bosses, and many of the 1-8/0-9 folks to get too many calls because they don't bring any Second Level points with them; however, some of the 4-5 teams in more evenly matched conferences ... like a Floyd Central in Hoosier Hills would be target programs for some 3A programs to pick up some decent multiplier points or maybe a Muncie Central in North Central for some 2As.

[DumfriesYMCA]

8 hours ago, Bobref said:

Are you familiar with Ohio’s Harbin formula? To me, it seems to do as good a job of combining W-L record and strength of schedule as any. It’s explained here, for the uninitiated: http://www.redridersportsblog.com/2010/10/ohsaa-harbin-computer-pointsa-tutorial.html

….I think I actually like this system. 
 

would be cool to actually see the numbers for Indiana.  It just seems like a pretty cut and dry way to do it….you get rewarded for winning….and if the teams you beat, can also beat good teams, you are rewarded for that too….all without actually needing to see what the team names were.  
 

it could be done listing everyone as “Team 1” all the way to “Team 1000” with no bias 

[hhpatriot04]

Unpopular opinion: Out-of-state games shouldn't count towards your post season resume, a tournament/playoff involving "only" Indiana teams.

[Footballking16]

3 hours ago, hhpatriot04 said:

Unpopular opinion: Out-of-state games shouldn't count towards your post season resume, a tournament/playoff involving "only" Indiana teams.

Well you did say it was unpopular 😂

[Esso Ayche]

4 hours ago, hhpatriot04 said:

Unpopular opinion: Out-of-state games shouldn't count towards your post season resume, a tournament/playoff involving "only" Indiana teams.

I am affronted, sir.

And, lest you forget, we are all in Kentucky according to everyone north of I-70.

[FastpacedO]

On 10/17/2022 at 3:17 PM, Footballking16 said:

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.

 

While I think it would be great to have a Playoff instead of a Tournament, I am not disappointed with the All in tournament at all. I think it could be improved upon but there are aspects I enjoy about the all in tournament. I care for it when it is mentioned using Sagarin when it comes to this discussion because Sagarin wouldn't likely be used (it doesn't take into account out of state games which several teams do play against). I do think Calpreps is very useful for it.

I will give a good example of the aspect I do like about the all in tournament. In 2017 Mooresville was 1-8 at the end of the season. They absolutely would not have made the playoffs using Calpreps they were ranked 34 out of 64 teams in the final rankings (likely were lower prior to the tournament). Coming into sectionals they beat Connersville and New Castle making it to the Sectional Championship and losing to Mid-State Conference foe Greenwood (who was ranked 6th in Calpreps). It wasn't a cinderella story of a team making it to the State Finals. What it "did" do though was they won a couple games building some confidence which propelled them to going 8-1 the next season (lone loss was to Decatur Central), winning Sectionals and losing a tight close game in Regionals to Marion 19-13.  Any of the 3 teams Mooresville, Marion, or Evansville Central that year could have been in the 4A State Championship against FW Dwenger. It ended up being Ev Central after they beat Marion in Evansville (still think that has to be the longest travel in IHSAA tournament for Semi-State ever). Ev Central lost to FW Dwnger in 4 OT's.

I don't look at it as it should be All In Format because of the Cinderella story. I look at it as getting in and getting that extra game maybe two or three with a win or two; can really propel a team for the next season. That is the aspect I like about the All In Tournament vs a Playoff format. Don't get me wrong there are benefits to a Playoff format too.

[812FB]

16 hours ago, DumfriesYMCA said:

….I think I actually like this system. 
 

would be cool to actually see the numbers for Indiana.  It just seems like a pretty cut and dry way to do it….you get rewarded for winning….and if the teams you beat, can also beat good teams, you are rewarded for that too….all without actually needing to see what the team names were.  
 

it could be done listing everyone as “Team 1” all the way to “Team 1000” with no bias 

I haven't punched the numbers yet but Evansville North and Castle probably get screwed with OHSAA's system. When I get the time I plan on breaking down the area to see just how much these two 5A schools miss out on points as opposed to the 5A schools north of I-64. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by 812FB

[Bobref]

28 minutes ago, 812FB said:

I haven't punched the numbers yet but Evansville North and Castle probably get screwed with OHSAA's system. When I get the time I plan on breaking down the area to see just how much these two 5A schools miss out on points as opposed to the 5A schools north of I-64. 

Knock yourself out. But I’m skeptical about any conclusions you might draw, since they will be based on the schools’ schedules as they presently exist. Implementation of a qualification format will result in many scheduling changes.

[foxbat]

33 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Knock yourself out. But I’m skeptical about any conclusions you might draw, since they will be based on the schools’ schedules as they presently exist. Implementation of a qualification format will result in many scheduling changes.

How far is that ripple effect in existing conferences?

Actually, I think @812FB's work would be somewhat telling and might actually go a ways to answering the conference/rivalry question.  If his work reveals relatively little scheduling changes needed, then that's probably good. 

Something like the Harbin systems might be a good compromise for seeding sectionals in an all-in format and provides some level of post-season impact to the regular season beyond the implicit issues of getting better, getting conditioned, working on cohesiveness, etc.

[Bobref]

5 minutes ago, foxbat said:

How far is that ripple effect in existing conferences?

Actually, I think @812FB's work would be somewhat telling and might actually go a ways to answering the conference/rivalry question.  If his work reveals relatively little scheduling changes needed, then that's probably good. 

Something like the Harbin systems might be a good compromise for seeding sectionals in an all-in format and provides some level of post-season impact to the regular season beyond the implicit issues of getting better, getting conditioned, working on cohesiveness, etc.

Some conferences, like the Duneland, that have all 5A and 6A schools may stay relatively intact. Others, like the SAC, that have members spread out over 3 or more classes, probably won’t. And I agree that the relative scarcity of big schools in Southern Indiana will create scheduling challenges for them. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Bobref

[Bash Riprock]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Knock yourself out. But I’m skeptical about any conclusions you might draw, since they will be based on the schools’ schedules as they presently exist. Implementation of a qualification format will result in many scheduling changes.

I can see that...and that did happen under the old qualifying format many years ago.  But changing schedules isn't easy for some....certain regions are currently limited to playing options.  Travelling large distances may not be an option.  And if they can find different opponents, it may be to the detriment of local rivalries.  The latter is something I personally experienced.