Jump to content
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $3,142.05 of $3,600 target

Cinderella is a myth


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

In a format that not only allowed 4 of the 7 worst teams in 3A to “make” the tournament, but pitted all four of them on the same side of the bracket, there was always going to be that feeling for one of those schools and communities. It’s the de facto result of a broken tournament.

Again, already addressed in another post ... this specific sectional as a matter of fact.  Not an issue of consideration of the all-in format ... an issue of seeding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Again, already addressed in another post ... this specific sectional as a matter of fact.  Not an issue of consideration of the all-in format ... an issue of seeding.

 

If that sectional was seeded appropriately, there would have been 4 second half running clocks in the first round. Cut those teams out completely and you have a highly competitive sectional featuring the 4 top half teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

You seed it then after a few years there’s no other logical choice but to cut the field in half.

Appropriate seeding is step 1 to an eventual qualifier. That’s why the IHSAA hasn’t enacted it.

That's an interesting logical assumption.  What follows?  Dogs and cats living together?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, foxbat said:

That's an interesting logical assumption.  What follows?  Dogs and cats living together?

 

Hopefully just a more competitive state tournament that rewards and takes into account regular season success.

I know, I know, wishful thinking on my part.

Edited by Footballking16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Footballking16 said:

Hopefully just a more competitive state tournament that rewards and takes into account postseason success.

I know, I know, wishful thinking on my part.

Here's why I think it's a stretch in reasoning and here's why I think you'll have to hold a gun to the heads of the IHSAA and LOTS of coaches to get them to agree to cutting the field in half ... and I'll use the proposal that everyone who wants to cut the field in half for the post-season often states: "Use a qualifier ... cutting the field in half ... extend the season to 10 weeks for all of the folks who don't make it and let them play one last game."

Allowing an all-in, with seeding, cuts the field in half for all classes by the end of the first week of competition in the respective classes ... albeit with games played.  This addresses would already address the "extend the season to 10 weeks for the 'non-qualifiers' and let them schedule a last game.  It would also do it 1) within the structure of a system that's already in place ... after adding a seeding process, 2) without the scheduling rush and anxiety at the end of the season for half of the teams in the state, 3) allows for the potential of a Cinderella possibility, no matter how rare it might be, providing that glimmer of hope no matter how misguided some might consider it, 4) avoids any potentials for lawsuits/actions regardless of level of merit or potential success, 5) tying to #1, allows the IHSAA to maintain the assignment and structure of sectionals which in turn helps to reduce travel issues earlier on in the post-season, 6) has less direct external impact on conferences/rivalries, ...

In essence, you get your field cut in half after the first week of play ... hence your "one extra game of the season."  The seeding mostly gets rid of your #1 vs. #2 issue.  As pointed out above, it also mitigates potential negative impacts, and, in the IHSAA's eyes, is fairly risk-averse.  Again, while I don't doubt that seeding is a possible potential implementation, I find it very hard to buy in to the idea that there some type of inevitable next step to having a qualifier and cutting the field.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, foxbat said:

In essence, you get your field cut in half after the first week of play ... hence your "one extra game of the season."  The seeding mostly gets rid of your #1 vs. #2 issue.  As pointed out above, it also mitigates potential negative impacts, and, in the IHSAA's eyes, is fairly risk-averse.  Again, while I don't doubt that seeding is a possible potential implementation, I find it very hard to buy in to the idea that there some type of inevitable next step to having a qualifier and cutting the field.

I don’t disagree at all that in an all-in format that appropriately seeds team 1-8 and 1-4 that the first week of the postseason serves as a qualifier. There’s enough data out there that suggests top half Sagarin teams don’t lose to bottom half Sagarin teams and a format that seeds the sectionals accordingly will serve as a de facto qualifier.

And if/wgen that happens, hopefully it completely changes the outlook for those who favor the all-in. The current format theoretically gives every team a “chance” to win due to the blind draw. Teams with terrible regular seasons can draw other teams with regular seasons and in some cases be put in the same half of the bracket as two other teams with terrible regular seasons. 
 

Everyone on this board knew there was a mathematical certainty that one of West Vigo, Princeton, Washington, or Pike Central would be playing for a sectional championship due to the blind draw. Its scenarios like this why people favor the all-in. In an all-in format that effectively seeds teams 1-8, this scenario effectively ends the second the ball is kicked off in the opening round. Pike Central is losing to a team like Owen Valley by 60 points. 
 

In the event the all-in is kept but seeding is properly introduced, the former outlook that everyone has a chance (like they did under the blind draw) immediately evaporates. The next reasonable outlook then becomes, “why are these first round games even happening”? The IHSAA does not want this and that is why seeding will never occur. It’s a precursor to a qualifier. But until seeding happens, you’ll still have a large sect of followers that still believe Cinderella is a real thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I don’t disagree at all that in an all-in format that appropriately seeds team 1-8 and 1-4 that the first week of the postseason serves as a qualifier. There’s enough data out there that suggests top half Sagarin teams don’t lose to bottom half Sagarin teams and a format that seeds the sectionals accordingly will serve as a de facto qualifier.

And if/wgen that happens, hopefully it completely changes the outlook for those who favor the all-in. The current format theoretically gives every team a “chance” to win due to the blind draw. Teams with terrible regular seasons can draw other teams with regular seasons and in some cases be put in the same half of the bracket as two other teams with terrible regular seasons. 
 

Everyone on this board knew there was a mathematical certainty that one of West Vigo, Princeton, Washington, or Pike Central would be playing for a sectional championship due to the blind draw. Its scenarios like this why people favor the all-in. In an all-in format that effectively seeds teams 1-8, this scenario effectively ends the second the ball is kicked off in the opening round. Pike Central is losing to a team like Owen Valley by 60 points. 
 

In the event the all-in is kept but seeding is properly introduced, the former outlook that everyone has a chance (like they did under the blind draw) immediately evaporates. The next reasonable outlook then becomes, “why are these first round games even happening”? The IHSAA does not want this and that is why seeding will never occur. It’s a precursor to a qualifier. But until seeding happens, you’ll still have a large sect of followers that still believe Cinderella is a real thing.

Then you allow teams to "opt out" of the post-season and schedule their own game if they wish ... the team they were scheduled against moves on just like the issues we had with COVID. 

Again, it has less external stress on issues like conferences/rivalries, reduces scheduling issues at the end of the season, potentially reduces travel issues, and, again, ends up being quite risk averse.  Perhaps it eventually accomplishes exact the same thing as a qualifier, including the increased "value" or regular season games, but gives all teams options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Serious question for the participants in this thread: Do you believe the all-in/qualifier is the biggest stumbling block holding Indiana HS Football back?

I don’t know about “biggest.” But Indiana football would definitely be better if you required teams to demonstrate excellence all season, rather than just from mid-October on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

I don’t know about “biggest.” But Indiana football would definitely be better if you required teams to demonstrate excellence all season, rather than just from mid-October on.

In what ways? Please provide a way to potentially quantify your glittering generality.

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bullhorn99 said:

In what ways? Please provide a way to potentially quantify your glittering generality.

According to my calculations, a seeded qualifying format would increase regular season in-game attendance by 24%, media coverage by 36%, and concession stand revenue by a whopping 42%! 

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dazed and confused said:

What about Monrovia and Batesville ? they are bottom half teams(sagarin) and defeated top half teams !

The interesting aspect of Batesville is that they were #33 Sagarin and Indian Creek was #32.  As expected, the game was close, 35-34, but a top/bottom qualifier would have left Batesville out of the post-season.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I don’t know about “biggest.” But Indiana football would definitely be better if you required teams to demonstrate excellence all season, rather than just from mid-October on.

 

1 hour ago, Bullhorn99 said:

In what ways? Please provide a way to potentially quantify your glittering generality.

 

48 minutes ago, Bobref said:

According to my calculations, a seeded qualifying format would increase regular season in-game attendance by 24%, media coverage by 36%, and concession stand revenue by a whopping 42%! 

In other words, by "better" you mean "more money to be made". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

In other words, by "better" you mean "more money to be made". 

I mean the quality of play and fan interest will be greater than it is now. If that translates to more money, more’s the better. But money isn’t the driver for me.

18 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Can you share how you came up with these numbers?

 

Unfortunately, my formula is proprietary, and I have to safeguard my intellectual property. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

In other words, by "better" you mean "more money to be made". 

The only way to increase "money" in the regular season is to increase attendance. There is no evidence to suggest having a qualifying system would increase attendance. I would argue at some schools, being eliminated might cause attendance for later season games to drop significantly.

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I mean the quality of play and fan interest will be greater than it is now. If that translates to more money, more’s the better. But money isn’t the driver for me.

Unfortunately, my formula is proprietary, and I have to safeguard my intellectual property. 😉

Lawyer talk for pulled out of butt ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tango said:

I would argue at some schools, being eliminated might cause attendance for later season games to drop significantly.

Under my proposal, the field is cut in half AFTER the conclusion of the regular season. In a system that uses a computer ranking formulating W-L record, opp W-L record, SOS, and opponent SOS, no team is mathematically eliminated until the conclusion of the regular season. 
 

This kills the argument so many use about teams mailing it in after they start the year 0-3 or 0-4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Under my proposal, the field is cut in half AFTER the conclusion of the regular season. In a system that uses a computer ranking formulating W-L record, opp W-L record, SOS, and opponent SOS, no team is mathematically eliminated until the conclusion of the regular season. 
 

This kills the argument so many use about teams mailing it in after they start the year 0-3 or 0-4.

Not really.  There will be SOME teams that can still be eligible after starting 0-4, but MATHEMATICALLY ... and more importantly, realistically, not ALL and certainly not MANY.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

 In a system that uses a computer ranking formulating W-L record, opp W-L record, SOS, and opponent SOS, no team is mathematically eliminated until the conclusion of the regular season.

Third graders with dull crayons can figure out how wrong that statement is.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys need to realize the all in format was always the goal of the IFCA. The current format assures teams play 10 games a season, which seems to be the magic number for regular season HS football games. Your problem isn’t with the IHSAA it’s with the IFCA because ultimately that’s who runs Football in this state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Not really.  There will be SOME teams that can still be eligible after starting 0-4, but MATHEMATICALLY ... and more importantly, realistically, not ALL and certainly not MANY.

Irregardless, if teams mail it in early because they are no longer “entitled” to a postseason game that’s a “culture/program” problem not a postseason format problem. 

19 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

You guys need to realize the all in format was always the goal of the IFCA. The current format assures teams play 10 games a season, which seems to be the magic number for regular season HS football games. Your problem isn’t with the IHSAA it’s with the IFCA because ultimately that’s who runs Football in this state. 

Adding a tenth regular season game solves that issue rather quickly.

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...