Cinderella is a myth

[Bobref]

6 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

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.  

Taking a big picture view … conferences form, break up, re-form. Old rivalries change with changing demographics and new rivalries emerge. It has always been that way.

[oldtimeqb]

51 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.

Quick scratch paper calculation.  Castle beat Ev North Week 1.  Ev North beat Ev Memorial (4A) Week 2.  Other than that, they share an identical 4 wins over Vin Lincoln (3A) and 4A's Central, Bosse, and Harrison.   This means Castle has a better "First Level" win over 5A North, but North has a better "Second Level" win because Memorial ended up 6-3 with 29 win points.  

Making an adjustment to divide by 9 and 81 (9x9) instead of 10 and 100 (10x10) this is what I get.

Castle - First Level 25 points / 9 + Second Level 63.5/ 81 = 9.833

North - First Level 24.5 points / 9  + Second Level 68/81 = 10.278

North (5-4) would be seeded higher than Castle (5-4) who won the head to head matchup. I'm sure an anomaly because of closed conference issues, but an interesting result.  

But I was told computers and seeding would make regular season results MORE important! 😉 

[Bobref]

7 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Quick scratch paper calculation.  Castle beat Ev North Week 1.  Ev North beat Ev Memorial (4A) Week 2.  Other than that, they share an identical 4 wins over Vin Lincoln (3A) and 4A's Central, Bosse, and Harrison.   This means Castle has a better "First Level" win over 5A North, but North has a better "Second Level" win because Memorial ended up 6-3 with 29 win points.  

Making an adjustment to divide by 9 and 81 (9x9) instead of 10 and 100 (10x10) this is what I get.

Castle - First Level 25 points / 9 + Second Level 63.5/ 81 = 9.833

North - First Level 24.5 points / 9  + Second Level 68/81 = 10.278

North (5-4) would be seeded higher than Castle (5-4) who won the head to head matchup. I'm sure an anomaly because of closed conference issues, but an interesting result.  

But I was told computers and seeding would make regular season results MORE important! 😉 

Either you don’t get it, or … well, that’s it. I can’t think of another explanation.

[Tippy]

41 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Either you don’t get it, or … well, that’s it. I can’t think of another explanation.

Maybe he just doesn't want some crazy qualifying format.  Maybe you should find out why they went to the all in after the Colts came to Indiana in 1984.  I think most people in Indiana like the all in and don't want anything changed.  But, that didn't stop the Ihsaa from going to class basketball in 1997 when most people didn't want that.  I am sorry you think that Indiana has done it all wrong for the past 37 years.  Yeah, I know if Indiana does what you want things will be much better and the games will mean so much more.

[oldtimeqb]

45 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Either you don’t get it, or … well, that’s it. I can’t think of another explanation.

I meant that tongue in cheek, but I went ahead and crunched some numbers for Sectional 24 to see what it might look like. The SIAC closed conference and making up 6/7 sectional opponents made the calculations a little easier.

Results: 

1. Reitz 24.8 

2. Jasper 14.8

3. Memorial 13.8

4. Boonville 13.0

5. Harrison 5.6

6. Bosse 0.6

7. Central 0.0 (Mr. Blutarsky award)

A couple of things I noticed.  I think this would be a fairly accurate seeding and very well could be the bracket for the Semifinal Round, with 1 @ 4, and 2 @ 3. The only difference would be the lower seeds are hosts. If only top 4 'qualified' for playoffs I don't think public opinion would have issues with the teams selected. 

The other thing that I noticed is that Paoli (6-3, 2A - 23 pts) factors marginally better into Boonville's second level than Mt Vernon (5-4, 3A - 22.5pts) and Heritage Hills (5-4, 3A - 21pts).  This is because the Big PAC is primarily 3A schools while PLAC is 1-2A. Overall the SIAC schools benefit from beating 4A Central and Bosse.  Washington, Princeton, and Pike Central give a lot of win points to Boonville's opponents.  Additionally, BV is boosted by Mt Vernon's win over a 1-7 Jeffersonville team.  I definitely think any ranking system would result in scheduling becoming an art form.  Those traditional 1-2 win big schools are great for playoff points. 

[Footballking16]

26 minutes ago, Tippy said:

Maybe he just doesn't want some crazy qualifying format.  Maybe you should find out why they went to the all in after the Colts came to Indiana in 1984.  I think most people in Indiana like the all in and don't want anything changed.  But, that didn't stop the Ihsaa from going to class basketball in 1997 when most people didn't want that.  I am sorry you think that Indiana has done it all wrong for the past 37 years.  Yeah, I know if Indiana does what you want things will be much better and the games will mean so much more.

Agree that many people like the all-in. Doesn't mean it's a good system and honestly, it needs a ton of improvement. 

[Bobref]

32 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

I definitely think any ranking system would result in scheduling becoming an art form. 

If the Ohio experience is any guide, it shows there are a number of different ways to skin that cat. You can try to schedule bad big schools, which gives you good 1st level points when you beat them, but no 2nd level points when they don’t beat anybody. Or you can schedule good smaller schools, receiving fewer 1st level points but more 2nd level points. There are other ways that combine different strategies. The one thing that’s abundantly clear is that a strategy of trying to load up your schedule with weak sisters so you put together a gaudy W-L record doesn’t often work.

[Bobref]

40 minutes ago, Tippy said:

Maybe he just doesn't want some crazy qualifying format. 

If by “crazy” you mean something that’s a far cry from normal, the all-in format fits that description much better than a qualification format. Don’t forget who is the outlier here.

[Footballking16]

7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

If by “crazy” you mean something that’s a far cry from normal, the all-in format fits that description much better than a qualification format. Don’t forget who is the outlier here.

I always hear words like "unique" when used to describe the all-in.

It's unique to wear a winter coat in Miami. Doesn't mean it isn't dumb either. 

[Tippy]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

If by “crazy” you mean something that’s a far cry from normal, the all-in format fits that description much better than a qualification format. Don’t forget who is the outlier here.

So you think Indiana is crazy for having the all-in?  The all-in might be the best thing for Indiana.  It might be a crazy thing If Indiana changes.  The other states might have it wrong.  Every other state thought Indiana had the best basketball format until 1997.  Indiana was the king of basketball.  

[Bobref]

3 minutes ago, Tippy said:

The other states might have it wrong. 

As well as all other professional and amateur sports leagues. You know, at some point when you insist that you’re right when everyone else in the world has looked at an issue and come out on the other side, you’ve got to look in the mirror.

And anyone who thinks that Indiana came up with the all in format because they made a careful evaluation and decided that was what was best for Indiana football, knows nothing of the history of the tournament.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Bobref

[Muda69]

32 minutes ago, Bobref said:

And anyone who thinks that Indiana came up with the all in format because they made a careful evaluation and decided that was what was best for Indiana football, knows nothing of the history of the tournament.

To me it seemed like the IHSAA just threw in the towel and said "we give up, just let everyone in"  in response to the disaster known as the cluster system.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

Admittedly I have read zero of this thread. The IHSAA hangs their hat on an all in blind draw format. Carry on. 

[Footballking16]

35 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

To me it seemed like the IHSAA just threw in the towel and said "we give up, just let everyone in"  in response to the disaster known as the cluster system.

 

It's exactly what they did. They compounded a terrible format with an equally bad format. 

[Tippy]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

As well as all other professional and amateur sports leagues. You know, at some point when you insist that you’re right when everyone else in the world has looked at an issue and come out on the other side, you’ve got to look in the mirror.

And anyone who thinks that Indiana came up with the all in format because they made a careful evaluation and decided that was what was best for Indiana football, knows nothing of the history of the tournament.

I don't have to look in the mirror.  I'm not the top dog.  Why doesn't Indiana change the format?  So the Ihsaa is crazy?  Most people in Indiana like the all in.  Why did Indiana come up with the all-in? Did the Colts have anything to do with it? No other state has tried the all-in, so they don't know if it would work or not.

[Footballking16]

4 minutes ago, Tippy said:

I don't have to look in the mirror.  I'm not the top dog.  Why doesn't Indiana change the format?  So the Ihsaa is crazy?  Most people in Indiana like the all in.  Why did Indiana come up with the all-in? Did the Colts have anything to do with it? No other state has tried the all-in, so they don't know if it would work or not.

Perhaps every state recognizes that the regular season needs to have actual meaning thus dictating seeding/qualification. 

Just food for thought. 

[Bobref]

42 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

To me it seemed like the IHSAA just threw in the towel and said "we give up, just let everyone in"  in response to the disaster known as the cluster system.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

It's exactly what they did. They compounded a terrible format with an equally bad format. 

It was worse than that. Long story short, after two straight undefeated seasons in which they failed to qualify for the playoffs, some parents from South Bend St. Joe filed a lawsuit against the IHSAA. The all in format was a direct response to the IHSAA’s heightened sensitivity on the subject of deciding who qualifies for the playoffs. The idea being if everything is more or less random, there are no decisions to be critiqued.

[Tippy]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

 

It was worse than that. Long story short, after two straight undefeated seasons in which they failed to qualify for the playoffs, some parents from South Bend St. Joe filed a lawsuit against the IHSAA. The all in format was a direct response to the IHSAA’s heightened sensitivity on the subject of deciding who qualifies for the playoffs. The idea being if everything is more or less random, there are no decisions to be critiqued.

The all-in must not be that bad because high school football is more popular in Indiana than ever before.  Basketball is no longer king in Indiana because they went to class basketball.  Maybe Indiana should have went to the all-in starting in 1973 and none of that would have happened.  Were you living in Indiana in 1985?  

[Bash Riprock]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

As well as all other professional and amateur sports leagues. You know, at some point when you insist that you’re right when everyone else in the world has looked at an issue and come out on the other side, you’ve got to look in the mirror.

And anyone who thinks that Indiana came up with the all in format because they made a careful evaluation and decided that was what was best for Indiana football, knows nothing of the history of the tournament.

Other than "other people do it".....what is the true benefit for the kids?  the Coaches?  I have asked this several time and get nothing in return.  I get how you feel as a fan.  But if we polled the players and coaches, how do you think they would respond?

I experienced the old playoff qualifying system.  It was really, really bad.  I get that a new qualifier would be an improvement over that system.  (I hope)

It is true professional and college sports have qualifiers for the post-season....but ever notice how over the years, they keep expanding the playoff field??  Obviously, they continue to see the need to improvement and inclusion.

BTW, Maryland is also now heavily considering an all-in football playoff system....maybe they benchmarked and like what the Indiana and Missouri systems offered their kids and coaches.....

 

[Bash Riprock]

4 hours ago, Bobref said:

Taking a big picture view … conferences form, break up, re-form. Old rivalries change with changing demographics and new rivalries emerge. It has always been that way.

You are ignoring a the reality that many schools in portions of this state have limited options for opponents, and traveling long distances is not a highly valued.

[Footballking16]

7 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

Other than "other people do it".....what is the true benefit for the kids?  the Coaches?  I have asked this several time and get nothing in return.  I get how you feel as a fan.  But if we polled the players and coaches, how do you think they would respond?

I would feel as a player or coach, playing in potentially 4,5,6+ games with "playoff" implications sounds a hell of a lot better than being given an "entitled" playoff game. But that's just me. Players and coaches don't know any better because it's the way it's been for 30 years. Sure, switching to a qualifying format may suck for a few years if you're a current high school player, but 10+ years nobody is going to know the difference. I'm sure today's youth watches college and professional sports, I'm not sure how telling a group of kids that you need to earn your way into the postseason is some kind of punishment. It's not. They'll adjust. 

 

11 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I experienced the old playoff qualifying system.  It was really, really bad.  I get that a new qualifier would be an improvement over that system.  (I hope)

I don't fathom a playoff scenario that cuts the field in half would ever exclude a team that goes 10-0. 

 

12 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

It is true professional and college sports have qualifiers for the post-season....but ever notice how over the years, they keep expanding the playoff field??  Obviously, they continue to see the need to improvement and inclusion.

It's purely a money grab. That's not going to be the case for high school sports. When ESPN,Turner Sports, Fox, etc start paying to broadcast Indiana High School football we can talk. 

 

14 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

BTW, Maryland is also now heavily considering an all-in football playoff system....maybe they benchmarked and like what the Indiana and Missouri systems offered their kids and coaches.....

Perhaps. 

[Donnie Baker]

Grown ass men telling high school boys they can’t play in the tournament because you don’t like it. Awesome. I gotta go 

[PHJIrish]

6 more pages of deja vu all over again! I guess it's just fun for some of you.

No harm, no change.

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, Tippy said:

Were you living in Indiana in 1985?  

I was not only living in Indiana in 1985, I was officiating in Indiana in 1985.

[Footballking16]

47 minutes ago, Donnie Baker said:

Grown ass men telling high school boys they can’t play in the tournament because you don’t like it. Awesome. I gotta go 

What’s the harm in advocating a postseason format that challenges the powers that be to make the regular season mean something by qualifying for a tournament through regular season success and achievements?