Ramblins Proposal (kind of)

Here is the final seeds of Ramblins idea of moving teams up and down classes to make the playoffs more competitive.  

The Process - i took this year's qualifiers and calculated an RPI based on the info available on IHSA.

The Formula - RPI = (Wins x 1)+(Opponent Winsx.25)+ (Defeated Opponent Winsx.50)

If a team had a RPI over 30, they were bumped up one class. A Team with an RPI over 35, bumped up 2 classes.  Obviously, for 7A and 8A, those with an RPI over 30 were put into 8A. This ultmately led to 41 teams being bumped up 1 class and 23 teams being bumped up 2 classes.

Teams were bumped down to fill the 32 team bracket.  8A had 12 teams bumped down with 7A = 12, 6A = 13, 5A = 15, 4A = 17, 3A = 11, and 2A = 6

Once teams were divided into classes, seeding was based on RPI.  Ties were broken by Alphabetical Order

1A: (Enrollment - 163 - 416.5)
1 Arcola 7-2
2 Forreston 7-2
3 Rushville (R.-Industry) 7-2
4 Peru (St. Bede) 7-2
5 Lena (L.-Winslow) 7-2
6 Monmouth (United) 6-3
7 Fulton (H.S.) 7-2
8 Chicago (Raby) 6-3
9 Catlin (Salt Fork) 6-3
10 Ottawa (Marquette) 8-1
11 Greenfield [G.-Northwestern Coop] 7-2
12 Sesser (S.-Valier) [Coop] 7-2
13 Gilman (Iroquois West) 7-2
14 Casey (C.-Westfield) 6-3
15 Tremont 7-2
16 Mt. Sterling (Brown County) 5-4
17 Carmi (C.-White County) 6-3
18 Arthur (A.-Lovington-Atwood-Hammond) 5-4
19 Taylor Ridge (Rockridge) 5-4
20 Aurora (A. Christian) 6-3
21 Macon (Meridian) 5-4
22 Colfax (Ridgeview) [Coop] 5-4
23 Winchester [West Central Coop] 6-3
24 Chicago (Julian) 5-4
25 Shelbyville 5-4
26 Galena (H.S.) 5-4
27 Princeville 5-4
28 Kewanee (Wethersfield) [A.-Wethersfield Coop] 5-4
29 Flora 5-4
30 Villa Grove 5-4
31 Chicago (C. Hope Academy) 6-3
32 Nokomis 7-2

2A: (198.5 - 539)
1 Camp Point (Central) 8-1
2 Carrollton 8-1
3 Athens 8-1
4 Moweaqua (Central A & M) 6-3
5 Abingdon (A.-Avon) 8-1
6 Toledo (Cumberland) 8-1
7 Mackinaw (Deer Creek-M.) 6-3
8 Sterling (Newman Central Catholic) 6-3
9 Chicago (North Lawndale Charter) 6-3
10 Mendon (Unity) [Coop] 6-3
11 Vandalia 7-2
12 Maroa (M.-Forsyth) 7-2
13 Aledo (Mercer County) 6-3
14 Momence 6-3
15 Erie [E.-Prophetstown Coop] 7-2
16 Chester 7-2
17 Kankakee (McNamara) 5-4
18 Westville 7-2
19 El Paso (E.P.-Gridley) 5-4
20 Virden (North Mac) 5-4
21 Lawrenceville 6-3
22 Clifton (Central) 6-3
23 Beardstown 5-4
24 Hoopeston (H. Area) [Coop] 5-4
25 Piasa (Southwestern) 5-4
26 Monmouth (M.-Roseville) 6-3
27 Newton 5-4
28 Peotone 5-4
29 Mendota 5-4
30 St. Joseph (S.J.-Ogden) 5-4
31 Poplar Grove (North Boone) 5-4
32 Chicago (Catalyst/Maria) 5-4

3A: (360 - 781)
1 Knoxville 8-1
2 Nashville 8-1
3 Fairfield 8-1
4 Monticello 7-2
5 Carlinville 7-2
6 Fairbury (Prairie Central) 7-2
7 Stillman Valley 7-2
8 Murphysboro [Coop] 6-3
9 Quincy (Sally N D) 6-3
10 Mt. Zion 6-3
11 Paris 6-3
12 DuQuoin (H.S.) 5-4
13 Paxton (P.-Buckley-Loda) 6-3
14 Eureka 6-3
15 Marengo 5-4
16 Chicago (King) 6-3
17 Chicago (Bogan) 6-3
18 Peoria (Sally N D) 6-3
19 Dixon (H.S.) 6-3
20 Chicago (Carver) 6-3
21 Lisle (Sr.) 6-3
22 Greenville 5-4
23 Harrisburg 5-4
24 Elmwood [E.-Brimfield Coop] 6-3
25 Macomb 6-3
26 Olney (Richland County) 5-4
27 Cahokia (H.S.) 5-4
28 Columbia 5-4
29 Plano 6-3
30 Salem 5-4
31 Bethalto (Civic Memorial) 6-3
32 Chicago (Sullivan) 6-3

4A: (323.5 - 1287.5)
1 Decatur (St. Teresa) 9-0
2 Wilmington 9-0
3 Pana (H.S.) 9-0
4 Downs (Tri-Valley) 9-0
5 Farmington 9-0
6 Bismarck (B.-Henning-Rossville-Alvin) 9-0
7 Johnston City 8-1
8 Breese (Mater Dei) 9-0
9 Mt. Carmel 9-0
10 Chicago (Clark) 8-1
11 Elmhurst (IC Catholic) 8-1
12 Benton 9-0
13 Coal City 6-3
14 Chicago (Hyde Park) 6-3
15 Carterville 7-2
16 West Chicago (Wheaton Academy) 7-2
17 Chicago (Noble/Comer) 7-2
18 Marion (H.S.) 8-1
19 Chicago (Payton) 6-3
20 Chicago (Morgan Park) 6-3
21 Sycamore (H.S.) 6-3
22 Peoria (H.S.) 7-2
23 Chicago (St. Patrick) 5-4
24 LaGrange Park (Nazareth Academy) 5-4
25 Aurora (Marmion Academy) 6-3
26 Metamora 5-4
27 Rockford (Boylan Catholic) 6-3
28 Dunlap 5-4
29 Chicago (Noble/Bulls) 5-4
30 LaSalle (L.-Peru) 5-4
31 Jacksonville (H.S.) 5-4
32 Carbondale (H.S.) 5-4

5A:(438 - 1726.5)
1 Princeton 8-1
2 Williamsville 8-1
3 Pecatonica [Du-Pec Coop] 8-1
4 Byron 9-0
5 Tolono (Unity) 9-0
6 Braidwood (Reed-Custer) 8-1
7 Breese (Central) 8-1
8 Rochester 8-1
9 Genoa (G.-Kingston) 8-1
10 Springfield (Sacred Heart-Griffin) 8-1
11 Freeburg 7-2
12 Sterling (H.S.) 7-2
13 Highland 5-4
14 Chicago (Brooks) 6-3
15 Morton 7-2
16 Rochelle 7-2
17 Country Club Hills (Hillcrest) 5-4
18 Troy (Triad) 7-2
19 Evergreen Park 6-3
20 Crystal Lake (Central) 6-3
21 Springfield (H.S.) 6-3
22 Grayslake (Central) 7-2
23 Chatham (Glenwood) 6-3
24 Vernon Hills 7-2
25 Chicago (Kennedy) 5-3
26 Normal (Community West) 6-3
27 Maple Park (Kaneland) 5-4
28 Midlothian (Bremen) 5-4
29 Champaign (Centennial) 5-4
30 Crystal Lake (South) 5-4
31 Lake Villa (Lakes) 5-4
32 Rockford (East) 5-4

6A: (552 - 2200)
1 Wheaton (St. Francis) 7-2
2 Joliet (Catholic Academy) 9-0
3 Kewanee (H.S.) 8-1
4 Richmond (R.-Burton) 9-0
5 Chicago (Phillips) 7-2
6 Mahomet (M.-Seymour) 9-0
7 Mascoutah 8-1
8 Chicago (Goode) 7-2
9 East St. Louis (Sr.) 7-2
10 Glen Ellyn (Glenbard South) 8-1
11 Crete (C.-Monee) 6-3
12 Deerfield (H.S.) 8-1
13 Crystal Lake (Prairie Ridge) 7-2
14 Chicago (Amundsen) 8-1
15 Antioch 6-3
16 Belvidere (North) 7-2
17 Rock Island (H.S.) 6-3
18 Chicago (Simeon) 5-4
19 Riverside (R.-Brookfield) 5-4
20 Chicago (Mather) 6-3
21 Geneva 5-4
22 Lansing (Thornton Fractional South) 6-3
23 Collinsville 8-1
24 Algonquin (Jacobs) 6-3
25 Hampshire 5-4
26 South Holland (Thornwood) 7-2
27 Blue Island (Eisenhower) 5-4
28 New Lenox (Lincoln-Way West) 5-4
29 Villa Park (Willowbrook) 6-3
30 Elgin (Larkin) 5-4
31 Plainfield (East) 5-4
32 Lake Zurich 5-4

7A: (862 - 4020)
1 Kankakee (Sr.) 9-0
2 Morris 9-0
3 Oak Park (Fenwick) 7-2
4 Lemont (H.S.) 9-0
5 Chicago (St. Ignatius) 8-1
6 Oak Lawn (Richards) 7-2
7 Wauconda 9-0
8 Washington 7-2
9 Lake Forest (H.S.) 7-2
10 Machesney Park (Harlem) 8-1
11 Chicago (Kenwood) 8-1
12 Chicago (Whitney Young) 7-2
13 Palos Heights (Shepard) 5-4
14 Rolling Meadows 5-4
15 Arlington Heights (Hersey) 7-2
16 Pekin 7-2
17 Lombard (Glenbard East) 7-2
18 Libertyville 6-3
19 Oswego (East) 6-3
20 Evanston (Twp.) 6-3
21 Minooka 5-4
22 Wheaton (W. Warrenville South) 5-4
23 Plainfield (Central) 8-1
24 Orland Park (Sandburg) 5-4
25 Yorkville (H.S.) 5-4
26 Winnetka (New Trier) 5-4
27 O'Fallon (H.S.) 6-3
28 Barrington 5-4
29 LaGrange (Lyons) 5-4
30 Bartlett 5-4
31 Edwardsville (H.S.) 5-4
32 Downers Grove (South) 5-4

8A: (1617 - 3893)
1 Cary (C.-Grove) 9-0
2 Wilmette (Loyola Academy) 9-0
3 Batavia 9-0
4 Rockton (Hononegah) 9-0
5 Chicago (Mt. Carmel) 6-3
6 Wheaton (North) 8-1
7 Moline (H.S.) 8-1
8 Normal (Community) 9-0
9 Chicago (St. Rita) 7-2
10 Buffalo Grove 8-1
11 Hoffman Estates (H.S.) 7-2
12 Mt. Prospect (Prospect) 7-2
13 South Elgin 9-0
14 Naperville (Neuqua Valley) 8-1
15 Lockport (Twp.) 8-1
16 Park Ridge (Maine South) 8-1
17 Gurnee (Warren) 8-1
18 Hinsdale (Central) 8-1
19 Frankfort (Lincoln-Way East) 7-2
20 Elmhurst (York) 8-1
21 Chicago (Brother Rice) 7-2
22 Plainfield (North) 7-2
23 Glenview (Glenbrook South) 7-2
24 Chicago (Taft) 7-2
25 Palatine (H.S.) 6-3
26 Naperville (North) 6-3
27 Naperville (Central) 6-3
28 Bolingbrook 7-2
29 Glen Ellyn (Glenbard West) 7-2
30 Chicago (Marist) 6-3
31 Oswego (H.S.) 6-3
32 Carol Stream (Glenbard North) 6-3

Thank God ramblin doesn't work for the IHSA, thats complete idiocy

Honestly, I think it does achieve the goal of creating more competitive matchups there are are some serious issues with some schools being bumped up to higher classes.

For example, looking the top 6 schools in 5A.  There are definitive 3A schools playing, at times, traditional 6A schools.  I know enrollment does not determine success and success is not based on enrollment but it does play a role in the caliber of athletes that play on your team. Look at the range of enrollment difference for 3A - 8A, it may not make a difference for those teams that are not in playoffs but it definitely does for those who made it.    
3A = 421
4A = 964
5A = 1324.5
6A = 1648
7A = 3150
8A = 3726

Also, seeing Morris and Kankakee is 7A is surprising along with Nazareth in 4A.

For the smaller classes, it's great, 1A-3A are very competitive and would be even more so if you keep the Wilmington, Williamsville, Byron, Princeton, Tolono, etc, in 3A.

I like the idea of bumping some teams up and how you determine that and how far is the question at hand.  I believe a Tier system of 1A-3A, 4A- 6A, and 7A-8A could exacerbate some of the mismatches enrollment-wise. Maybe limit teams to bump up one class or only allow teams with a substantial higher RPI to go up a tier.

Overall, I like the idea but putting it into an equitable practice to create more parity is the isseu.

If that is the system the state would use, and if I had a good 2A team, I would throw two games so I could stay in 2A and not bumped to 4A..

Using 5A as the example, why would the top 6 try to go 9-0 if their reward is a punishment???

5A:(438 - 1726.5)
1 Princeton 8-1
2 Williamsville 8-1
3 Pecatonica [Du-Pec Coop] 8-1
4 Byron 9-0
5 Tolono (Unity) 9-0
6 Braidwood (Reed-Custer) 8-1
7 Breese (Central) 8-1
8 Rochester 8-1
9 Genoa (G.-Kingston) 8-1
10 Springfield (Sacred Heart-Griffin) 8-1

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:If that is the system the state would use, and if I had a good 2A team, I would throw two games so I could stay in 2A and not bumped to 4A..

Using 5A as the example, why would the top 6 try to go 9-0 if their reward is a punishment???

5A:(438 - 1726.5)
1 Princeton 8-1
2 Williamsville 8-1
3 Pecatonica [Du-Pec Coop] 8-1
4 Byron 9-0
5 Tolono (Unity) 9-0
6 Braidwood (Reed-Custer) 8-1
7 Breese (Central) 8-1
8 Rochester 8-1
9 Genoa (G.-Kingston) 8-1
10 Springfield (Sacred Heart-Griffin) 8-1

i know you think i don't like you, but you've been so much more easier to tolerate since you've dropped the hatred for everything Catholic.....that being said, you mentioned throwing games.....thank God you're not a head coach.

Maybe not throw a game, but rig the schedule so you don't get bumped up.. a system that would penalize a school like Reed-Custer, who is having their once in a generation team, and put them in the same class as you guys makes zero sense.. SHG would have beat RC by at least 4 scores this year..

I guess I see no problem with the current system with the exception of 10-15 open enrollment districts and what their placement should be.. and maybe the inclusion of the CPL schools..

I generally agree with HHS on this one. System in current form works pretty well. Even though many of the championship games were not down to the wire, most of the champs were provided challenging games during the playoff process.
There also seems to be a lot of evidence that the old “football enrollment” idea was pretty indicative of a team’s seemingly proper class. I can’t recall when/why that rule was scrapped. I imagine it was the predecessor to the multiplier rule?

I don't have an issue with our current system but I think there are improvements that can be made. The multiplier is what it is, the Privates hate it and if you take it away the publics will throw a fit.

I found this on another board...Since 1996, there have been 4,650 IHSA playoff football games played. Of those games played, 1,434 of them (obviously maybe more without knowing 1997) were played private vs public.

The overall record (private vs public) is 924-510 in favor of the private schools.

There were 184 total title games played since 1996... 24 of them played as the 6 class system, 160 of them played under the 8 class system. Of those 184 championship games, 85 involved at least one private school, 21 of them involved two private schools (private vs private). The record for private vs public in championship games is 44-20 in favor of the private schools.

This alone shows the privates have an advantage that needs to be accounted for.

Teams like SHG, JCA, IC, Mac, etc., need to be placed in the appropriate class to create an equitable system. At times, there are publics that should be bumped into appropriate classes as well but how you determine that is the big question. The success factor could be applied but how often do we see a public go on a Rochester-like run and win multiple consecutive championships?

I would love to see the following changes...
#1 - Seeds based on an RPI or similar formula
#2 - Seed 1-32, no more North and South
#3 - No in conference rematches in the 1st Round.

The success factor is pretty rare. Rare enough that I wouldn’t have a problem seeing it applied universally to all schools.
Seeding 1-32 based on metrics other than W-L I could also get behind as long as there was transparency.

Doctor D wrote:The success factor is pretty rare.  Rare enough that I wouldn’t have a problem seeing it applied universally to all schools.  
Seeding 1-32 based on metrics other than W-L I could also get behind as long as there was transparency.

I would be okay with any formula accounts for the difficulty of opponents the school plays. Adding in an enrollment factor is too difficult but using wins, opponent wins, and defeated opponent wins seems like a great place to start. As long as there is no human element in the seeding decision.

So if Herscher beats a 2-7 Bradley team and Reed-Custer beats a 9-0 Carver team, Reed-Custer gets bumped up and Herscher doesn't... but whats a better win???

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:Maybe not throw a game, but rig the schedule so you don't get bumped up.. a system that would penalize a school like Reed-Custer, who is having their once in a generation team, and put them in the same class as you guys makes zero sense..  

It isn't penalizing, especially when you consider that the most competitive 1A and 2A teams would be moved up to 3A, and less competitive schools from 4A and 5A would be moving down to that class.  It isn't penalizing if all the schools are subject to the same rules.  It might SEEM like penalizing in the first year that such a system is implemented, but that's only because change-resistant people will refuse to look at the playoffs through a new prism.  Instead, they would rather hang on to a flawed system because that is all they know.  

It isn't penalizing; it's CLASSIFYING SIMILARLY SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS TOGETHER so as to create more competitively balanced classes top to bottom. How is it a penalty to be classified with similarly competitive schools?  

It's making it so that, hopefully, there will be no 55-6 blowouts in round two like there was this year when Reed-Custer (a 4 seed) beat Clark (a 5 seed).  Which is worse, SHG beating R-C by four scores in a new system or R-C beating Clark by seven scores or Byron shutting out Catalyst Maria by eight scores in the system we have now?

Seems to me that anyone who would complain about being in a more competitively balanced class would rather play in weaker class where they can benefit from competitive mismatches.  Seems to me that anyone who would try to game the system by "rigging the schedule" would rather beat up on weaker schools than play similarly competitive schools.

A scenario that would be likely to happen here is an 8A school only beating opponents with a losing record and potentially dropping down to class 6A.  The you get a team Morris this year and they match up together.  On paper and by math they are equal teams but in no way should Morris ever be on the same field as LWE or Lockport.  Well, unless they have Dergo.

Same could happen with Morris having a down year and dropping down to 3A and playing Lena Winslow who jumped up from 1A.  

I get what you are going for Rambling but there needs to be a ceiling or floor to where team can rise or drop.  What would you suggest to solve this problem?

Ramblin’s example used CPL teams against the best 3A team and another that was probably in the top 5 if not top 3. A major part of the blowout problem is (unfortunately) CPL schools. Yes these kids deserve a chance, but in general they are not even close to competitive outside of a couple schools.

Which championship teams went through their bracket without a challenge? The system is not THAT broken.

Another thought regarding computer rankings…
Per Calpreps, Wilmington is the 20th best team in the state regardless of class. Byron is 16th. Does anyone really believe that?

dusty7 wrote:A scenario that would be likely to happen here is an 8A school only beating opponents with a losing record and potentially dropping down to class 6A.  The you get a team Morris this year and they match up together.  On paper and by math they are equal teams but in no way should Morris ever be on the same field as LWE or Lockport.  Well, unless they have Dergo.

Same could happen with Morris having a down year and dropping down to 3A and playing Lena Winslow who jumped up from 1A.  

I get what you are going for Rambling but there needs to be a ceiling or floor to where team can rise or drop.  What would you suggest to solve this problem?

I would agree to a ceiling or a floor.  I also think you could explore adding criteria to the up or down movement between classes that would limit that movement.  For example, undefeated schools can't move down more than one class.  Schools with 5-4 records can't move up more than one class.  I'm not suggesting precisely the above, but I'm offering it to point out that there are multiple ways to make adjustments.

I could see an 8A CPL school like Taft eking into the playoffs at 5-4 and only beating schools with losing records, but then I would say that a school like that doesn't belong competitively in 8A in the first place, especially if highly competitive schools from 6A and 7A are moving up into 8A.  I could also see Taft being 9-0 and only beating schools with losing records.  In that second scenario, must Taft be in 8A, or would they add to a more balanced 7A?

I'd actually like to see a playoff game with a down Morris and an up L-W.  I think it would be fascinating.

Doctor D wrote:Ramblin’s example used CPL teams against the best 3A team and another that was probably in the top 5 if not top 3.  A major part of the blowout problem is (unfortunately) CPL schools.  Yes these kids deserve a chance, but in general they are not even close to competitive outside of a couple schools.

There were a total of 248 playoff games.  Of those 248, 68 (27%) games were decided by margins of 30 points or more with the losing school being from a conference other than the CPL.  There were 16 CPL teams defeated by 30 pts or more for a percentage of 6% of the total number of playoff games and 19% of all playoff games decided by margins of 30 points or more.  I think that the blowout problem is not as focused on CPL as you suspect.

If you want other examples of blowouts that don't use CPL teams, there are plenty I could choose from.

@ramblinman,

Can you provide your “prediction” or “projection” of what the finals or better yet, final 4 would look like in each class under your proposal?  (Using this years teams). That might help clear things up for me.

During our resource time today I had a student run a quick sim of 5A using the Massey Predictor

6/31 games were decided by 21+ (what I would consider a blowout) which is 19%

Final Four Was
#8 Rochester -  38
#4 Byron - 34

#10  SHG - 42
#6 Reed-Custer - 26

In no way do I think these games would be this close if they were really played.

Final was Rochester 38, SHG 42.

https://challonge.com/3z5yb5i6

Doctor D wrote:@ramblinman,

Can you provide your “prediction” or “projection” of what the finals or better yet, final 4 would look like in each class under your proposal?  (Using this years teams). That might help clear things up for me.

If you are talking my idea to move down the least competitive 25% of teams out of each class and replace them with the top six teams from the class below and the top two from two classes below, I just don't have that kind of time to do that. It would require coming up with a power ranking much like Dusty did and applying it to all the teams in all eight classes. It would take days for me to compute, and I just can't manage that.

Your question isn't unreasonable. It's like wanting to take a test drive of a car before you sign on the dotted line. I get that. Relative to this idea, I've always been way more interested in developing and spit balling the concept than with the actual data crunching to see what it would look like. That's just who I am. If you are reluctant to embrace the concept because you are the type of guy who needs to see it visually on paper, I understand, but I'm just not the right guy to take it to that next step for you.

Did the 4A Bracket During my lunch.....lots of problems with this one. Any bracket where all of the final 4 seeds are double digits shows something is wrong.

13/31 with 21+ point differential - 41.9%

Final 4
#24 - Nazareth - 20
#21 - Sycamore - 14

#18 - Marion - 21
#11 - IC - 28

Final - Nazareth 24, IC 20

https://challonge.com/8w9c9j3n

It’s interesting that IC and especially Sycamore and Naz are 4A, while Byron and Reed-Custer are 5A.