Ramblins Proposal (kind of)

ramblinman wrote:

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.

So using your logic, why do you complain when the private schools have been placed up a class or two???? Then its a different story and you cry from the highest mountain.. the idea of placing a school like Reed-Custer up to 5A this year is absolutely stupid.. Kankakee to 7A??? Again, equally stupid... and then even more so when it seems to be nothing but your justification for adding the open enrollment programs like JCA, Montini, IC, SHG etc to higher classes, which actually does make sense.. I actually laughed out loud when you supported your dumb idea because all schools would be treated equal.. its so funny listening to you campaign against schools "playing down to their competition" when thats exactly what many private schools have been doing for years because of their ability to recruit football kids..

If you want logical change, then separate the open enrollment schools from the public schools, thats actually the fair thing to do and makes sense.. It works very well in Tennessee and would work even better in Illinois because there are more schools.. it seems crazy to Tennessee people that another state would use a system where the privates play the public schools..

ramblinman wrote:

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.

Who cares if there are blowouts?? This is high school football, the public schools are going to have groups that are very good and will cominate 5 and 6 win teams.. honestly, who effin cares?? At Herscher we had years when we lost 4A games by 40 plus points and we won games in the same manner... had a 3 year run where we got waxed in the quarterfinals twice and semifinals once, but the idea of Highland or Byron being moved up a class seems ignorant, they were just better.. Now if you want to talk about recruiter Phillips, then I agree, with their talent and where the kids lived, they didn't seem like a 4A school, but thats the argument you want to avoid because its not private school friendly..

dusty7 wrote:During our resource time today I had a student run a quick sim of 5A using the Massey Predictor

Final was Rochester 38, SHG 42.

https://challonge.com/3z5yb5i6

Sold!

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:it seems crazy to Tennessee people that another state would use a system where the privates play the public schools..

It must be Tennessee that is the crazy one. Of the bordering states to Tennessee these states include private and public schools together.

Missouri
Kentucky
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
Arkansas


Nearby other states that combine private and public:

Illinois
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania

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

I was taken aback by that as well. But with my random 35+ RPI that is what happened. I probably had a little too much weight on the wins so teams with 8 or 9 wins with a difficult schedule were the ones that were bumped up 2 classes. Those were definitely not rewards for having a successful regular season. Teams that were in the higher classes with 5 or 6 wins with ho hum schedules were more likely to be bumped down. That is what happened with Naz and Sycamore.

Imagine if IC, Sycamore, Marion, Naz, SHG, Rochester were all in 5A and Byron, Reed-Custer, Wilmington, St. T, Princeton, Tolono, and Williamsville, in 4A. That would be almost perfect.

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

I was taken aback by that as well. But with my random 35+ RPI that is what happened. I probably had a little too much weight on the wins so teams with 8 or 9 wins with a difficult schedule were the ones that were bumped up 2 classes. Those were definitely not rewards for having a successful regular season. Teams that were in the higher classes with 5 or 6 wins with ho hum schedules were more likely to be bumped down. That is what happened with Naz and Sycamore.

Imagine if IC, Sycamore, Marion, Naz, SHG, Rochester were all in 5A and Byron, Reed-Custer, Wilmington, St. T, Princeton, Tolono, and Williamsville, in 4A. That would be almost perfect.

Teetime wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:it seems crazy to Tennessee people that another state would use a system where the privates play the public schools..

It must be Tennessee that is the crazy one. Of the bordering states to Tennessee these states include private and public schools together.

Missouri
Kentucky
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina


Nearby other states that combine private and public:

Illinois
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania

Point being is that it works and works very well, much better idea than the goofy ass ideas Ramblin throws together..

HHSTigerFan2 wrote: using your logic, why do you complain when the private schools have been placed up a class or two????

Seriously, one question mark does it for me.  Don't need three more to know it's a question.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:Then its a different story and you cry from the highest

I have complained, in the past, when a private school was moved up because the system does not move similarly competitive schools up that are not private.  It is discriminatory.  Please, I'm not interested in a public/private debate with you.  Let me point out that you are the one who has injected that debate into this thread.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:the idea of placing a school like Reed-Custer up to 5A this year is absolutely stupid.. Kankakee to 7A??? Again, equally stupid...

Tell that to Dusty.  Those moves are from his model, not mine.  But, I will say that you are still looking at this through your existing system prism.  You need to get rid of that.  It is clouding your vision.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote: I actually laughed out loud when you supported your dumb idea because all schools would be treated equal.. its so funny listening to you campaign against schools "playing down to their competition" when thats exactly what many private schools have been doing for years because of their ability to recruit football kids.

Again, I'm not going to be drawn into that debate with you.  If you want, just pretend like I'm engaging you in this decades old argument so you can get off.  That's fine with me.  A guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.  It has been so long since we've engaged in the public/private debate that you must really be jonesin to bust a big one.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:If you want logical change, then separate the open enrollment schools from the public schools, thats actually the fair thing to do and makes sense.. It works very well in Tennessee and would work even better in Illinois because there are more schools.. it seems crazy to Tennessee people that another state would use a system where the privates play the public schools..

Are you almost there yet?

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

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.

Who cares if there are blowouts?? This is high school football, the public schools are going to have groups that are very good and will cominate 5 and 6 win teams.. honestly, who effin cares?? At Herscher we had years when we lost 4A games by 40 plus points and we won games in the same manner... had a 3 year run where we got waxed in the quarterfinals twice and semifinals once, but the idea of Highland or Byron being moved up a class seems ignorant, they were just better.. Now if you want to talk about recruiter Phillips, then I agree, with their talent and where the kids lived, they didn't seem like a 4A school, but thats the argument you want to avoid because its not private school friendly..

Playoff blowouts are a symptom of a flawed classification system that results in wide gulfs between the most competitive and least competitive teams in each class. It doesn't have to be that way. If you don't care about that, fine. We disagree. Wouldn't be the first time.

As for your private school friendly comment, stop drawing it out. Just get it over with, man. Priapism is a bitch, I hear.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

Teetime wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:it seems crazy to Tennessee people that another state would use a system where the privates play the public schools..

It must be Tennessee that is the crazy one. Of the bordering states to Tennessee these states include private and public schools together.

Missouri
Kentucky
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina


Nearby other states that combine private and public:

Illinois
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania

Point being is that it works and works very well, much better idea than the goofy ass ideas Ramblin throws together..

You are forgetting that I am the one who wants the NIPL.  Absent that, I'll just keep throwing out goofy ass ideas.  Every time I would promote the NIPL, you were the one who would take great glee in coming up with reasons why it wouldn't work (even though now you are touting the private/public segregation in TN as the best thing sinced sliced bread.  Now I'm thinking that the feeling goes a lot deeper with you than simple glee.

Are you through yet?

To be honest having the privates with the publics makes the playoffs more fun. It adds to the debate along with creating unique matchups for teams that don't usually play, Wilmo vs Mac for example.

That being said, when you have a situation like 16, 17, and 18 when Mac and IC 40 pointed their entire way through the playoffs, they need to be bumped up a class. But why should the same not be done with with publics? An RPI or power rating could work but it does not take into account the difference in enrollment. I know some say it doesn't matter but it definitely plays a role in the skill level of a team.

I think I put too much weight on a teams wins with my formula and a slight change to what consists of being bumped and only bumping 1 class could fix the issue we saw with the 4A simulation.

If my kids cooperate I may do that tonight.

dusty7 wrote:To be honest having the privates with the publics makes the playoffs more fun.  It adds to the debate along with creating unique matchups for teams that don't usually play, Wilmo vs Mac for example.  

That being said, when you have a situation like 16, 17, and 18 when Mac and IC 40 pointed their entire way through the playoffs, they need to be bumped up a class.  But why should the same not be done with with publics?   An RPI or power rating could work but it does not take into account the difference in enrollment.  I know some say it doesn't matter but it definitely plays a role in the skill level of a team.    

This has pretty much been my stance.  If there are some blowouts, I think that is just what’s gonna happen when you have a 32 team bracket that’s properly seeded.  Even if all teams (classes) are grouped properly, a 9-0 or 8-1 should usually take care of a 5-4 or 6-3 rather easily.  When that doesn’t happen, people are generally surprised.  When the lower (properly) seeded team actually wins, that situation is called an “upset”, you all have probably heard the term.  

I will add that the games in a properly seeded tournament are designed to get better and better as the rounds advance. I think you generally see that now. There is some discrepancy in the title games because the lower classes are two 16 team brackets.

The real competitive issue is when you have one team that is light years ahead of everyone else.  Best example of that is 2016 IC.  The success factor is designed for this situation.  Go ahead and throw public schools in the mix.

In summary, there are a few ways to reduce blowouts.  One of them (ramblinman’s idea) would have the best 25% from each class move up one class…plus the best 2 would move up an additional class.  This would almost unequivocally alter every semifinal and possibly quarterfinal team- besides 8A.  Complete line change.  The 6a and 7A finalists and semifinalists would be replaced-by much lesser teams.  The trickle down effect on the lower half of classes would be profound.  The lower classes would be watered down significantly.   More close games between subpar teams isn’t necessarily a good thing.  Additionally, given that there are still 32 teams per class seeded 1-32, there is absolutely no guarantee that mismatches would be appreciably, if at all, reduced.  Also, there is no real viable method to specify which exact teams should get shuffled up.  Computer ratings like Massey and Calpreps are far from perfect.  

It is my opinion that enrollment, although by no means perfect, is at least as good as any method of classifying closed enrollment schools. It is also transparent and easily determined.   Open enrollment schools can be a different animal, but there are only about a dozen or so that clearly play at a level much higher than their public equivalent enrollment suggests.  That’s why I believe that the multiplier and waiver method is just fine.  I also can get behind the success factor rule, but it should apply to public schools as well because that would be more equitable and in line with its name.

ramblinman wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

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.

Who cares if there are blowouts?? This is high school football, the public schools are going to have groups that are very good and will cominate 5 and 6 win teams.. honestly, who effin cares?? At Herscher we had years when we lost 4A games by 40 plus points and we won games in the same manner... had a 3 year run where we got waxed in the quarterfinals twice and semifinals once, but the idea of Highland or Byron being moved up a class seems ignorant, they were just better.. Now if you want to talk about recruiter Phillips, then I agree, with their talent and where the kids lived, they didn't seem like a 4A school, but thats the argument you want to avoid because its not private school friendly..

Playoff blowouts are a symptom of a flawed classification system that results in wide gulfs between the most competitive and least competitive teams in each class.  It doesn't have to be that way.  If you don't care about that, fine.  We disagree.  Wouldn't be the first time.

As for your private school friendly comment, stop drawing it out.  Just get it over with, man.  Priapism is a bitch, I hear.

Enrollment is not a flawed system for the public schools, schools within an enrollment range play each other in the playoffs, its perfectly fair and the way it should be.. your total lack of understanding of how the system works away from the private schools, where recruiting does happen, makes you see things incorrectly.. punishing public schools for being successful is just ignorant when they are drawing from a comparable number of students..

dusty7 wrote:  But why should the same not be done with with publics?    

Because they are playing within the rules of 87% of the schools, play with what the bus drops off.. why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

What I don't understand is that we have blowouts in all sports, in baseball we have plenty of 25-0 type games.. why did nobody ever ask for Herscher or Coal City to be bumped up a class??? anyone ever ask for Beecher to be bumped up to 3A in softball??

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

dusty7 wrote:  But why should the same not be done with with publics?    

Because they are playing within the rules of 87% of the schools, play with what the bus drops off.. why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

I'm not saying we should but when a public goes on a run, see Rochester, a success factor may be warranted. However, how often do you see a public school win multiple consecutive championships?

dusty7 wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

dusty7 wrote:  But why should the same not be done with with publics?    

Because they are playing within the rules of 87% of the schools, play with what the bus drops off.. why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

I'm not saying we should but when a public goes on a run, see Rochester, a success factor may be warranted.  However, how often do you see a public school win multiple consecutive championships?  

I guess why should it be warranted?? They hit the lottery with a great coach and the demographics to match, good for them..

If a school isn't happy getting their asses kicked by Rochester, have their district open up the checkbook and offer DL $200K to teach one class and coach..

If I may, the multiplier and waiver is supposed to be what balanced out the private schools. How many schools have actually had the SF implemented? Nazareth, Montini, and IC??? Some similar almost jackpot style conditions given smallish school enrollments -even when multiplied, coaches and demographic factors for these 3.

Somehow I think Rochester would be okay. Currently they are not in line for SF. It’s funny, they are always one of the largest 4A schools with just about everything going for them. The one year their enrollment actually puts them in 5A, they win it anyway.

dusty7 wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

dusty7 wrote:  But why should the same not be done with with publics?    

Because they are playing within the rules of 87% of the schools, play with what the bus drops off.. why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

I'm not saying we should but when a public goes on a run, see Rochester, a success factor may be warranted.  However, how often do you see a public school win multiple consecutive championships?  

It sure doesn’t happen very often. Off the top of my head I recall Jim Unruh having a hell of a run at Illini West.

OSUBucks wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:

dusty7 wrote:  But why should the same not be done with with publics?    

Because they are playing within the rules of 87% of the schools, play with what the bus drops off.. why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

I'm not saying we should but when a public goes on a run, see Rochester, a success factor may be warranted.  However, how often do you see a public school win multiple consecutive championships?  

It sure doesn’t happen very often. Off the top of my head I recall Jim Unruh having a hell of a run at Illini West.

He did. Got 1st in 95, 98, 99, 2000. 2nd in 02, 03, 04. But that type of success is very rare and I do not think that the state football is in right now you will see a school with that kind of success.

dusty7 wrote: But that type of success is very rare and I do not think that the state football is in right now you will see a school with that kind of success.

You mean other that Rochester? That is happening right now.

I think E. St. Louis had a pretty good run of success when they had a stable coaching situation. They may be in a streak like that again now.

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote: But that type of success is very rare and I do not think that the state football is in right now you will see a school with that kind of success.

You mean other that Rochester? That is happening right now.

I think E. St. Louis had a pretty good run of success when they had a stable coaching situation. They may be in a streak like that again now.

Neither won titles this year.  Rochester didn’t make it, and ESL by all accounts would petition up higher if their conference allowed them to do so.  Additionally, I think dusty has stated that he’s not opposed to SF for everyone.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:I guess why should it be warranted?? They hit the lottery with a great coach and the demographics to match, good for them..

If a school isn't happy getting their asses kicked by Rochester, have their district open up the checkbook and offer DL $200K to teach one class and coach..

So it's punishment if a public school gets moved up for success but not for a private school?

A private school can't have "a great coach and the demographics to match"?

Doctor D wrote:

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote: But that type of success is very rare and I do not think that the state football is in right now you will see a school with that kind of success.

You mean other that Rochester? That is happening right now.

I think E. St. Louis had a pretty good run of success when they had a stable coaching situation. They may be in a streak like that again now.

Neither won titles this year.  Rochester didn’t make it, and ESL by all accounts would petition up if their conference allowed them to do so.  Additionally, I think dusty has stated that he’s not opposed to SF for everyone.

I agree. I was just taking exception to the "I do not think that the state football is in right now you will see a school with that kind of success."

I think we are seeing that kind of success right now.

Actually ESL did petition up from 5A to 6a this year, but I recall reading articles about their conference taking some kind of issue with that.