I just keep coming up with scenarios based on how you describe your system since you have not provided a formula or system. All we can do is speculate based on your descriptions. Since SCE dominated Lockport and their 3600 students you are suggesting Lockport shouldnt have been in the top class with SCE. Since you cant move SCE up anywhere you have to move LP down. Previously you have stated that Naz and Montini would be able to be in the top class somehow but not the public schools in their classes which are bigger. Not sure what fuzzy math you can use that will allow this but by all means post it and we can have a meaningful discussion about it.
First round blowouts and running clocks
- Thread starter ramblinman_rivals165935
- Start date
I just keep coming up with scenarios based on how you describe your system since you have not provided a formula or system. All we can do is speculate based on your descriptions. Since SCE dominated Lockport and their 3600 students you are suggesting Lockport shouldnt have been in the top class with SCE. Since you cant move SCE up anywhere you have to move LP down. Previously you have stated that Naz and Montini would be able to be in the top class somehow but not the public schools in their classes which are bigger. Not sure what fuzzy math you can use that will allow this but by all means post it and we can have a meaningful discussion about it.
Who cares about blowouts?Hey let's go back to the old method...only conference champs make playoffs.There are 80 conferences playing football....works out perfectly...5 classes with 16 in each. Or better yet,conference champs only and only one class for a true state champion......because if you have more than 1 true state champ,does it really matter how many teams are in or the number of blowouts?? There were many blowouts in 1st round games not to mention other rounds before going to 8 classes.
So a bunch of 16,17 and 18 year old kids got to play an extra week.I'm pretty sure many of them were excited just for the opportunity.
So a bunch of 16,17 and 18 year old kids got to play an extra week.I'm pretty sure many of them were excited just for the opportunity.
Yes, I got that from your original argument. But why do you think it is a problem?
To answer your question: I'm not in a position to say what my threshold is because I really don't have one. I only follow 8A closely, with decent attention to 7A and very meager attention to 6A. So I don't have enough background knowledge to assert whether or not there is a problem. That's why I wanna know why you think your conclusion follows from the fact that 52 of 128 first round games were blowouts.
To clarify my position here is I may?
I agreed with the thought that we have too many teams and too many classes and have since the day we added two extra classes fo football in this state. The large numbers of opening round blowouts for me just add to that argument and have ever since they added two classes.
That's it.
I agreed with the thought that we have too many teams and too many classes and have since the day we added two extra classes fo football in this state. The large numbers of opening round blowouts for me just add to that argument and have ever since they added two classes.
That's it.
did a quick check....in 1999 with 6 classes 32 of the 96 1st round games were "blowouts" of 30 pts or more 33% and of those 32 games 15 were shut outs and in another 9 of those games less than 9 pts were scored....is there really that much of a difference when you think about it??
Last edited:
in 96 1st rd games won by 4 or more TDs
6A - 8
5A - 10
4A - 7
3A - 8
2A - 10
1A - 9
I dont think less classes is the issue
6A - 8
5A - 10
4A - 7
3A - 8
2A - 10
1A - 9
I dont think less classes is the issue
Guys guys!!
No matter what system you have there will be blowouts in the 1st round. Stop it.
No matter what system you have there will be blowouts in the 1st round. Stop it.
What if they raised the limit to 6-3 to make the playoffs? Unless you win your conference.
That's what we had prior to going to 8 classes.Bones showed results from 1996 and I showed from 1999.Blowouts have always been there
It's a strength of schedule issue. and even that won't totally eliminate blowouts. They will always be there to some degree.
Wouldn't that force more schools to seek conferences with a maximum of four good teams?
I agree that not all 5-4 records are the same. The hardest part is trying to come up with the right weight for the SoS right?
@jwarigaku sorry I haven't read the PA method but how do they avoid the presumption that one conference is better than another without similar out of conference games? What I mean by that is let's say we believe that the WSS is a high quality conference. Those teams secure high preseason rankings and they only lose to each other. Bad crossover (no offense HS but I was thinking of Morton) opponents from WSG give false reads. Maybe one or two WSS teams play perennial powers having a rough patch but the victory carries weight. So you end up with four teams that might be really good exiting regular season but old hats know that OPRF & LT are more interested in getting to the mats and HC is more interested in staying warm.
On the flip side, you have MC that could lose five games during the regular season but still crash the party and do damage to those that lack the seasoning and intensity of Frank Lenti's boys. Do you turn over the IHSA seeding to a RPI style rating system that weighs victories and losses? Does the WSS victories get less credence because the teams are less successful in post season? How do you gauge a DVC? Do you put weight strictly on post season success?
I am not trying to flood the thread with hypotheticals without taking a position. I look at pure computer rankings and I scratch my head. Massey ranks one way and Calpreps that has a system so flawed that it keeps NV ranked above GW even after GW beats them at NV the day before. So computers are tough to stomach so it needs something that isn't flawed by coaches not submitting surveys or ADs not caring enough to schedule the right non-conference games.
You could use post season record by conference, but doesn't that favor conferences that put teams in multiple conferences? So if you take the weighted average of value of the trailing three years of postseason record to cover up one year anomolies like MC missing this year, you may be able to get to a conference quality ranking. Higher value for 8A and dropping as you go.
But all of this or even the StoneLizard only move the needle slightly in the seedlings. HC would still get a high seed unless you credit or deduct for prior seasons.
My solution one final Super-State championship weekend where 1A/2A, 3A/4A, 5A/6A, 7A/8A play in a four game Super Bowl. You still have 8 state champs but only four Super Bowl champs. And since it will never happen, let's play these games at Lucas Oil Field since just about everywhere in IL is within three hours and it would be warm.
I sure wish we could have played one last game last year like that.
My solution one final Super-State championship weekend where 1A/2A, 3A/4A, 5A/6A, 7A/8A play in a four game Super Bowl.
=====
This year 8A has a very tough ride to winning a state title and 7A looks like a easy ride comparing it to 8A this year. So 8A will be complaining about 7A having a easy ride getting to the Super Bowl.
Your right - it will never happen. Instead I rather see that extra game playing a state champion from another state.
Wassup
=====
This year 8A has a very tough ride to winning a state title and 7A looks like a easy ride comparing it to 8A this year. So 8A will be complaining about 7A having a easy ride getting to the Super Bowl.
Your right - it will never happen. Instead I rather see that extra game playing a state champion from another state.
Wassup
I think some of you are over complicating this. I don't think anyone wants to go to a system where computer formulas are making the judgements, BCS-style. There aren't enough common opponent games, imo, to make an accurate statistical judgment. I feel that although the current system isn't perfect, W/L is the best standard to differentiate teams, with playoff points being an imperfect, but workable, way to order them. Remember too, that the point of a playoff is not to find an accurate 1-32 ranking of teams, just to find the #1 team.
Agreed everyone is overcomplicating the issue. The current system is fine and there will always be blowouts. As the games go on, the matchups get better. The only thing I would change is have 1-32 seeding for all classes and no separate north and south 1-16 seedings.
I just wish @stonedlizard and @ramblinman would go ahead and flesh out their ideas so we could have something concrete to work with since I keep getting told my speculations are absurd.
capn,
The classes take care of that. Remember that classes are not just made from football enrollment basis. There is performance taken into account. To assuage one of the other posters this is not computer ranking it's based on your own winning percentage and your opponents winning percentages. The weight is 55% yours 45% theirs so it spreads the statistics across leagues and levels to arrive at a very good statistical pool. Hope that answers some of your questions. This formula of course has its weaknesses but usually works very well.
@jwarigaku sorry I haven't read the PA method but how do they avoid the presumption that one conference is better than another without similar out of conference games? What I mean by that is let's say we believe that the WSS is a high quality conference. Those teams secure high preseason rankings and they only lose to each other. Bad crossover (no offense HS but I was thinking of Morton) opponents from WSG give false reads. Maybe one or two WSS teams play perennial powers having a rough patch but the victory carries weight. So you end up with four teams that might be really good exiting regular season but old hats know that OPRF & LT are more interested in getting to the mats and HC is more interested in staying warm.
On the flip side, you have MC that could lose five games during the regular season but still crash the party and do damage to those that lack the seasoning and intensity of Frank Lenti's boys. Do you turn over the IHSA seeding to a RPI style rating system that weighs victories and losses? Does the WSS victories get less credence because the teams are less successful in post season? How do you gauge a DVC? Do you put weight strictly on post season success?
I am not trying to flood the thread with hypotheticals without taking a position. I look at pure computer rankings and I scratch my head. Massey ranks one way and Calpreps that has a system so flawed that it keeps NV ranked above GW even after GW beats them at NV the day before. So computers are tough to stomach so it needs something that isn't flawed by coaches not submitting surveys or ADs not caring enough to schedule the right non-conference games.
You could use post season record by conference, but doesn't that favor conferences that put teams in multiple conferences? So if you take the weighted average of value of the trailing three years of postseason record to cover up one year anomolies like MC missing this year, you may be able to get to a conference quality ranking. Higher value for 8A and dropping as you go.
But all of this or even the StoneLizard only move the needle slightly in the seedlings. HC would still get a high seed unless you credit or deduct for prior seasons.
My solution one final Super-State championship weekend where 1A/2A, 3A/4A, 5A/6A, 7A/8A play in a four game Super Bowl. You still have 8 state champs but only four Super Bowl champs. And since it will never happen, let's play these games at Lucas Oil Field since just about everywhere in IL is within three hours and it would be warm.
I sure wish we could have played one last game last year like that.[/QUOTE]
The classes take care of that. Remember that classes are not just made from football enrollment basis. There is performance taken into account. To assuage one of the other posters this is not computer ranking it's based on your own winning percentage and your opponents winning percentages. The weight is 55% yours 45% theirs so it spreads the statistics across leagues and levels to arrive at a very good statistical pool. Hope that answers some of your questions. This formula of course has its weaknesses but usually works very well.
@jwarigaku sorry I haven't read the PA method but how do they avoid the presumption that one conference is better than another without similar out of conference games? What I mean by that is let's say we believe that the WSS is a high quality conference. Those teams secure high preseason rankings and they only lose to each other. Bad crossover (no offense HS but I was thinking of Morton) opponents from WSG give false reads. Maybe one or two WSS teams play perennial powers having a rough patch but the victory carries weight. So you end up with four teams that might be really good exiting regular season but old hats know that OPRF & LT are more interested in getting to the mats and HC is more interested in staying warm.
On the flip side, you have MC that could lose five games during the regular season but still crash the party and do damage to those that lack the seasoning and intensity of Frank Lenti's boys. Do you turn over the IHSA seeding to a RPI style rating system that weighs victories and losses? Does the WSS victories get less credence because the teams are less successful in post season? How do you gauge a DVC? Do you put weight strictly on post season success?
I am not trying to flood the thread with hypotheticals without taking a position. I look at pure computer rankings and I scratch my head. Massey ranks one way and Calpreps that has a system so flawed that it keeps NV ranked above GW even after GW beats them at NV the day before. So computers are tough to stomach so it needs something that isn't flawed by coaches not submitting surveys or ADs not caring enough to schedule the right non-conference games.
You could use post season record by conference, but doesn't that favor conferences that put teams in multiple conferences? So if you take the weighted average of value of the trailing three years of postseason record to cover up one year anomolies like MC missing this year, you may be able to get to a conference quality ranking. Higher value for 8A and dropping as you go.
But all of this or even the StoneLizard only move the needle slightly in the seedlings. HC would still get a high seed unless you credit or deduct for prior seasons.
My solution one final Super-State championship weekend where 1A/2A, 3A/4A, 5A/6A, 7A/8A play in a four game Super Bowl. You still have 8 state champs but only four Super Bowl champs. And since it will never happen, let's play these games at Lucas Oil Field since just about everywhere in IL is within three hours and it would be warm.
I sure wish we could have played one last game last year like that.[/QUOTE]
Well, then, why not have a whole bunch more kids play an extra week? Just open up the playoffs to all. Assuming the classification by enrollment and the seeding according to record and playoff points remain the same, then you'll really see even more excited kids being blown away.
Who cares about blowouts? The kids who aren't satisfied with just being excited for the opportunity to play one more week only to be blown out.
Look, I'm not trying to eliminate blowouts. I am trying to decrease their frequency in the playoffs. The current system of classification by enrollment and seeding according to record and playoff points sets us up for blowouts. It doesn't have to be that way.
Silly me for wanting competitive playoffs when everyone else seems to be quite happy with mismatches.
We're going to have a system @Cross Bones, a tremendous system. We're going to have a system so great, I mean look at the current system and tell me it's not broken. You cant. You can't do it. The system we have is very very unfair and it's a shame, it really is. We have tremendous problems when you have first round blowouts, when you have publics, when you have privates - and believe me I know about privates. When you have all the things that are happening in this country, we have other problems and I think we need to focus on those problems. I think we'll have a very good system, and it will be a fair system.
No one has done more for the playoffs than me. Believe me.
Stoned...you have the "orange menace" down cold....dare I say "stone cold". You could write for SNL and Alec Baldwin.
Agreed. Even if you cut the teams in half and went to 6 classes, you'd still have early round blowouts. In order to minimize playoff blowouts, you'd have to go to something like 32 classes of 8 teams.
ramblinman has been the most staunch private supporter on the message board circuit, but I don't understand his argument here. The problem isn't early round blowouts, it is consistently having a team (or maybe two) in a classification that blows out everyone else throughout.
Why is that a problem?
Having one or two super teams in each class are only marginally contributing to the 40% of the 128 first round games being won by margins of 30 pts or more.
The bigger problem are the large numbers of teams that blow out opposing teams in round one and go on to get knocked out in round two or three.For example, last year in 6A, Oak Forest beat Quincy 51-14 in round one. In round two, Oak Forest lost 47-14 to Hinsdale South. In 5A, King beat DuSable 42-6 in round one last year...and then was trounced 41-0 in round two.
The way to minimize blowouts is not 32 classes of 8 teams, although at least you are coming up with an idea. The way to minimize blowouts is to find another way to comprise the classes. Right now, you have classes being seeded loosely according to competitive level (won-loss record and playoff pts), but comprised according to enrollment. THAT is what is causing the blowout problem.
Last edited:
Bones, if I felt that you truly believed that there was a problem that needed addressing, then I would be more inclined to work with you. But I don't, so I won't.
You are happy with the status quo, as long as it doesn't involve private schools succeeding at the expense of public ones. When that happens, you seem quite happy to change the status quo to favor the public schools.
Even when you get your way and multiply private schools, you still don't shut up. You simply can't help yourself. You still ***** and moan and take issue with private schools, and their fans, as evidenced by your comment to Cru in the Phillips thread.
Just know this: Whatever classification system I would devise would treat all schools, regardless of their type, the same. That is to say that type of school would never determine classification. So right there, that's a non-starter with you, because you insist on discriminating against schools according to their type. You won't be able to get past that, no matter what other factors are considered and weighted. So why should I waste my time any further with you?
Heres the thing. You believed in the NIPL and actually posted the framework. We were able as a board to critique and agree and whatever. Personally I didnt think it would work because I didnt think the private schools wanted to pull out and for some it would be a logistical nightmare. But it was certainly possible.
I think you know this playoff idea cannot work as you describe and that is why you dont post the formula, framework, or even an example class.
I am willing to take it all back if shown I am wrong. I would prefer to be wrong actually. You think I dont like facing off against MC or LA in the playoffs? Those were some of my alltime favorite games. Even the 98 Providence game.
I think you know this playoff idea cannot work as you describe and that is why you dont post the formula, framework, or even an example class.
I am willing to take it all back if shown I am wrong. I would prefer to be wrong actually. You think I dont like facing off against MC or LA in the playoffs? Those were some of my alltime favorite games. Even the 98 Providence game.
Posting the framework for the NIPL, with a fixed number of private school teams and only a few ways (geography, size, competitive level, or some combination thereof) to align divisions was easy. What I am talking about is a formula that would include multiple dissimilar data inputs (enrollment, won-loss records, games won against playoff qualifiers, games won by defeated opponents, etc.), assign a value to them, apply that to all football playing schools, test it and tweak it until it looks right. It is the sort effort that I am simply not going to do, no matter how much you claim to want it.
Why are you so interested in a possible solution to a problem that you refuse to acknowledge is a problem in the first place?
Whatever.
I can be convinced there is a problem with a reasonable argument. However you are correct I dont see a problem with blowouts and acknowledge that they can happen at any time even between evenly matched teams. Hell I even gave you examples of teams that played twice in a season and had a close outcome one time and a blowout the 2nd.
We know of championship blowouts
We know of championship blowouts
You opened the door a crack by saying that you can be convinced there is a problem, and then you closed that crack by half when you said you don't see the problem with blowouts. I think they are as plain as day.
I am going to ask you a yes or no question, and I want you to answer it without equivocating.
If 41% of the 28 first round games being decided by a minimum margin of victory of 30 pts, is not a problem, is there a percentage larger than 41% where it would become a problem for you?
If you answered no to that question, then you are obviously not able to be convinced at all on this issue. In that case, let's agree to disagree and move on.
If you answered yes to that question, then I have another question. What percentage of first round games being blowouts would cause you to begin to think that there is a problem?
If you answer 90%, then you and I are pretty far off, and I would say that it isn't worth it to hash this out further. If you answer 50%, then that's different. Then we would be close, and then we would be able to carry on the conversation.
Yes, we know of championship blowouts. I suggest you think of those and ask yourself how that might be different if similarly competitive schools, instead of similarly sized schools, were classified together. What if ESL were in the most competitive class this year? Or GBW last year?
And if you answered 73% you would be a fool who fell victim to one of the classic, but only slightly less well known, blunders!
Patience Bones. Something tangible is in the works...
Patience Bones. Something tangible is in the works...
The door is open, and I did not close it, I simply acknowledged my current stance. If you provide a solid argument for why it is a problem I am open to changing my mind.
No I do not have a percentage in mind where I would see blowouts as a problem. I also don't know why you chose 30 points instead of 40 or 20. It seems arbitrary. Can you explain to me why you think 41% of the games being a 30+ point difference is a problem? This is where the first problem is. For example, I showed you where two teams can have vastly different outcomes in two games, a 50 point swing even.
Perhaps because of your perspective its hard to see what I am saying since blowouts used to occur between different divisions of the CCL and that is what you are accustomed to. You think of blowouts as LA vs LFA, which is a clear mismatch. I think of blowouts and see Bolingbrook vs Sandburg which is clearly not a mismatch.
Last year Marist earned their way to the championship game by beating 4 other teams, they just happened to drop a dud in the championship. Again, it happens. The same way a team can be blown out by LWE, then beat HF. What if ESL was in the "most competitive class" and gets smashed by Fremd?
There were blowouts long ago before the running clock.Seeding is a joke.You can be a CPS school and go 9-0 vs weak competition and play a 5-4 team who lost to 4 teams during a brutal schedule.I recall Taft losing to 1=8 Argo one year on their way to a 8-1 season, high seeding and brutal playoff loss in round 1
Once again, isn't that what you expect with 1-32 seeding?
Actually there were two 5-4 teams in 8A, they went 1-1, not sure what the concept that they don't bring any fans has to do with anything.
Are you using 3-5 O' Fallon as an example on their 335 mile journey to Loyola?
A
anon_4vszfu35bv677
Guest
Taft was 8-1 before being blown out by LWE at 7-2.
How does that work in your scenarios? Not well I suspect.
How does that work in your scenarios? Not well I suspect.
We need to seed by a vote of the same writers and others who vote in the statewide AP polls by classes 1A-8A during the season. Human beings can more accurately give weight to strength of schedule and other factors that a simple formula cannot account for.
Arbitrary? Of course it's arbitrary. If you know an authoritative high school football source where the term "blowout" is defined, please enlighten me. Until then, I will give it my best shot.
My best shot is a 30 pt margin. That's five TDs and 75% of the running clock slaughter rule. Do you really want to get into it with me over a handful of pts? Is it worth hashing out? Have at it if it'll float your boat.
Why is 41% too high for me? Because it is. At least I've thought about it. You apparently are unable or unwilling to admit to any percentage being too high or to even considering the concept.
Look, these are the playeffingoffs. There's an expectation, at least on my part, for teams that have qualified by winning more than they lose to play suspenseful games where the outcome is, if not in doubt, then at least somewhat competitive. It's definitely not to pit two teams in the first round where one of those teams would win by blowout 10 out of 10 games. What's the point?
Let's not continue the charade. Let's just allow every team to qualify just like they do in every other sport and we will see 95% first round match ups be blowouts. That shouldn't bother you, since you have no limit as to what constitutes too many playoff blowouts.
Regarding Marist laying an egg in last year's title game, I ask you to again imagine what their road to that game would have been like if they had to play in a class with the top teams instead of the largest schools. What if, for example, they had to face an 8-1 Cary Grove last year in round one instead of an 8-1 Notre Dame? What if they were in the same bracket as GBW or Libertyville or MC (a team that had already beaten them in the regular season)?
Last edited: