|
Post by CoachCP on Dec 7, 2015 13:16:18 GMT -6
Indiana needs an overhaul. Every team gets in (I hate that) and success is punished by moving up a class and there is random (not success based) geographical seeding by level. This led to two top teams in the 3A division meeting in the first round. They also pick 2 weeks before the playoffs, not after the games are completed which is just stupid. There's also bye weeks.
I like how IL does it having been in that system. 6 wins gets you in, 5 wins qualifies you based off playoff wins (total opponent victories). Conference champs are automatic no matter what. This makes the regular season matter (it doesn't at all in the current system). From there, I'd say shrink the levels in Indiana (go from 6 levels back to 5 levels in Indiana, if not one less depending on the math based on qualifying teams). Classes are determined at playoff time based on enrollment of the playoff field (so you might be in 5A one year, and 4A the next if more large teams made it in).
You would need to do a selection show the Saturday of the last game (so Saturday games would need to be played early) and figure out seeds based on quadrants for regions (I could live without this but busses are expensive). Since different teams would make it in different years with some small variability in classes, regions would have some variability so you wouldn't see one team dominating a "sectional" like what currently happens in Indiana.
Seed teams based on Victories (1) then the next tie breaker would be Conference Playoff Points (2) [stronger conferences should have more total victories and this controls a little for strength of schedule] and finally your own playoff points (3). I might flip those last two in order or priority. Home team goes to the lower seed unless the other seed hasn't had any home playoff games.
As for private vs public, let them go at it. Private schools would need a modifier depending on past success and enrollment though (so one small school in Indy wouldn't dominate a relatively rural smaller class field). I'm not a huge fan of punishing success, but if you can recruit, there needs to be a balancing act.
This could also eliminate a round of the playoffs in Indiana too, meaning the season could start one week later (so it gets cooler outside for the kids for August practice).
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Dec 7, 2015 13:56:22 GMT -6
I think South Carolina is going in the right direction. Currently, we have a 4 class system, but give out 7 state titles (not including private schools (except for a few that pay to play with the public schools)). Next year they are moving to a 5 class system, with private schools still own their own (except for a few that pay to play with the public schools). Right now, we have 2 champs in 4A, 1 champ in 3A, 2 champs in 2A, and 2 champs in 1A. Starting next year it is 1 champ per class (unless they change it).
It was worse, a few years ago everybody in 2A made the playoffs. There were 0-10 teams that had playoff games that were huge blowouts. 4A and 1A use a point system for the playoffs. 2A uses a rotating region finish seeding model. 3A uses straight region finish. It will be changing next year.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Dec 7, 2015 14:08:52 GMT -6
The idea is to create a level playing field but you guys can interpret it however you'd like. There will never be a "level" playing field. Stuebenville isn't exactly swimming with industry nor is the part of Columbus Hartley is from. Not only that, NW Ohio would still dominate the "small rural division" then there would be some other complaint. Then you would have the Columbus schools complaining about how they split up and the Cleveland/Cinci schools didn't. If I were Ohio I would keep the computer system the same but rank every division 1-32 then create the regions after that. Somewhat close to what it is now but instead of predetermining regions make them after the fact based on getting the "best" 32 in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Dec 7, 2015 14:18:18 GMT -6
I really think school size is a very poor way to break up the divisions. Clearly it is not ery hard for some teams to win a state title, they are there every year. Also when you make the state finals, you 5 weeks more of practice than teams that don't make the playoffs, that is the reason a State Champ should have to move up a division the next year. Also if One area of the State only has 3 or 4 state titles in 40 years it is time to realize they should have their own Championship. www.ohsaa.org/sports/history/FT/FootballParticipants.pdf Why should they have their own Championship? So should City public schools have their own championship since they don't win state titles in football? Why penalize good teams with making them continously play up? If your goal is fair why should a public school that pulls strictly from its school boundaries have to face schools with a huge difference in enrollment? I've been on the very good side of this and now I'm at one of the smallest big schools in the state, we just need to get better. There doesn't need to be a new division to make things more "fair" for us. Were people complaining when Ironton was a big dog? Are those extra weeks of practice advantageous, absolutely but right now every team has a shot at getting in the playoffs and if there is such a regional imbalance they should be able to still move forward within their own region gaining extra weeks of practice. The teams that have come out of SE Ohio that have reached the finals or final four have had that same advantage as the other schools. I like the 7 divisions, that means less than 1% of teams win a title. As previously stated I would just do the regions post season instead of having them done pre-season. At the end of the day there is going to be some sort of imbalance or power shift, you can't rectify it nor should you have to. And let's be realistic...Not very hard for some teams to win a state title??? It's not very hard to be in the top 1% of the state? That's really minimalizing the work that school and community have done.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 7, 2015 14:25:25 GMT -6
I really just wish they would divide the state into 4 geographic regions and have only 2 divisions in each. No matter the number of schools.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 7, 2015 18:55:04 GMT -6
Ironton was recruiting a 3 state area when they were big dogs.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 8, 2015 7:31:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 8, 2015 8:03:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by CoachM58 on Dec 8, 2015 8:20:18 GMT -6
6 Classes in Kentucky composed of 4 regions, and 8 districts. I really believe out of every football playing school, only around 20 schools don't make the playoffs. Yes we have teams go 0-10 and continue on. I think a general consensus after the state playoffs were going back to 4 classes or a compromise at 5.
|
|
|
Post by coachtua on Dec 8, 2015 9:01:19 GMT -6
the only thing i would change in CA is to disband the Central Section - go full North and South (divided just south of fresno). Split the Southern Section too...
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 8, 2015 9:53:46 GMT -6
the only thing i would change in CA is to disband the Central Section - go full North and South (divided just south of fresno). Split the Southern Section too... how so?
|
|
|
Post by pistolwhipped on Dec 8, 2015 12:29:50 GMT -6
Indiana needs an overhaul. Every team gets in (I hate that) and success is punished by moving up a class and there is random (not success based) geographical seeding by level. This led to two top teams in the 3A division meeting in the first round. They also pick 2 weeks before the playoffs, not after the games are completed which is just stupid. There's also bye weeks. I like how IL does it having been in that system. 6 wins gets you in, 5 wins qualifies you based off playoff wins (total opponent victories). Conference champs are automatic no matter what. This makes the regular season matter (it doesn't at all in the current system). From there, I'd say shrink the levels in Indiana (go from 6 levels back to 5 levels in Indiana, if not one less depending on the math based on qualifying teams). Classes are determined at playoff time based on enrollment of the playoff field (so you might be in 5A one year, and 4A the next if more large teams made it in). You would need to do a selection show the Saturday of the last game (so Saturday games would need to be played early) and figure out seeds based on quadrants for regions (I could live without this but busses are expensive). Since different teams would make it in different years with some small variability in classes, regions would have some variability so you wouldn't see one team dominating a "sectional" like what currently happens in Indiana. Seed teams based on Victories (1) then the next tie breaker would be Conference Playoff Points (2) [stronger conferences should have more total victories and this controls a little for strength of schedule] and finally your own playoff points (3). I might flip those last two in order or priority. Home team goes to the lower seed unless the other seed hasn't had any home playoff games. As for private vs public, let them go at it. Private schools would need a modifier depending on past success and enrollment though (so one small school in Indy wouldn't dominate a relatively rural smaller class field). I'm not a huge fan of punishing success, but if you can recruit, there needs to be a balancing act. This could also eliminate a round of the playoffs in Indiana too, meaning the season could start one week later (so it gets cooler outside for the kids for August practice). Indiana has one of the best computer systems in America and uses it for absolutely nothing.
Jeff Sagarin's Top 32 at the end of the year is an almost LOCK of the 32 best teams in each class division. 97% of the "Top 32" (currently 64 teams in each....except the 32 in 6A) won their games agaisnt a "Bottom 32" team in the playoffs this year. 97%!
I would:
Top 32 Sagarin in each class (All 32 in 6A) Add a 10th regular season game Seed the sectionals via Sagarin Play it out
That's too easy of a fix in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by coachtua on Dec 8, 2015 18:11:08 GMT -6
Split the Southern Section too... how so? Why is the Southern Section so big?
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 8, 2015 19:55:46 GMT -6
Why is the Southern Section so big? because the combined population from Salinas to san diego is that big? i dont think its that much bigger then northern section?
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Dec 9, 2015 0:44:27 GMT -6
No one is more screwed up than CA
A team we beat by 3 scores while playing backups all 4th quarter
Is playing in a NorCal bowl with a Chance to go to state
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Dec 9, 2015 9:39:12 GMT -6
No one is more screwed up than CA A team we beat by 3 scores while playing backups all 4th quarter Is playing in a NorCal bowl with a Chance to go to state I've been mostly focused on division structure, but your right, the actual bowl system is really dumb in CA.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Dec 9, 2015 11:09:09 GMT -6
Manitoba's system isn't bad actually. There are 31 teams, so every offseason they come to a consensus on the three divisions based on school size, historical strength, last season's results, and expected future strength. Usually a couple teams moving in each direction. Some teams perennially flip flop from AA to AAA and back, because the difference in average competition level between AAA and AA is gigantic. These teams would complain every time they were in AAA because they'd spend the year getting pasted instead of competing for a title, so they made a change to the playoff structure.
The bottom two AAA teams join the AA playoffs, and the bottom four AA teams go to the A bracket. I'm not sure if the bottom seven A teams are out or if they have an extra week with a bye for the top seed. So they can schedule the regular season with ten team leagues but have playoffs with eight team leagues, and you've got a blended way of making divisions.
|
|
|
Post by peacock1915 on Dec 9, 2015 11:22:00 GMT -6
Ours is strictly on enrollment. They reclassify every two years. Top 32 schools 6A next 32 5A, split the rest into 4 classes. Take the 32 and have 4 8 team regions based on geography as much as can be. Top 4 in each region make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 9, 2015 13:44:46 GMT -6
So what I really want is a state made up of the 22 counties that touch US route 23 and I 70 east of 23. Have 2 SEOHIO champs one for schools over 250 boys and one under 250 boys. That would make me happy.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Dec 9, 2015 17:42:52 GMT -6
Isn't that what happens when you win your region? You are the "champ" of your geographic area
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 9, 2015 18:50:00 GMT -6
Not if you have teams from Cincy area or all the way up near Stubenville My point is the regions are not geographically drawn!
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 10, 2015 10:00:02 GMT -6
My point is that there are not enough schools to have 32 schools per region in SE OH and definitely not enough to have 7 divisions. There should be a different criteria for our area. That is what I have been trying to express. Keep the rest of the state the way it is and have an Appalachian Ohio Champ. I am good with that.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Dec 10, 2015 10:29:53 GMT -6
I have played on and coached good, bad, great, and average teams. At no point in time did I ever want to be the exception when it comes to rules. Got knocked out of the playoffs by historically one of the best private schools in D1 and no one on that team complained about them being private and us being public. We wanted to play the best the state had to offer not the best in a system formulated to most benefit us...the best period.
To me, all of these complaints and proposed exceptions are cheapening the point of a champion...being the state champ is not the end all be all, there is great success to be found in making it to a certain level. Under 1% of teams are state champions in Ohio football...under 1%...by the nature of the beast that doesn't mean 99% of teams are inadequate or bad it just means that there was one team that won the tournament (7 out of 700 plus but you get the point).
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree but the message I see from those that don't like Ohio's system is "we aren't good enough to compete for xyz and because of that we should have our own tournament." To me that is giving up and I personally believe is a terrible message to send. I currently coach in the largest division and we got bumped late to that division, I wouldn't change it at all. It is what it is, we either work hard and succeed or work hard and fall short, I'm not going to make excuses or allow my players to accept excuses for not being a state champion.
State championships are and should always remain rarified air and that isn't something we should lose sight of, you can still have a very successful season worthy of celebrating and being proud of without the ring at the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 10, 2015 10:33:50 GMT -6
We will have to agree to disagree because if we all really believed that ^. We would say no classes or divisions, just 1 state champion because we all can field a team and any team should be able to beat any other team if we just work harder than them.
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Dec 10, 2015 11:52:58 GMT -6
www.jamsport.org/Johnsonetal2015%20JAS%20PDF.pdfDisproportionate Success The boundary limitations for public schools, as well as the socioeconomic advantages and alleged recruiting behaviors by private schools, have been the cornerstone arguments for why private schools routinely win disproportionately more state championships relative to the number of public schools. It is clear this disproportionality exists in a large number of states and has gradually increased over the last few decades (Popke, 2012). The first study assessing national public versus private school athletic success was completed in 1997 (Cohen, 1997). The results revealed private schools won approximately 18.4% of state championships in all sports despite only accounting for 13.1% of all schools. The states with the most disproportionality demonstrated much wider gaps. For example, in Tennessee only 15% of schools were private, but won 54% of the state championships. Ohio had 33% of championships won by private schools despite only 8.5% of the schools being private. Since the initial study in 1997, "the championship chasm between public and non-public schools has widened significantly in some states" (Popke, 2012, para.6). For example, in Alabama in 2011-12, private schools won more than 36% of all state titles. Fifteen years earlier, in 1996-97, private schools won only 25.5% of state titles. The continually growing trend of private school success is also evident in states like California where 26% of schools are private, but win nearly 53% of all state titles, including all five classes of boys and girls basketball in 2012. Furthermore, states that did not indicate a disproportionate amount of private school championships in 1997 (e.g., Minnesota and South Dakota) currently show double-digit increases between percentage of private schools and percentage of championships won (Popke, 2012). Additionally, private schools have enjoyed prominence in post-season national rankings with six of the Top 25 spots in boys’ basketball (MaxPreps, 2013a) and seven in football (MaxPreps, 2013b).
|
|