|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 19, 2018 20:05:57 GMT -6
At first thought, I thought the same. However, I guess depending on the circumstances, it may not be so cringeworthy??? For example, if that 2000 student school only has say 30 kids who care about football, and 250 kids who care about band, 100 who care about robotics, 100 who care about drama club etc. I mean there are a few 5A (top class) schools in Louisiana that as a football program are on par with schools in the 2 lowest classes. They routinely get beat soundly by the top schools in those lower classes. Any players that are better than "decent" never seem to attend these schools, somehow finding their way to private schools or other public schools that have better teams. It kind of becomes cyclical : good players who are interested in football don't go there, the team doesn't win, therefore good players who are interested in football don't go there. Sucks for those kids that for whatever reason can't seem to find a way to another school, and are forced to be there with a bunch of students, admin, etc. that don't really want to try and succeed. I get it. And thats fair. It may legitimately be my ego that gets pissed when there are places with poor admin and/or coaching and then they get moved down until they have success. It usually happens after one of those factors changes, but still. Also how often do you see boundaries change and then all of a sudden (albeit 3 years or so after the boundary change) a team becomes much better? I dont know. I just feel it is best to do it by size. If you suck, get better. If its not important (as a school), then you won't. I don't disagree with any of that, and I am not a proponent of the promotion/relegation system, specifically the promotion part of it. The promotion part is absurd in that a program may be doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and is reaching maximum capacity. Why then increase the difficulty? I think I would be ok with relegation if a team/school presented a case and the class in which it wished to play could vote on it. As it stands now, what often happens is a school like that often just chooses to "not play for district honors" which means it has 10 open weeks to fill, and can play whoever they want but obviously they are not eligible for playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Nov 20, 2018 6:20:33 GMT -6
I get it. And thats fair. It may legitimately be my ego that gets pissed when there are places with poor admin and/or coaching and then they get moved down until they have success. It usually happens after one of those factors changes, but still. Also how often do you see boundaries change and then all of a sudden (albeit 3 years or so after the boundary change) a team becomes much better? I dont know. I just feel it is best to do it by size. If you suck, get better. If its not important (as a school), then you won't. I don't disagree with any of that, and I am not a proponent of the promotion/relegation system, specifically the promotion part of it. The promotion part is absurd in that a program may be doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and is reaching maximum capacity. Why then increase the difficulty? I think I would be ok with relegation if a team/school presented a case and the class in which it wished to play could vote on it. As it stands now, what often happens is a school like that often just chooses to "not play for district honors" which means it has 10 open weeks to fill, and can play whoever they want but obviously they are not eligible for playoffs. I'm with it. Get your admin cert and get yourself on the state athletics association! haha.
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Nov 20, 2018 11:30:09 GMT -6
Just saw that the rival of the HS I went to in CA is in a sectional championship game. They have been awful for a long time. They have 2000 students and just beat a rural CA team from a 500 student public HS.... unreal. I cringe when I see this. Feel bad for the small schools. At first thought, I thought the same. However, I guess depending on the circumstances, it may not be so cringeworthy??? For example, if that 2000 student school only has say 30 kids who care about football, and 250 kids who care about band, 100 who care about robotics, 100 who care about drama club etc. I mean there are a few 5A (top class) schools in Louisiana that as a football program are on par with schools in the 2 lowest classes. They routinely get beat soundly by the top schools in those lower classes. Any players that are better than "decent" never seem to attend these schools, somehow finding their way to private schools or other public schools that have better teams. It kind of becomes cyclical : good players who are interested in football don't go there, the team doesn't win, therefore good players who are interested in football don't go there. Sucks for those kids that for whatever reason can't seem to find a way to another school, and are forced to be there with a bunch of students, admin, etc. that don't really want to try and succeed. coachd5085, I think you are describing our school. We play in the toughest region in by far the toughest region in SC and if even if we had all of our transfers, we couldn't beat the top 4-5 teams in our region.
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Nov 20, 2018 11:32:06 GMT -6
I get it. And thats fair. It may legitimately be my ego that gets pissed when there are places with poor admin and/or coaching and then they get moved down until they have success. It usually happens after one of those factors changes, but still. Also how often do you see boundaries change and then all of a sudden (albeit 3 years or so after the boundary change) a team becomes much better? I dont know. I just feel it is best to do it by size. If you suck, get better. If its not important (as a school), then you won't. I don't disagree with any of that, and I am not a proponent of the promotion/relegation system, specifically the promotion part of it. The promotion part is absurd in that a program may be doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and is reaching maximum capacity. Why then increase the difficulty? I think I would be ok with relegation if a team/school presented a case and the class in which it wished to play could vote on it. As it stands now, what often happens is a school like that often just chooses to "not play for district honors" which means it has 10 open weeks to fill, and can play whoever they want but obviously they are not eligible for playoffs. So in LA, schools can opt out of playing in a conference. Can this happen in any of you guys' (other) states? We our seriously considering this, but have never heard of this happening in SC...
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 20, 2018 11:58:57 GMT -6
I don't disagree with any of that, and I am not a proponent of the promotion/relegation system, specifically the promotion part of it. The promotion part is absurd in that a program may be doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and is reaching maximum capacity. Why then increase the difficulty? I think I would be ok with relegation if a team/school presented a case and the class in which it wished to play could vote on it. As it stands now, what often happens is a school like that often just chooses to "not play for district honors" which means it has 10 open weeks to fill, and can play whoever they want but obviously they are not eligible for playoffs. So in LA, schools can opt out of playing in a conference. Can this happen in any of you guys' (other) states? We our seriously considering this, but have never heard of this happening in SC... Unless they have changed the rules, yes. They just declare they will not play for district honors, and they field a team and fill a ten game schedule. These schools are in the New Orleans Metro Area, so it was pretty easy for them to find games. I think they have to remain "independent" for at least two years.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 20, 2018 12:16:50 GMT -6
-- TOO LATE TO EDIT-- So, for example Ben Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA is a magnet high school (selective admissions) for academically excellent students. Its stated enrollment for this year is 1002 students. It went 6-4 this year, playing mostly schools with enrollments under 400 students with losing records.
|
|
|
Post by mdunham on Dec 1, 2018 14:49:57 GMT -6
Massachusetts a team that went 0-7 in regular season made it beating out teams with a win. They had to play a team that had smoked them earlier by 40+. In our section a 1 win team (league team that beat us) made it because we had an above 500 record so that win really propelled them in rankings.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 1, 2018 16:08:16 GMT -6
I just don't get win less teams making playoffs?
Put them in leagues of 5-8 and they all play each other each year, base these leagues by a logical mix of school size and location. Top 2-3 make the playoffs the rest, only as a WC.
Yes, that will get mediocre teams winning bad leagues, thats why those leagues with bad teams are in lower level regions.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 1, 2018 16:51:05 GMT -6
I just don't get win less teams making playoffs? Put them in leagues of 5-8 and they all play each other each year, base these leagues by a logical mix of school size and location. Top 2-3 make the playoffs the rest, only as a WC. Yes, that will get mediocre teams winning bad leagues, thats why those leagues with bad teams are in lower level regions. While no system is perfect, how a state athletic association can’t do something whithin or close to this framework boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 1, 2018 18:36:32 GMT -6
While no system is perfect, how a state athletic association can’t do something whithin or close to this framework boggles my mind. everybody gets a trophy has grown up and is now controlling who gets in. You do realize that the same number of teams are entering the playoffs in these cases right? How does the concept of "everybody gets a trophy" impact what the coaches here are describing? Nobody is saying they are seeing increasing #'s of playoff entrants (Other than Louisiana because of a private/public split). They are saying weird formulas are allowing teams with losing records to enter the playoffs over teams with presumably better records.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Dec 1, 2018 18:57:21 GMT -6
While no system is perfect, how a state athletic association can’t do something whithin or close to this framework boggles my mind. everybody gets a trophy has grown up and is now controlling who gets in. Pretty sure the Boomers who decided it would be a good idea to tank the economy and give participation trophies are the ones still in charge of many of these institutions. Good try though.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Dec 1, 2018 19:26:44 GMT -6
everybody gets a trophy has grown up and is now controlling who gets in. You do realize that the same number of teams are entering the playoffs in these cases right? How does the concept of "everybody gets a trophy" impact what the coaches here are describing? Nobody is saying they are seeing increasing #'s of playoff entrants (Other than Louisiana because of a private/public split). They are saying weird formulas are allowing teams with losing records to enter the playoffs over teams with presumably better records. It has in Southern California, and its name is "competitive equity". What happens is leagues are irrelevant when it comes to playoffs, in regards to who goes where, instead teams who have been good recently get moved up teams that have lost recently move down. You have some leagues where you'll have a D1 team (the highest division) and a D13 team (the lowest division). D13 used to be populated by mostly smaller schools who simply did not compete with bigger schools due to lower population (the most valid variable when dividing up playoff brackets). Now, D13 is a mix of these small schools (sub 500), and then much larger (2500+) schools who could not compete with same sized schools. So a given school struggles to compete with same sized schools, gets moved down to beat up on smaller schools, then gets moved up again to where they should be. This competitive equity model has been lauded by those who support the ideal 'of everyone gets a trophy' as much of the support comes in praising how many different schools are making it to title games now. Essentially if you are not good enough to win with like sized schools, just be patient and we will eventually drop you to a level where you can get your trophy.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Dec 1, 2018 19:40:41 GMT -6
Pretty sure the Boomers who decided it would be a good idea to tank the economy and give participation trophies are the ones still in charge of many of these institutions. Good try though. I am 40...I am pretty sure soccer players are now making sure winless teams get in. Nice try on politik Comrade! Whenever a good thread needs to be derailed, you'll be there... I'd block you, but one day you will be right or have an opinion that isn't way out in left field and I want to be around to see it. By the time that happens, I might be a Boomer's age though.
|
|
Davs
Sophomore Member
Posts: 186
|
Post by Davs on Dec 3, 2018 20:32:56 GMT -6
Indiana has a bad system. Everyone gets in, and that is not what makes it bad. The fact the tournament is not seeded is. It is all a blind draw. So many times in what we in Indiana call the sectional portion of the tournament the best teams end up playing round 1 instead of in the sectional championship game. To win the sectional you need to win 3 game. After you play regional game, semi state, and state. This year my team which would of been the number 1 seed ended up playing the next best team in round 1. Also in Indiana's biggest class 6A they should seed state wide. The best big schools are all in the Indy area. They end up being put in the south so the state game almost always ends in a blow out.
|
|