Well, #1 gets blown out, I mean blown out in Rd 1. If this doesn't wake up those folks at IHSA as to the folly of their ways, nothing ever will. And look at the match-ups JCA and NAZ have this weekend. JCA has a tough conference opponent and NAZ has...who?? Seriously.
#1 See in 5A...
- Thread starter Secondo1
- Start date
A team that did beat NAZ and the second time around is always much more difficult. Remember is was 7-3 at half. NAZ will have 40 in the middle of the first half.
The point isn't about JCA and NAZ specifically, but about the bozo's at IHSA selling their false story.
The point isn't about JCA and NAZ specifically, but about the bozo's at IHSA selling their false story.
Secondo,
I understand your frustration and it would have been interesting to see 1-32 to eliminate any question of gerrymandering the system, but this year it's not in the cards. I agree that I would rather see JCA in Dekalb because more likely than not both teams deserve to be there but we can't change that. Perhaps you should get in the ear of one of your Alum to get it straight for next year. Good luck this week I'd be surprised if you have an issue at home...in Woodstock against 15 might be a different story!
I understand your frustration and it would have been interesting to see 1-32 to eliminate any question of gerrymandering the system, but this year it's not in the cards. I agree that I would rather see JCA in Dekalb because more likely than not both teams deserve to be there but we can't change that. Perhaps you should get in the ear of one of your Alum to get it straight for next year. Good luck this week I'd be surprised if you have an issue at home...in Woodstock against 15 might be a different story!
I agree, but maybe i'm missing the Point, because i feel it takes Five Wins for a state championship. Play them now or play them later, we have to beat five teams to earn a state championship....who cares when or why? IHSA set'em up & we knock'em down, or we don't deserve it.... but we are all on the same ride just different starting points.
You do realize there is another difference between 8A and 5A, correct? 8A is seeded 1-32. 5A is set up in a North/South....um...well....not exactly North/South 16-team bracket. The Loyola comparison is apples and oranges.
Does anyone know the plans for seating at Solorio's field? or should we start thinking lawn chairs...
Or like the difference btween 1-32 and random bs based on ihsa geographic-equations
Judging by the aerial of the field on Google Maps, it looks like its either lawn chairs or take over the home side bleachers.
yeah, i saw that. maybe they bring out temps for the game. because the home side bleachers are very small. take me back to my days of youth football, I'm guessing no seats means no gate fee? I was told most people watch from a bridge or roof top or something like that?
Keep in mind, this whole seeding/geography process has affected every sport. In 2A XC this year, there was one sectional that had 10 teams ranked in the top 25 (only 5 qualify), and 2 other sectionals that either had 1 or 2 ranked teams in their sectional. I'm sure many of you have seen a regional in girls basketball loaded with 20+win teams while another regional has a #1 seed with a record of .500.
I think the only way a change will happen is if every sport is on board with a new process
I think the only way a change will happen is if every sport is on board with a new process
Actually knowing the IHSA desire for geographic equalization I would be more worried about the ramifications of Edwardsville losing in the first round.
I'm a Loyola fan, and I'm always happy to take a shot at the system. First of all, 5A and 8A have nothing to do with it. The seeding system across the board is flawed. Not just in the 1-16 classes.
Loyola was the #1 seed in 8A and they faced the #32 seed in West Aurora. WA deserved to face a true #1 in Loyola because WA was 5-4 with the least # of playoff points in all of 8A. In round 1, Loyola basically played to its seed and WA played to its seed. Result? Loyola won 31-0. In that case, the system worked.
However, in 5A, the system failed...badly. Westinghouse was the #1 seed in the north bracket. Glenbard South was the #16 seed in the north bracket. Glenbard South beat Westinghouse 42-0. 42-0!!!
Glenbard South was the 5-4 team with lowest playoff points in that 5A north bracket. Why should they be allowed to advance simply because of the luck of the draw?
To a lesser extent, but also in 5A, Solorio was a 5-4 #15 seed beating #2 seed Lindblom.
Imagine you are the 6-3 Rich Central Olympians. You were seeded #12 in 5A and you lost a one score game to the #5 seed team. You had a better record than Glenbard South and Solorio. You could have won big if you could have played Westinghouse or Lindblom. But, today, you are turning in your equipment while the kids from Glenbard South and Solorio are playing again this weekend...solely because of the luck of the draw.
I don't have an answer as to how seeding could be done better. But I do know a flawed system when I see one. The seeding debacle in 5A this past weekend is not something that the IHSA can look at with pride.
Maybe that's why all the chicago schools was bunched together in one bracket. IHSA was trying to avoid the seeding upsets, yet Solorio played spoiler anyways, and Westinghouse.... well they drew the short stick....
Last edited:
It could be so much worse. We could be Indiana, where everyone makes the playoffs, and it's a totally blind draw.
The 1-32 seeding would help, but there's only so much the IHSA can do in evaluating and comparing the relative strength of schedule among teams. It is inevitable that sometimes a weaker 9-0 team is going to get a high seed.
The way it is done now is to attempt to take claims of bias out of it, although many people suggest that the IHSA allows those biases to creep in. I honestly don't believe that the IHSA tries to set up (or avoid) any particular match-ups. If you force the IHSA to make value judgments, then you are inviting the same accusations of bias that we seemingly want to keep out.
Sportsmom said it very well:
Go to 1-32 seeding. Live with the fact that there will be a #2 Lindblom from time-to-time (maybe every year). And rest assured that no matter the system, the result will be that the cream rises to the top and, ultimately, the "best" team in each Class will be the one that wins the last game on the day or 2 after Thanksgiving. Whether there's a blip on the screen before that day won't change the final outcome.
The 1-32 seeding would help, but there's only so much the IHSA can do in evaluating and comparing the relative strength of schedule among teams. It is inevitable that sometimes a weaker 9-0 team is going to get a high seed.
The way it is done now is to attempt to take claims of bias out of it, although many people suggest that the IHSA allows those biases to creep in. I honestly don't believe that the IHSA tries to set up (or avoid) any particular match-ups. If you force the IHSA to make value judgments, then you are inviting the same accusations of bias that we seemingly want to keep out.
Sportsmom said it very well:
Go to 1-32 seeding. Live with the fact that there will be a #2 Lindblom from time-to-time (maybe every year). And rest assured that no matter the system, the result will be that the cream rises to the top and, ultimately, the "best" team in each Class will be the one that wins the last game on the day or 2 after Thanksgiving. Whether there's a blip on the screen before that day won't change the final outcome.
No system is perfect. This is better than most states. While anyone can look and see a 9-0 should be seeded 31st or 32nd, that line is not nearly as clear with say an 8-1 Rockford Auburn who plays in a closed conference or an undefeated Edwardsville for that matter..
I think once you develop the field of 256, I think you should take away records and count only the wins from the teams you defeated that made the playoffs. The highest point total is the number 1 seed and the lowest point total is 32 or 16. This will help eliminate teams that beat a bunch of teams that didn't make the playoffs. This will also help teams that play a tough schedule and deserve to be ranked higher. In this scenario, a 9-0 team that plays a tough schedule will always be the number 1 seed. On the flip side a 9-0 team that didn't play any team that made the playoffs will be seeded in the 30's. In this scenario, a team from a conference like the CCL Blue can be 7-2 and received a 3 or 4 seed based on strength of schedule.
one set of stands for home and visitors. really no place for chairs. One sideline is close to the building
So in this scenario, Montini who is 9-0, played 1 playoff team would be a 32 seed. Makes total sense.
No they wouldn't be a 32 seed as there maybe some teams that qualified that didn't beat any playoff teams. They would have 7 points. You will have to go through all 16 to see where they would fall in this scenario. Real easy to try to poke a without doing research. Base on the chatter there are some that think Montini may not be as dominate because they played a weak schedule.
So a win vs 5-4 team is worth 5 points and a win vs a good 4-5 team in a strong conference is worth zero points? Even if the 4-5 and 5-4 team are close in relative strength, that's a 5 point swing to overcome in 8 other games when in reality the relative strength of those wins is actually pretty close.
The HFA rules kind of make up for the inherent flaws that the strict W/L objectivity brings.
The HFA rules kind of make up for the inherent flaws that the strict W/L objectivity brings.
If you don't make the playoffs, you are not good. There are no such thing as good 4-5 teams. If you were good, you wouldn't be 4-5 period. Yes you would get 5 points assuming the 5-4 team made the playoffs. It's just an effort to seed correctly. Example, CPS will be 9-0 but 0 points giving them the lowest seed. CCL teams would be be closer to the top. In most years Montini would close to the top. The same would go for top teams that play a tough schedule. If the schools playing a weak schedule are good, they will beat the higher seed and continue to prove how good they are. In this scenario, every win is earned as well as respect. Play an easy schedule and get a tough playoff opponent out the gate. Play a tough schedule and you will get a lesser opponent out the gate.
And the undercurrent of your thread is the goldmine. This is really about the players. Yep, maybe rich central wouldn't win the title, but I bet everyone of the kids would love to play another game they so obviously deserved - but was pried from them ...
Jchill,
How did I get that quote? I am certainly not a Loyola fan, Not a hater either, but what's going on here?
How did I get that quote? I am certainly not a Loyola fan, Not a hater either, but what's going on here?
Fine there is no such thing as a good 4-5 team. However there probably isn't such thing as a good 5-4 team either and this proposed system for SoS treats the difference between the not good 5-4 team and the not good 4-5 team worth 5 points whereas the win against a strong 7-2 team is worth only two additional points.
It's not hard to see the scenario where someone with overall stronger opponents in 8 of 9 games ending up as the lower seed to another opponent due to the difference in playing a bad 5-4 team verse a bad 4-5 team. 5 point swing! Worth over a half point win on average across the other 8 games. If you can't see the flaw in that logic....
I remember this one time - Brian Williams was there - there was a three-way tie and so the IHSA officials and the coaches met in a secret diner with TV crews and they flipped coins. Two coaches had the fancy coins with history, another guy - who looked like Billy Bob Thornton - had just a regular coin.
Everyone flipped and it was odd man out. At first, a winner was declared then it was noticed that the "heads" of one coin was actually the "tails."
As it turned out, the guy with the regular coin continued with the season and made it all the way to the finals and had a chance to win on the final play of the game, but came up just short.
Maybe we could follow that model.
Everyone flipped and it was odd man out. At first, a winner was declared then it was noticed that the "heads" of one coin was actually the "tails."
As it turned out, the guy with the regular coin continued with the season and made it all the way to the finals and had a chance to win on the final play of the game, but came up just short.
Maybe we could follow that model.
It's not a good or bad team is a playoff qualifier compared to a non qualifier. Right now you get 4 points for all 4-5 teams regardless if they are good and bad. So you are saying it's fair that as long as everyone get 4 points which mean the current system is perfect.
Also 2 points could be the difference in an 8 seed or a 4 seed. As far as flaw in the logic, there will always be a flaw as there is no perfect system. We are talking once the playoff field is selected.
Ha no such thing as a perfect system. But in this case, the simplicity of WL and playoff points is better than additional complexity without the benefit of a objectively more fair system.
At the very least, in your proposal you have to create a baseline of 4 or 5 points so a win verse a 5 win playoff team is worth zero or one and not 5 points. When nearly half of teams make the playoffs, it doesn't make sense to add so much extra value to the distinction between playoff and non playoff qualifier. And you're clearly not understanding the relative weight of 5 points when there are only 8 other games. That means your other 8 opponents have to be worth .625 wins more on average to make up for a very tenuous line of beating a opponent of 4 wins vs an opponent 5 wins.
Unfortunately even with that fix, teams are still going to be able to rack up tons of weak playoff points due to the closed nature of conferences. I mean Ridgewood would offer up 7 playoff points each to the two opponents who beat them when in turn they only get 6 playoff points for their one win against a playoff qualifier Elgin who only gets 6 points for their one win against a very weak CPS school Clark.
Meanwhile beating a school like a 4 win St Rita or 5 win St Francis who play tough schedules and are comparatively tough opponents gets you nada, all due to the arbitrary cutoff of non qualifier vs qualifier?
At the very least, in your proposal you have to create a baseline of 4 or 5 points so a win verse a 5 win playoff team is worth zero or one and not 5 points. When nearly half of teams make the playoffs, it doesn't make sense to add so much extra value to the distinction between playoff and non playoff qualifier. And you're clearly not understanding the relative weight of 5 points when there are only 8 other games. That means your other 8 opponents have to be worth .625 wins more on average to make up for a very tenuous line of beating a opponent of 4 wins vs an opponent 5 wins.
Unfortunately even with that fix, teams are still going to be able to rack up tons of weak playoff points due to the closed nature of conferences. I mean Ridgewood would offer up 7 playoff points each to the two opponents who beat them when in turn they only get 6 playoff points for their one win against a playoff qualifier Elgin who only gets 6 points for their one win against a very weak CPS school Clark.
Meanwhile beating a school like a 4 win St Rita or 5 win St Francis who play tough schedules and are comparatively tough opponents gets you nada, all due to the arbitrary cutoff of non qualifier vs qualifier?
Similar threads
