104-0

[stonedlizard]

stonedlizard's system is interesting but it's not being used so at this point it is mythical. It is a good system but it is based on enrollment as well. A team gets more "power points" by playing larger teams and can be manipulated by teams scheduling larger or smaller teams based on what class they desire to be in.

For the record, system would have some enrollment influence in first few years post implementation, but over time would resolve towards success (regular and post season) and strength of schedule as the predominant factors. Suppose there may always be the slightest hint of enrollment influence, but this would become negligible.

 

[ramblinman]

How can you tie competitiveness to size?

Size as in enrollment size or size as in player size?

1A isn't the bottom tier they're just physically the smallest.

It's a physical game. Smaller, weaker, slower usually doesn't compete well against bigger, stronger, faster. What am I missing here?

It's not suited to my spin, the definition comes from the Oxford dictionary. You're the one using the word incorrectly.

So, are you (and Oxford) saying that a team can be full of desire and competitive spirit, lose all their games, and still be considered to be competitive? If that's the meaning of the word taken to the extreme, then my bad. I DO need to find a better word.

Help a fella out here. Should I just say stronger and weaker?

MaxPrep algorithm has Rochester ranked as the #12 team in the entire state. Massey has IC at #32. Both of those would be the top 12.5%.


Massey ratings has Tinley Park (5A playoffs) ranked #251 and Addison Trail (7A playoffs) ranked #245. Those would be in the bottom 12.5% of a competitive based system and put them in 1A, the bottom class of competitiveness.

Please.

stonedlizard's system is interesting but it's not being used so at this point it is mythical.

Since we're devolving into word smithing, are you sure that mythical is the right word here? I'd say it's more hypothetical.

It is a good system but it is based on enrollment as well. A team gets more "power points" by playing larger teams and can be manipulated by teams scheduling larger or smaller teams based on what class they desire to be in.

It is influenced by enrollment at the beginning, as @stonedlizard already explained to you.

Every state in the country classifies by enrollment.

What do you mean when you say "by enrollment?" Do you mean the exact Illinois way? Every state? Did you include Ohio and New Jersey in your research?

I just looked and even in the great state of Texas in their largest class there were several blowouts in the first round

Again (and again and again), I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be blowouts. I just don't like as many as we have. I'm pretty sure you know I've said that before many times. So, why bring that up about Texas? What point does that prove? It's a total straw man argument.

Hell, even the college football playoff has at least one blowout every year and there's only a total of 3 games being played and the teams are decided by a dedicated committee.

That's great. I'll take a 33% blowout rate over what we've currently got.

 

[4Afan]

Size as in enrollment size or size as in player size?

Either. How is someone any more or less competitive based on physical size or number of kids in a school? I'm a smaller guy, but am extremely competitive, to the point where I'd get pissed if I lost a game of Candyland as a kid.

It's a physical game. Smaller, weaker, slower usually doesn't compete well against bigger, stronger, faster. What am I missing here?

Again, I don't think competitive is the word you want to be using here. I'm 5'7" and have a desire to win at everything I do. I know people who are bigger, stronger, faster than I am, but are some of the laziest people I know. So I am a more competitive than those that are bigger than I am.

So, are you (and Oxford) saying that a team can be full of desire and competitive spirit, lose all their games, and still be considered to be competitive? If that's the meaning of the word taken to the extreme, then my bad. I DO need to find a better word.

Help a fella out here. Should I just say stronger and weaker?

I would agree with what you're saying here. Competitiveness is more of a mentality then actual physical attributes. You see it talked about when a team in any sport is over matched or a big underdog, plays tight and loses in a close game. You will hear people comment and say "they lost, but they were competitive."

I think the word you may be looking for is SKILLED (?), but that's also subjective.

Please.

LOL. All you talk about is classifying based on competitiveness and not enrollment and I provide you with existing algorithms that puts successful small schools in the top 12.5% with 7A and 8A schools and terrible larger schools in the bottom 12.5% with 1A schools which completely refutes what you say about 1A schools not having to compete with 7A or 8A schools and "please" is all you got.

Since we're devolving into word smithing, are you sure that mythical is the right word here? I'd say it's more hypothetical.

Agreed.

What do you mean when you say "by enrollment?" Do you mean the exact Illinois way? Every state? Did you include Ohio and New Jersey in your research?

By enrollment I mean number of students. I've mentioned in other posts that no, not all are exactly like Illinois. Some have various multipliers/success factors, separate public and privates, have an open class, allow all teams into the playoffs, etc., but the basis for classification is school enrollment.

Again (and again and again), I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be blowouts. I just don't like as many as we have. I'm pretty sure you know I've said that before many times. So, why bring that up about Texas? What point does that prove? It's a total straw man argument.

Not a straw man argument. I used Texas, where high school football is the most intense, simply as an example to show that it's not just Illinois that has a large number of blowouts. I looked again and in their top division, 20 out of 32 or 63.5% of round 1 games were decided by 3 or more scores. So Illinois is not unique and there's not something that this state is doing wrong compared to other states.