ADVERTISEMENT

FHSAA presents power rankings proposal with drastic changes for seven sports

Love it .Wish ihsa would do something to change baseball, softball, volleyball playoffs. So many coaches hate the format, but yet nobody can get anything going to make a change.
 
ignoring the specific sports they mentioned in the article, I hate it. It does a couple things that are unconscionable to me; 1. It said enrollment plays no role in classification 2. It uses Max Preps rankings as a metric.

Cant think of two worse things to do when classifying HS sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: epicbret
The lag time on this has to be lethal...Let's say the Hancock Central 7th grader I mentioned in another thread a month ago who won the 7A state championship by himself in track remains just as good in high school...As a result, their 1A football program becomes state championship quality...Instead of allowing the community the opportunity to win back to back 1A titles, they get jacked up to 5A because they have this all world stud who is going to Michigan or Ohio State or USC for football (or LSU or Oregon for track) and get murdered by some average 5A program with 10 kids going to play D3. Patently unfair.

Even worse in basketball...the 1A hoops program that gets a 7footer who could take them to glory for the first time in school history gets suddenly thrown into 3A or 4A...Have you ever watched a rural 1A hoops program play a 4A hoops program?

This concept is as bad or worse than the success factors on private schools...
 
The lag time on this has to be lethal...Let's say the Hancock Central 7th grader I mentioned in another thread a month ago who won the 7A state championship by himself in track remains just as good in high school...As a result, their 1A football program becomes state championship quality...Instead of allowing the community the opportunity to win back to back 1A titles, they get jacked up to 5A because they have this all world stud who is going to Michigan or Ohio State or USC for football (or LSU or Oregon for track) and get murdered by some average 5A program with 10 kids going to play D3. Patently unfair.

Even worse in basketball...the 1A hoops program that gets a 7footer who could take them to glory for the first time in school history gets suddenly thrown into 3A or 4A...Have you ever watched a rural 1A hoops program play a 4A hoops program?

This concept is as bad or worse than the success factors on private schools...

I am not a huge fan of the concept, but the sky isn't falling either.

There are plenty of schools that have been 1A that have competed quite nicely against 4A schools in hoops the past few seasons. Some private, some public.

I know you said rural, but if I had a 7-footer on my team, I would certainly get my schedule beefed up. You do the kid a great disservice by playing just smaller schools.
 
ignoring the specific sports they mentioned in the article, I hate it. It does a couple things that are unconscionable to me; 1. It said enrollment plays no role in classification 2. It uses Max Preps rankings as a metric.

Cant think of two worse things to do when classifying HS sports.


Not wild about Max Preps, but I do like the idea of doing something different.

The current IHSA system is badly flawed, especially when it comes to football. We need a better one. Enrollment alone is a crappy determinant of playoff classes.
 
I am not a huge fan of the concept, but the sky isn't falling either.

There are plenty of schools that have been 1A that have competed quite nicely against 4A schools in hoops the past few seasons. Some private, some public.

I know you said rural, but if I had a 7-footer on my team, I would certainly get my schedule beefed up. You do the kid a great disservice by playing just smaller schools.

Its one thing for 1A CPS schools to play 4A schools in hoops...their kids play each other on the playgrounds during the off-season. Providence St. Mel, with five+ D1 kids in the mid-80's, sure, they played mostly big schools and murdered everyone in the A tournament until the elite 8. But the small rural school programs have no way to simulate the speed and quickness of 4A urban programs...I watched Wilmington play Joliet Central in a summer game a couple of years ago - it was 48-2 at half, and the Steelmen's coach had to tell them to quit playing defense in order for Wilmo to get the ball over half-court...

Peotone had a 7 footer go to Ball State in the mid-80's, on a team that started the season with no starter shorter than 6'4" and the first guy off the bench was the 6'6" QB of the football team...They played a lot of bigger schools - Kankakee, Bradley, Kankakee Holiday Tourney when it was mostly AA, etc. But by Christmas they had a 5'8" point guard starting, because they were slower than molasses - their 6'4" point who started the season got eaten alive by quick little guards. We went and scouted them when they played at Grant Park ( who had their own 6'11" kid) on the undersized Dragon gym floor - the dance of the big men was entertaining...If you are Herscher in 1982 with Illinois bound Scott Meents, you upgrade to a bunch of AA teams. Flanigan with ISU bound Bill Braksick in mid-80's, you upgrade. Hoopeston with SIU bound Boothe and the Matta boys - you upgrade the regular season. Riverton with Tisdale - upgrade the regular season.

But despite upgrading the regular season, you want to win a big trophy...You upgrade the regular season in hopes of preparing to win a state title, not hoping to win a 4A regional...Manteno Volleyball won like 7 of 8 regionals in the 80's (Grant Park went Elite 8 in 86); Elite 8 in 84, 87-88-89. Non-conference play was dominated by AA schools, despite Manteno being 250 kids. They were the only Class A school at Bradley tourney, Chicago Latin or McCauley tourneys, weren't afraid to schedule anyone. 16 team Manteno Invite had like 7 Class A Sweet 16 teams in it. The 84 team had one player go to Memphis State, one go to SIU, and 4 start 2 years on national tourney qualifying KCC teams...the three peaters had three DI players...Manteno girls soccer has multiple state trophies in the last ten years, and they schedule the same way...
 
Coaches know what's in the pipeline and schedule accordingly.

I do feel a tad bit sorry for the team graduating after my senior year ... they got some seriously Pi$$ed off teams like Provi, Padukah and Lutheran North who wanted revenge.
 
Not wild about Max Preps, but I do like the idea of doing something different.

The current IHSA system is badly flawed, especially when it comes to football. We need a better one. Enrollment alone is a crappy determinant of playoff classes.
Although I think Rochester really needs to contemplate using that request up button I have zero urge to see them play LWE. Up year for the Rockets and down year for East I'm taking the Griffins 10 out of 10 times. And it wouldn't prove much.

Now if you give me Naz vs Loyola we have an intriguing matchup that piques my interest.

I say that to say I think our playoff system is just fine for most public schools. We'd still have to figure out what to do with the likes of Phillips, Simeon, IMSA and the like.
 
Definitely a fan of the overall concept (some of you already know that ;)) and love the fact that a state association is willing to try something new.

I do agree with those questioning using Maxpreps power rankings. Fully admit I don't know the method used there, but I have seen some whacky looking results in the past. Anecdotal evidence at best.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
We're not alone...

"Ernie Modugno, returning for his 30th year as athletic director at Naples High School, likes the idea of competitive balance. He wants to see all the details worked out before he approves of the proposal, but Modugno is in favor of grouping teams by talent not student population.

"I don't think enrollment should be (the determining factor)," Modugno said. "It doesn't benefit a very competitive program to play a school that's not so competitive. I don't think it benefits either. In enrollment (classifications) you have that."

Lastly, the proposal would seek to adjust the FHSAA’s system to account for a more mobile society as the expansion of high school transfers and recruiting no longer limits students to the neighborhood or small-town schools they grew up with.

“How do we stay in front of that?” Harrison said. “There’s magnet programs. There’s charter schools. There’s private schools, much more than years past.

“… Remember, we’ve been doing the same thing since 1931. A lot has changed since then.”
 
Enrollment remains the best method for the public sector. Rochester has really thrown a monkey wrench into that idea, but they are a severe outlier - unprecedented. I still firmly believe that they should be subject to SF, or at the very least petition up, but that is another story.
Open enrollment schools are entirely another story. Some would barely be competitive within their enrollment range. Others would completely and utterly dominate their enrollment range and have been competitive against high level teams 2 or 3 classes above.
A new one size fits all method likely has just as many issues as the current system.
 
I like the idea.
Year after year, I'm seeing the same names achieve success in the lower half. Then in the off season, it's all about reinventing the wheel from those that can't get past their nearby successful team.

However, in the case of a Morton or Waukegan - I don't think they should be allowed to drift down just because they don't want to compete.
 
I think our playoff system is just fine for most public schools. We'd still have to figure out what to do with the likes of Phillips, Simeon, IMSA and the like.

Other than a gut feeling, what makes you think that?

Each year, I document the number of first round playoff blowouts. Most of them involve a public school embarrassing another public school. Last year, I documented that 10% of the 1974 first round playoff games were decided by margins of 30 pts or more, compared with 41% of the first round games in both 2016 and 2017 being decided by a similar minimum margin.

So, if you think the system is fine for most public schools, define what you mean by "fine." That the experience is generally positive for most public schools? Is it fine for those that don't make the playoffs? Is it fine for those that get embarrassed in the first round?
 
Each year, I document the number of first round playoff blowouts. Most of them involve a public school embarrassing another public school. Last year, I documented that 10% of the 1974 first round playoff games were decided by margins of 30 pts or more, compared with 41% of the first round games in both 2016 and 2017 being decided by a similar minimum margin.
Regarding the '74 vs '16,'17 comparison, was it not the case that back in '74, only conference champs plus a small number of undefeated or 8-1 teams qualified in a smaller playoff? That surely has a bearing on this large disparity between % of 30+ point blow-outs in Round 1?
 
Regarding the '74 vs '16,'17 comparison, was it not the case that back in '74, only conference champs plus a small number of undefeated or 8-1 teams qualified in a smaller playoff? That surely has a bearing on this large disparity between % of 30+ point blow-outs in Round 1?

Yes, and of course it does have a bearing.

The problem is as much the total number of qualifiers as it is trying to classify those qualifiers based on enrollment alone.

They have substantially grown the total playoff field and kept the same classification system that pretty well when it was a much smaller field. The result is the huge increase in blowouts.
 
Last edited:
Other than a gut feeling, what makes you think that?

Each year, I document the number of first round playoff blowouts. Most of them involve a public school embarrassing another public school. Last year, I documented that 10% of the 1974 first round playoff games were decided by margins of 30 pts or more, compared with 41% of the first round games in both 2016 and 2017 being decided by a similar minimum margin.

So, if you think the system is fine for most public schools, define what you mean by "fine." That the experience is generally positive for most public schools? Is it fine for those that don't make the playoffs? Is it fine for those that get embarrassed in the first round?
Because the listed schools get their enrollments differently than the others. That's not a gut feeling, it's just a fact.

By "fine" I mean equitable. When a 9-0 team faces a 5-4 team I expect the 9-0 team to win handily. Oddly enough there are times when the 5-4 team wins which is pretty cool, but it should be a rarity if the records mean anything. We operate under the assumption that records do mean something, but not everything.

What would not be equitable would be having a 1000 student school with a 9-0 record play a 5-4 Neuqua Valley in the 1st rd. What would we be proving, that the more students a public school has the more likely available talent?

I just don't understand your thirst to have public schools of a few hundred play public schools of a few thousand. It makes no sense.
 
Why can't you argue a point without resorting to hyperbole?
It's not hyperbole. We've been back and forth on this and one thing remains constant and that is your inability to show how small schools don't play large schools when you remove enrollment as the classifying mechanism.

Worst part about the whole thing is that you're arguing against what you're arguing for all at the same time. When you remove enrollment what you are doing is saying you want small schools to play large ones otherwise there is no reason to remove enrollment. Then you argue that removing the enrollment will not result in the very purpose of doing it in the 1st place.

But by all means, here is my 100th request for you to finally unveil how you would achieve this goal of not classifying by enrollment and still classifying by enrollment.
 
In addition to the previously mentioned problem of enrollment not being the metric I have a problem with the classes themselves.

Under the current system the classes are clearly defined so we know what we are measuring. 8A determines the best team among schools with enrollments between X and Y, and so on down the line. With this "competitive" class proposition you have the top class which is supposedly the top 32 teams, but there would be no objective way to prove it. Then each subsequent class is defined by being composed of teams supposedly worse than the a class above it. How do you even name these classes? Is the bottom one simply named "Worst playoff teams"?

It's just an all around bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doctor_d
It's not hyperbole. We've been back and forth on this and one thing remains constant and that is your inability to show how small schools don't play large schools when you remove enrollment as the classifying mechanism.

Worst part about the whole thing is that you're arguing against what you're arguing for all at the same time. When you remove enrollment what you are doing is saying you want small schools to play large ones otherwise there is no reason to remove enrollment. Then you argue that removing the enrollment will not result in the very purpose of doing it in the 1st place.

But by all means, here is my 100th request for you to finally unveil how you would achieve this goal of not classifying by enrollment and still classifying by enrollment.

What I have talked about for a long time, and what others like Stoned Lizard have talked about, are classifications that are influenced by multiple factors including enrollment. Never, EVER have I said that I would remove enrollment from the classification equation.

What I have said is that most schools would likely remain right where they are currently, and that the majority of schools that would move would do so one class up or down from their base enrollment classification. A relative handful would move two classes. Under no circumstances would a school of a few hundred be playing a school of a few thousand in the playoffs, and therein lies your hyperbole which you prefer to use rather than to have a civil discussion.

It doesn't matter. I tell you one thing, and you prefer to believe what you want. You are like a teenager. In one ear and out the other.
 
It's just an all around bad idea.

No worse than a system that consistently produces 41% of first round playoff games decided by margins of 30 pts or more.

How do you know its bad without giving it a try. Looks like Florida doesn't like their current system either. At least they have the stones to try something new.
 
What I have talked about for a long time, and what others like Stoned Lizard have talked about, are classifications that are influenced by multiple factors including enrollment. Never, EVER have I said that I would remove enrollment from the classification equation.

What I have said is that most schools would likely remain right where they are currently, and that the majority of schools that would move would do so one class up or down from their base enrollment classification. A relative handful would move two classes. Under no circumstances would a school of a few hundred be playing a school of a few thousand in the playoffs, and therein lies your hyperbole which you prefer to use rather than to have a civil discussion.

It doesn't matter. I tell you one thing, and you prefer to believe what you want. You are like a teenager. In one ear and out the other.
Allow me to draw on another no sports example to hopefully highlight my point. A couple years ago there was a presidential candidate that said he had a healthcare plan that would cover more people than the current plan, cover more issues than the current plan, and cost less than the current plan. Some people clapped and cheered and really expected that nonsense to come to fruition.

Some of us said "How?" because the logistics didn't make sense. Today we still have yet to see that plan.

I know you and @stonedlizard kept saying it wouldn't happen, but the how never materialized. Or maybe he didn't claim it wouldn't happen, I can't recall. However, I specifically asked how you would get Naz up into the top class (where they would still be competitive) and not public schools of the same size which you claimed you could do without a private multiplier.

That, ramblin, is impossible. It also shows you would either have public schools of hundreds of students facing off against public schools of thousands, OR your plan doesn't do what you say it does. This would be why you keep telling me something and I keep doubting it and requesting the explanation on how.

As for the other post. Florida schools get enrollment differently than illinois schools (don't want to have that discussion). From what I understand they can all operate like a Phillips, so you have small schools that on a football field are no different from the best large schools. A plan like that may work in FL. I don't want to see Moroa vs HF in the playoffs. I don't even want to see Rochester vs HF in the playoffs.
 
We just had a 16 seed make a state championship game run in football last fall...Why? A major reason is that it was scheduling...Do you think Maroa is anywhere near as good if it isn't playing a primarily 3A schedule as a big 1A/small 2A school? Is 3A Wilmington going to be as good if it doesn't play all 4A or bigger schools in the non-conference season? Some programs are built for the playoffs, not the regular season. They schedule to peak after week 9 of football, not week 3. And these are the programs which you likely want to move up...

Changing sports...lets go to the girls side. Iroquois County has some powerhouse girls volleyball & basketball programs which likely would be competitive starting squad wise with 4A programs. Crescent-Iroquois, which closed a few years ago, regularly won 20 games with a student body of 65ish. Cissna Park, which the majority of C-I students went to after the closing (and which co-oped with C-I the last few years), regularly wins 20 games with a student body of under 100. Iroquois West, enrollment just under 300ish, does the same. Why? Because they have a couple of extremely athletic families with girls who go lower D1, and long time excellent coaches...But although they might have the 6 foot girls who can dominate, they generally lack depth...Get the one or two really great girls in foul trouble, and they suddenly collapse. They can play one game against a 3A or 4A school with little problem, because they don't get worn out - but a steady diet of it will kill the studs. For years, these programs have played a game against Kankakee & Bradley and been competitive.

Likewise, some programs just don't have feeders. I knew a coach at a 3A school in the i57 corridor who was a girls basketball assistant and head softball coach. He told stories of 100+ girls trying out for basketball and having the pick of the litter. He also told horror stories of 12 girls showing up for the softball interest meeting, six who had never played and 9 who did not have a glove. Meanwhile, the 1A schools in the Kankakee area would all have 20+ girls try out for softball, all of whom had played for years...Should those schools get bumped up because they have functional feeder programs in the community and junior high?
 
I don't want to see Moroa vs HF in the playoffs. I don't even want to see Rochester vs HF in the playoffs.

I would very much like to see Rochester vs HF.

Since they don’t have the stones of an East Saint Louis or Phillips that want to challenge themselves and their programs by volunteering to move up a class or two.....it sure would be nice to see them play a heavyweight at least just once!!
 
I know you and @stonedlizard kept saying it wouldn't happen, but the how never materialized. Or maybe he didn't claim it wouldn't happen, I can't recall. However, I specifically asked how you would get Naz up into the top class (where they would still be competitive) and not public schools of the same size which you claimed you could do without a private multiplier.

Actually looks like it would do exactly what you’re asking for re Naz Bones. See link below.

http://calpreps.com/2018/ratings/Illinois_all.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cross Bones
Actually looks like it would do exactly what you’re asking for re Naz Bones. See link below.

http://calpreps.com/2018/ratings/Illinois_all.htm
We were talking about ramblinman's playoff proposal. This calpreps ranking does exactly what I have been saying would happen under their plan however; Highland (4A), Lena-Winslow (1A), Byron (3A), Rochester (4A), Gibson City (2A), Washington (5A), Forreston (1A), and Dunlap (5A) in the top 32.
 
No worse than a system that consistently produces 41% of first round playoff games decided by margins of 30 pts or more.

How do you know its bad without giving it a try. Looks like Florida doesn't like their current system either. At least they have the stones to try something new.

First round blowouts would seem to be much more a function of number of teams, rather than competitive classification issues. 9-0 should throttle most 5-4 from a similar background. CPS schools I would think are a large portion of this first round blowout “epidemic” as well.

Later round blowouts or a string of blowouts by one or two teams within a class would indicate that perhaps there is a classification issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PanthersWildcats86
So what you’re saying is you’re okay with a school of 790 kids playing a school with 3,000++ as long as it’s a private vs public like Naz vs Neuqua or Da Brook.

We were talking about ramblinman's playoff proposal. This calpreps ranking does exactly what I have been saying would happen under their plan however; Highland (4A), Lena-Winslow (1A), Byron (3A), Rochester (4A), Gibson City (2A), Washington (5A), Forreston (1A), and Dunlap (5A) in the top 32.
 
What I have talked about for a long time, and what others like Stoned Lizard have talked about, are classifications that are influenced by multiple factors including enrollment. Never, EVER have I said that I would remove enrollment from the classification equation.

What I have said is that most schools would likely remain right where they are currently, and that the majority of schools that would move would do so one class up or down from their base enrollment classification. A relative handful would move two classes. Under no circumstances would a school of a few hundred be playing a school of a few thousand in the playoffs, and therein lies your hyperbole which you prefer to use rather than to have a civil discussion.

I'll use two schools, neighbors in fact, which should show some light on how unfair this concept could likely end up...Wilmington & Joliet Central.

I mentioned basketball in a previous post...Steelmen kill the Wildcats, no questions asked, 99+ out of 100 times.
But, what about wrestling? Wilmo is likely the favorite. But should Wilmo be 3A in wrestling? Probably not.
Track? JC
Baseball? Probably pretty equal.
But what about football? Despite having about 3000 more kids, I'm kind of thinking the Wildcats demoralize the Steelmen and pound the rock right through them...I assume the Steelmen will have some faster kids, so there will be less likelihood of untouched 80 yard TD runs, but the damage will be done by the Cats...But in no way should this mean JC should be 3A and Wilmo 8A...Wilmo being a top program should not be penalized by feeding them to LWE and Loyola...
 
But Montini, SHG, Naz, IC, and the like should be penalized for success. I love the discrimination.

I'll use two schools, neighbors in fact, which should show some light on how unfair this concept could likely end up...Wilmington & Joliet Central.

I mentioned basketball in a previous post...Steelmen kill the Wildcats, no questions asked, 99+ out of 100 times.
But, what about wrestling? Wilmo is likely the favorite. But should Wilmo be 3A in wrestling? Probably not.
Track? JC
Baseball? Probably pretty equal.
But what about football? Despite having about 3000 more kids, I'm kind of thinking the Wildcats demoralize the Steelmen and pound the rock right through them...I assume the Steelmen will have some faster kids, so there will be less likelihood of untouched 80 yard TD runs, but the damage will be done by the Cats...But in no way should this mean JC should be 3A and Wilmo 8A...Wilmo being a top program should not be penalized by feeding them to LWE and Loyola...
 
So what you’re saying is you’re okay with a school of 790 kids playing a school with 3,000++ as long as it’s a private vs public like Naz vs Neuqua or Da Brook.
Again we're discussing @ramblinman playoff proposition. I am not qualified to speak for him so maybe he'll explain why in his system Naz would be in the top class and not Gibson City. He hasn't explained it to me so maybe you'll have better luck.

And I don't think Neuqua and The Brook are in the top class in his system, they'd probably be in the "ehh they're okay" playoff class.
 
Last edited:
Again we're discussing @ramblinman playoff proposition. I am not qualified to speak for him so maybe he'll explain why in his system Naz would be in the top class and not Gibson City. He hasn't explained it to me so maybe you'll have better luck.

And I don't think Neuqua and The Brook are in the top class in his system, they'd probably be in the "ehh they're okay" playoff class.

I have never crunched the numbers, and I never will. I'm talking about a concept. So, I don't know that Naz would be in the top class, but I kind of doubt it.

You want me to crunch those numbers, but I have neither the expertise nor the time to go through all the trial and error with multiple scenarios to arrive at a reasonable end product.

Keep in mind that Naz is a school with an actual enrollment of 760 -- six students smaller than Rochester. If Naz were in its actual size class, it would be 4A under the current system. Same class as Rochester, with its seven 4A titles since 2010. Yet you apparently want Naz, a school that lost a first round 5A game in 2016 to a team that finished at 6-5, to play four classes above Rochester.

Your idea of fairness is perverse.
 
Yet you apparently want Naz, a school that lost a first round 5A game in 2016 to a team that finished at 6-5, to play four classes above Rochester.

Your idea of fairness is perverse.

Ramblin,

I far from agree with what Bones is peddling, but let’s be clear that Naz has not lost a first round game when qualifying for the playoff since 1999. The last year they didn’t qualify for the playoffs was 2012 and that was a points issue.
 
I have never crunched the numbers, and I never will. I'm talking about a concept. So, I don't know that Naz would be in the top class, but I kind of doubt it.

You want me to crunch those numbers, but I have neither the expertise nor the time to go through all the trial and error with multiple scenarios to arrive at a reasonable end product.

Keep in mind that Naz is a school with an actual enrollment of 760 -- six students smaller than Rochester. If Naz were in its actual size class, it would be 4A under the current system. Same class as Rochester, with its seven 4A titles since 2010. Yet you apparently want Naz, a school that lost a first round 5A game in 2016 to a team that finished at 6-5, to play four classes above Rochester.

Your idea of fairness is perverse.
No, my idea of fairness is to group schools that get their enrollments in completely different ways in different playoffs. You somehow think that is unfair too. But I listened to your system and wanted to see how it would work. You don't think it would work which is why you only speak of it in vague terms. You know it will fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.

So let me get this straight, you want to base this playoff system on competitiveness somehow, but want to keep the most talented program in the state (per @jwarigaku ) in the "they might be good" class?

You haven't even given us the bare bones of a system let alone crunch any #'s. You haven't demonstrated how your system eliminates blowouts (which seems to be your sticking point). What you have given us amounts to a little more than cobbling random words together.

But yet, I wait for something from you that resembles an idea that could work.
 
Ramblin,

I far from agree with what Bones is peddling, but let’s be clear that Naz has not lost a first round game when qualifying for the playoff since 1999. The last year they didn’t qualify for the playoffs was 2012 and that was a points issue.

Thanks for the clarification. Upon further review, it appears that playoff loss I was referring to was a second round loss, and not a first round loss. I was misled by a page on the IHSA website, which incorrectly shows that Naz was one and done in 2016. No matter -- the point I was making is still the same.

http://ihsa.org/SportsActivities/BoysFootball/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/fb/records/index.htm
 
So let me get this straight, you want to base this playoff system on competitiveness somehow, but want to keep the most talented program in the state (per @jwarigaku ) in the "they might be good" class?

Let me get this straight: You want to create a system that correctly classifies every single outlier? I want to create a classification system that does a better job of classifying qualifiers than the current system. That's all I'm talking about.

You have your knickers all in a twist over Naz and the opinion of one of its fans, while I talk about 104 first round games over the past two years decided by margins of 30 points or more.
 
ADVERTISEMENT