FHSAA presents power rankings proposal with drastic changes for seven sports

[jwarigaku]

Bones,

I never said they are the most talented team in the state in this post nor in the past couple of years, hell im not even sure they are the best in the escc at this point.

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.

 

[Cross Bones]

In my system there are no outliers. None. So I get to knitpick over one when you propose a clearly poorly schemed inept system.

Would Loyola be in this "super duper" class in your system?

 

[stonedlizard]

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.

'The how never materialized?' I put together an actual proposal of a system that, in a small sample size, looked to do exactly this. Provide a way for the Naz/Montini/Rochesters of the world to move up without dragging other similar enrollment size publics with them. This was a real system, real data, real results.

Recall what the 2016 playoff field would have looked like under this proposal: https://edgytim.forums.rivals.com/threads/make-the-playoffs-great-again.12046/#post-120283

 

[Cross Bones]

'The how never materialized?' I put together an actual proposal of a system that, in a small sample size, looked to do exactly this. Provide a way for the Naz/Montini/Rochesters of the world to move up without dragging other similar enrollment size publics with them. This was a real system, real data, real results.

Recall what the 2016 playoff field would have looked like under this proposal: https://edgytim.forums.rivals.com/threads/make-the-playoffs-great-again.12046/#post-120283

The problem with your system is that it requires the current system in order to work. In the post it literally says to erase the current 1-8A system from our mind, then a few lines down it uses the 1-8A system to determine the classes.

 

[ramblinman]

I don't understand all the worry about first round blowouts.
I would be more concerned with the championship game blowouts.

Not me. Those are the outliers, and you are always going to have them. You're never going to be able to create a system that is going to be any good if you design it to handle outliers.

To me, the first round blowouts are indicative of a system that produces very unbalanced classes. Either reduce the number of qualifiers and keep the classification criteria, or keep the same number of qualifiers and strive to classify those qualifiers in a more competitive way.

 

[Cross Bones]

'The how never materialized?' I put together an actual proposal of a system that, in a small sample size, looked to do exactly this. Provide a way for the Naz/Montini/Rochesters of the world to move up without dragging other similar enrollment size publics with them. This was a real system, real data, real results.

Recall what the 2016 playoff field would have looked like under this proposal: https://edgytim.forums.rivals.com/threads/make-the-playoffs-great-again.12046/#post-120283

That was a good thread though. Should have had more responses.

 

[stonedlizard]

The problem with your system is that it requires the current system in order to work. In the post it literally says to erase the current 1-8A system from our mind, then a few lines down it uses the 1-8A system to determine the classes.

Fair, and yes it would require the current system for that first year. Get three years out and it's not directly tied to the 'old' system (though there would still be some residual influence). Don't need to dig up old bones on that topic though .

My point was that at the very least there was a tangible view of what a system along this concept could result in.

 

[doctor_d]

Still for the life of me can’t understand how this guy sees First round (of potential 5 rounds) blowouts and this is his battle cry for reclassification.

If it was a call for fewer teams per class, it would make sense. In the current context it is utter nonsense. I suspect you would see similar results if the NFL playoffs were structured to let nearly half the teams in.

 

[Cross Bones]

Still for the life of me can’t understand how this guy sees First round (of potential 5 rounds) blowouts and this is his battle cry for reclassification.

If it was a call for fewer teams per class, it would make sense. In the current context it is utter nonsense. I suspect you would see similar results if the NFL playoffs were structured to let nearly half the teams in.

It's odd isn't it? Last time, I showed him an example of two teams that played in week 9 and 10. Team B won the week 9 matchup by 10 or 12 only to be blown out 40-0 in week 10. I tried explaining that just because there's a blow out it doesn't mean they don't belong in the same class, and that you can't legislate blow outs out of the game, but he just doesn't get it.

He uses it as a red herring to take the attention off of the real issue.

 

[ramblinman]

Still for the life of me can’t understand how this guy sees First round (of potential 5 rounds) blowouts and this is his battle cry for reclassification.

If it was a call for fewer teams per class, it would make sense. In the current context it is utter nonsense. I suspect you would see similar results if the NFL playoffs were structured to let nearly half the teams in.

I would be VERY HAPPY to have fewer teams AND fewer classes. Keep your stinking classification system in that case. I have been saying for a long time that there are too many schools in the playoffs. Where have you been?

 

[doctor_d]

I would be VERY HAPPY to have fewer teams AND fewer classes. Keep your stinking classification system in that case. I have been saying for a long time that there are too many schools in the playoffs. Where have you been?

I’m here. I can’t say that the current stinking classification system is all that great. In fact, I think most fans that frequent this site can agree that there is room for improvement. I’m just saying the reasons to change it have little to nothing to do with first round results.

I’m skeptical about placing the true “top 32” or “top 16” teams in one class. Not sure how that could be accomplished, and not sure what that would do to the middle and smaller classes. In my mind, the best team(s) in a class would normally compete well with most of the teams a class up.

I did and do like stonedlizards proposal to a degree. Only issue I could possibly see being that any ratings metrics involve past performance, while most teams at the high school level have cyclical performance.

 

[ramblinman]

I’m here. I can’t say that the current stinking classification system is all that great. In fact, I think most fans that frequent this site can agree that there is room for improvement. I’m just saying the reasons to change it have little to nothing to do with first round results.

Do you agree that 41% of first round games for the past two years being decided by margins of 30 pts or more is an undesirable SYMPTOM of a stinking classification system?

If not then, would 50% tip the balance for you? 60%?

Back in the day of five classes with just 16 qualifiers in each class, the percentage of first round blowouts was much, much lower than it is now. The basic classification system hasn't changed since then. What has changed is the number of schools qualifying. Either keep the number of qualifiers the same and change the classification system, or keep the classification system the same and reduce the number of qualifiers.

But, do SOMETHING!

 

[doctor_d]

Admire the passion. Reducing number of teams will unquestionably reduce the first round blowout rate. That alone will not, however, eliminate “overpowered” teams from dominating an entire bracket, like you occasionally see in the middle classes. In my opinion that is a bigger issue than any.

Certainly agree that SOMETHING can and should be done to make the playoffs more equitable for all types of teams.