First round blowouts and running clocks

[Cross Bones]

Oh, it's definitely based on something tangible alright. Problem is, it's also a faulty and flawed determinant of competitive level that has been proven so dozens of times each year for many years.

For me, this is an argument to try to find a better way. For you, you are satisfied with a very imperfect status quo. For someone who was so willing to make changes to discriminate against private schools, I find your unwillingness to admit to an obvious problem and to search for a better way to be very odd to say the least.

Another poster asked you to explain the problem. You have failed to do so in the same manner that you have failed to verbalize how this system works. You touted Bradley as the poster child for your competitive class system and how they should be in the Super Great class.......then Bradley gets the hammer dropped on them by a team no one would put in the Super Great class.

I did put forth a plan however to make the playoffs better. You describe it as discrimination because it likely cuts down on the private school championship total. I do recall a post of yours some years back describing how you love to see Private schools beat Public schools. Since that is your M-O I think a healthy dose of skepticism into your motives would be prudent. I simply like to see similar schools face off and hope that the games that should be good live up to expectations.

The more this goes on it becomes more and more clear that your classification is based on emotion and reputation. In my opinion that is an awful way to run a playoff.

 

[WhiteSox129]

Because there's over 500 teams and no one watches them all, not even edgy. Theres also not enough overlap between the teams to do this reasonably. Also the NCAA has NEVER gotten it right. The tournament has NEVER gone chalk which is what you expect if you get it right.

Going chalk sucks, which was my whole point. Would you want the playoffs to go chalk every year? To me, that's incredibly boring.

What I was saying was that the NCAA schedules its games and rarely are they non-competitive. I think we'd all like close, compelling games as opposed to running clocks, right?

Is it practical? Idk maybe not but let's try something different. There's a reason why March Madness is the multi-billion dollar entity that it is. It's because they schedule an awfully competitive, entertaining tournament.

 

[ramblinman]

Another poster asked you to explain the problem. You have failed to do so in the same manner that you have failed to verbalize how this system works.

I have absolutely explained the problem a number of different times. You are so closed minded to any change on this matter that you don't want to try to understand the problem, much less admit there is one. Again, the problem is classifications with too wide of a top to bottom range in terms of competitive level. I documented that problem by showing that 41% of first round games this year were decided by margins of 30 pts or greater. Of course, being the astute observers of the high school game that we are, we both know that this year is not substantially different from most years in that regard.

Don't be telling me that I failed to explain it. I explained it fine. You just fail to recognize it as a problem. Furthermore, I asked you to tell me what WOULD be too high of a percentage of first round blowouts in order for you to consider it problematic, and YOU failed to give me a straight answer. So, as far as I know, you would be fine with 100% of first round games being blowouts.

You touted Bradley as the poster child for your competitive class system and how they should be in the Super Great class.......then Bradley gets the hammer dropped on them by a team no one would put in the Super Great class.

Poster child? If it's not hyperbole coming from you, it's histrionics.

With respect to Bradley's loss this past weekend, you have the benefit of hindsight. What's mystifying about that is that you fail to utilize hindsight in recognizing that, year after year after year, there are schools within the classification system that YOU favor that are classified with similar schools from an enrollment perspective, but vastly different schools from a competitive level perspective. That reality plays itself out in what I consider to be too high of a percentage of playoff blowouts...year after year after year. You want to use one weekend's worth of hindsight and a handful of examples to cast doubt on the concept I promote? How about if you first use it to look back for the past ten years years and the hundreds upon hundreds of examples of enrollment caused competitive mismatches across all playoff classes?

I did put forth a plan however to make the playoffs better. You describe it as discrimination because it likely cuts down on the private school championship total. I do recall a post of yours some years back describing how you love to see Private schools beat Public schools. Since that is your M-O I think a healthy dose of skepticism into your motives would be prudent. I simply like to see similar schools face off and hope that the games that should be good live up to expectations.

I did not describe your plan to separate private and public schools as discrimination, although that is what it is. In fact, time and time again, I have communicated my ENDORSEMENT of separation. I want out.

Your plan is to separate the classes into public and private. More separation by TYPE of school from you. You are all about classifying by type and type only. What's next, classifications for suburban schools? I am all about using a variety of criteria, including size, to determine classifications that would be more evenly matched top to bottom from a competitive standpoint

I also communicated my assertion that separating privates and publics, without any other changes in the way that classifications are currently composed, is not going to change the top to bottom competitive gap that exists in each class. The public haves of a certain size will still beat up on the public havenots of a similar size. Why you think this is is something not deserving of improvement is a mystery.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

I have absolutely explained the problem. The problem is classifications with too wide of a top to bottom gap in terms of competitive level. I documented that problem by showing that 41% of first round games this year were decided by margins of 30 pts or greater. Of course, we both know that this year is not substantially different from most years in that regard.

Don't be telling me that I failed to explain it. I explained it fine. You just fail to recognize it as a problem. I asked you to tell me what WOULD be too high of a percentage of first round blowouts, and YOU failed to give me a straight answer. So, as far as I know, you would be fine with 100% of first round games being blowouts.



Poster child? If it's not hyperbole coming from you, it's histrionics.

With respect to Bradley's loss this past weekend, you have the benefit of hindsight. What's mystifying about that is that you fail to utilize hindsight in recognizing that, year after year after year, there are schools within the classification system that YOU favor that are classified with similar schools from an enrollment perspective, but vastly different schools from a competitive level perspective. That reality plays itself out in what I consider to be too high of a percentage of playoff blowouts.



I did not describe your plan to separate private and public schools as discrimination, although that is what it is. In fact, time and time again, I have communicated my ENDORSEMENT of separation. I want out.

Your plan is to separate the classes into public and private. More separation by TYPE of school from you. You are all about classifying by type and type only. I am all about using a variety of criteria, including size, to determine classifications.

I also communicated my assertion that separating privates and publics, without any other changes in the way that classifications are currently composed, is not going to change the top to bottom competitive gap that exists in each class. The public haves of a certain size will still beat up on the public have nots of the same size. Why you think this is the best thing since sliced bread is a mystery.

I have absolutely explained the problem. The problem is classifications with too wide of a top to bottom gap in terms of competitive level. I documented that problem by showing that 41% of first round games this year were decided by margins of 30 pts or greater. Of course, we both know that this year is not substantially different from most years in that regard.

Don't be telling me that I failed to explain it. I explained it fine. You just fail to recognize it as a problem. I asked you to tell me what WOULD be too high of a percentage of first round blowouts, and YOU failed to give me a straight answer. So, as far as I know, you would be fine with 100% of first round games being blowouts.



Poster child? If it's not hyperbole coming from you, it's histrionics.

With respect to Bradley's loss this past weekend, you have the benefit of hindsight. What's mystifying about that is that you fail to utilize hindsight in recognizing that, year after year after year, there are schools within the classification system that YOU favor that are classified with similar schools from an enrollment perspective, but vastly different schools from a competitive level perspective. That reality plays itself out in what I consider to be too high of a percentage of playoff blowouts.



I did not describe your plan to separate private and public schools as discrimination, although that is what it is. In fact, time and time again, I have communicated my ENDORSEMENT of separation. I want out.

Your plan is to separate the classes into public and private. More separation by TYPE of school from you. You are all about classifying by type and type only. I am all about using a variety of criteria, including size, to determine classifications.

I also communicated my assertion that separating privates and publics, without any other changes in the way that classifications are currently composed, is not going to change the top to bottom competitive gap that exists in each class. The public haves of a certain size will still beat up on the public have nots of the same size. Why you think this is the best thing since sliced bread is a mystery.

So basically get... you hate the recruiter schools getting multiplied and pushed into a higher class than they belong.. so feel the successful non recruiter schools should be treated the same way even though they develop programs with what the bus drops off

 

[Cross Bones]

Going chalk sucks, which was my whole point. Would you want the playoffs to go chalk every year? To me, that's incredibly boring.

What I was saying was that the NCAA schedules its games and rarely are they non-competitive. I think we'd all like close, compelling games as opposed to running clocks, right?

Is it practical? Idk maybe not but let's try something different. There's a reason why March Madness is the multi-billion dollar entity that it is. It's because they schedule an awfully competitive, entertaining tournament.

Basketball is a different sport, but theres plenty blowouts in the tourney. You get the occasional cinderella and upsets. Exactly the same way it is now.

 

[doctor_d]

I'd personally trade more first round blowouts for less blowouts in the quarters and beyond.
ramblin's ideas are flawed, but there is merit there - due to the fact that his ideas show that he actually admits that not all schools are created equal and that enrollment doesn't always matter much.
What he is not realizing is that when dealing with true closed boundary schools, enrollment is as good as it gets when predicting success. Adding a strength of schedule component based on enrollment to supplement this idea gets you even closer to the truth.

Look at the playoff teams, eliminating all open enrollment schools.

What you see starting at 1A is a fairly linear progression upwards in ability that tracks with enrollment.

Therefore, for continued coexistence between the two types of schools, my ideas are the best and most realistic.

 

[ramblinman]

I'd personally trade more first round blowouts for less blowouts in the quarters and beyond.

You are always going to have fewer blowouts in the quarters and beyond because there are fewer games.

ramblin's ideas are flawed, but there is merit there - due to the fact that his ideas show that he actually admits that not all schools are created equal and that enrollment doesn't always matter much.
What he is not realizing is that when dealing with true closed boundary schools, enrollment is as good as it gets when predicting success.

Says who? What kind of data or objective source(s) can you provide to back up that statement?

The following games are between closed boundary schools from the first two rounds this year:

First Round
Oswego 56, Curie 14
LWE 63, Taft 15
St Charles E 45, Lockport 0
Plainfield N 42, Highland Park 0
Lake Zurich 40, Harlem 0
Jacobs 51, Lincoln Park 8
Batavia 42, McHenry 12
LWC 50, Reavis 20
Prairie Ridge 41, Deerfield 0
Lake Forest 40, R-B 7
Crete Monee 37, Glenwood 6
Shepard 41, Morgan Park 7
Sterling 45, Westinghouse 6
Rochelle 56, Ridgewood 14
Centralia 44, Mahomet-Seymour 0
Herscher 44, IVC 0
Phillips 46, Kewanee 7
Johnsburg 56, Marengo 14
Althoff 53, Carterville 14
Mt Zion 41, Richland County 0
Rochester 52, Civic Memorial 7
Herrin 41, Watseka 7
PBL 50, Mercer County 2
Wilmington 51, Corliss 8
Byron 44, Eureka 14
Newton 61, Auburn 29
Carlinville 76, EAWR 19
Williamsville 56, Hillsboro 12
Mt Carmel 53, Sesser Valier 16
Newman Central 50, Clifton 6
Deer Creek Mackinaw 58, Orion 10
Fulton 42, Momence 7
Tri Valley 49, Rushville Industry 0
Du Quoin 65, Red Bud 14
Maroa Forsyth 42, Johnston City 6
Shelbyville 46, Carmi White County 6
Aquin 52, Oakwood 13
Lena Winslow 44, Bureau Valley 14
Tuscola 52, Oblong 7
Carrollton 46, Camp Point Central 0
Athens 60, Pawnee 22

Second Round
DeKalb 36, Antioch 3
Cary Grove 56, Grayslake North 7
Lemont 42, Danville 10
Rock Island 62, Shepard 7
Peoria 96, Decatur Ike 40
Rochester 63, Mt Zion 21
Monticello 41, Westville 14 (not quite a 30 pt. margin, but I put this one in there because in round 1, Westville beat Chicago Marine - a multiplied OE school - 57-0)

This is as good as it gets? Says who? Why? How is it that you know so definitively that a different way wouldn't be an improvement?

What you see starting at 1A is a fairly linear progression upwards in ability that tracks with enrollment.

Generally, that is true. However, that's not the argument. The argument isn't about the average from class to class. The argument is about the top to bottom competitive range that exists within each enrollment based class. And, closed boundaries or open enrollment has nothing to do with that.

Almost every year, you see closed boundaried teams that win one class that would also either win or go very deep in the next class higher. Every year, you see closed boundaried teams that get blown away by other closed boundaried teams in one class that would also get blown away playing a class or two lower. Your "linear progression" assertion means squat to those latter teams.

Therefore, for continued coexistence between the two types of schools, my ideas are the best and most realistic.

 

[Bwm57]

What does "open boundary" schools mean?

 

[ramblinman]

What does "open boundary" schools mean?

It means schools that do not have district boundaries that limit their enrollment. I wrote that by mistake in my last post in reference to the list of blowouts. It should have said closed boundary, and I have since edited it to correct the mistake.

 

[Bwm57]

It means schools that do not have district boundaries that limit their enrollment. I wrote that by mistake in my last post in reference to the list of blowouts. It should have said closed boundary, and I have since edited it to correct the mistake.

Ok, that makes sense now.

 

[anon_4vszfu35bv677]

I have communicated my ENDORSEMENT of separation. I want out

So why are you still here? Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

 

[doctor_d]

ramblin,

I applaud your efforts and ideas to improve the postseason to make the experience more competitive. I am still highly skeptical of the methods which would be used to determine the qualifiers and then seed them appropriately to ensure minimal blowouts occur throughout.

I have stated the following:
--I think football enrollment should be brought back for all schools because enrollment and strength of schedule based off enrollment seem to be the most historical factors that I can find that determine ability of a closed boundary team to advance in the playoffs.
--A success factor should apply for all schools because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
--Open enrollment schools should have some sort of multiplier because it has been proven time and again that open boundary schools have a much higher ceiling than closed boundary schools of similar size.
--Open enrollment schools that are not successful should get waivered to remove the multiplier because not all open boundary schools are uber successful at athletics.

Since I have read enough of your posts over the years I know that you will never agree with this proposal, so I would just like to ask you:

What would your "1A" look like under your ideas for proper seeding and classification?

and.. Would the 256 qualifiers remain the same?

 

[ramblinman]

So why are you still here? Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

Do you ever have any positive input to add to any thread? Just asking.

 

[doctor_d]

Almost every year, you see closed boundaried teams that win one class that would also either win or go very deep in the next class higher. Every year, you see closed boundaried teams that get blown away by other closed boundaried teams in one class that would also get blown away playing a class or two lower. Your "linear progression" assertion means squat to those latter teams.

I agree that typically the champ of a certain class would compete well against many of the participants in the class higher. Why is that a problem?

You seem to be trying to do the impossible. You want 8 single elimination tournaments of 32 teams each in which every game is close. How realistic is that?

How about for starters, we just try to avoid placing a team in a class that that could compete 2 or 3 classes higher and win each of their playoff games in the current class by 4 or 5 or more scores?

 

[ramblinman]

--I think football enrollment should be brought back for all schools because enrollment and strength of schedule based off enrollment seem to be the most historical factors that I can find that determine ability of a closed boundary team to advance in the playoffs.
--A success factor should apply for all schools because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
--Open enrollment schools should have some sort of multiplier because it has been proven time and again that open boundary schools have a much higher ceiling than closed boundary schools of similar size.
--Open enrollment schools that are not successful should get waivered to remove the multiplier because not all open boundary schools are uber successful at athletics.

Lots of enrollment related tinkering above. Have you ever heard the phrase, "too many cooks spoil the broth"? I think it is applicable to the classification situation.

We've had enrollment based classification for decades. It has been tinkered with several times over the years, and it is still very flawed. In my opinion, it's flawed because we use games based criteria to qualify and seed and a completely unrelated criterion to classify. I just don't understand why folks think this is some sort of perfect recipe that can't be improved.

What would your "1A" look like under your ideas for proper seeding and classification?

and.. Would the 256 qualifiers remain the same?

Same 256 qualifiers, based on the same criteria as is used now. It is the result of actual games played.

Since the concept I am suggesting would be influenced by enrollment, and since 1A is the smallest and generally the least competitive class relative to the competitive level of all the other classes, the field wouldn't look too differently than what it does now. If I had to estimate, maybe a handful or so of schools would play up and a handful of less competitive, but marginally larger, schools would take their place.

 

[doctor_d]

If 1A would be roughly the same, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how you are going to avoid first round blowouts and how the rest of the classes would be any different.

 

[ramblinman]

I agree that typically the champ of a certain class would compete well against many of the participants in the class higher. Why is that a problem?

You seem to be trying to do the impossible. You want 8 single elimination tournaments of 32 teams each in which every game is close. How realistic is that?

Either you aren't paying attention or you are jumping to conclusions. I just want the range of top to bottom competitive level within each class to be narrower than it is now. What is so difficult to understand and/or off putting about that? Yes, I want playoff games to be closer than they are now. That doesn't mean I expect or want an average margin of victory of a handful of points. Not trying to avoid ALL blowouts...just minimize them. Again, I'm not trying for perfection. Just trying to improve a very imperfect situation.

How about for starters, we just try to avoid placing a team in a class that that could compete 2 or 3 classes higher and win each of their playoff games in the current class by 4 or 5 or more scores?

What you are suggesting is tinkering with a system to deal with the handful of outliers that pop up every year. Again, if all you do is remove those outliers from the equation, you will still have 40% of first round games being decided by margins of 30 pts or more.

What I suggest is a system that would more appropriately classify the outliers and most schools, regardless of their type. Your idea would only minimally address what is wrong with the current system. Mine is a macro approach. Yours is micro.

 

[ramblinman]

If 1A would be roughly the same, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how you are going to avoid first round blowouts and how the rest of the classes would be any different.

Again, I'm NOT trying to avoid or eliminate blowouts. Sheesh!

The large percentage of blowouts are the symptoms of the illness. I want to treat the illness, not the symptoms. I want more competitively appropriate classification of qualifying teams. That's it.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Ramblin is the Trump of this place, always complaining about the current system, always has concepts, but never details.. same way with his NIPL

 

[doctor_d]

And I just want to eliminate the outliers (as you call them) in a way that is fair.

 

[ramblinman]

And I just want to eliminate the outliers (as you call them) in a way that is fair.

Then you will still be left with a very large range of competitive levels within each enrollment based class. You might be satisfied with that, but I am not.

You are seemingly happy with tinkering. I think we have tinkered ourselves into the very flawed system we have today. I want to go further than just tinkering. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Cross Bones]

How about this.

Closed boundaried schools classified by enrollment, no tinkering.

Open enrollment schools classified by reputation and emotion. No tinkering.

Done.

 

[ramblinman]

How about this.

Closed boundaried schools classified by enrollment, no tinkering.

Open enrollment schools classified by reputation and emotion. No tinkering.

Done.

I liked your post because it's apparent that you are spent. You have given it your best shot, and all you have left are lame attempts at sarcasm, hyperbole and other gimmicks. All gamesmanship and no real content.

 

[Cross Bones]

I liked your post because it's apparent that you are spent. You have given it your best shot, and all you have left are lame attempts at sarcasm, hyperbole and other gimmicks. All gamesmanship and no real content.

Fraid not.

Several people have asked for your specifics. You have declined at every turn. This lets us know you are either not serious or you dont actually have a way to do what you say you are trying to do...or likely both.

I mean, its mathematically impossible to do what youre claiming to be able to do and thats a simple fact.

As I stated before it is impossible for you to put Naz and Montini in the top class and not public schools of the similar enrollment without utilizing some modifier for open enrollment schools. Your claim to be able to do as such is lunacy, but you can keep saying its possible if you like.

Then the admission that your 1A would be basically the same... Well then that leaves the rest of the classes basically the same. Which leaves the blowouts basically the same. Everyone sees it but you ramblin, everyone.

 

[ramblinman]

If "everyone" includes the likes of you, HHSTF and LWeastDad, I'm quite happy with not seeing what "everyone" is seeing. Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Look it up if you don't know Spanish.

 

[stonedlizard]

Fraid not.

Several people have asked for your specifics. You have declined at every turn. This lets us know you are either not serious or you dont actually have a way to do what you say you are trying to do...or likely both.

I mean, its mathematically impossible to do what youre claiming to be able to do and thats a simple fact.

As I stated before it is impossible for you to put Naz and Montini in the top class and not public schools of the similar enrollment without utilizing some modifier for open enrollment schools. Your claim to be able to do as such is lunacy, but you can keep saying its possible if you like.

Then the admission that your 1A would be basically the same... Well then that leaves the rest of the classes basically the same. Which leaves the blowouts basically the same. Everyone sees it but you ramblin, everyone.

I have a model and hypothesis that I've been tinkering with. It needs more time and I fear explaining the concept without providing the details on what each class looks like under that concept will spoil the conversation. Once we get through Thanksgiving, it will be shared, but trust Bones - I don't think it's mathematically impossible...

 

[HHSTigerFan]

If "everyone" includes the likes of you, HHSTF and LWeastDad, I'm quite happy with not seeing what "everyone" is seeing. Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Look it up if you don't know Spanish.

Has ANYONE other than you said its a good idea?????

 

[Cross Bones]

If "everyone" includes the likes of you, HHSTF and LWeastDad, I'm quite happy with not seeing what "everyone" is seeing. Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Look it up if you don't know Spanish.

I walk with math.

 

[ramblinman]

I walk with math.

That's nice. I used to have a math teacher who would tell us that "fractions are your friends."

I guess we'll see if you still walk with math after Thanksgiving.

 

[anon_4vszfu35bv677]

If "everyone" includes the likes of you, HHSTF and LWeastDad, I'm quite happy with not seeing what "everyone" is seeing. Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. Look it up if you don't know Spanish.

Sé quiénes son mis amigos, quiénes son tus amigos?

 

[stonedlizard]

That's nice. I used to have a math teacher who would tell us that "fractions are your friends."

I guess we'll see if you still walk with math after Thanksgiving.

Check your convo's