Gentlemen and Rolling Meadow's Moms, not too long ago there was a great thread amongst a dirty dozen posters debating the ins and outs of the existing playoff classification process. The main question at hand - does enrollment based playoff classification provide a suitable means for ensuring competitive balance across a given class?
A myriad of arguments were made for both sides..."enrollment works fine for publics but not privates"...."there are too many early round blowouts"..."blowouts are a given"...."what about Rochester?"...etc, etc, but the conversation ultimately stalled due to a lack of formal alternative. If enrollment based didn't work, what could replace it? How would that system work? What were the details? These questions proved to be the great wall of Mexico preventing constructive thought moving between the two countries of ideology.
Being a bit data driven/scientific method minded, thought of this as an opportunity to see if, perhaps, an alternative to enrollment based classifications could be devised. My findings follow. This may be a bit long, so I'll add some headers to those who wish to see the pure results. With that in mind, let's kick things off...
Warning: Nerd Analysis Alert :Warning
The Theory:
Enrollment based classification has not proven to be an adequate classification means for providing competitive equity across a given class. This is proven through the need to "reclassify" certain privates via the success factor, the success of certain publics not subject to the success factor within specific classes, the number of early round blowouts, and the consistent winning of titles by a relatively small number of schools (both private and public). I should note that in no way does the following system completely eliminate any of the above issues. However, I do feel that it addresses and reduces the likelihood of each. There will always be a handful of blowouts. There will always be a team that can run through their given class (unless we adopted my previously proposed Open class, story for another day though
).
The Concept:
Competition is good. Teams/High School students learn more and become better through competition. Competing against teams of equal or relatively close to equal strengths/weaknesses, ie competitive balance, is more valuable than competing against teams of far greater/lesser competitive equity. Over time, schools will generally prove where they fall on a competitive equity scale. We can use data to prove and classify these schools appropriately.
The first requirement for this system is to accept that we are moving away from 1-8A enrollment based classifications. Erase that concept from your mind for the purposes of reading the rest of this post. Instead, imagine something similar to the Premier League in the UK. Classes group teams with other teams based on an approximation of competitive balance across the class. As teams prove that they are consistently better than their current class, they are moved up to the next level (1A to 2A). If they continue to prove they are better than that class, they are moved up again. If they have some success, some failure, they may remain. Finally, if that class proves to be too much over time, they may fall back down. This is a fluid system, teams may spike for a a few years before regressing. They may also plummet a few years before regressing.
This is also not an attempt to "punish" or "prevent" successful teams from winning championships. With the Premier League model, simply qualifying for the top league is a massive achievement for some squads. The same concept applies here. The 32nd seed in the NWO 8A is a massive achievement, it means you have proven over the course of your recent history, strength of schedule and the results of the current season that you are a top level program. Something to respect and cherish. I can imagine the number of "8A or 7A qualifications" becoming measuring stick of sorts for some of the top level programs today. However, this does not take away from any of the lower levels in the same sense that a 3A championship isn't belittled in today's world by the fact that they aren't 8A. Every eventual champion is a proven winner and champ amongst their peers.
Finally, let's reward risk and challenging oneself. Enough of the "whoa is me" "safe spaces". To be the best, beat the best. Teams that are willing to schedule tough opponents, whether they win or lose, should be rewarded for that willingness. If they happen to win, it should reflect in how that team is judged and classified. Teams that consistently win over time against other top teams should be rewarded with the chance to play and beat the best to prove their supremacy.
How it works:
On to the good stuff. I will freely admit that this is somewhat based on how the Southern SIC section of California with a little of my own twist. Follow along closely....
The process begins by acknowledging that under a "competitive equity" system playing a team above or below you in class should be treated accordingly. Playing a team above you in class, and beating that team, should be 'worth' more than beating a team in your class or below. Alternatively, playing and beating a team 'below' you in class should be worth less than playing and beating a team in your own class. Playing a playoff game in your class should also be 'worth' more than playing a regular season game against an opponent in your class.
This concept gives us a point - we'll call these power points - system we can apply to each game based on the class your opponent was in...
Class - Regular Season W - Regular Season L - Playoff W - Playoff L
8A - 64 - 52 - 72 - 60
7A - 56 - 44 - 64 - 52
6A - 48 - 36 - 56 - 44
5A - 40 - 28 - 48 - 36
4A - 32 - 20 - 40 - 28
3A - 24 - 12 - 32 - 20
2A - 16 - 4 - 24 - 12
1A - 8 - (-4) - 16 - 4
Meaning I get 64 power points for beating an 8A opponent in the regular season, 52 for losing. I get 32 power points for beating a 4A opponent in the regular season, and 20 for losing, etc.
Now, let's go back in time to the beginning of this year, and pretend we have now cutover to this new system...
A myriad of arguments were made for both sides..."enrollment works fine for publics but not privates"...."there are too many early round blowouts"..."blowouts are a given"...."what about Rochester?"...etc, etc, but the conversation ultimately stalled due to a lack of formal alternative. If enrollment based didn't work, what could replace it? How would that system work? What were the details? These questions proved to be the great wall of Mexico preventing constructive thought moving between the two countries of ideology.
Being a bit data driven/scientific method minded, thought of this as an opportunity to see if, perhaps, an alternative to enrollment based classifications could be devised. My findings follow. This may be a bit long, so I'll add some headers to those who wish to see the pure results. With that in mind, let's kick things off...
Warning: Nerd Analysis Alert :Warning
The Theory:
Enrollment based classification has not proven to be an adequate classification means for providing competitive equity across a given class. This is proven through the need to "reclassify" certain privates via the success factor, the success of certain publics not subject to the success factor within specific classes, the number of early round blowouts, and the consistent winning of titles by a relatively small number of schools (both private and public). I should note that in no way does the following system completely eliminate any of the above issues. However, I do feel that it addresses and reduces the likelihood of each. There will always be a handful of blowouts. There will always be a team that can run through their given class (unless we adopted my previously proposed Open class, story for another day though
).The Concept:
Competition is good. Teams/High School students learn more and become better through competition. Competing against teams of equal or relatively close to equal strengths/weaknesses, ie competitive balance, is more valuable than competing against teams of far greater/lesser competitive equity. Over time, schools will generally prove where they fall on a competitive equity scale. We can use data to prove and classify these schools appropriately.
The first requirement for this system is to accept that we are moving away from 1-8A enrollment based classifications. Erase that concept from your mind for the purposes of reading the rest of this post. Instead, imagine something similar to the Premier League in the UK. Classes group teams with other teams based on an approximation of competitive balance across the class. As teams prove that they are consistently better than their current class, they are moved up to the next level (1A to 2A). If they continue to prove they are better than that class, they are moved up again. If they have some success, some failure, they may remain. Finally, if that class proves to be too much over time, they may fall back down. This is a fluid system, teams may spike for a a few years before regressing. They may also plummet a few years before regressing.
This is also not an attempt to "punish" or "prevent" successful teams from winning championships. With the Premier League model, simply qualifying for the top league is a massive achievement for some squads. The same concept applies here. The 32nd seed in the NWO 8A is a massive achievement, it means you have proven over the course of your recent history, strength of schedule and the results of the current season that you are a top level program. Something to respect and cherish. I can imagine the number of "8A or 7A qualifications" becoming measuring stick of sorts for some of the top level programs today. However, this does not take away from any of the lower levels in the same sense that a 3A championship isn't belittled in today's world by the fact that they aren't 8A. Every eventual champion is a proven winner and champ amongst their peers.
Finally, let's reward risk and challenging oneself. Enough of the "whoa is me" "safe spaces". To be the best, beat the best. Teams that are willing to schedule tough opponents, whether they win or lose, should be rewarded for that willingness. If they happen to win, it should reflect in how that team is judged and classified. Teams that consistently win over time against other top teams should be rewarded with the chance to play and beat the best to prove their supremacy.
How it works:
On to the good stuff. I will freely admit that this is somewhat based on how the Southern SIC section of California with a little of my own twist. Follow along closely....
The process begins by acknowledging that under a "competitive equity" system playing a team above or below you in class should be treated accordingly. Playing a team above you in class, and beating that team, should be 'worth' more than beating a team in your class or below. Alternatively, playing and beating a team 'below' you in class should be worth less than playing and beating a team in your own class. Playing a playoff game in your class should also be 'worth' more than playing a regular season game against an opponent in your class.
This concept gives us a point - we'll call these power points - system we can apply to each game based on the class your opponent was in...
Class - Regular Season W - Regular Season L - Playoff W - Playoff L
8A - 64 - 52 - 72 - 60
7A - 56 - 44 - 64 - 52
6A - 48 - 36 - 56 - 44
5A - 40 - 28 - 48 - 36
4A - 32 - 20 - 40 - 28
3A - 24 - 12 - 32 - 20
2A - 16 - 4 - 24 - 12
1A - 8 - (-4) - 16 - 4
Meaning I get 64 power points for beating an 8A opponent in the regular season, 52 for losing. I get 32 power points for beating a 4A opponent in the regular season, and 20 for losing, etc.
Now, let's go back in time to the beginning of this year, and pretend we have now cutover to this new system...
- The first thing we'll do is go back over the past two years (2014 and 2015)and calculate the total number of power points each team has earned based on the above table.
- For 2014/2015, we'll have to calculate power points based on the opponents enrollment based classification. So Morton is 8A for these purposes (in 2017 you would have 1 historical year of enrollment based classification, and 1 historical year of power point based, 2018 would be all power point based).
- Once totaled for each team, we can separate them into 8 equal "pre season" classifications. Here's are the top power points based on 2014/2015...
- Glen Ellyn (Glenbard West)
Flossmoor (Homewood-F.)
Cary (C.-Grove)
Libertyville
Lincolnshire (Stevenson)
Aurora (Waubonsie Valley)
Naperville (Central)
Wilmette (Loyola Academy)
Palatine (H.S.)
Winnetka (New Trier) - These teams become part of the 68 "8A Preseason teams" for 2016. Anyone who plays them will earn the 8A level power points from the table above. For those that are interested, Montini, PR, SHG, Rochester, Naz also earned pre season 8A classifications.
- At the end of 2016 regular season, we apply the same logic from table above, using the pre season classifications, to results of the regular season games
- What we're left with is a power point total from the past two seasons + playoffs (how historically good are they?) and a power point total from this regular season (how'd they do this year). To that we apply a simple formula to get a weighted point total...
- ((Average Points from past two years)*1/3)+(Current year regular season Points*2/3)
- This gives us the power point total we will use for playoff classification purposes in place of enrollment numbers used today
