You have a serious problem with putting words into my mouth. I never said I wanted to adopt that system.
(Somewhat) annual first round playoff blowout rant
- Thread starter ramblinman
- Start date
Only team ever to petition up to 8a is Loyola. ESL never did even why they had the option.
ESL petition to the class they had played in since the start of the 8 class system. In this scenario we are not talking class 8 based on enrollment. I assume we are talking based on competition.
You said you favored King MJs proposed formula which is based off of Michigans playoff system.
Sorry, you said you liked his formula. Which is still based on the Mi playoff system. He even linked the mhsaa website when explaining his scenario.
Neither did I say I liked his formula.
Wow.
I did click the like button on his post. In particular, here is what I liked most about it: "I think it well past time that Illinois goes to a more sophisticated playoff algorithm which takes into account strength of schedule and quality of opposition."
Sure, his post contained a link to the formula, but clicking the like button on his post and actually saying that I liked his formula are two different things.
Try quoting me next time instead of thinking that you remembered what you thought I said.
It might be of interest to some of you to review what @stonedlizard came up with several years ago relative to a playoff classification formula based on something other than enrollment alone: https://edgytim.forums.rivals.com/threads/make-the-playoffs-great-again.12046/
They went 3-21 in the first round, One of those wins was against another CPS team.
On Friday night, CPS went 0-11. In those 11 games they scored a total of 41 point with 6 of those CPS schools shut out.
They arent good, not going to argue that. I dont think that means you exclude them from the state playoffs though.
Amen brotha!
Did not realize Michigan went this route. Need a little more context than what's provided in the link to fully comprehend the system, but like what I see. Would appreciate seeing this applied to IL - even if only for 1 or 2 classes.
If I know the ramblinman, what he's 'liking' is a formulaic approach. Michigan being an example of a formulaic approach. California does something similar. It's the approach he's a fan of, not necessarily one states version of that approach over another.
The problem is we all know, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that enrollment based classification does not lead to competitive equity in the playoff classes today.
Better systems exist. Ones that are more fluid and adaptive to the rise and fall of an individual schools talent/competitive level. I see no reason why we shouldn't want the same in IL.
- Football enrollment was an attempt to adjust for this
- The multiplier was an attempt to adjust for this
- The Success Factor was an attempt to adjust for this
- The NIPL is a proposal to adjust for this
Better systems exist. Ones that are more fluid and adaptive to the rise and fall of an individual schools talent/competitive level. I see no reason why we shouldn't want the same in IL.
"I like what King MJ has to say about coming up with a formula" is not the same as saying I like the formula he came up with...which is what you said I said. King MJ says there are a few formulas out there, but he thinks the MI one is the best. Great. I think a formula based on strength of schedule and quality of opposition is very likeable. The MI formula that King MJ likes is not necessarily one that I like.
I do not know how Cal Preps or Massey's work in detail, but I do know they both employ more complex statistical regression modeling.
The approach I outlined is close to what Michigan appears to be doing and what parts of California uses.
- Preseason - classify all teams into one of eight classes
- Regular Season - teams earn "power points" for W/Ls for each game based on their opponent's preseason classification
- Playoffs -
- Determine the 256 qualifiers (no change to current rules)
- Calculate "playoff power points" for each team
- ((Avg power points from prior 2 years * .33) + (Current regular season power points * .66))
- Stack rank teams by playoff power points and assign to classes 1-8
- Example: 8A comprised of the 32 teams with most playoff power points
Last edited:
The michigan formula is the only one Ive seen discussed here, but if there are other I'd be interested to see them. As I mentioned earlier, the opening rd of their playoffs under the new system didn't produce significantly fewer blowouts.
The other part of this scenario that I'm interested in having someone in favor of change chime in on this. If we go to a system where we determine "these 32 teams are our best" and should play each other in the playoffs, what does that do to the other 200+ teams who would otherwise have an opportunity to be considered "state champs" but now we have already told them they are competitively inferior to the top 32?
To add, early round blowouts are just one symptom of our enrollment based classification system.
Private & public schools dominating a class as well as ~25 schools being responsible for vast majority of titles over the past 20 years are equal symptoms of the IHSA playoff approach.
This is initially a fair callout however doesn't hold much water under further scrutiny.
Will Rochester care less in winning a 4A title knowing they had lost to a potential 8A champion?
I think if you tell Rochester, or their fans, they are a "4a" champion because they beat schools with similar size and resources, its something they can feel proud about.
If you tell Rochester they are the "4a" champion because we also determined there are 128 teams we deemed better than you, it doesn't elicit that same feeling of pride or accomplishment.
Personally, if we adopted that type of system I would prefer to only have those top 32 teams compete in the playoffs. I think there would be a considerable decrease in interest in those other 7 brackets.
Did you look at what stonedlizard proposed? https://edgytim.forums.rivals.com/threads/make-the-playoffs-great-again.12046/
I don't think we are saying that "these 32 teams are our best." What we are saying is that these 8 classes are as balanced competitively as we can reasonably make them.
I invite you to change your mindset that classes based on enrollment are the be all and end all. Once you free yourself of that concept, then perhaps you can envision a day when a different system becomes the standard. A few years into that new system and very few will think they are "competitively inferior" to 8A any more than some might think that way now with the obvious difference in competitive level between the smaller and larger classes. Right now, that competitive level difference is solely the result of school size. Under a formulaic system, enrollment will play less of a role...or no role at all.
California employs a few different systems based one what section you're looking at. As of this year, the Southern Section is going straight off stack ranking qualifying teams based on Calpreps ratings to determine their classes & seedings within a class.
In the past they've classified teams pre-season based on their results & success from the prior two years.
People with the Cook and collar county perspective will never get this argument. The average 1A school community in the northwestern part of the state is going to be pretty similar to the average 1A school community in the southeast part of the state...and the system has to be designed to work in the whole state. How do you historic power rank Minonk Fieldcrest, who was 2-7 in '10-11-12, 8-2 in '13, 12-1 in '14, 8-3 in '15, 3-6 in '16, 7-3 in '17, 5-5 in '18, 12-1 in '19, 0-9 in '21...How do you power rank Knoxville in 2A this year, an 8-1 4 seed hammered 42-14 by 5-4 13 seed McNamara on Saturday? You just can't eye test everyone.
The majority of conferences will have good 9-0 teams and okay 5-4 teams. The 9-0 teams presumably beat the 5-4 in their conference and will pound the 5-4 most of the time, but there is the occasional conference where the top is really good. Marengo has the misfortune of being 5-5, losing to teams that are a combined 48-2. It happens...But the only way McNamara gets a shot at a state title this year is for 5-4 teams to make the playoffs. And JCA will hammer whoever they get in the first round...
And this year, what if JCA gets hit with a COVID outbreak and has to forfeit? The bracket is the bracket. LIve with it.
The majority of conferences will have good 9-0 teams and okay 5-4 teams. The 9-0 teams presumably beat the 5-4 in their conference and will pound the 5-4 most of the time, but there is the occasional conference where the top is really good. Marengo has the misfortune of being 5-5, losing to teams that are a combined 48-2. It happens...But the only way McNamara gets a shot at a state title this year is for 5-4 teams to make the playoffs. And JCA will hammer whoever they get in the first round...
And this year, what if JCA gets hit with a COVID outbreak and has to forfeit? The bracket is the bracket. LIve with it.
Who cares what the 4A champion thinks? It's one school out of 256 playoff qualifiers.
In the third post in this thread, kpjasion stated, "I bet if you asked the players on those losing teams if they would rather have had the playoff experience and get blown out, or not had the playoff experience, almost all would rather have played and lost."
If you buy that argument, then I suggest to you that your concern over how playoff qualifiers playing in average to below average competitively balanced classes will not feel pride is unfounded. They'll get used to it. A few years into the new system, and the old enrollment based system will be a distant memory and no longer the standard.
Last edited:
I could not see a system involving a bye ever being approved, unless the season is trimmed by a week somewhere. Otherwise, it would be unfair to FB players who compete in the winter (and their coaches) to eat up another week, especially for the purpose of basically "waiting around."
I don't believe anyone is arguing for an 'eye test' system.
I'd argue that the Michigan, California, and my prior proposal are all examples of formulaic approaches that solve for your McNamara example - a team that is not competitively equal to their 1A enrollment based counterparts.
You need to look at the forest and not the individual trees. I get that there are forest guys and tree guys. You are a tree guy, and I'm a forest guy. I'm saying that we need a better forest, while you seemingly would rather focus on the single trees like Minonk Fieldcrest and continue to manage the existing forest so that the oaks are over here, the elms next to them, and the fir trees way over there, the birches next, followed by the Japanese maples, and so on.
I encourage you to take a step back, and look at the overall forest in a playoff classification system that achieves more competitively balanced classes. Take a look at that overall forest and ask yourself if it looks healthier and more majestic than the over managed forest that segments all trees by size that we currently have.
Once you do that, if it looks good to you, then step inside the forest and see if there are any trees that will infect the others to the extent that the forest will not be able to sustain itself. Adjust accordingly. Transplant a few trees if you need to. Some trees in that forest will undoubtedly be stronger than others. Some will be weaker. Don't allow yourself to get too caught up in the outliers. Focus on the overall condition of the forest.
Not a system based on the eye test, but I think you do need to apply the eye test to the competitive classification system that is chosen and determine if the results of that system look better than what we had.
Last edited:
Should have first draft of 7A done tonight to make this a bit less theoretical.
"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."....How is that not essentially saying that 8a is our best class? He even referenced the system to the EPL and their promotion/relegation system.
Im apathetic to the enrollment based system so I certainly wont have an issue freeing myself of that concept. I just haven't seen a system that I think is significantly better, or without its own warts.
We don't say that 8A is the best class now but it essentially is. With rare exception, the highest level of football, relative to the other classes, is played in 8A. That is to say that the average 8A qualifier is almost always better than the average 7A qualifier, 6A qualifier, and so on down to 1A. You know it's true, but we just don't go out of our way to say that the 8A qualifiers are the best. Neither would we do that in a system that is not enrollment based.
Last edited:
Yes, that is true. But in that new, proposed system it would not only give teams the opportunity to move up in class with success, but down in class in the absence of success. The motivation would clearly be to be in 8a, or at minimum move above your currently assigned class. Right now, its "assumed" that the best class is 8a. The new system would eliminate the guess work and debate, and the 8a class would identify your top 32 teams. Using the English soccer leagues as the example, it would be like someone trying to argue that the EPL isn't the top league, but rather they are all equal and simply grouped that way to be competitive with each other.
Where's the issue with this though? It's already by and large the case today.
If you're going to argue that any success below 8A in a competitive equity based structure is meaningless because a team is not in the highest competitive classification, then you might as well scrap any playoff classes and go to one overall playoff bracket.
Even if moving up to 8A is assumed to be the goal in a competitive equity based system (which I don't agree would necessarily be the case), one would still have to win their way there. Those wins would be celebrated.
What may be missed (and I don't blame you, that was a lengthy thread) is in that proposed system, one can't just simply win any class and qualify towards 8A the next year. Teams move up towards 8A as they prove, over multiple years, that they are consistently outperforming their class. Not only playoff success, but also with their regular season strength of schedule and success. Their peers are no longer their peers in terms of competitive equity and they move up to the next group.
That type of success is measured at a program level. A kid with ~two years of varsity opportunity is going to celebrate the success they're able to achieve now, regardless of what class they may fall in, like they already do today.
No, im not arguing that success below 8a is meaningless. But it would certainly be different than what is currently in place today because you are placing them in "competitive classifications" instead of "enrollment classifications". The IHSA, similar to English soccer and EPL, would identify their "premier" teams in their hierarchical classification system. Wins on their way to 8a (or any jump in classification) should be celebrated. But that is also my point. There is a clear incentive or motivation to be in a higher class. Which again would lead one to naturally feel or believe a lower class is inferior. And those feelings or beliefs would be justified the closer you look at how and why each team was placed in the class they were in.
So you agree that a higher level of football is played in the upper classes currently, but because we classify by enrollment people don't focus on the lower level of football in the lower classes.
Sounds like you are suggesting that we have successfully hoodwinked small schools and their communities into placing greater value on their participation in those lower classes than should actually be placed. And, for that reason, we shouldn't classify competitively lest we let the cat out of the bag???
