|
Post by chspc2 on Dec 14, 2013 9:26:30 GMT -6
Part 5
I've read a lot of what it takes to have a winning and successful team......and I don't disagree with that. The club ball system in Louisiana has improved a lot and I think High School ball has improved tremendously due to that fact. It does start with the local club and rec leagues to generate interest and improvement. And of course it takes a coach dedicated and knowledgable about soccer to be successful at the high school level. I don't disagree at all with anyone about that!
I'm not saying that dividing the state championship is going to magically transform the small schools into powerhouses. My point in this is that growth in high school soccer has to come from the smaller schools. The numbers prove my point.....not as many 1A, B, and C schools play soccer as the rest of the classifications.....and I know the reasons for it are varied! So how do we get smaller schools involved? Let's start with getting those small schools out of having to play larger schools for a state championship.......is this the cure all......probably not! But it's a start. It's one way to start to "even the playing field". Small schools offer a unique experience to students that they can't get from a larger school. There is a chance for more involvement in everything from clubs to sports. Have you ever seen a letterman jacket from a student at a small school? They are full of different sports! The point is that we do have a limited amount of athletes to choose from. A small school can do everything right (and legal!) and can honestly say that they can never win a state championship......and history has proven that! Is this fair? Life is unfair, I'm not that unrealistic to realize that life is unfair sometimes. But in my opinion, this is inherently unfair......the football select schools went crazy when they were going to put 1A and 2A select schools together for a state championship.......they eventually split 2A away from 1A. And that's what I am going for here......split up division III to "even the playing field". Most coaches I talk to from other sports can't believe we have to compete against 3A schools for playoffs. Looking at all the sports and how they are divided, soccer has the biggest discrepancy with the size of schools within a division (Division III).
I think it's time to split it up. It's not about money or giving a trophy to every participant.....it's about growing the sport (and yes they are other ways to help grow the sport) and making a system a little fairer to all.
I'm sure there will be a part 6 and beyond!!
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Dec 14, 2013 9:46:51 GMT -6
I've just had a chance to go thru the school listing that was posted (I have no clue where those divisions are). We play our 3rd 5A school of the season today. We're the underdog in all of those games, but we've grown as a team.
But I will tell you that when 3A Lusher Charter had to play the "small" 1A Country Day 2 years ago for a total of 3 times (twice in District & once in the playoffs), we certainly did not feel sorry for them. And had they been in a 5th tier (the smallest) that year, none of the 1A, 1B, nor 1C schools would've been feeling the love.
My point is that there is an ebb-and-flow to soccer (probably all sports). But I'm not sure that 5 tiers based only on size is the best criteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 9:50:25 GMT -6
I am not directly involved with this debate. My son attends a 5A school. However, many centuries ago, I graduated from a very small, private catholic school. Across all sports we competed against much larger 3 and 4A schools. (Back then 4A was the largest classification.) Throwball, basketball. track meets, etc.
So I am aware of the unique situations that exist at small schools. Then again, in those days we just understood that a win was a win and a loss was a loss. There were no long term psychological implications associated with not being able to beat a team based on our 'disadvantages'.
In other words, we were able to accept reality. And that is something lacking in our society today. And it is setting up current and future generations for failure! It happens with academics, sports and nearly every facet of our youth's lives.
In our quest for a utopian, "fair, and everyone-is-equal" world, we are actually making things worse.
So, playing d3 for district and then creating a separate playoff bracket (especially given the small number) for the smallest schools sets a bad precedent. (Just as it has done for throwball.)
So, the only real solution (assuming there is a solution) is to create a 4th division for the smallest schools. With say an 8 team playoff bracket system.
But, as others have pointed out, being small in terms of enrollment is not the kiss of death for all hs soccer programs.
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Dec 15, 2013 12:46:03 GMT -6
Really Todd? Ask Lutheran how they feel today
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 14:08:07 GMT -6
Really Todd? Ask Lutheran how they feel today Context Ray..context. That game should have never been played. Second, I'm not against creating a 4th division for small schools. That's much more realistic than having a separate postseason playoff bracket. Why has that not been brought up? (Other than myself.)
|
|
|
Post by chspc2 on Dec 15, 2013 15:45:23 GMT -6
A 4th division would be great except for one thing. How would you do districts? About half the schools are in New Orleans but everywhere else is spread out. Keeping division III intact suring the year at least gives schools definite games and fairly close because of district play. Then separate them out at playoff time. Just like what football did this year.
|
|
|
Post by HCSsoccer on Dec 15, 2013 15:59:23 GMT -6
It is quite oblivious that Coach Goodman has done his homework on this issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 16:45:36 GMT -6
A 4th division would be great except for one thing. How would you do districts? About half the schools are in New Orleans but everywhere else is spread out. Keeping division III intact suring the year at least gives schools definite games and fairly close because of district play. Then separate them out at playoff time. Just like what football did this year. Tat's not exactly what they did with throwball. They separated 'select' from nonselect schools with enrollment being the second criteria. So, now there are what 8 or 9 different 'state championships' for throwball? I completely disagree with this. First, families most often choose where they want to live...and part of that selection process involves school choice. granted, the kids don't always get to make that choice. But such is life. That doesn't mean we water everything down in the interest of 'fairness'. The vast majority of 'small school' soccer programs are private/parochial schools. Again, a matter of CHOICE! Not sure on the logistics/cost of setting up districts for a 5th division. Then again, there would be costs associated with a separate playoff bracket as well. Now, we all know schools (not just private either) recruit students in one form or another. But soccer prowess/success/results are not always skewed to enrollment. What about Northlake, Vandy, etc?
|
|
|
Post by chspc2 on Dec 15, 2013 17:15:09 GMT -6
When I referred to throwball, I meant how the districts were mixed.......but when it came to playoff time, they separated the schools. I never said anything about select- non select for soccer. You're talking a whole different thing. We leave division III the same as far as districts go but at the end of the year separate according to classifications.....3A schools play for a championship, 2A plays for a championship, and the rest play for a championship. This allows no reorganization as far as divisions and districts. It also allows schools to be able to get a definite number of games due to having to play district games. Nice and simple!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 17:30:36 GMT -6
It is quite oblivious that Coach Goodman has done his homework on this issue. Of course he has. That's to be expected. And, while I respect his intentions I don't necessarily agree. Again, because of the precedent this will set. Where will it end? Will there be a "Class D, Rural Schools" division? Using D1, district 1 as an example: Why do Southwood and Haughton struggle in soccer year after year? Answer: Because soccer isn't a priority for them. They don't attract soccer players. And yet they continue to field teams year after year. I'm all for some sort of compromise. But this to me isn't the answer. The real issue is that there's way too much emphasis on the results rather than the competition (and its true meaning.) The truth is, there's very little a coach (especially a hs coach) can do to really improve a player. Without a technical 'base' of skill (which come from natural ability but more importantly the hard work of said player) there is little a coach can do. He can only work with what he/she has. Two simple yet (obviously) misunderstood points. 1. There's no such thing as a "level playing field". Never has been. 2. Adding another state championship bracket will not bring soccer to places like Winnfield, Hornbeck, Campti, Jonesboro-Hodge, Kinder, Columbia, Florien, Zwolle, Calhoun, Ville Platte et. al.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 18:20:14 GMT -6
When I referred to throwball, I meant how the districts were mixed.......but when it came to playoff time, they separated the schools. I never said anything about select- non select for soccer. You're talking a whole different thing. We leave division III the same as far as districts go but at the end of the year separate according to classifications.....3A schools play for a championship, 2A plays for a championship, and the rest play for a championship. This allows no reorganization as far as divisions and districts. It also allows schools to be able to get a definite number of games due to having to play district games. Nice and simple! Again, I have to ask, what is the objective? The real objective? You want a separate (yet somehow equal) playoff system? Great. But 17 'small' schools making the playoffs is ridiculous! There's no point. How about 8? (2 'tournament' style brackets of 4 teams each...bracket winners play for a state championship...sorry, league championship! Because calling it a state championship with a handful of participating teams sounds a lot more like a league tournament to me.
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Dec 16, 2013 19:04:18 GMT -6
I'll weigh in now after reading a lot on this. First off, I'll add some historical perspective--I have coached at two 5A public "contender schools," East Ascension and St Amant, and now I am coaching at a 1A private school-Ascension Christian. The differences in team makeup are like night and day. There is NO COMPARISON Between the way teams are formed at the large schools, and those at a small school. At St Amant, I had 53 players, all boys, a freshman team, and 20+ club players. At Ascension Christian, I have 19 players, 9 of which are girls, 4 club players, and only 1 player in my starting 11 is older than a freshman (and hes a sophomore). We are smaller, slower, and weaker, and have trouble contending with ANYONE. Our best ability to compete has been against smaller schools more similar to ours (Riverside, 1-0 loss, and Houma Christian 0-0 tie). We recently played St Amants JV and lost 5-0 and it was only because of the grace of St Amant's coach not running it up on us (NOTE TO TIMBERTWIN AND THE FOLKS AT BONNABEL--YA DONT HAVE TO!) The most glaring differences were physical.
a quick bit of info for everybody--there is no difference in enrollment amounts for 1A and B schools. The only difference between a B school and a 1A school is that a 1A school competes in football.
The average 1A School fields a team of 16-18, many of which may be below 9th grade, and will start a few of them. Most 3A schoolsstart mostly 10th and above. Thae ability for 1A schools to compete is very limited with schools larger than them. Its stays that way exponentially as we increase in A class--its harder for 2 and 3A schools to play 4A, 4A to play 5A. The reality of 1A schools competing against 5A schools is limited. In 2 to 3 years, as I continue to cultivate Ascension Christian, we'll inevitably schedule EA, St Amant, and Dutchtown (we're playing their JV teams this season), but I'll expect us to be on the shortside of the score line.
Another thing to consider is that many of the non club soccer athletes who participate in HS soccer are multi sport athletes who play all sports year round. I have 4 girls who play softball, 3 that play softball and volleyball, 4 football players--two who also play baseball--and 4 additional baseball players. The average 1A Athlete is a resource that is tapped in many different directions by their school. The idea that these kids will be able to commit to the intense training and travel regimen dictated by club soccer is ludicrous. These kids play for their school and thats where their love is--more to play soccer for their school than to play soccer. There is no real long term continued development--they learn and grow while playing in the season, maybe during some summer 7v7 and workouts, but it will stay limited. The 1A soccer athlete is an athlete first and a soccer player second.
As for the district play issues--Coach Goodmans proposal is EXACTLY like football--schools will stay in districts for play, then be split into A class for state tournament play. Districts are rapidly becoming obsolete as well needed powerpoint systems are taking their place. In reality, districts were always worthless as they symbolized nothing except geographic proximity of like sized schools for scheduling purposes. School administrators like districts because it gives them some commonality between the same schools in all sports. We will see the eventual replacement of districts with the formation of leagues (which will eliminate the ridiculous arguement about promotion and relegation--but thats a different argument for another day.)
I listen to all the "arguements" about this proposal being bad or wrong, and I come up with 3 major talking points:
1) Some of you have complained about the usage of "fairness", saying that we are too preoccupied with fairness and it waters down competition. But, the hypocracy kicks in, as the part of the argument against the fairness concept is that it wouldnt be fair to the 5A teams who "toil in anonymity". Really? So is fairness really an issue, or is it a matter of "envy" that these 1A schools may get something that 5A wont have? It cant be unfair for 1A and 2A schools to have their own playoff, because its unfair for 5A's not to. I dont get that.
2) There is A class play in most every other sport--why is soccer so unable to do this? There are more schools participating now, and eventually there will be more. I do beleive that there will be a growth of schools in the lower A classes, but I dont think it will be drastic. Still, growth is growth and growth is a good thing.
3) Why is having more championship play and more teams involved in the playoffs a bad thing? So many folks thought the football split would cause the ground to crumble beneath our feet, yet, more folks came to watch prep footall playoff games than ever before, more teams got involved, more revenue was generated for both schools and LHSAA and really everybody won. I dont think any team who made the playoffs this year wondered whether or not they "deserved" to be there or not. They were just happy to take part in the experience. That is NOT a bad thing. We had the same "concerns" about how "watered down" the product would be in club soccer when the new league structure was created. Despite some speedbumps as the system was worked out the new league play system is widely embraced by all and has become a success. And for the record--I was a vocal objector to the league during its formation not because it would be formed, but because I wanted to see those aforementioned speedbumps ironed out BEFORE its implementation. In the end more teams, more championships, more kids playing and a pretty cool system. And the biggest reality is that nobody has any misconceptions about where they stand. Just like if this is passed--no 1A school will be calling themselves the "new Jesuit" if they win a 1A state title--they'll appreciate it exactly for what it is.
My only concern/objection is the desire to implement this system midseason. I would ask Coach Goodman to amend the proposal to go into effect for the 2014-15, as I believe that would be more consistent with the current process, eliminate controversy, and make it easier to pass without objection. Lets get behind this proposal and vote it in. Its a good thing for that game--as kids will be able to COMPETE at a level they'll be consistent with. Thats what this is all about. Our job as educators is to teach life lessons through sports and encourage young people to set goals, work hard for success, and become better people. I'm pretty sure this will help.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Dec 17, 2013 7:09:02 GMT -6
I'm not sure about all making playoffs but I do like dividing the state championships. It won't affect big schools much but will allow smaller schools to compete.
As many who are much more knowledgeable than I have said, growth in high school soccer will come from smaller schools. And growth on the high school side will mostly likely help grow the sport in other areas like rec and select.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Dec 17, 2013 8:14:11 GMT -6
After reading all of your comments and thoughts... I will first say that all of you had well thought out arguments both for and against. I think every argument that could have come up, has.
Now for my take... While soccer may always be best seperated by quality of teams... it will never happen in the LHSAA. As a VP of the LHSSCA, I always look for ways to grow the sport. The majority of growth needs to happen at the smaller school level. Soccer is a very inexpensive sport to start up in comparison with the other sports. In order to that, I have always been if favor of adding a fourth division (equal dividing) and using the volleyball model of 24 team playoff brackets, around 36-38 teams per division, etc...
Peter Goodman contacted me about proposing this and I told him to work on it and get with his prinicpal as we were working on finalizing the power ratings and OT/PK regular season elimination proposals. Peter decided to change directions at the last minute and came up with this. At first I was very doubtful that it would pass. But as I looked into it more... it was more and more like the football precedent. No one at LHSAA could say this is too much as it has already been done this year for football. While this doesn't do much for Division I and II, I do think it will do wonders for Div III. I have no problem with a new Class A soccer champ! This idea that it is meaningless as the Div I (5A) champion is the real champion is bogus. Teams compete in divisions or classifications that give them all equal chances based on enrollment. If you don't think enrollment is a huge factor in the quality of players you have to choose from, then you are just dillusional. Of course divisions based on quality would be better... but in absence of that even being possible, I think we need to do something more with our divisions based on enrollment. I think we should get behind this proposal by Catholic PC and pass it. While I do believe it will not be able to go through this year (finals have already been booked and it would not be able to be changed this late, especially with Mardi Gras holidays being the same weekend this year)... I think it should be edited for 2014-2015 start and passed. Even if this only adds 10 teams over the next 5 years... it will be worth it! I think you will see more than 10 teams join... I think this will speed up the sports growth... and any growth is good!
While I am a proponent of the strong survives, the best rise to the top, learn from mistakes and failures, and not everyone should be a winner as losing makes us all stronger and strive for better... I do think that in this case, having 2 more champions brackets will be a good thing overall.
|
|
|
Post by chspc2 on Dec 17, 2013 8:35:22 GMT -6
I am willing to change the date to implement from this year to next year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2013 9:45:28 GMT -6
Chad, Ray and Coach Goodman have framed compelling arguments. I have to admit that.
I am well aware that small schools have to deal with lower player numbers. (Relative to larger schools, Even though the problem exists in some larger schools as well.)
The 'purist' in me wants to not only grow the sport..but also to see the level of play rise. And I also know that the growth will come from not only the smaller schools but also the more rural traditional public schools.
Further, I'd like to see the restrictions on high school soccer lifted. Using baseball as an example. They essentially train and compete together as teams nearly year round. Especially in the summer months.
And I make no apologies for wanting soccer to be elevated in popularity and interest...and that will likely have to come at the expense of other sports. Realistic? Probably not. At least not in the immediate future.
Select/club soccer has played a vital role in developing soccer players. No question. Although I have realized that spending 5-6K a year on club soccer is not a prerequisite to becoming an exceptional player.
Ideally, I would like to see a championship for every classification. And while 'select' and 'private' schools can have certain advantages, there is no realistic way to be 'fair' across the board.
For the record, successful or not, I think the throwball playoff system implemented is wrong. Some schools are better than others. Whether it is academics or athletics.
There seems to be an obsession in our society with equality and fairness...where people are graded on a curve and winning takes priority over competing and the lessons learned from losing.
That is why I have been against this trend that has now seemingly taken over high school and youth sports.
I can support a separate state championship for the smaller schools. I'm just concerned about where this will take the sport. it may grow participation in terms of numbers of programs.
But the ultimate goal should be (my opinion) is to not only grow participation, but raise the level of play. And that can only happen by having more "fulltime" soccer players.
Soccer just isn't a sport one can play well for 3-4 months out of the year. And that is an across-the-board issue in this state. Not just amongst the smaller schools.
Enrollment plays a factor no doubt. But it isn't the only variable. There is a distinct overlap in team quality between the divisions. Just as it is in college soccer.
Be nice if there was some type of "Champions league" competition separate from divisional championships.
One can dream...
Again, great work gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Dec 17, 2013 15:59:27 GMT -6
I know there's been some discussion of power ratings in this thread and elsewhere. I figured I'd go ahead and post this here. IMO we should all be as informed as possible on these proposals so that we can make our opinions known to our principals.
I looked at all six tournament brackets from last year (DI, II, and III for girls and boys). I think the coaches do a good job in terms of seeding the teams. But how would the power ratings do? For each playoff matchup, I looked at what the coaches seeding would predict and what the power rating would predict. This is what I came up with:
2013 D1 girls seedings: 14-2 1st round 8-0 2nd round 4-0 3rd round 2-0 semis 0-1 final 28-3 total
power ratings: 11-5 1st round 7-1 2nd round... 4-0 2-0 1-0 25-6 total
2013 D2 girls seedings: 7-1 1st round 7-1 2nd... 3-1 1-1 0-1 18-5 total
power ratings: 6-2 1st round 8-0 2nd... 3-1 1-1 0-1 18-5 total
2013 D3 girls seedings: 13-3 1st 6-2 2nd 3-1 1-1 0-1 23-8 total
power ratings: 13-3 7-1 3-1 1-1 0-1 24-7 total
2013 D1 boys seedings: 16-0 8-0 3-1 1-1 1-0 29-2 total
power ratings: 15-1 8-0 4-0 0-2 1-0 28-3 total
2013 D2 boys seedings: 8-0 7-1 3-1 2-0 1-0 21-2 total
power ratings: 8-0 7-1 3-1 2-0 1-0 21-2 total
2013 D3 boys seedings: 15-1 6-2 2-2 2-0 0-1 25-6 total
power ratings: 15-1 6-2 2-2 2-0 0-1 26-5 total
As you can see, there's no big difference in terms of predictive power between the coaches' seedings and the power ratings. Obviously, this is partly because the coaches are likely influenced by the power ratings. I personally have to ask: if it isn't broken, why fix it? Power ratings do not appear to be a clearly better way of seeding teams. And there is always the chance that some teams would try to game the system, or that certain regions of the state could have an inflated power rating. Furthermore, while the 15-game "minimum" would likely encourage some teams to schedule more matches, power ratings look only at the opponents wins. A win over a 2-6 team counts less than a win over a 4-12 team, even though the two teams have identical winning percentages. A team that plays in a district where most of the other teams only play a bare minimum district slate would be unfairly disadvantaged.
On the other hand, would power ratings be better at determining which teams make the playoffs? Currently the top two from each district go in, along with the teams with the best division record. Power ratings would see only district champs qualify automatically, with the rest of the bracket filled out by teams with the best power rating. I tried to go through the brackets and power rating from last year and determine which teams would have gotten in under the power rating proposals, and which teams they would have replaced. It's possible there may be some mistakes (I checked to make sure that each district got a team in, but I didn't check for co-champions or to see which team actually won the district), and I'm not sure if or how the proposed calculation differs from what was on last year's spreadsheet. But here's what I figured (teams listed as "in" would have gotten into the playoffs had power ratings been used last year):
D1 girls in: Chapelle, Airline out: Destrehan, Thomas Jefferson
D2 girls in: Wossman, South Terrebonne out: Belle Chasse, Minden
D3 girls in: North Caddo, St. Martin’s out: Fisher, Lusher
D1 boys in: Rummel, Pineville out: Ehret, Covington
D2 boys in: Leesville out: West Ouachita
D3 boys in: Evangel, Pope John Paul, Redemptorist, Opelousas Catholic
out: Houma Christian, Lafayette Christian, Ouachita Christian, Grace Christian
As you can see, the vast majority of the qualifiers would be the same. I don't really know enough about most of these divisions to say whether the teams that would've gotten in under power ratings are better than the teams that actually did make it. I will point out, however, that for the D1 girls Airline had a couple of good results against playoff teams, while Chapelle beat Destrehan twice and Thomas Jefferson once during the regular season.
So would power ratings be a better way of selecting teams to make the playoffs? One advantage is that teams wouldn't be so afraid to schedule games against comparable same-division opponents (perhaps this might make a Bonnabel-Lutheran match less likely). A loss to a decent same-division team wouldn't be as harmful as it is now.
My personal opinion is that there's no real advantage to using power ratings for seedings. However, I do think that power ratings would be better than the current use of division records in determining the playoff seeds. I don't know if it's feasible for the two parts of the proposal to be split up so that power ratings would determine the qualifying teams, which would then be seeded by the coaches. I don't know if that would pass if someone tried to amend it (or if the LHSAA would allow that amendment to the current proposal).
I'd like to hear the arguments about whether power ratings would produce a better playoff field and improve the regular season (by encouraging more same-division matchups between good teams). I can't decide whether those advantages outweigh the risk of power ratings screwing up the seeding.
|
|
|
Post by newosoccerfan on Jan 24, 2014 20:04:35 GMT -6
When is the vote on this?
NewO
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 24, 2014 20:29:09 GMT -6
When is the vote on this? NewO Next Friday
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Jan 24, 2014 22:43:35 GMT -6
I know there's been some discussion of power ratings in this thread and elsewhere. I figured I'd go ahead and post this here. IMO we should all be as informed as possible on these proposals so that we can make our opinions known to our principals. I looked at all six tournament brackets from last year (DI, II, and III for girls and boys). I think the coaches do a good job in terms of seeding the teams. But how would the power ratings do? For each playoff matchup, I looked at what the coaches seeding would predict and what the power rating would predict. This is what I came up with: 2013 D1 girls seedings: 14-2 1st round 8-0 2nd round 4-0 3rd round 2-0 semis 0-1 final 28-3 total power ratings: 11-5 1st round 7-1 2nd round... 4-0 2-0 1-0 25-6 total 2013 D2 girls seedings: 7-1 1st round 7-1 2nd... 3-1 1-1 0-1 18-5 total power ratings: 6-2 1st round 8-0 2nd... 3-1 1-1 0-1 18-5 total 2013 D3 girls seedings: 13-3 1st 6-2 2nd 3-1 1-1 0-1 23-8 total power ratings: 13-3 7-1 3-1 1-1 0-1 24-7 total 2013 D1 boys seedings: 16-0 8-0 3-1 1-1 1-0 29-2 total power ratings: 15-1 8-0 4-0 0-2 1-0 28-3 total 2013 D2 boys seedings: 8-0 7-1 3-1 2-0 1-0 21-2 total power ratings: 8-0 7-1 3-1 2-0 1-0 21-2 total 2013 D3 boys seedings: 15-1 6-2 2-2 2-0 0-1 25-6 total power ratings: 15-1 6-2 2-2 2-0 0-1 26-5 total As you can see, there's no big difference in terms of predictive power between the coaches' seedings and the power ratings. Obviously, this is partly because the coaches are likely influenced by the power ratings. I personally have to ask: if it isn't broken, why fix it? Power ratings do not appear to be a clearly better way of seeding teams. And there is always the chance that some teams would try to game the system, or that certain regions of the state could have an inflated power rating. Furthermore, while the 15-game "minimum" would likely encourage some teams to schedule more matches, power ratings look only at the opponents wins. A win over a 2-6 team counts less than a win over a 4-12 team, even though the two teams have identical winning percentages. A team that plays in a district where most of the other teams only play a bare minimum district slate would be unfairly disadvantaged. On the other hand, would power ratings be better at determining which teams make the playoffs? Currently the top two from each district go in, along with the teams with the best division record. Power ratings would see only district champs qualify automatically, with the rest of the bracket filled out by teams with the best power rating. I tried to go through the brackets and power rating from last year and determine which teams would have gotten in under the power rating proposals, and which teams they would have replaced. It's possible there may be some mistakes (I checked to make sure that each district got a team in, but I didn't check for co-champions or to see which team actually won the district), and I'm not sure if or how the proposed calculation differs from what was on last year's spreadsheet. But here's what I figured (teams listed as "in" would have gotten into the playoffs had power ratings been used last year): D1 girls in: Chapelle, Airline out: Destrehan, Thomas Jefferson D2 girls in: Wossman, South Terrebonne out: Belle Chasse, Minden D3 girls in: North Caddo, St. Martin’s out: Fisher, Lusher D1 boys in: Rummel, Pineville out: Ehret, Covington D2 boys in: Leesville out: West Ouachita D3 boys in: Evangel, Pope John Paul, Redemptorist, Opelousas Catholic out: Houma Christian, Lafayette Christian, Ouachita Christian, Grace Christian As you can see, the vast majority of the qualifiers would be the same. I don't really know enough about most of these divisions to say whether the teams that would've gotten in under power ratings are better than the teams that actually did make it. I will point out, however, that for the D1 girls Airline had a couple of good results against playoff teams, while Chapelle beat Destrehan twice and Thomas Jefferson once during the regular season. So would power ratings be a better way of selecting teams to make the playoffs? One advantage is that teams wouldn't be so afraid to schedule games against comparable same-division opponents (perhaps this might make a Bonnabel-Lutheran match less likely). A loss to a decent same-division team wouldn't be as harmful as it is now. My personal opinion is that there's no real advantage to using power ratings for seedings. However, I do think that power ratings would be better than the current use of division records in determining the playoff seeds. I don't know if it's feasible for the two parts of the proposal to be split up so that power ratings would determine the qualifying teams, which would then be seeded by the coaches. I don't know if that would pass if someone tried to amend it (or if the LHSAA would allow that amendment to the current proposal). I'd like to hear the arguments about whether power ratings would produce a better playoff field and improve the regular season (by encouraging more same-division matchups between good teams). I can't decide whether those advantages outweigh the risk of power ratings screwing up the seeding. One thing I think is sometimes overlooked in these types of comparisons is that I believe there is a small but real element of "self fulfilling prophecy" under any rating system that make comparisons like this impossible to accept at face value. ie: if the coaches' seeding puts team A as 16 instead of 17 (or 15 instead of 18, etc.) then team A is somewhat more likely to win due to playing at home (particularly where significant travel is necessary for the visiting team) , playing slightly weaker opponents, etc. If the Power rankings put team B a little higher, then Team B would be somewhat more likely to win. So I think that the simple fact that a team is ranked higher in a particular rating system has an effect on the outcome of some games and thus kind of fulfills that rating system putting the team there.
|
|