p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 25, 2015 14:15:53 GMT -6
No, this wrong. (sorry Paul! ) They are in playoffs if they are in top 32... They just drop to behind all those who have 15 or more games. My bad. Answered too quickly on way out the door. Thanks for correcting. I was fielding questions much of the day yesterday and need some help to clarify or confirm what the decisions on Friday mean. I actually went to agenda items 37 & 38 from the convention to review it as proposed (maybe some of it was amended prior to passing). Anyone with specific facts is invited to help make it clear or correct anything that needs correction. Trying to capsulize what Friday's decisions mean to most of us. (Items 1-6 & 8 omitted)7) Teams that play FEWER than 15 games can make playoffs, but ONLY after all other teams are included and seeded. I'm going to withdraw the "my bad" comment and instead ask for clarification. Maybe I missed something along the way because I have seen some comments about Chad talking with Duhe and maybe this is the issue (and I was brushing by it). I would say that the understanding (right or wrong) last year was that you needed to play 15 games or it dropped you below all teams that played 15 (even past the #32 spot if appropriate). See the 2nd quote above from 2/1. Granted, it's my quote & it took a while to find, but that seems to be what the prevailing understanding was at the time. Now, however, it sounds like we're saying you can be in top 32 of PR with only 8 games played and it wouldn't knock you out of playoffs - just to the lower seeded spots. Am I hearing that right? If so, it's a change from last year's discussion (IMO) and I don't agree with it. Here's why. Be in a 4-team district with 2 stud teams with lots of wins, play each other once (which is becoming the trend), tie your other opponent & you'll have a decent PR & would probably make playoffs. In all likelihood, you'd go out in the first round, but you never know... I personally don't think that should be the interpretation of the rule. I've re-read it & it says drop to bottom of bracket. That's the rub. I think it COULD mean the bottom of the PR list (all teams competing for district). However, when read in conjunction with other rule that says top 32 go, it gets interpreted as only meaning to drop them to bottom of the 32. I think that's a change from last year's discussion (and not one I like).
Is that what was and now is being said (just trying to understand)?
|
|
jk52
All-District
Posts: 216
|
Post by jk52 on Jan 25, 2015 14:57:56 GMT -6
Rule 18.6.3 states that teams with less than 15 games shall be ranked separately. Then it does say that teams will be placed at bottom of bracket. It could easily be interpreted that teams with less than 15 games will be placed below all teams that have played 15 games. If I was a coach of No. 33 and I wanted to be in the playoffs, I would be definitely argue that position.
|
|
|
Post by Tordad35 on Jan 25, 2015 15:33:15 GMT -6
Rule 18.6.3 states that teams with less than 15 games shall be ranked separately. Then it does say that teams will be placed at bottom of bracket. It could easily be interpreted that teams with less than 15 games will be placed below all teams that have played 15 games. If I was a coach of No. 33 and I wanted to be in the playoffs, I would be definitely argue that position. I fully believe that this rule is in place because with district winners auto-qualifying, there is a possibility of a team(s) winning their district without playing 15 games. In that event, we would know how to place them into the 32 team bracket.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 25, 2015 15:42:53 GMT -6
Rule 18.6.3 states that teams with less than 15 games shall be ranked separately. Then it does say that teams will be placed at bottom of bracket. It could easily be interpreted that teams with less than 15 games will be placed below all teams that have played 15 games. If I was a coach of No. 33 and I wanted to be in the playoffs, I would be definitely argue that position. I fully believe that this rule is in place because with district winners auto-qualifying, there is a possibility of a team(s) winning their district without playing 15 games. In that event, we would know how to place them into the 32 team bracket. I guess I'd be okay with that, but nothing more. I'd also be okay with bigger districts and fewer district champions.
|
|
|
Post by 0coachchris0 on Jan 27, 2015 10:53:39 GMT -6
I think more of this years complaints about the power ranking system come from a combination of two specific places: 1) many many people simply do not understand how the power rating system works 2) the reality of how some of the more highly regarded programs have scheduled in the past, and their continuation of it, is now catching up with them as they can no longer rely on name recognition to gain higher seeds. Put these two things together and you have a first year anomoly that will change the landscape as we go foward. Two cases in point: Jesuit and Lafayette. Both of these teams are long time powers and are most likely still among the elite, yet they are not even in the State title discussion because of what can be argued as "poor scheduling". Have they played weak teams throughout the year? No, not really, but the biggest quality of their opponents lays outside the Louisiana State lines. Both teams played very tough teams in MS and TX, yet that doesnt matter here (and I believe rightfully so). So when both teams come back to LA to play, they catch district mandated minnows, and they cannot gain the necessary PR to get up in the top of the bracket. Lafayette may not make the top 16. Jesuit probably gained spots with a win over Brother Martin this week, but the rest of their district schedule just isnt helping them-in fact it hurts. Lafayettes situation is worse. Now, is that the power rating systems fault? My answer is a resounding no. This system was well publicized with its implementation. Both teams still chose to go seek their best comp outside of LA. I ask ....why? There are plenty of teams here to play. Start with each other, then for Jesuit add a St Pauls, Acadiana, Northlake and Beau Chene. Lafayette, how about Grace King, Northlake, University, Vandebilt, Catholic of BR, Newman, Northlake and Beau Chene. Why not a trip to Shreveport with games against Shreve and Caddo? Saying that there is a need to go out of state to find quality competition is a bogus statement. Eliminate the stupid 2x each approach to district play, add three of these teams I just listed to each of their schedules, and then Jesuit and Lafayette are fighting for the #1 overall seed. Now am I saying these two teams arent elite....no. First I'm only using them as examples so dont think Im dissing them. I'm saying they, like others, havent changed with the times. Power ratings makes the responsibility of the big boys even bigger as they now HAVE to get out and play each other. I think that is great. Who wouldnt want to see a mid season Jesuit/Lafayette matchup? Of Laffy/St Pauls? Or Jesuit/Northlake, or Laffy'Brother Martin. These types of games are what the paying public wants to see, and yes they involve the risk of losing. I say so what? Laffy losing to St Pauls will have more positive PR impact than beating Comeaux and Barbe for the second time. Jesuit losing to Acadiana would be a bigger jump for them than the second time around win over Shaw or Rummel. Dont go to MS or TX. Stay right here and get bigger games and gain the power rating jump. We will go see them, pay our bucks, give you a big gate and you can continue to have the $ to perpetuate the quality of your programs. The power ratings take away the reputation and put in the responsibility. My thought is youll see both of these teams play a few more matches against top in state comp next year, especially if either of them get knocked out of the playoffs earlier than normal. Submitting my formal nomination for Post-of-the-Year.
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 27, 2015 14:05:42 GMT -6
Coach, I agree with almost all of what you said here except that Lafayette would get more by losing to St. Paul than by beating Carencro/Barbe or Jesuit over Rummel. That, unfortunately is where you are wrong. A 20 win St. Paul loss will give you 10 points, whereas a win over a 6 win whomever, will give you 11 points. To play St. Paul should count for more, but it doesn't. We have a flawed system. 3,2,1 is more accurate for starters. Then a loss to a 20 win St. Paul would be worth 11 points, whereas a win over a 6 win whomever would be worth 9 points. If you were to count opponents wins as a full 100%, then a loss to a 20 win St. Paul would be worth 21 points, and a win over a 6 win whomever would be worth 9. With just the 3,2,1 change, the power ratings become more appropriate. With 100% of the wins counting, playing a tough opponent doesn't penalize you. In fact, the risk, in this case, is worth more than the reward. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by firebruin on Jan 27, 2015 14:16:48 GMT -6
Using that logic, St. Paul's would get 3.5 points for beating Lutheran, and Lutheran would get 21 points for losing to St. Paul's...
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 27, 2015 14:26:20 GMT -6
Which logic, 3,2,1 or 100%. I am assuming including 100%. On the flip side, St. Paul probably wouldn't schedule Lutheran. Plus, barring somethin radically unforeseen, I don't see St. Paul losing that match. With 3,2,1...St. Paul would get 3.5, and Lutheran would get 11. I see your point though.
|
|
|
Post by Antimatter on Jan 27, 2015 14:31:19 GMT -6
I still find myself confused at to the 15 game issue.
If I read correctly, if you are in the top 32 for power rating you will still make the playoffs if you have not played 15 games but you will be seeded behind teams that have played 15.
If you don't have 15 games, you should not have an easier path to playoffs. This could be solved by only using the highest 15 game point totals of a team and dividing by 15. If you played less than 15 games then your number is STILL divided by 15.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 14:49:42 GMT -6
DISCLAIMER: I do not fully understand the POWER RANKING system.
Okay, I'd like to see fewer "meaningless" games. Be they district games, tournament games, etc.
I know tourneys are popular (atmosphere, $$) but playing 4-5 games in two days is just...stupid. Not good for the players, period. Not to mention the 25-30 minute halves.
Tournaments are essentially a test of endurance and favor a deep bench.
So, if power rankings are the method going forward, then I say get rid of district play. Teams should be rewarded and punished by the strength of their schedule. (So the PR formula should reflect that.)
Another option is to divide the state into zones/regions (like Texas) and format the playoffs that way. Obviously the zones would be divided by number of programs. North La would likely be its own zone. While SW La/Acadiana and possibly CENLA would be another. Then the rest.
Either way, teams shouldn't be rewarded for scheduling easy games...nor punished for playing the toughest competition possible.
It's sad. But for some teams/players the hs season comes down to a handful of meaningful games. key district opponents/local derbies and then the playoffs. At most, about 8 or 10 really good games.
The rest are glorified training sessions and fodder for the stat types.
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 27, 2015 15:03:00 GMT -6
Hall, for the most part, I agreed with everything you pointed out. This season, we have played Lakeshore, Central Lafourche, St. Mikes, St. Paul (x 2), Grace King (potentially (x2), Pope John Paul II, Hammond, Fontainebleau, and will soon play Mandeville and Northshore. I guess the question becomes...how do these games become more valuable to your power rating. This was a pretty challenging schedule, which both I and the players like. But at what cost. We have played almost all of these teams tough (1 goal matches in the losses except to Lakeshore (2-0) and St. Paul) but wont see much in terms of benefit. I hope we see that modifications are needed to what we currently have.
|
|
|
Post by barnacle13 on Jan 27, 2015 15:04:45 GMT -6
Why would St. Paul schedule a Div III team? If they're willing to schedule a team their 9th grade could probably run off the pitch, then they deserve fewer points for scheduling. And if those two teams played in the same tournament, I'd hope the director of the tournament had enough sense to schedule according to size and skill of the schools/teams. I understand the argument, but the reality is the example here is unlikely to occur.
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 27, 2015 15:12:30 GMT -6
Barnacle, you are spot on with critcising the example. But on the flip side, what if St. Paul and Lutheran were in the same district? The example, while farfetched, does make a valid point (as do you considering tournies etc.). The question...what do we do about these issues?
|
|
|
Post by barnacle13 on Jan 27, 2015 15:18:26 GMT -6
Promotion /relegation...... I don't know. You see lopsided districts every year. A better example may be St. Mike's who schedules a tough schedule having to average in wins over Tara (1 win, 1 tie for 6.5 or 4.5points depending on the system) while Tara receives 8.75 or for half of St. Mike's wins and ties and 18.5 if you get 1 plus the full points. That is a real world example and will continue to be.
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 27, 2015 15:52:17 GMT -6
I personally want to do away with districts and go to regional tables based solely on powerpoints, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 27, 2015 20:51:08 GMT -6
I still find myself confused at to the 15 game issue. If I read correctly, if you are in the top 32 for power rating you will still make the playoffs if you have not played 15 games but you will be seeded behind teams that have played 15. If you don't have 15 games, you should not have an easier path to playoffs. This could be solved by only using the highest 15 game point totals of a team and dividing by 15. If you played less than 15 games then your number is STILL divided by 15. All of the top 32 makes playoffs unless a district champ/co champ was ranked lower than 32 (very rare) and would knock 32 out. Where the 15 games requirement comes in, is for seeding. If yiu didn't play 15, you go behind all others in the 32 team field already decided and qualified by power ratings and your SEED is lowered to behind all of those other teams who met the required 15 game minimum. This is how it's written and enforced and was reconfirmed to us at a meeting in January (By Gary Duhe and Lacey McDirmid) as I said earlier in thread
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 28, 2015 0:28:48 GMT -6
Also... Look at where the 15 game minimum is located in handbook... It under seeding the bracket... Not under the section for wildcard program.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 21:01:00 GMT -6
I think more of this years complaints about the power ranking system come from a combination of two specific places: 1) many many people simply do not understand how the power rating system works 2) the reality of how some of the more highly regarded programs have scheduled in the past, and their continuation of it, is now catching up with them as they can no longer rely on name recognition to gain higher seeds. Put these two things together and you have a first year anomoly that will change the landscape as we go foward. Two cases in point: Jesuit and Lafayette. Both of these teams are long time powers and are most likely still among the elite, yet they are not even in the State title discussion because of what can be argued as "poor scheduling". Have they played weak teams throughout the year? No, not really, but the biggest quality of their opponents lays outside the Louisiana State lines. Both teams played very tough teams in MS and TX, yet that doesnt matter here (and I believe rightfully so). So when both teams come back to LA to play, they catch district mandated minnows, and they cannot gain the necessary PR to get up in the top of the bracket. Lafayette may not make the top 16. Jesuit probably gained spots with a win over Brother Martin this week, but the rest of their district schedule just isnt helping them-in fact it hurts. Lafayettes situation is worse. Now, is that the power rating systems fault? My answer is a resounding no. This system was well publicized with its implementation. Both teams still chose to go seek their best comp outside of LA. I ask ....why? There are plenty of teams here to play. Start with each other, then for Jesuit add a St Pauls, Acadiana, Northlake and Beau Chene. Lafayette, how about Grace King, Northlake, University, Vandebilt, Catholic of BR, Newman, Northlake and Beau Chene. Why not a trip to Shreveport with games against Shreve and Caddo? Saying that there is a need to go out of state to find quality competition is a bogus statement. Eliminate the stupid 2x each approach to district play, add three of these teams I just listed to each of their schedules, and then Jesuit and Lafayette are fighting for the #1 overall seed. Now am I saying these two teams arent elite....no. First I'm only using them as examples so dont think Im dissing them. I'm saying they, like others, havent changed with the times. Power ratings makes the responsibility of the big boys even bigger as they now HAVE to get out and play each other. I think that is great. Who wouldnt want to see a mid season Jesuit/Lafayette matchup? Of Laffy/St Pauls? Or Jesuit/Northlake, or Laffy'Brother Martin. These types of games are what the paying public wants to see, and yes they involve the risk of losing. I say so what? Laffy losing to St Pauls will have more positive PR impact than beating Comeaux and Barbe for the second time. Jesuit losing to Acadiana would be a bigger jump for them than the second time around win over Shaw or Rummel. Dont go to MS or TX. Stay right here and get bigger games and gain the power rating jump. We will go see them, pay our bucks, give you a big gate and you can continue to have the $ to perpetuate the quality of your programs. The power ratings take away the reputation and put in the responsibility. My thought is youll see both of these teams play a few more matches against top in state comp next year, especially if either of them get knocked out of the playoffs earlier than normal. Let me point this out... The two most important games this year for Catholic BR(as far as power ranking are concerned) Destrehan Catholic New Iberia --------------These are games that catholic could have won with the 9th grade squad . No disrespect to these two programs but the simple fact of the matter is that its true. Catholics worst game of the year (as far as power ratings go)is a 2-0 loss to St. Paul's in the SPS tournament. Had Catholic beat Destrehan by 1 less goal then right now they would have a better PR because they would not have had to play SPS in the Finals of the tournament. Situations like this will start the schedule manipulation that we fear.
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Jan 28, 2015 22:38:33 GMT -6
Coach, I agree with almost all of what you said here except that Lafayette would get more by losing to St. Paul than by beating Carencro/Barbe or Jesuit over Rummel. That, unfortunately is where you are wrong. A 20 win St. Paul loss will give you 10 points, whereas a win over a 6 win whomever, will give you 11 points. To play St. Paul should count for more, but it doesn't. We have a flawed system. 3,2,1 is more accurate for starters. Then a loss to a 20 win St. Paul would be worth 11 points, whereas a win over a 6 win whomever would be worth 9 points. If you were to count opponents wins as a full 100%, then a loss to a 20 win St. Paul would be worth 21 points, and a win over a 6 win whomever would be worth 9. With just the 3,2,1 change, the power ratings become more appropriate. With 100% of the wins counting, playing a tough opponent doesn't penalize you. In fact, the risk, in this case, is worth more than the reward. Just my thoughts. Coach Inman--first I'll say that I am studying your 3-2-1 and I'll get back to you on that when I am better studied up. On the surface it doesnt look bad. In regards to the other part of you post, you have a flatal flaw with your reasoning--you make the assumption that automatically St Pauls would win but Carecro Rummel would lose. A more correct probability would be by making the comparisons equal in outcome. You are using a subjective argument to "disprove" an objective statement. Now, while it can be a reasonable arguement that THIS YEAR at THIS TIME St Pauls would/could beat Lafayatte/Jesuit and Lafayatte/Jesuit would/could beat Carencro/Rummel, it cannot be stated in a year over year, time over time that these statements are guaranteed to be true. Theorectically all games are 50/50 chances at winning and losing, regardless of the competitors. In the absence of a data and statistical survey proving otherwise, we have to then look at the only logical course by making the seperate outcomes the same--that if Team A played a 20 win Team B, and won, as well as playing a 6 win Team C and also winning, the best result from the current power points system we utilize would reward Team B the most for beating Team A. The converse would also be true, that if Team B lost to both teams, it would still be better rewarded for losing to team A rather than Team C.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 28, 2015 22:43:28 GMT -6
CoachRay, I ran a 3-2-1 scenario using last year's complete data for Coach Inman. Send me your email & I'll shoot you a copy of the summary.
|
|