nolapelota
All-District
No longer "booming,,,"
Posts: 203
|
Post by nolapelota on Jan 28, 2015 10:35:16 GMT -6
Now the most interesting thing in this is that... The computer will factor those 5 games as losses now for Menard and wins for their opponents and rate them accordingly (as per LHSAA intent). It's just math. Under a voting system, while voters will take that into consideration, they'll know that Menard is better than their "adjusted" record and may not punish them as much in seeding. Almost like telling a jury to forget that they heard something in a court case when it's struck from the record. Which is right?? RE: "Which is right?" - Let's look at this from another point of view. Crawfish HS "the Mudbugs," is a team that has fought and struggled all year long. They are ranked... say ... 12th and are anticipating a first round home playoff game against #21 to show off for their fans. Now the Mudbugs are playing Menard. Is that fair to them? Is it fair to every team in that quartile of the bracket? Does it unequally imbalance the entire playoff bracket making some quartiles a walk in the park and others a fight to the death? The whole purpose of power points is to accurately seed the playoffs, for all the teams in the playoffs. That is their ONLY purpose. If they become a tool for miinipulation, gaining questionable playoff places, jimmying schedules, carving up districts, favoring certain regions and teams, then they have caused more harm than good.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 28, 2015 10:59:51 GMT -6
Now the most interesting thing in this is that... The computer will factor those 5 games as losses now for Menard and wins for their opponents and rate them accordingly (as per LHSAA intent). It's just math. Under a voting system, while voters will take that into consideration, they'll know that Menard is better than their "adjusted" record and may not punish them as much in seeding. Almost like telling a jury to forget that they heard something in a court case when it's struck from the record. Which is right?? RE: "Which is right?" - Let's look at this from another point of view. Crawfish HS "the Mudbugs," is a team that has fought and struggled all year long. They are ranked... say ... 10th and are anticipating a first round home playoff game against #23 to show off for their fans. Now the Mudbugs are playing Menard. Is that fair to them? Is it fair to every team in that quartile of the bracket? Does it unequally imbalance the entire playoff bracket making some quartiles a walk in the park and others a fight to the death? The whole purpose of power points is to accurately seed the playoffs, for all the teams in the playoffs. That is their ONLY purpose. If they become a tool for miinipulation, gaining questionable playoff places, jimmying schedules, carving up districts, favoring certain regions and teams, then they have caused more harm than good. Okay. Relax a little. I really am not making a case for either. Obviously you are passionate about one of the options. I was simply pointing out that this is a new nuance to the changed system. However, if the 5 losses really punish others as you suggest (and Coach Prince & I talked about how unfair that felt), should LHSAA have a different rule to punish "offenders" in a case like this? As far as fight to the death, that's why teams need to prepare for those battles rather than skirt the system as you continue to point out will happen. Last year, I thought Lusher should've been seeded #3 headed into playoffs. Others also were not in the right spots (granted, in my opinion). But that group of young men were ready for whatever was thrown our way, including having to play not 1, but 2 defending State Champions on our way to the final. The fight to the death is not unique to this system. Ask our 2 players in the St. Louis game taking turns icing on our very thin bench to get back in the game and do what they could in that fight. I am 100% convinced that there's no system that will do it all and make everyone happy. Therefore, continue to tweak, change, etc., but in the end focus on what the team needs to get ready to still be standing at the end.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 28, 2015 11:13:10 GMT -6
Prince,
Which date did you (Menard) officially return to school. I thought it was 1/6, but if it was 1/5... Than 1/6 was eligibility date so the Pineville game would be included. When was the last game he played?
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 28, 2015 12:06:51 GMT -6
In my experience and knowledge of the handbook... The kid was still eligible the first day back so the 1/6 game vs Pineville is not forfeited. He would have been inelgible the second day back from break since they ended grading period on the day before holidays... So as of 1/7, the player was inelgible. they would forfeit the the next 5 games before it was caught... 1/8- Grace Christian (was a win) 1/12- Glenmora (was a win) 1/13- St Freds (was a Draw) 1/15- Buckeye (was a win) 1/17- Rapides (was a win) 1/19- St Louis (was a loss so no forfeit) it it was caught and fixed before the next win... So this is not a forfeit on 1/27 vs Christian (won by Menard) So after talking to Prince, it's officially 7 forfeits, although one was already a loss. the Pineville game is also a forfeit on 1/6 cause they returned to school on 1/5, not 1/6 and 1/6 was thus the second day back and the first date of the players ineligible period.
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 28, 2015 14:10:44 GMT -6
This very well could knock Covington out of a playoff position. Pineville now gets 15 points as opposed to 7.5 points which may just make a difference. It stinks when unforeseen circumstances derail hard work. Such is life I guess.
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 28, 2015 14:28:48 GMT -6
This very well could knock Covington out of a playoff position. Pineville now gets 15 points as opposed to 7.5 points which may just make a difference. It stinks when unforeseen circumstances derail hard work. Such is life I guess. Unfortunately I'm afraid we may have several of those scenarios. Basically the LHSAA is saying (indirectly) that Menard would have lost that game (actually those games) if they didn't have the player(s) in question. That's where I think it feels severe. If they're right though, then some teams have had more points than they should have if the player(s) didn't play. And others have had fewer than deserved. Again, I think it's a severe penalty that is impacting other schools in having facts change so late in the game. But it's what the rules are - not sure I have a better approach (other than calling them all ties).
|
|
|
Post by raiderfan on Jan 28, 2015 14:59:39 GMT -6
This very well could knock Covington out of a playoff position. Pineville now gets 15 points as opposed to 7.5 points which may just make a difference. It stinks when unforeseen circumstances derail hard work. Such is life I guess. Unfortunately I'm afraid we may have several of those scenarios. Basically the LHSAA is saying (indirectly) that Menard would have lost that game (actually those games) if they didn't have the player(s) in question. That's where I think it feels severe. If they're right though, then some teams have had more points than they should have if the player(s) didn't play. And others have had fewer than deserved. Again, I think it's a severe penalty that is impacting other schools in having facts change so late in the game. But it's what the rules are - not sure I have a better approach (other than calling them all ties). You could have a system where the penalty could be a goal or two goals in each game that the ineligible player participated. So, a two-goal penalty would turn a draw or single-goal loss into a loss and a two-goal win into a draw, while a win by more than two goals would remain a win. It would certainly be less severe, but I don't know if that's a "better" approach or not. I think, in this particular case, such a penalty would only affect the outcome of three games.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Jan 28, 2015 16:24:31 GMT -6
LHSAA doesn't care if this player was a game changer or not. The penalty while harsh is there to discourage playing an ineligible player. It causes repercussions on everyone but I don't think they will change it.
I remember local school in throwball played ineligible player because his parents had forged a birth certificate. From what I hear he played less than 5 minutes a game and did nothing noteworthy. I'm not sure if they had to forfeit only games he played in or all games he was rostered.
They ended up winning state even though they were seeded low because of forfeits. Did this potentially affect other teams along way? I'm sure it did.
Was the situation fair? I don't know. ... I guess it depends on where you fell and your definition of fair.
I feel for everyone affected negatively. It's a shame this happens.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by oldhattrick3 on Jan 28, 2015 17:27:20 GMT -6
Basically the LHSAA is saying (indirectly) that Menard would have lost that game (actually those games) if they didn't have the player(s) in question. That's where I think it feels severe. If they're right though, then some teams have had more points than they should have if the player(s) didn't play. And others have had fewer than deserved. Again, I think it's a severe penalty that is impacting other schools in having facts change so late in the game. But it's what the rules are - not sure I have a better approach (other than calling them all ties). You could have a system where the penalty could be a goal or two goals in each game that the ineligible player participated. So, a two-goal penalty would turn a draw or single-goal loss into a loss and a two-goal win into a draw, while a win by more than two goals would remain a win. It would certainly be less severe, but I don't know if that's a "better" approach or not. I think, in this particular case, such a penalty would only affect the outcome of three games. On your basically comment: NO, LHSAA is not directly or indirectly saying that Menard would have lost that game (actually those games) if they didn't have the player(s) in question, they are saying "Don't play illegal and/or ineligible player(s) or you will pay the consequences stated in the rules. You break a rule you pay. Plain and simple. .......... or just maybe they have been sitting in their evil empire observing and trying to figure out how they can screw some of these other teams that have played Menard in the power rankings. ....... yeah that's it, this isn't even about Menard, Menard was just a pawn in the scheme to totally impact one of the teams they played. ......... now which one was the main target hmmmmmmmm Sent from my SM-P600 using proboards
|
|
p_malinich
Data Expert
www.elevenlions.com
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by p_malinich on Jan 28, 2015 17:41:49 GMT -6
You could have a system where the penalty could be a goal or two goals in each game that the ineligible player participated. So, a two-goal penalty would turn a draw or single-goal loss into a loss and a two-goal win into a draw, while a win by more than two goals would remain a win. It would certainly be less severe, but I don't know if that's a "better" approach or not. I think, in this particular case, such a penalty would only affect the outcome of three games. On your basically comment: NO, LHSAA is not directly or indirectly saying that Menard would have lost that game (actually those games) if they didn't have the player(s) in question, they are saying "Don't play illegal and/or ineligible player(s) or you will pay the consequences stated in the rules. You break a rule you pay. Plain and simple. .......... or just maybe they have been sitting in their evil empire observing and trying to figure out how they can screw some of these other teams that have played Menard in the power rankings. ....... yeah that's it, this isn't even about Menard, Menard was just a pawn in the scheme to totally impact one of the teams they played. ......... now which one was the main target hmmmmmmmm Sent from my SM-P600 using proboards Fair enough. I get it. Just trying to ideate on alternate solutions. I'm not a hater nor a conspiracy guy. I do like the suggestion of making it a 1 or 2 goal penalty (and let the result be whatever it is at that point). That still penalizes them, but in some ways (in my mind) cushions the blow across the league.
|
|
|
Post by playwide on Jan 28, 2015 18:10:08 GMT -6
How many things do we need to change to make Power Rankings work?
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Jan 28, 2015 18:25:02 GMT -6
Im reasonably disgusted by some of what I see and read here. My school, and I as a coach, work very hard to follow rules and make sure we have our house in order. Right now we have a high end club player at our school who transferred from Dutchtown. He played a few minutes in three football games last year and then quit, and now because he changed schools without moving he is ineligible for a whole year. i would have loved to have him play and he would certainly have helped us. but, he is ineligible...period. Eligibility is the cornerstone of HS Competition. You dont just get to skirt it because mudbug U was expecting to play a different team in the playoffs. Its the RULES--everybody has to play to the same ones. Im sorry for Menard, and for Coach Prince, and I agree that this hangs more on the AD than him. It also hangs on the player who wasnt eligible. Still, if you think the problem is how this will change the first round playoffs and that it is all bad because of power points, then you really dont get it. This is a change, but in the end, its the rules that we ALL play by. Life is isnt fair, and it certainly isnt fair to those who expect it to be more fair for them.
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Jan 28, 2015 18:35:48 GMT -6
It's the same rule across all sports. Forfeit games with illegible players.
You will never get the one or two goal rule because you can't translate to other sports.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by oldhattrick3 on Jan 28, 2015 19:33:46 GMT -6
Im reasonably disgusted by some of what I see and read here. My school, and I as a coach, work very hard to follow rules and make sure we have our house in order. Right now we have a high end club player at our school who transferred from Dutchtown. He played a few minutes in three football games last year and then quit, and now because he changed schools without moving he is ineligible for a whole year. i would have loved to have him play and he would certainly have helped us. but, he is ineligible...period. Eligibility is the cornerstone of HS Competition. You dont just get to skirt it because mudbug U was expecting to play a different team in the playoffs. Its the RULES--everybody has to play to the same ones. Im sorry for Menard, and for Coach Prince, and I agree that this hangs more on the AD than him. It also hangs on the player who wasnt eligible. Still, if you think the problem is how this will change the first round playoffs and that it is all bad because of power points, then you really dont get it. This is a change, but in the end, its the rules that we ALL play by. Life is isnt fair, and it certainly isnt fair to those who expect it to be more fair for them. Amen Coach Ray. My sarcastic point above exactly. Read the rules, put the things in place you need to validate your personnel, and obey the rules. It's not that hard. Sent from my SM-P600 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 28, 2015 21:12:48 GMT -6
As I said, and relayed to my squad, such is life. We will deal with whatever arises. If we miss out, it will be a bummer, but life isn't fair. Besides, I am not privy to the circumstances. Mistakes happen. Good luck in the playoffs and good health to all.
|
|
|
Post by raiderfan on Jan 28, 2015 22:28:02 GMT -6
Im reasonably disgusted by some of what I see and read here. My school, and I as a coach, work very hard to follow rules and make sure we have our house in order. Right now we have a high end club player at our school who transferred from Dutchtown. He played a few minutes in three football games last year and then quit, and now because he changed schools without moving he is ineligible for a whole year. i would have loved to have him play and he would certainly have helped us. but, he is ineligible.period. Eligibility is the cornerstone of HS Competition. You dont just get to skirt it because mudbug U was expecting to play a different team in the playoffs. Its the RULES--everybody has to play to the same ones. Im sorry for Menard, and for Coach Prince, and I agree that this hangs more on the AD than him. It also hangs on the player who wasnt eligible. Still, if you think the problem is how this will change the first round playoffs and that it is all bad because of power points, then you really dont get it. This is a change, but in the end, its the rules that we ALL play by. Life is isnt fair, and it certainly isnt fair to those who expect it to be more fair for them. I don't really think anyone is disputing that. The discussion is largely based upon how much, under the PR system, that the forfeits can hurt teams other than the one that had a rules violation. Plus, it does seem that there could be some level of difference in penalties for a team that made a mistake, realized it and self-reported, rather than intentionally breaking the rules or covering up/failing to report a known infraction.
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Jan 28, 2015 23:30:58 GMT -6
I certainly acknowledge your compassion. I'll try to put this in some perspective though
This incident involved 7 games over a 13 day span......AFTER the semester break--meaning there were some new semester grade protocols that certainly should have caught this before it got out of hand. Probably the only reason it wasnt more is that Menard didnt play from 1/19 until 1/27. If this was a grade issue, and grades grades were recorded prior to the end of the second semester(12/19), then theoretically it could have been 10 games as Menard played 3 games at the Showcase on (12/20). Yes I understand the rulebook and that would allow the player to be eligible, but this underscores my earlier point that there was plenty of time to catch this. Two weeks this player was allowed to participate "illegally". Im one to err on the side of ineptitude rather than conspiracy, but my gut reaction to this is someone had to know... at some point, prior to when this came to a head. Teacher, player, AD, school support staff, somebody. Menard is no stranger to understanding the eligibility impact the semester break brings, and that impact is across ALL sports, not just soccer. It can affect football players who dont make grades and then cant do spring workouts, as well a spring sport athletes--it just hits soccer and basketball midseason. if this was an issue with a player moving in to the school, then all the I's and T's should have been crossed before he even stepped onto the practice field (I find this scenario more unlikely as the first infraction took place the first day back from the winter break--meaning new player would have had to enroll in the morning and play in the afternoon, without even making the first training session). This is a pretty big "mistake". If this was a teacher or admin staffer, it should be pink slip time. And if its a grade thing, the player didnt just up and fail over the christmas break--that ship sailed long before the Thanksgiving Turkey. Thats why I dont feel sorry for the situation too much. Its a shame it happened this way, but there was some willful disregard from somebody somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by raiderfan on Jan 29, 2015 7:58:34 GMT -6
OK. That's a bit of a rant on my secondary point, but my main point is that, under the PR system, this penalty can hurt other schools as much, and in some cases more, than the offending school. Menard will still make the play-offs, even with the forfeits. Someone else could potentially miss out on the play-offs because of it (and consequently, another team benefits by taking the spot).
|
|
|
Post by rora on Jan 29, 2015 9:10:56 GMT -6
Would it be a problem to calculate Menard's opponents' PRs as if nothing happened - i.e. keep the record as it would have been that way they don't lose points - but calculate Menard's with the forfeits?
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Jan 29, 2015 9:26:23 GMT -6
Would it be a problem to calculate Menard's opponents' PRs as if nothing happened - i.e. keep the record as it would have been that way they don't lose points - but calculate Menard's with the forfeits? I like the idea but I don't think it would work. Teams like us would be double-dipping since we played multiple teams affected by the forfeits: we'd get points off Menard's pre-forfeit record and more points from Grace Christian's adjusted record (ie, plus one win). So if you give wins to Menard's opponents I don't think you can use Menard's old record for any calculations.
|
|