|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 29, 2015 14:54:21 GMT -6
Based on last years power ratings, the 24th seed in Division I would have a PR of 10.73. To put that in perspective, Divisions II and III (soon to be II, III, and IV) had 16 teams combined above that rating. Teams like Zachary, Hahnville, Bonnabel, Hammond, Covington, Pineville, Haughton, Holy Cross, and Woodlawn would have been out (provided they are not members of the "new" Division II). In short, by going to 4 divisions, it seems like we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. There simply has to be a better way. I get that smaller schools need a legitimate opportunity to make the playoffs but at what cost. If we really want to challenge the players and grow the sport at the same time, we need to think out of the box. Regional conference alignment makes the most sense to me. That being said, just using power ratings with a new playoff format could work as well. The top 32 would be Divsion I with the losers of round one of the playoffs dropping down to round one for Division II. The next 16 schools (33-48) would make up the other half of Division II. The next 32 (#49-80) would make up Division III. #'S 81-96 (or 112) could make up Division IV.
Using last seasons PR, here is what the playoffs would have looked like...
Division I
1 St. Paul
32 West Monroe
16 Sulpher
17 Northshore
9 Lafayette
24 Destrehan
8 Captain Shreve
25 Newman
4 Acadiana
29 Dutchtown
13 Baton Rouge
20 St. Thomas More
12 St. Amant
21 Menard
5 Catholic
28 St. Michaels
2 Bolton
31 Westminster
15 Grace King
18 Mandeville
10 Beau Chene
23 Neville
7 St. Louis
26 Alexandria
3 Brother Martin
30 Fontainebleau
14 Lakeshore
19 University
11 Jesuit
22 Vandebilt
6 Northlake Christian
27 Westminster
Again, the upside to being in Division I is a loss in round one simply drops you the Division II playoffs. Heck we could use PR to determine the top 32 and have coaches seed. As for Division II, here is the "top 16" seeds (which would play the relegated teams from round one of the Division I playoffs).
1. Airline
2. Dunham
3. Teurlings
4. Caddo Magnet
5. Lusher
6. Denham Springs
7. Benton
8. Catholic New Iberia
9. Central Lafourche
10. East Ascension
11. NISH
12. Zachary
13. E D White
14. Loyola
15. McKinley
16. Bonnabel
The noticable teams left out of the first two Divisions would be Ben Franklin, Haynes, and East Jeff (all in what would be Division III).
Another positive to a system like this...forfeits would possibly drop/bump teams from one Divisional playoff to the other, but probably not eliminate them totally from the playoffs (something that could happen this season though Menard).
Just my thoughts.
Coach Inman
|
|
|
|
Post by laffysoccermom on Jan 29, 2015 16:40:39 GMT -6
I hear what everyone is saying but I don't think you are going to get away with what LHSAA is doing in other sports. All others are divided by school size.
I just don't see them devoting the manpower to do soccer different. I also could imagine the outcry in football etc if you tried to do this in every sport.
Call me a pessimist but I don't see much changing.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 29, 2015 19:34:06 GMT -6
You are probably right. I am an optimist though and feel we need to do what is best for the kids and the sport. This system rewards top tier teams while still challenging them at the highest level. At the same time, it allows weaker programs to compete at a lower level while not killing their program. People may find this hard to believe, but Northlake Christian prior to the arrival of Coach Chetta was very weak. He has done a tremendous job. But few people remember them basically playing a JV schedule for years. What if they were forced to play a varsity schedule or if opponents chose to destroy them. What if they dropped their program altogether. Our community in Covington would have missed out on quite a lot. Times are different now, but it still shouldn't change our goals imo. Do what's in the best interests of the students and the sport whenever possible. The LHSAA wouldn't just want fewer headaches and more money. The system above probably gives them the fewest headaches and the biggest chance to fatten their wallet.
|
|
|
|
Post by newosoccerfan on Jan 29, 2015 21:38:36 GMT -6
Based on last years power ratings, the 24th seed in Division I would have a PR of 10.73. To put that in perspective, Divisions II and III (soon to be II, III, and IV) had 16 teams combined above that rating. Teams like Zachary, Hahnville, Bonnabel, Hammond, Covington, Pineville, Haughton, Holy Cross, and Woodlawn would have been out (provided they are not members of the "new" Division II). In short, by going to 4 divisions, it seems like we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. There simply has to be a better way. I get that smaller schools need a legitimate opportunity to make the playoffs but at what cost. If we really want to challenge the players and grow the sport at the same time, we need to think out of the box. Regional conference alignment makes the most sense to me. That being said, just using power ratings with a new playoff format could work as well. The top 32 would be Divsion I with the losers of round one of the playoffs dropping down to round one for Division II. The next 16 schools (33-48) would make up the other half of Division II. The next 32 (#49-80) would make up Division III. #'S 81-96 (or 112) could make up Division IV. Using last seasons PR, here is what the playoffs would have looked like. Division I 1 St. Paul 32 West Monroe 16 Sulpher 17 Northshore 9 Lafayette 24 Destrehan 8 Captain Shreve 25 Newman 4 Acadiana 29 Dutchtown 13 Baton Rouge 20 St. Thomas More 12 St. Amant 21 Menard 5 Catholic 28 St. Michaels 2 Bolton 31 Westminster 15 Grace King 18 Mandeville 10 Beau Chene 23 Neville 7 St. Louis 26 Alexandria 3 Brother Martin 30 Fontainebleau 14 Lakeshore 19 University 11 Jesuit 22 Vandebilt 6 Northlake Christian 27 Westminster Again, the upside to being in Division I is a loss in round one simply drops you the Division II playoffs. Heck we could use PR to determine the top 32 and have coaches seed. As for Division II, here is the "top 16" seeds (which would play the relegated teams from round one of the Division I playoffs). 1. Airline 2. Dunham 3. Teurlings 4. Caddo Magnet 5. Lusher 6. Denham Springs 7. Benton 8. Catholic New Iberia 9. Central Lafourche 10. East Ascension 11. NISH 12. Zachary 13. E D White 14. Loyola 15. McKinley 16. Bonnabel The noticable teams left out of the first two Divisions would be Ben Franklin, Haynes, and East Jeff (all in what would be Division III). Another positive to a system like this.forfeits would possibly drop/bump teams from one Divisional playoff to the other, but probably not eliminate them totally from the playoffs (something that could happen this season though Menard). Just my thoughts. Coach Inman Coach, Here is how I understand it. There are currently three Divisions with a total of 80 playoff teams (32+16+32). The proposed four Divisions will have 98 playoff teams (24+24+24+24). So the playoff situation will improve. We are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Also, your system penalizes small school with a high PR by making them play up a Division or more, against much larger schools. Similarly a weak larger school may get to play down a Division where they have a chance to win a state title against smaller schools. How is that fair? I expect four equal Divisions in soccer to pass. If it does, I say let's see how it goes before anyone predicts future flaws. NewO |
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 29, 2015 22:34:11 GMT -6
Div II has not had only 16 playoff teams since 2008. It's been 24 and this year is 32. So 32 x 3 is 96. Which is the same as 24 x 4- 96. So no, not an extra playoff team. Only an extra division.
besides that, totally agree with the main point of your reply Newo... 4 divisions is for future growth where growth is needed... 2A on down.
|
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Jan 30, 2015 0:35:22 GMT -6
But would smaller schools dedicate more funding for more travel for distant schools in their districts?
|
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2015 1:55:45 GMT -6
Districts are dead... You will see smaller districts in area ps where too much travel would be needed and larger ones in the urban areas.
It's a state sport and districts are just there for rivalries now... Especially when almost every district goes to 1 round next year except those with travel distances to other areas that need more district games. Most of the sport is south of or along I10 corridor and there are plenty enough teams in each of the big 3 urban areas north of I10 to supply districts for each division.
With this years numbers plus a few known additions... We will have at least 39 per division but I think 40 in a couple. For 4 divisions. This is above the volleyball oer dicision average of 36-37 with 5 divisions. So if you think about it, we are really only about 25 new teams away from 5 divisions possible. That growth must come from 2a on down. If ESA, Grace christian, and Ascension Christian can do it with their size, anyone can. I think 4A is also a prime area for growth of the sport... But we must reach out to the urban schools that are basketball heavy. ,most of these schools would be in D3... And would further deepen the pot and get us closer to volleyball total numbers and. 5 divisions. If and when we ever get to enough for 5 divisions, this will be the reason why... This 4 division change... And at that point, the smallest division would be mostly 1a on down. In a 4 division set up, it's Cath NI as the largest school in my early looks at it... So everyone smaller than Catholic Ni would be in D4 next year. Including newman, Northlake, Westmimster, and ESA. These would be the big names in that division.
|
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Jan 30, 2015 2:09:17 GMT -6
Coach Inman. This 4 division proposal will definitely make things better. Smaller 5A schools who can't compete with depth of the larger ones now will be with a few larger 4A schools who also,can't compete with depth of the large 5A schools. Now between the new D2 and new D3. Won't be much difference. A lot of bigger names will be in D3 with some of the more recent top programs and a few big names in the new D2. We would be second smallest D2 or smallest. Either way, we would play up and be in a district with STM, Westgate and Carencro. We would lose district rival Teurlimgs, but would def look to still play them twice a year. Vandy, Teurlings, Bolton, St. mikes, and few others would join D3 along with St Louis, Uhigh, Lusher, and Episcopal (right on border area of D4).
For D1, I have Capt Shreve or East St John as smallest. Which I believe be would make Caddo play up as usual. But I would expect Parkway to stay in the new D2. Alexandria would be one of largest schools in the new D2. The new D2 would have a nice Monroe area representation and teams like us, Grace King, STM, Lakeshore, Neville, Ben Franklin, Alexandria and Holy Cross (if they don't play up for catholic league). So it's a new situation but I do feel,it's more balanced and the smallest schools in D1 will,have near 1400 kids instead of 1100. 900-1100 would be D2 approx size schools. 400-875 would be D3 size schools, and under 380/400 would,be D4 according to estimates.
|
|
|
|
Post by methuselah on Jan 30, 2015 7:08:22 GMT -6
You are probably right. I am an optimist though and feel we need to do what is best for the kids and the sport. This system rewards top tier teams while still challenging them at the highest level. At the same time, it allows weaker programs to compete at a lower level while not killing their program. People may find this hard to believe, but Northlake Christian prior to the arrival of Coach Chetta was very weak. He has done a tremendous job. But few people remember them basically playing a JV schedule for years. What if they were forced to play a varsity schedule or if opponents chose to destroy them. What if they dropped their program altogether. Our community in Covington would have missed out on quite a lot. Times are different now, but it still shouldn't change our goals imo. Do what's in the best interests of the students and the sport whenever possible. The LHSAA wouldn't just want fewer headaches and more money. The system above probably gives them the fewest headaches and the biggest chance to fatten their wallet. Generally, I agree with what Laffysoccer mom said in a post above. There are a lot of different scenarios and changes that many of us might feel would be good (heck, I still like my admittedly impractical to implement "divide divisions by the number of club players" theory). But the bottom line is the LHSAA is not going to deviate greatly from student population based classes. But I wanted to comment briefly on your Northlake Christian example because we went in the opposite direction and that can work. When Lutcher first got the go ahead to institute soccer (and many thanks are due to those people who carried the effort over many many years to make that a reality), there was talk of starting with a JV schedule. And the Athletic administration pretty much said no, you start with varsity and do it right from the beginning. And it turned out fine. So that can be done. Not saying that it's wrong to start with JV but it's not the only way to build a viable program. If divisions/classes could be done differently, that would be great. Heck, as much as I've enjoyed the districts we've been in, I think how logical it would be to have a district with teams like Lutcher, St. Charles, Riverside and East St. John (and I still have dreams that St. James might one day join the sport). It would be filled with natural rivalries, would make for competitive games, would draw good attendance, would draw more local media coverage and would do great things for the sport in the area. But I realize that with teams in multiple different classes/divisions that just won't happen. It is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by chelsea007 on Jan 30, 2015 7:58:06 GMT -6
All of the arguments I have seen seem be based solely on school size. Geography, social- demographics, and economics are totally discounted. As for a smaller powerhouse playing up...where is the harm -especially with a relegated playoff structure. A large school may have very few "soccer" players yet will be penalized to the point of obscurity. I just don't get how challenging a squad, with an out in case of failure mind you, is an issue. It seems as though people for the 4 division approach are siding with the LHSAA and their logic. I say think out of the box. Do what is best. I clearly feel this isn't in the best interest of the players or the sport. Just my thoughts though.
|
|
