|
|
Post by loJic on Feb 4, 2020 11:05:34 GMT -6
Yes, another PR discussion. Just be grateful it's not 2008-2014 where I was pumping out fresh new (off the wall) ideas daily. See here: laprepsoccer.proboards.com/thread/18151/louisiana-hs-soccer-champions-leagueHere: laprepsoccer.proboards.com/thread/14534/new-league-ideaAnd who could forget this classic? here: laprepsoccer.proboards.com/thread/10845/lojics-power-ratings Current formulaWin = 5 points + total wins of opponent (W = 1 / T = .5) Tie = 2.5 points + .75 of total wins of opponent Loss = 0 points + half of wins of opponent Proposed additions to said formula. Style PointsStyle points are considered how much you beat a team by, or in EJ's case, how much we've been beaten by. 1 point per goal scored up to 3 goals max. Total points 3 -1 point per goal allowed up to 3 goals max. Total points -3 1 point for shutout. -1 point for being shutout. Total points a team can get is 4 if they beat a team by 3 or more and shut them out. Vice versa (-4) for a team beaten by 3 or more and shutout. Strength of ScheduleYou get more bang for your buck playing a better opponent. Not only on the field, but also in your rankings. Sure, if you beat a team with 17+ wins, the likelihood of them not being decent is minimal. However there are plenty of teams lingering around the 12-15 win area that aren't really on the same page with others. Mostly due to playing a weaker schedule and slapping around some minnows. Win % x number of wins = amount of points teams receive from playing you. .650 x 15 = 9.75 ExampleSt. Paul's 4 - Dutchtown 1 St. Paul's (18-0-0 / 1.00 %) Dutchtown (18-5-1 / .770 %) St. Paul's - (18.5 x .77 = 14.24) + 5 + 3 = 22.24 Dutchtown - (18 x. 1 = 18) / 2 = 9) - 3 = 6 I didn't do the math with all of the teams because for some reason I can't seem to find anybody who actually has an excel spreadsheet of all the scores. Yet it's all in the LHSAA database and Waraz gets them from somewhere but won't share with me. While this hasn't been proven to be the most effective, we should consider it. That's all, carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by Rabid Monkey on Feb 4, 2020 11:12:27 GMT -6
Let’s just go with pots.....
Use PR to determine which pot you are in 1-16 and 17-32 (cause you know 32 is coming back)
Then draw blindly from each to make pairings
Do it each round until you’re down to final 2
No more shady shenanigans to get a certain draw
I’ll let others figure out who plays at home along the way
|
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Feb 4, 2020 11:15:45 GMT -6
Let’s just go with pots..... Use PR to determine which pot you are in 1-16 and 17-32 (cause you know 32 is coming back) Then draw blindly from each to make pairings Do it each round until you’re down to final 2 No more shady shenanigans to get a certain draw I’ll let others figure out who plays at home along the way You mean this? laprepsoccer.proboards.com/thread/14534/new-league-idea |
|
|
|
Post by Rabid Monkey on Feb 4, 2020 11:18:22 GMT -6
I don’t read links.... IT dept at work has us all paranoid 😛
|
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Feb 4, 2020 11:19:35 GMT -6
I don’t read links.... IT dept at work has us all paranoid 😛 Darn, I was hoping to hack into y'alls system. |
|
|
|
Post by VCdad15-Retired on Feb 4, 2020 15:21:26 GMT -6
Could you leave the PR system as is but only use this number to associate your team value? You would then take each PR for each team you've played and give yourself an average which would be used for ranking purposes.
The reason I suggest this is when you look at all of the teams and their PR numbers. You can play (2) teams with the exact same record but totally different PR numbers. You would in a sense get more value for beating a team with a higher PR than a team with just more wins.
While I know its not ideal because the current system would still be a factor initially. Just use St. Paul's PR as an example and compare other teams with the same or more wins. The only issue would be the points given for wins and ties when the PR is calculated. How could that be factored within the average rather than the initial PR?
Just a thought......
|
|
|
|
Post by drogba on Feb 4, 2020 16:42:04 GMT -6
Think PR system works fine right now
|
|
|
|
Post by gallstar on Feb 4, 2020 17:47:16 GMT -6
Think PR system works fine right now I have an actuary that works for me on several metrics. He took a look at the formula and his only additional comment to improve it was adding a .10 points per goal differential up to 3 and .10 the opposite way as well. That’s a variable that cleans up quality or soundness of a win. |
|
|
|
Post by Young gun on Feb 19, 2020 14:58:21 GMT -6
Think PR system works fine right now For all of the questions that come up about changing the rankings or the PR calculation in the end our 4 divisions have 4 numbers 1 seeds, 4 number 2 seeds, 4 number 3 seeds, 2 number 4 seeds and 2 number 5 seeds. Can it be any more accurate this year. Maybe you can say it is home field advantage, but 6 of our final 16 actually played on the road. Leave the PR system alone. |
|
sweepe
All-District
Posts: 163
|
Post by sweepe on Feb 19, 2020 19:56:25 GMT -6
Think PR system works fine right now But it is not a PR system. It's bogus. If it makes everyone feel comfortable calling it PR. Itsa proportional distribution only. Its a shane becsuse a real power rating can be implemented. There are several tweaks. The Maxpreps and ESPN soccer power ratings are bonafide. The algorithm can be enhanced for Louisiana HS soccer. I did this discussion last year at this time. Majority doesn't want any change. They just want something to call a PR and some want one that can be manipulated to their advantage. There should be a good discussion here about it but it will be disparaged by many preventing ideas and discussion. Same old same old. |
|
|
|
Post by LemonSqueezy on Feb 19, 2020 21:55:09 GMT -6
Think PR system works fine right now But it is not a PR system. It's bogus. If it makes everyone feel comfortable calling it PR. Itsa proportional distribution only. Its a shane becsuse a real power rating can be implemented. There are several tweaks. The Maxpreps and ESPN soccer power ratings are bonafide. The algorithm can be enhanced for Louisiana HS soccer. I did this discussion last year at this time. Majority doesn't want any change. They just want something to call a PR and some want one that can be manipulated to their advantage. There should be a good discussion here about it but it will be disparaged by many preventing ideas and discussion. Same old same old. Amen. How about a PR system that is statistically robust. For example, it's statistically indefensible to increase the PR points per game based upon the number [as opposed to percent] of games your opponent wins. There is a scientific literature reporting the development and validation of strength of schedule, impact of venue, etc. calculations. Here's a crazy idea: get a statistician to program the PR algorithm instead of coaches, principals, etc with clear conflicts of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by drogba on Feb 19, 2020 22:48:38 GMT -6
But it is not a PR system. It's bogus. If it makes everyone feel comfortable calling it PR. Itsa proportional distribution only. Its a shane becsuse a real power rating can be implemented. There are several tweaks. The Maxpreps and ESPN soccer power ratings are bonafide. The algorithm can be enhanced for Louisiana HS soccer. I did this discussion last year at this time. Majority doesn't want any change. They just want something to call a PR and some want one that can be manipulated to their advantage. There should be a good discussion here about it but it will be disparaged by many preventing ideas and discussion. Same old same old. Amen. How about a PR system that is statistically robust. For example, it's statistically indefensible to increase the PR points per game based upon the number [as opposed to percent] of games your opponent wins. There is a scientific literature reporting the development and validation of strength of schedule, impact of venue, etc. calculations. Here's a crazy idea: get a statistician to program the PR algorithm instead of coaches, principals, etc with clear conflicts of interest. Again look at semis and explain how it isn’t working. It works perfectly fine and do t believe will change |
|
|
|
Post by Formerhcpops on Feb 20, 2020 0:32:28 GMT -6
A PR system is not a specific term referring to a singularly defined system. There is no definitive "PR system" so calling what's used now "bogus" is just silly. Kinda like saying Kleenex is the only tissue, they're all tissues. I'm partial to Puffs Plus with Aloe, that's a darn fine tissue, great for blowing your nose 50 times in a day but not great for cleaning eyeglasses. Every system can achieve a desired outcome but could also deliver at least one unintended consequence when complexity (or aloe) is added, but I digress.
There are many PR systems and they vary based on a variety of needs and complexity. Every single one of them can be tweaked for better or worse and all can be gamed in one way or another - some more easily than others. The one we have now seems to work fine as seen in how closely it trues up with the coaches' poll after a full season (15 game minimum*) of data from each member. Are coaches gaming the system? Maybe, probably, but that's a delicate dance that comes with some risk since there are 172 coaches pumping the data into it. Also, I'm pretty sure it's not coaches and principals programming the algorithm. Have you met these people?! It's probably an Excel jockey who works for LHSAA and copied the formula from somewhere - or maybe Waraz does it for them.(?) It's not difficult to replicate. Seriously though, I'm not against deeper complexity and analysis (I make my living doing that) but sometimes applying additional complexity can introduce unintended consequences that won't be seen until robust and reliably sourced data is run through the calculation.
Who's preventing ideas and discussion? Have you seen the minimum game thread? I wouldn't slam any idea that addresses a specific problem with a reasonable solution, but over-complication on the front-end and unintended consequences on the back-end have to be considered before altering what already achieves the intended outcome. I haven't seen any substantive problems with the current system. If there are any, please share.
I think the only kink in the chain are late cancelations at the end of the season but that's not a problem with the current PR system. That's a problem with enforcement that could be fixed with some flavor of penalty assessed to BOTH coaches who agree to any last minute cancelation without external merit (ie. weather, earthquake, levee break, etc). I'd grant an exception for tournament games that are the third or fourth in a 24 hour period. Both coaches agree to cancel? Great, everybody go home.
|
|
sweepe
All-District
Posts: 163
|
Post by sweepe on Feb 20, 2020 13:10:43 GMT -6
A PR system is not a specific term referring to a singularly defined system. There is no definitive "PR system" so calling what's used now "bogus" is just silly. Kinda like saying Kleenex is the only tissue, they're all tissues. I'm partial to Puffs Plus with Aloe, that's a darn fine tissue, great for blowing your nose 50 times in a day but not great for cleaning eyeglasses. Every system can achieve a desired outcome but could also deliver at least one unintended consequence when complexity (or aloe) is added, but I digress. There are many PR systems and they vary based on a variety of needs and complexity. Every single one of them can be tweaked for better or worse and all can be gamed in one way or another - some more easily than others. The one we have now seems to work fine as seen in how closely it trues up with the coaches' poll after a full season (15 game minimum*) of data from each member. Are coaches gaming the system? Maybe, probably, but that's a delicate dance that comes with some risk since there are 172 coaches pumping the data into it. Also, I'm pretty sure it's not coaches and principals programming the algorithm. Have you met these people?! It's probably an Excel jockey who works for LHSAA and copied the formula from somewhere - or maybe Waraz does it for them.(?) It's not difficult to replicate. Seriously though, I'm not against deeper complexity and analysis (I make my living doing that) but sometimes applying additional complexity can introduce unintended consequences that won't be seen until robust and reliably sourced data is run through the calculation. Who's preventing ideas and discussion? Have you seen the minimum game thread? I wouldn't slam any idea that addresses a specific problem with a reasonable solution, but over-complication on the front-end and unintended consequences on the back-end have to be considered before altering what already achieves the intended outcome. I haven't seen any substantive problems with the current system. If there are any, please share. I think the only kink in the chain are late cancelations at the end of the season but that's not a problem with the current PR system. That's a problem with enforcement that could be fixed with some flavor of penalty assessed to BOTH coaches who agree to any last minute cancelation without external merit (ie. weather, earthquake, levee break, etc). I'd grant an exception for tournament games that are the third or fourth in a 24 hour period. Both coaches agree to cancel? Great, everybody go home. I disagree. Bogus is not a silly term. Maybe used by some in current events but not for this discussion. So for this post, i will refer the current system as BPR. Your analogy doesn't work for me. It's another logical fallacy. If you are somewhere and someone asks for a Kleenex and you respond by getting a few squares of toilet paper from the bathroom.The person may respond by saying " I asked for a tissue not toilet paper". BPR is toilet paper. Your statement of the many variations of PR is weak also. There is something called common report or practice. All common soccer PRs used include variables to strengthen solution. NCAA, Maxpreps, ESPN etc. I believe ESPN was developed by Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com who is considered a guru of such. You cannot proffer the BPR based on middle school math as an equivalent. It is not common usage. It's 2020. In my professional life, i did some statistical and error analysis for work. Before the advent of HP calculators and computers, it was common to perform proportional adjustments. I suggested in last years discussion that maybe a group of Mathletes from a gifted HS group could develop a bona fide PR with a little work. Another such group to code. There have been continual comments here that the current BPR works because of results. Yes, the BPR will work for the top echelon teams. But it is the lower ranked teams where it causes problems. Teams can be rejected a playoff spot by the current BPR. I have seen it here as mostly a lurker here for past 5 years. Of course, there can be numerous variables applied, but common factors are essential. Primary weight: Strength of schedule, strength of district, home/away game, cross division play. Secondary weights: Tournaments.( I would weight tournament Ws less than regular season games. Reasons being unbalanced or biased seeding, Not regulation time durations and other factors but if teams were seeded by a real PR then finalists should have a bump in weight) Recent opponent's sucess such as state finalists., Coaches poll, Away game long travel duration such as 2+hrs. As discussed here recently, there should be a benchmark of games played. An EXAMPLE for minimum : 15 regular season games,14 if one tournament played, 13 if two tournaments played. That's it for me. Same discussion as last Spring, nothing changes. I dont have a problem with it except do not call it PR. Call it BPR, that works for me. |
|
|
|
Post by parttimecoach on Feb 20, 2020 13:57:15 GMT -6
Why change anything? The brackets for all divisions as seeded by the Power Rankings were correct for 10 of the 12 teams in the semi-finals. All 1,2, and 3 seeds advanced. The 2 remaining teams to advance are 5 seeds. Seems to be working just fine.
On a side note, the Coach's Poll picked 10 out of 12 teams in the semi-finals too. The only teams missed were in Division I with the 6th and 8th ranked teams advancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by futbalfan on Feb 20, 2020 14:19:03 GMT -6
Coaches selling D1 public schools short.
|
|
|
|
Post by Formerhcpops on Feb 20, 2020 23:18:47 GMT -6
A PR system is not a specific term referring to a singularly defined system. There is no definitive "PR system" so calling what's used now "bogus" is just silly. Kinda like saying Kleenex is the only tissue, they're all tissues. I'm partial to Puffs Plus with Aloe, that's a darn fine tissue, great for blowing your nose 50 times in a day but not great for cleaning eyeglasses. Every system can achieve a desired outcome but could also deliver at least one unintended consequence when complexity (or aloe) is added, but I digress. There are many PR systems and they vary based on a variety of needs and complexity. Every single one of them can be tweaked for better or worse and all can be gamed in one way or another - some more easily than others. The one we have now seems to work fine as seen in how closely it trues up with the coaches' poll after a full season (15 game minimum*) of data from each member. Are coaches gaming the system? Maybe, probably, but that's a delicate dance that comes with some risk since there are 172 coaches pumping the data into it. Also, I'm pretty sure it's not coaches and principals programming the algorithm. Have you met these people?! It's probably an Excel jockey who works for LHSAA and copied the formula from somewhere - or maybe Waraz does it for them.(?) It's not difficult to replicate. Seriously though, I'm not against deeper complexity and analysis (I make my living doing that) but sometimes applying additional complexity can introduce unintended consequences that won't be seen until robust and reliably sourced data is run through the calculation. Who's preventing ideas and discussion? Have you seen the minimum game thread? I wouldn't slam any idea that addresses a specific problem with a reasonable solution, but over-complication on the front-end and unintended consequences on the back-end have to be considered before altering what already achieves the intended outcome. I haven't seen any substantive problems with the current system. If there are any, please share. I think the only kink in the chain are late cancelations at the end of the season but that's not a problem with the current PR system. That's a problem with enforcement that could be fixed with some flavor of penalty assessed to BOTH coaches who agree to any last minute cancelation without external merit (ie. weather, earthquake, levee break, etc). I'd grant an exception for tournament games that are the third or fourth in a 24 hour period. Both coaches agree to cancel? Great, everybody go home. I disagree. Bogus is not a silly term. Maybe used by some in current events but not for this discussion. So for this post, i will refer the current system as BPR. Your analogy doesn't work for me. It's another logical fallacy. If you are somewhere and someone asks for a Kleenex and you respond by getting a few squares of toilet paper from the bathroom.The person may respond by saying " I asked for a tissue not toilet paper". BPR is toilet paper. Your statement of the many variations of PR is weak also. There is something called common report or practice. All common soccer PRs used include variables to strengthen solution. NCAA, Maxpreps, ESPN etc. I believe ESPN was developed by Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com who is considered a guru of such. You cannot proffer the BPR based on middle school math as an equivalent. It is not common usage. It's 2020. In my professional life, i did some statistical and error analysis for work. Before the advent of HP calculators and computers, it was common to perform proportional adjustments. I suggested in last years discussion that maybe a group of Mathletes from a gifted HS group could develop a bona fide PR with a little work. Another such group to code. There have been continual comments here that the current BPR works because of results. Yes, the BPR will work for the top echelon teams. But it is the lower ranked teams where it causes problems. Teams can be rejected a playoff spot by the current BPR. I have seen it here as mostly a lurker here for past 5 years. Of course, there can be numerous variables applied, but common factors are essential. Primary weight: Strength of schedule, strength of district, home/away game, cross division play. Secondary weights: Tournaments.( I would weight tournament Ws less than regular season games. Reasons being unbalanced or biased seeding, Not regulation time durations and other factors but if teams were seeded by a real PR then finalists should have a bump in weight) Recent opponent's sucess such as state finalists., Coaches poll, Away game long travel duration such as 2+hrs. As discussed here recently, there should be a benchmark of games played. An EXAMPLE for minimum : 15 regular season games,14 if one tournament played, 13 if two tournaments played. That's it for me. Same discussion as last Spring, nothing changes. I dont have a problem with it except do not call it PR. Call it BPR, that works for me. I prefer the RoP (Ranking of Power) to BPR if you need to alter the nomenclature, but I'm flexible. Whaddya think? As for the TP entry into the analogy game, nice, but it better be Quilted Northern. I find Charmin a bit linty, don't you? However, even the cheapo rolls achieve the objective without the high cost or complexity of those beautifully quilted pillows of softness. You're referencing professionally executed, well-funded PR systems with complexity that requires money, time, and skill to continually satisfy the data hungry calculation. This is Louisiana high school soccer. Ours is still A PR system, it's just simpler to front-load with data and operate by people who have 20 other things to do each day. And it works. Add all of the data points you want, hire Nate Silver to shine up something nice for us but someone has to fill it with reliable, vetted data from 172 sources at least once a week just to to keep up with the boys. Who's gonna do that? You, me? They can't afford us. You'd do it for free? You're not biased are you? Sure, it's all auditable but who does that between the end of the season and the first playoff game? Add more weight for strength of schedule. Stand by for the unintended consequence of the weak and start-up programs struggling even more to get even close to 15 games and having a chance to build. Then you'd have to reduce the minimum to make it "fair"; you know, like life. That weakens the veracity of the "BPR" (or the RoP if you'll allow it) calculation and that's the opposite of the intended outcome. You've cited a single issue you're trying to solve but I don't see it. Every team has the ability to schedule to maximize their PR now. They still have to win. Adding the complexity you mentioned will open even more doors to gaming the system and create a true s#!^-show on the front-end. Do you have a square to spare? Besides, it seems as if we're headed toward a 32 team playoff for all divisions anyway. Won't that solve issue the bubble teams have with missing the playoffs? Throw in a public/select split and all bets are off. |
|
sweepe
All-District
Posts: 163
|
Post by sweepe on Feb 21, 2020 13:11:46 GMT -6
I disagree. Bogus is not a silly term. Maybe used by some in current events but not for this discussion. So for this post, i will refer the current system as BPR. Your analogy doesn't work for me. It's another logical fallacy. If you are somewhere and someone asks for a Kleenex and you respond by getting a few squares of toilet paper from the bathroom.The person may respond by saying " I asked for a tissue not toilet paper". BPR is toilet paper. Your statement of the many variations of PR is weak also. There is something called common report or practice. All common soccer PRs used include variables to strengthen solution. NCAA, Maxpreps, ESPN etc. I believe ESPN was developed by Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com who is considered a guru of such. You cannot proffer the BPR based on middle school math as an equivalent. It is not common usage. It's 2020. In my professional life, i did some statistical and error analysis for work. Before the advent of HP calculators and computers, it was common to perform proportional adjustments. I suggested in last years discussion that maybe a group of Mathletes from a gifted HS group could develop a bona fide PR with a little work. Another such group to code. There have been continual comments here that the current BPR works because of results. Yes, the BPR will work for the top echelon teams. But it is the lower ranked teams where it causes problems. Teams can be rejected a playoff spot by the current BPR. I have seen it here as mostly a lurker here for past 5 years. Of course, there can be numerous variables applied, but common factors are essential. Primary weight: Strength of schedule, strength of district, home/away game, cross division play. Secondary weights: Tournaments.( I would weight tournament Ws less than regular season games. Reasons being unbalanced or biased seeding, Not regulation time durations and other factors but if teams were seeded by a real PR then finalists should have a bump in weight) Recent opponent's sucess such as state finalists., Coaches poll, Away game long travel duration such as 2+hrs. As discussed here recently, there should be a benchmark of games played. An EXAMPLE for minimum : 15 regular season games,14 if one tournament played, 13 if two tournaments played. That's it for me. Same discussion as last Spring, nothing changes. I dont have a problem with it except do not call it PR. Call it BPR, that works for me. I prefer the RoP (Ranking of Power) to BPR if you need to alter the nomenclature, but I'm flexible. Whaddya think? As for the TP entry into the analogy game, nice, but it better be Quilted Northern. I find Charmin a bit linty, don't you? However, even the cheapo rolls achieve the objective without the high cost or complexity of those beautifully quilted pillows of softness. You're referencing professionally executed, well-funded PR systems with complexity that requires money, time, and skill to continually satisfy the data hungry calculation. This is Louisiana high school soccer. Ours is still A PR system, it's just simpler to front-load with data and operate by people who have 20 other things to do each day. And it works. Add all of the data points you want, hire Nate Silver to shine up something nice for us but someone has to fill it with reliable, vetted data from 172 sources at least once a week just to to keep up with the boys. Who's gonna do that? You, me? They can't afford us. You'd do it for free? You're not biased are you? Sure, it's all auditable but who does that between the end of the season and the first playoff game? Add more weight for strength of schedule. Stand by for the unintended consequence of the weak and start-up programs struggling even more to get even close to 15 games and having a chance to build. Then you'd have to reduce the minimum to make it "fair"; you know, like life. That weakens the veracity of the "BPR" (or the RoP if you'll allow it) calculation and that's the opposite of the intended outcome. You've cited a single issue you're trying to solve but I don't see it. Every team has the ability to schedule to maximize their PR now. They still have to win. Adding the complexity you mentioned will open even more doors to gaming the system and create a true s#!^-show on the front-end. Do you have a square to spare? Besides, it seems as if we're headed toward a 32 team playoff for all divisions anyway. Won't that solve issue the bubble teams have with missing the playoffs? Throw in a public/select split and all bets are off. Touche' Ok. I'll play. Firrstly, let's get the TP issue or tissue settled. The TP preference here is the one with the snuggly bear which answers the rhetorical question that a bear does shat in the woods. The TP with the cute angel is kind of weird in a metaphysical way. RoP doesn't work for me. I already use that acronym in my profession for decades.As a geodetic surveyor, ROP is ratio of precision. It is the ratio of measurement error found in a traverse after multiple adjustments. With GPS, it is stilled referred but a robust least square statistical analysis is used. I won't you bore further. But I will bend and suggest Pseudo Rank of Power or PRP. Since we are all so busy, one doesnt have to pronounce the letters. Jusy say 'perp'. It will save us valuable time everyday. As for the math, knowledge is free. You just have to want it. I had the pleasure of meeting and having a great discussion with the teacher who was the catalyst for Khan Academy. He was the math teacher in New Orleans who assigned Sal Khan's niece an algebra assignment and she in an email turned to her uncle for help. You seem like a smart fellow and maybe autodictic. You or anyone else can gain the knowledge to implement a better PRP. Our son in middle school taught himself basic probability theory. I got him interested in game theory using penalty kick as an analogy. The game theory that goes on between the shooter and the keeper. I did not advocate anything, only simply expressed that more sophisticated systems are the norm. Not a PRP reflecting the state's educational rank. Why cant everyone use Maxpreps? Not difficult. They even have a phone app .I've seen game scanners at a few games thid year. They will become common tech in the near future. The variables are for consideration but they can be weighted as needed or eliminated as needed.. Strength of schedule is definitely a criteria. Look at LSU's FBS ranking. I I don't favor the 32 team playoffs. It rewards mediocrity. Most coaches challenge their players with the goal of playing competitively in their district and making the playoffs.32 teams takes that away It does give players one more HS game experience but they will know iti s undeserved. I'm signing out. I'll keep my flak jacket on for a little while so anyone can fire away. But I'm done like last year's discussion. Main priority next is how to keep my better and smarter half feet warm for the game tonight. The game is for the players not coaches, schools, and parents. Let it be fair. |
|
