|
Post by uhscubs1 on Feb 15, 2020 18:47:01 GMT -6
Probably should take that discussion out of the St Paul/Lafayette thread.
Why do you need to play a minimum number of games?
Discuss
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 18:53:38 GMT -6
I've had this question before and no one answered so I would like to hear an explanation to having a minimum number of games played to qualify for the playoffs.
Scrap this rule all together and wherever a team falls in the power rankings let them play at that seed regardless of how many games they played.
Having a minimum # of games played to qualify will only hurt low income schools that struggle to establish soccer programs and I guarantee you a rule like this will hurt growth of the sport in Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by tlabat on Feb 15, 2020 18:56:47 GMT -6
What would stop a team from playing 2 games, winning both of them and then finishing in top 4/5 in power rating.
|
|
|
Post by Rabid Monkey on Feb 15, 2020 19:00:42 GMT -6
I think that there needs to be a minimum number of games to qualify for the playoffs but I think 15 may be too high. I agree that 15 or higher does have a negative impact on the lower income schools.
A team shouldn’t be able to only play 4-5 games and qualify for a first round bye.
|
|
|
Post by gallstar on Feb 15, 2020 19:01:30 GMT -6
I've had this question before and no one answered so I would like to hear an explanation to having a minimum number of games played to qualify for the playoffs. Scrap this rule all together and wherever a team falls in the power rankings let them play at that seed regardless of how many games they played. Having a minimum # of games played to qualify will only hurt low income schools that struggle to establish soccer programs and I guarantee you a rule like this will hurt growth of the sport in Louisiana. There does need to be a minimum number of games in order to establish a power ranking. This part is easy to decipher. How many is enough is a bit more complex issue. I personally like fewer games because I think the quality deteriorates when teams play more than 2 per week. The risk of injury also increases with excessive games.
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 19:04:48 GMT -6
What would stop a team from playing 2 games, winning both of them and then finishing in top 4/5 in power rating. I don't think that would be mathematically possible would it? And only playing two games would be a severe disadvantag, not to mention a huge disservice to the team who actually wants to play. if a team wants to play two games for a playoff spot to be bounced in the first game they play to play a total of three games all season? That situation is not realistic to me.
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 19:05:44 GMT -6
I've had this question before and no one answered so I would like to hear an explanation to having a minimum number of games played to qualify for the playoffs. Scrap this rule all together and wherever a team falls in the power rankings let them play at that seed regardless of how many games they played. Having a minimum # of games played to qualify will only hurt low income schools that struggle to establish soccer programs and I guarantee you a rule like this will hurt growth of the sport in Louisiana. There does need to be a minimum number of games in order to establish a power ranking. This part is easy to decipher. How many is enough is a bit more complex issue. I personally like fewer games because I think the quality deteriorates when teams play more than 2 per week. The risk of injury also increases with excessive games. I really dont think a minimum needs to be established for power rankings and the power ranking will work itself out regardless. I really think a minimum will just hurt low income teams
|
|
|
Post by upper90 on Feb 15, 2020 19:10:13 GMT -6
What would stop a team from playing 2 games, winning both of them and then finishing in top 4/5 in power rating. I mean, if someone wants to do that, and they feel like the can put a good product on the field after a season where teams are playing 20+ games compared to your 2, then go for it. I guarantee that it’ll come back to bite that team 99.99% of the time. By the next season, no one would schedule said team because it wouldn’t benefit them because they only played 2 games. The problem would inevitably fix itself.
|
|
|
Post by gallstar on Feb 15, 2020 19:10:39 GMT -6
There does need to be a minimum number of games in order to establish a power ranking. This part is easy to decipher. How many is enough is a bit more complex issue. I personally like fewer games because I think the quality deteriorates when teams play more than 2 per week. The risk of injury also increases with excessive games. I really dont think a minimum needs to be established for power rankings and the power ranking will work itself out regardless. I really think a minimum will just hurt low income teams You understand how the PR works? 5 points for a win and 1 point for each win of your opponents. If you beat two teams with 12 wins each you would have a PR of 17 or the second-highest in the state. That's not improbable that a team could figure out how to do this. There must be a minimum and I'm not buying the 15 is the perfect answer. I think this is debatable but it can't be no minimum if we're gonna use the PR.
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 19:13:51 GMT -6
I really dont think a minimum needs to be established for power rankings and the power ranking will work itself out regardless. I really think a minimum will just hurt low income teams You understand how the PR works? 5 points for a win and 1 point for each win of your opponents. If you beat two teams with 12 wins each you would have a PR of 17 or the second-highest in the state. That's not improbable that a team could figure out how to do this. There must be a minimum and I'm not buying the 15 is the perfect answer. I think this is debatable but it can't be no minimum if we're gonna use the PR. Do we really think a coach would do this? Just play two games to just make the playoffs? I'm saying itll work itself out because coaches and players want to play, I dont think any coach in this whole country would want to schedule just two games so they can hopefully make the playoffs
|
|
|
Post by tlabat on Feb 15, 2020 19:16:48 GMT -6
What would stop a team from playing 2 games, winning both of them and then finishing in top 4/5 in power rating. I mean, if someone wants to do that, and they feel like the can put a good product on the field after a season where teams are playing 20+ games compared to your 2, then go for it. I guarantee that it’ll come back to bite that team 99.99% of the time. By the next season, no one would schedule said team because it wouldn’t benefit them because they only played 2 games. The problem would inevitably fix itself. This is a good point. Agree with Gallstar though that ultimately if PR determines ranking there needs to be some type of minimum. I think biggest issue is cancellation of games late in season for questionable reasons aka deliberate power rating manipulation. We had two games this year that were originally on schedule that were not played: Christ Episcopal and STM. STM was cancelled on our end. We had buses break down and could not physically get to Lafayette. Christ Episcopal was cancelled in December because their field was “unplayable” I was never able to get them to agree to a reschedule date. I think they ducked the game intentionally. Almost impossible to prove if cancellations are legitimate or not, but I think late season cancellations are a real manipulation of system.
|
|
|
Post by gallstar on Feb 15, 2020 19:21:09 GMT -6
You understand how the PR works? Five points for a win and 1 point for each win of your opponents. If you beat two teams with 12 wins each, you would have a PR of 17 or the second-highest in the state. That's not improbable that a team could figure out how to do this. There must be a minimum, and I'm not buying the 15 is the perfect answer. I think this is debatable, but it can't be any minimum if we're going to use the PR. Do we think a coach would do this? Just play two games to make the playoffs? I'm saying it'll work itself out Because coaches And players Want to play; I don't think Any coach In this whole, the Country would Want to Schedule just Two games So they Can hopefully Make the Playoffs likely no! Possible yes. That's the reason rules are made. Same reason they have speed limits. All things require minimum and maximum and a set of rules. The McKinely boys are within the rules, and I hope they win it all. It would be a tremendous accomplishment and would demonstrate much of what I believe is broken with American soccer. The fun has been stripped from the game for adults to grab money! I think streetball would ultimately produce the best players in our country.
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 19:26:18 GMT -6
Do we think a coach would do this? Just play two games to make the playoffs? I'm saying it'll work itself out Because coaches And players Want to play; I don't think Any coach In this whole, the Country would Want to Schedule just Two games So they Can hopefully Make the Playoffs likely no! Possible yes. That's the reason rules are made. Same reason they have speed limits. All things require minimum and maximum and a set of rules. The McKinely boys are within the rules, and I hope they win it all. It would be a tremendous accomplishment and would demonstrate much of what I believe is broken with American soccer. The fun has been stripped from the game for adults to grab money! I think streetball would ultimately produce the best players in our country. I understand what you are saying about the minimum and max rules, but I still thinking having a minimum to qualify will hurt lower income schools that have trouble establishing their program. I mean if we 100% need a minimum then we have to drop it from 15
|
|
|
Post by upper90 on Feb 15, 2020 19:33:08 GMT -6
In my opinion, I don’t think there needs to be a minimum. The PR typically works itself out in the end, regardless of games played. Like I said, could 1 team play 2 games and game the system? Sure. But the next season, I guarantee they’d be hard pressed to find games again.
However, if you did want to make a minimum, I think a good number is drop it from 15 to 10-12. That’s 1 game a week for the entire season, including Thanksgiving and Christmas break. I think that’s doable, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Rabid Monkey on Feb 15, 2020 19:37:34 GMT -6
In my opinion, I don’t think there needs to be a minimum. The PR typically works itself out in the end, regardless of games played. Like I said, could 1 team play 2 games and game the system? Sure. But the next season, I guarantee they’d be hard pressed to find games again. However, if you did want to make a minimum, I think a good number is drop it from 15 to 10-12. That’s 1 game a week for the entire season, including Thanksgiving and Christmas break. I think that’s doable, for sure. m A team wouldn’t have to game the system cause they would be in a district with 3-4 games guaranteed every year Plus - a team could only play those 3-4 games and end up with a result that kept them out of the top 24 and if they won district would go to 24 So it appears that they auto district qualifier should have some type of minimum as well
|
|
|
Post by firebruin on Feb 15, 2020 19:56:07 GMT -6
I haven't had any trouble meeting the 15 game mininum as a low income school. I play 1-3 tournaments year, and I try and schedule 18-19 regular matches. There are enough tournaments in the main population centers so that you can snag 3-8 games pretty easily on a weekend. Even just playing 2 a week, it is pretty easy to hit your 15.
|
|
|
Post by tlabat on Feb 15, 2020 19:58:49 GMT -6
Are there any others teams in recent memory that have failed to hit 15-game minimum?
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 20:10:26 GMT -6
I haven't had any trouble meeting the 15 game mininum as a low income school. I play 1-3 tournaments year, and I try and schedule 18-19 regular matches. There are enough tournaments in the main population centers so that you can snag 3-8 games pretty easily on a weekend. Even just playing 2 a week, it is pretty easy to hit your 15. Your also established. McKinley has had 3 different coaches in three years its tough for programs like this that aren't established with constant turnover to do what you did. Two years ago broadmoor made playoffs not hitting the 15 games their coach recently left too after her two year stint and they have a new guy as well
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Feb 15, 2020 20:15:09 GMT -6
Whether you like it or not... it’s the way it is in the sports of soccer, basketball, baseball and softball. It is to prevent power rating manipulations. Yes you can play less games and get higher PR. 15 is the same number for all these sports. And there is overwhelming support for changing this rule to state that teams that don’t meet the minimum will not be able to make the playoffs at all.
This is what is talked about during advisory meetings and coaches association meetings with the Lhsaa representatives in attendance. It is very EASY to get 15 games. Especially in a metro area. While I do understand there are issues with certain schools... these school should decided if they want to participate in playoffs or just want to provide a team to play on until they are in a position to compete under the power rating requirements to play in the state playoffs. It may not be what your ultimate goal is and this you can play as little amount of games as you see fit. But if you want to qualify for the tournament, then you must meet the requirements. I do understand there are some issues with McKinley and their issues from Last season that affected their scheduling. The rules as they are now allow them in the playoffs but seeded at the bottom. It is also obvious that this McKinley team can go with the big boys so they are a different example from the usual teams that are in this situation. This is an outlying case from what it is. But I do think that they could have easily played more games... 15 isn’t a lot. But again, under our rules we play by, they are on the tournament and seeded at the bottom of the bracket. It is what it is and everyone has to beat 4 or 5 teams to win the title. But just updating the way this rule is headed... it isn’t going away. It’s going the other direction, no playoffs at all without minimum games played. Whether the minimum is 15 or it is 12 or 14... that is the question.
|
|
|
Post by woodlawnsoccer on Feb 15, 2020 20:32:35 GMT -6
Whether you like it or not... it’s the way it is in the sports of soccer, basketball, baseball and softball. It is to prevent power rating manipulations. Yes you can play less games and get higher PR. 15 is the same number for all these sports. And there is overwhelming support for changing this rule to state that teams that don’t meet the minimum will not be able to make the playoffs at all. This is what is talked about during advisory meetings and coaches association meetings with the Lhsaa representatives in attendance. It is very EASY to get 15 games. Especially in a metro area. While I do understand there are issues with certain schools... these school should decided if they want to participate in playoffs or just want to provide a team to play on until they are in a position to compete under the power rating requirements to play in the state playoffs. It may not be what your ultimate goal is and this you can play as little amount of games as you see fit. But if you want to qualify for the tournament, then you must meet the requirements. I do understand there are some issues with McKinley and their issues from Last season that affected their scheduling. The rules as they are now allow them in the playoffs but seeded at the bottom. It is also obvious that this McKinley team can go with the big boys so they are a different example from the usual teams that are in this situation. This is an outlying case from what it is. But I do think that they could have easily played more games... 15 isn’t a lot. But again, under our rules we play by, they are on the tournament and seeded at the bottom of the bracket. It is what it is and everyone has to beat 4 or 5 teams to win the title. But just updating the way this rule is headed... it isn’t going away. It’s going the other direction, no playoffs at all without minimum games played. Whether the minimum is 15 or it is 12 or 14... that is the question. I would like to know how many people on this advisory meeting, coaches association, and the people who will be making the final decision on this rule are from or represent low income schools. Without someone there to stand up for or advocate for the low income schools, rules like these will continue to be passed that will only hurt these schools or programs without regard, and have no affect on wealthy or private schools. If the goal is to grow and expand soccer than we must consider either scrapping the rule altogether or seriously decreasing the requirement or else it'll be more low income, not established schools that will be the hurt the most
|
|