|
Post by wildcatstriker on Feb 16, 2020 0:47:32 GMT -6
It is very easy to tell McKinley to go schedule 15 games since they are in a metro area. Plenty of teams to play. But what if no one wants to play you because they think it will hurt their PR? They don't know how many games you will play and if you will win any. Especially when the coach comes on board after just about everyone has their schedule set. When the McKinley coach came on here and asked for games during the season which one of you offered to play? Chad, no disrespect here but I believe your first year at BC when you said you scheduled 22 games PR was not in play. Therefore, playing you did not hurt anyone if your team did not win many games that year. Every coach on here saying it is easy to schedule 15 games please be willing to play McKinley next year at their place and please bring the fees for the refs. All of you should have an understanding of the situation McKinley is in and how difficult it really is for them. Especially if your school is low income as well. Yes rules are needed but not all rules are good. Minimum number of games is a silly rule and as upper90 said earlier, if someone thinks playing two games is going to get them ready for the playoffs then I would love to see someone try that. Was supposed to have a game at McKinley last year. Both teams were there ready to play. No officials. Lots of variables come into play. Over the past 5-10 years HS soccer, with the dedication and cooperation of a large group of coaches, the game grew exponentially. But the past 3-5 years, as more schools are playing, everyone wants to protect the system. Either we as a soccer community are committed to growing the sport or we aren’t. If we are, like uhscubs1 said, answer the call from McKinley. Or better yet, make the call.
|
|
|
Post by mckinleyboys on Feb 16, 2020 13:52:46 GMT -6
Well in an act of kindness, Gallstar and Rabid Monkey would like to buy Stock in McKinely and become honorary fans. Our team let us down and not gently. We’re sitting on the cusp of self-destruction. Any consideration is appreciated. I’ll get you guys a shirt! Lol
|
|
|
Post by istina on Feb 16, 2020 17:19:10 GMT -6
Let's be real for a moment, there have always been and will always be high, medium and low income schools. There have always been and will always be the top dogs and the lower echelon teams (these may change over time). Most teams fall in the middle. Mckinley is coming out of a tough situation, but one the former administrators and School Board created. It is mentioned that seniors will be affected. It is not the LHSAA's responsibility to hire coaches and make schedules at individual schools. Thus, it is up to the individual school administrators and School Boards to make sure the sports they wish to participate in, have at least a coach prior to the season starting. I am well aware there may be extenuating circumstances, but this is not a LHSAA issue. If a school fails to hire a coach in enough time to get a schedule of 15 games set, it is the school administrators who are hurting their students, not the LHSAA. This 15 game minimum for seeding placement has been in effect for a few years and this is the first time it has been readily complained about when enforced.
The rules governing Louisiana High School Soccer are derived from the Principals or their designees from across this state. Both select and non-select, and high income and low income alike. They vote to approve or fail changes to the rules. You want to complain, go to the Principals who voted for the 15 game minimum and sway their vote. We all know soccer is not a priority at 90% of the schools in the LHSAA, so don't expect to get much sympathy. This is not a soccer community issue, aside from a few who are content. Everyone wants the sport to grow. It needs to become important to the school administrators.
|
|
|
Post by deltachartersoccer on Feb 16, 2020 19:47:02 GMT -6
This is a tough one for me. It makes sense that there has to be a minimum amount of games to give substance to the schedule that you play. You have to have a solid sample size of games to show you are deserving of the playoffs position you have.
I also understand the struggles of getting games. We are an hour and a half away from our nearest opponent. DC is probably one of the most rural schools in the state with a program. 4th smallest school. Our boys played 2 home games this season. 17 games total and 9 of those came from tournaments. If we didn’t play tournaments it’s highly unlikely we get 15 games in every season.
There has to be a minimum though and a mandatory minimum at that. But the minimum should be closer to 10. If you can’t get 10 on your schedule then you’re just not trying.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Feb 16, 2020 21:07:23 GMT -6
It was mentioned in one of the other threads that there may be a maximum number of games played in the works. I think that's just as important. And hopefully that number can be about 24-25, maybe even less. I think the overemphasis on tournaments is bad, most significantly from a player health perspective.
My proposal:
12 game minimum to make playoffs (I suggest scheduling a few extra games to make sure you don't get caught out by weather) 24 game maximum (regardless of whether they are tournament games or not) Maximum of two games played in a day (no more of this three or four games in a day nonsense)
I think this will help the current perception of PR where teams are trying to dodge teams that don't play many games. I also don't think we should reward teams for cramming in 30 games into a season by playing a bunch of tournament games. Most schools don't have the depth to pull that off. If you want more kids at your school to play, find some more JV games and tournaments.
On a side note, I know there's been some discussion of basing the power ratings on win-loss percentage rather than raw totals of wins. I seem to recall that some people ran the numbers and it didn't make much difference. But if we can tweak the PR to de-emphasize the totals, I'm all for it.
Also, a suggestion for tournament directors: don't have a playoff. If you want to hand out trophies, do it with a points system. Let's not have any of the Jesuit-Dutchtown situations where we have to debate whether or not something is a forfeit, or a situation where teams end up in a playoff against each other and don't want to play because they're district opponents or they already have a game scheduled. Set up all the matchups in advance. And IMO just save the money on trophies and don't even have a winner. There's only one trophy that matters in each division and they don't hand that one out until February.
|
|
|
Post by uhscubs1 on Feb 17, 2020 5:44:32 GMT -6
Agreed Kevin for the most part. Not sure why there needs to be a minimum games played. I have been told that you can't "game" the PR system. While I think it is very difficult to set up a schedule at the beginning of the season to game the system to get a 1 or 2 seed, however, the PR system is "gamed" every year. This "gaming" happens at the end of the season with game cancelations and late adds prior to the cut off. These late season changes are just jockeying hopefully a place or two in the PR.
The argument for a minimum is what if someone schedules very few games against teams they can beat that have 10 to 12 wins each? First, everyone is put in a district and every district has its rules on how many games they have to play. That helps to make sure that type of gaming cannot happen. Could someone still "game" the system by not scheduling a lot of games? Sure but the odds are stacked against them being successful in my opinion.
Finally, if you still think a team can "game" the system with minimum games then make minimum game rule you have to play X games to be in the Top 8 or 10 or whatever (Think Bye or something along those lines). Then seed that team right after that point, not 24 or 32 or whatever the total number of teams that make playoffs ends up being.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad70448 on Feb 17, 2020 7:02:58 GMT -6
Listening to most other coaches here who coach low income schools(my definition is usually schools that give 100% free lunches but that doesn't always tell the story either btw), I've decided to change my argument from just low income schools to low income schools who aren't established as programs which I've been mentioning. Coaches like you and the coach at bonnabel coach low income schools but have been there for a number of years and with your dedication, sacrifices, and work have been able to be successful. Kudos and thank you for putting the time in to grow the sport and give these boys a chance but not every low income school, the majority of low income schools are not like this. You and bonnabel, school's like this, are an outlier I would say. I would say income ties directly to reputation and being able to establish a good program and reputation of being established and good is what gets you games. When I was the coach three years ago at McKinley we had no rep and could barely get teams to play us. Many flat ignored my request. Again, while I seriously commend you for the sacrifice and what you do for giving your kids the best chance to succeed, it took years of your sacrifice that a first year head coach who's already coming in behind the 8 ball by being hired late simply can not replicate. This rule would be punishing a first year coach and program like this while not affecting yours even though they are both low income. These type of schools should still be represented. Mckjnelt is not the only case of this. I remember two years ago broadmoor got a first year head coach and had some success and made the playoffs although they did not meet the 15 games either but they lost in the first round. While this rule may not affect your type of low income school it will definitely punish the McKinley's and broadmoors of the world. In this respect, I dont think you can compare your program to these, its apples to oranges even tho you're both low income. This idea that if we can do it so can everyone else doesnt apply when you have a tenured coach like yourself and these other schools get new coaches every year. It's not fair to the first year coach and seniors to tell them they cant participate in the playoffs .I don't think every team can with minimal effort or maximal effort sometimes teams are put in bad situations like I'm mentioning We are talking about scheduling Our first season we played 22 games. I didn’t know very many coaches and made calls. I made calls for weeks and filled a schedule. It’s not hard. And like I said, we aren’t a metro area school. 30 min from Lafayette. We are talking about 15 games. Find your goal and schedule accordingly. If you want to make playoffs schedule 15 or more. It isn’t hard. By the way... we are title I and 100% free lunches and breakfast as well. Yes we are established now, but we never had difficulty scheduling. 2 years ago and the year before we played ALL road games due to stadium field being redone (another sign of a low income school and school system) and still had 29 and 27 respectively. I could show you Opelousas High... same school system and probably even more of a low income population. No CLUB players unlike McKinley and Beau Chene. They get it done with multiple coaches over the years. Again... this isn’t about McKinley. It’s about the rules and a mathematical formula for the playoff tournament. And 15 is simple To achieve with a few phone calls One last question... were you able to play 15 games when you coaches there? Don't sell yourself short, it wasn't easy to schedule those 22 games. You made an effort for several weeks making dozens if not hundreds of phone calls during those several weeks. I am sure leaving messages and dealing with rejections, but over time you built your program. And, I am sure that wasn't easy. It might seem easy looking back, but it was probably a labor of love, BC is lucky to have you.
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Feb 17, 2020 7:36:10 GMT -6
Some musings on this thread:
1) I have more empathy for a school like Delta Charter finding games than McKinley. Delta is two turns off of blacktop in way northeast LA (no disrespect intended). McKinley is in metro Baton Rouge--there are 25 schools within easy distance to get to. Games are available. Get on the phone and get them--regardless of the circumstances around the coach. I never received a call at Ascension Christian to play (nor did Matt South), so I'm not all feeling sorry for them.
2) McKinley has fielded a team for over 30 years. They were in our district when I was coaching at East Ascension in the early 90's. They were good then, and they still are for the most part. Its not like McKinley just popped up. So acting like they are a "new program" is a bit off the mark.
3) The issue here is more about getting a coach and KEEPING one, and I think that has a lot to do with teams scheduling, PR, success, etc. McKinley isn't a pearl job like Jesuit, St Pauls, etc. Its gonna take a lot of work, lot of heartaches, lots of extra time, and most coaches don't want to do that. Almost to a tee, the most successful programs have coaches that have been with the program for an extended period of time. It takes time and a vision to build a program that's consistently successful, and many young coaches want instant gratification that doesn't keep them at a school thats a lot of work like McKinley. Its easy to coach affluent white talented players. An inner city school with limited resources takes a bit more effort. Not a lot of coaches would want to do that
4) A minimum absolutely should be in place for PR. We already have coaches starting to figure out that if the play/dont play games how it will help them. I hate to say it, but Waraz' herculean effort to give us daily PR makes it easier for teams to see where they can "adjust" their schedule to help them. that being said, if there was no minimum, teams WOULD find a way to max their PR and play fewer games. Its easier to inflate your PR with fewer games than more. It does matter, especially with discussions and rule changes to put 1/4 finals on forward at the site of the higher rated team. If you could manipulate your PR to get a top 8 seed, get a bye, and potentially play the remainder of your games at home, you think teams wouldn't do that? It would take about two years under that system and schools would figure it out. I'm all for am minimum, but i do agree it needs to be around 10-12 games.
5) I agree with kevin--we play way too many games. I don't really understand it, because above about 19 games, it really doesnt help your PR that much to win but hurts way more to lose. Almost all coaches in HS are club coaches. We hear so much from the club side of things about how we play too many games, about how we need to have a a 4/1 or 5/1 training to game ratio, and about how there are too many tournaments, yet when HS rolls around, the same coaches are cramming 35 games into 3 months and playing 3-4 tournaments. So which is it? Personally, I'd like to see the regular season not start until after Thanksgiving, a 10 game minimum, a 22 game maximum, a two game or 1 tournament per week max and the season be a bit shorter. I think many of the PR related gripes could be reduced if we got closer to standardizing the # of games played. Footballs PR is based on teams all (or mostly) playing the same # of games. I know that's not altogether possible in soccer, but maybe we could get closer to that. It certainly wouldn't hurt the players, would give club players a chance to play in Thanksgiving showcases with continuous training with their club teams, and allow for football athletes to finish or get closer to finishing their seasons before starting soccer. Just gotta turn down the ambitions of some of our coaches a bit.
|
|
|
Post by firebruin on Feb 17, 2020 9:36:10 GMT -6
I'm not as verbose as Coach Ray.. 1) Agree. You don't wait until January to try and find your 15. 2) Every program has ups and down. 3) Especially with the low income schools, you need to keep consistency in your program. 4( I would stick with 15. There are hardly any schools (16 across 4 divisions?) that couldn't hit 15. Most of those didn't win a match and are truly new programs. 5) Personally, I think around 22 is a good number as that is an average of about 2 per week over the season.
|
|
|
Post by DocT on Feb 17, 2020 9:43:17 GMT -6
Start making your schedule as soon as the season ends. When I was coaching I started contacting coaches in March to make my schedule. Waiting until September, October could definitely cause problems getting to 15. And a big HAPPY BIRTHDAY GALLSTAR. CHEERS MATE!!
|
|
|
Post by Formerhcpops on Feb 17, 2020 10:15:50 GMT -6
Someone may have already said it but a minimum is specifically NOT silly, it is required. PR is a calculation that demands all members meet a baseline for it to work. Why do you think the coaches' poll and PR don't true up until late in the season? I'll answer for you: As the season progresses and the data builds, the calculation becomes more robust and more accurate. PR is designed for leagues/divisions in which all teams cannot logistically play each other but a baseline data set for each member must be met for it to work. The minimum also has the byproduct of equalizing each team's baseline exposure to risk and reward which mitigates gaming the system to some extent (not saying anyone has). Lower the minimum or raise it, it doesn't matter, but you can't eliminate it unless you eliminate the PR altogether. A quick count of the 172 teams across all divisions yielded about seven (7) teams who didn't make the minimum 15 games, that's about 4% for those mathematically challenged - not a bad failure rate. Four of those seven are in Div II. Three of them were among the bottom four teams in D-II and had zero wins and likely knew early they had little chance at the playoffs and they STILL got 12, 13, and 14 games in. The other was McKinley who played eight (8) games and shows results from a forfeit which makes nine (9).
McKinley had the challenge of coming off of a two-year LHSAA suspension in all sports reduced to one after appeal. Understandably and by all accounts, they began the year with their administration and athletics in complete disarray. They were not let down by the soccer community or anyone else. They were wronged by the adult-age administrators who put them in that situation. Period.
McKinley is in the playoffs as per the rules as written and I'm glad those boys have the experience and opportunity in the post-season. If they prevail over Holy Cross, more power to them and I'll be a fan as they continue. Going forward, the rule of meeting the minimum should be corrected and those not meeting it should not advance. PR is an objective system that, much like the real world, doesn't care about individual tales of woe - nor should it.
In my mind, the Helen Cox game is an oddity that warrants more attention than it's been given. By all accounts, they enforced their minimum attendance and kept players out leaving them with less than a full side which gave McKinley an easy path to advance. Hmmm, there's that minimum thing again. I just wonder when they knew they had players they couldn't put on the field. Perhaps they should not have accepted the playoff spot in the first place?
Lastly, McKinley's coach should be commended for coming in late and salvaging their season. As a Holy Cross parent, I'm looking forward to a great match and hope both teams leave the pitch healthy and with nothing left in their tanks.
|
|
|
Post by playthe361 on Feb 17, 2020 13:01:15 GMT -6
I moved to Louisiana a little more than a year ago. I took some time away from coaching to hang out with my 2 year old for most of my time here. I have worked with a few club teams, running some tactical sessions here and there but, nothing crazy. I was hired at Fontainebleau 2 or 3 weeks before the season started this year. Needless to say, I am still in the process of learning and understanding how things, like the situation being discussed in this thread, are done here.
I have coached teams in a few different states since I started coaching full time, Minnesota, North Carolina, Florida and, now, Louisiana. The way high school soccer is organized and run here feels somewhat foreign to me, based on my experiences in the other states I have coached in. While the numbers vary in each one, Minnesota, Florida and North Carolina have specific minimums and maximums on games that can be played in a regular season. Florida allows the most games to be played, 25 regular season games. I played my high school soccer in Orlando. The top teams in Florida can end up playing 34 or 35 games if they end up in the state semifinals and finals. North Carolina is very similar with just a few less games being played. Minnesota had the lowest numbers. 12 game minimum with a 16 game max.
There were three things they all did in a very similar way, 1. we could play a tournament during the season but, the results did not have any affect on regular season win, loss, tie totals. They were used to keep teams playing over any holiday breaks we would run into. 2. almost every varsity team in the state would play in a preseason jamboree tournament to prepare for the upcoming season. They were much like the ones played here at the beginning of the season, I guess. Every team had a specific jamboree they would participate in. It was very much a tradition type of thing. It was a ton of fun and it was productive. The games didn't count against records and coaches got to see different players and work on tactics prior to the first regular season game. We would play 4 games over a weekend, 2 on a Friday and 2 on a Saturday. One thing I do not like here is the fact that our teams are allowed to play 3 games in a single day. I think it is unsafe and counterproductive. Even if the halves are shortened, I don't think it should be allowed to happen. And, 3. every team was involved in the state playoffs. All three states have very complex, very big, well organized playoff brackets in place. Everyone had a chance. It was setup, pretty much, like the NCAA basketball tourney is. 4 regions, North, South, East, and West, made up of teams from the various districts around the state. The playoff process, from beginning to end, did take a little longer but, it was always an amazing experience for everyone. I don't particularly like teams being left out of the playoff experience at the high school level here. Sure, there will be teams that won't come close to making it past the first game, the coaches know it and the players know it. However, they were able to go experience what playoffs are all about. That is something that some of the lower level athletes, who won't play another game after high school, will remember for a long time, no matter what the outcome was. They got a chance to travel, play a team they may have never played before, spend time with their teammates, play in front of bigger crowds and, most importantly to me, the team had a chance to make history with a big upset win, because they were there to play the game. I was the head coach for a small charter school in Minnesota a few years back. We had a lot of success in the regular season but, we were playing smaller schools similar to our school. We were given a terrible seeding by the tournament selection committee. This was a regular occurrence for this particular school and they had never played past the first game since the program was started. We had to play the 3rd or 4th seed in the first game, which we were able to win. It was huge. Nobody expected us to win that game. Those players will always remember that experience and what it took to make it happen. Most people in Minnesota will remember that game for a long time. Every athlete should have a chance to experience something like that at the high school level.
Those are the types of things I think high school soccer, as an association, and players around here would benefit greatly from. Set minimums, set maximums, do away with the power rankings and tournaments that affect regular season records and rankings and organize the playoffs in a way that allows every team the chance to play, at least, one game.
|
|
|
Post by willowdale on Feb 17, 2020 18:29:41 GMT -6
I kinda stirred the pot with my original post about HC traveling to McKinley and I’m glad I did. My takeaways from a season of comments and this thread are as follows: 1. There needs to be a minimum and maximum number of games. I like 12/25. If you don’t make 12 you don’t make playoffs. No sending teams to 24 or 32 seed. For a team that goes deep in the playoffs you will come close to 30 games. 2. There are few who believe tournaments are bad and should not count toward power rankings. However, this thread proves that tournaments are necessary for some teams to make the minimum game requirements. Tournaments are also very important for fundraising and to play games between north and south getting a better mix for the power ratings. Three games in one day should not happen though. 3. There needs to be some sort of contract or rule about game cancellations as Coach Ray has proposed. Weather is the grey area in cancellations. We will never be able to stop teams from purposely losing games at end of the season but the other team deserves the chance to win. I want to see the game where both teams are trying to lose. LOL 4. There is no need to completely overhaul the PR system. It does a decent job of seeding the teams as everyone can see by how the brackets are playing out. 5. In the public vs private(select) debate there was little talk about coaching and it’s effect but it really came out here in this thread from Firebruin, Coach Ray and others. There is a lot of parity these days believe it or not. The key is dedicated coaches and schools to build programs. Beau Chene is the best example. Coaches don’t make much money in private or public schools. It is a calling.
My son is a senior this year and has been blessed with many great coaches. Thanks to all the coaches out there for what you do for the kids.
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Feb 17, 2020 18:34:54 GMT -6
3 - if you make an own goal you get the kickoff right back. Pass backwards, rinse, repeat. The other team would never touch the ball.
|
|