OHSAA FOOTBALL COMPUTER CALCULATIONS
#1
Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:10 PM
#2
Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:30 PM
#3
Posted 03 March 2012 - 11:14 PM
#4
Posted 04 March 2012 - 02:33 AM
LJ
#5
Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:02 AM
Its bad enough they are talking about moving up a division if most your opponents are larger.
They should just eliminate the points for Canadian teams. That I can agree with.
#6
Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:02 AM
#7
Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:05 AM
#8
Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:00 PM
Edited by kaizen, 04 March 2012 - 12:09 PM.
#9
Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:12 PM
LJ
Edited by LimaJock, 04 March 2012 - 12:13 PM.
#10
Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:38 PM
kaizen, on 04 March 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:
there's a huge difference between Canadian teams and out of state teams. I believe Canadian HS football plays by different rules than US teams. Out of state teams play by the same rules as Ohio teams. This past year Hicksville was crushed by Coldwater yet went on to win its league. Do you discount them?
#11
Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:55 PM
Bobby, on 04 March 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:
all im saying is that there are some issues playing out of state teams as well when it comes to computer points. its not an argument the ohsaa wont do anything anyway. when 3/4 of your schedule is from out of state thats a problem wouldnt you think? 1 game is not the problem in my opinion, its not gonna skew the computer points that much anyway.
the hicksville coldwater thing was in the playoffs not the regular season so computer points dont matter. i didnt say i wanted to change in state computer points for poor loses / good loses, that is way over the top, imo.
#12
Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:07 PM
LJ
#13
Posted 04 March 2012 - 03:33 PM
kaizen, on 04 March 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:
Coldwater beat Hicksville 51-13 in week 2.
#14
Posted 04 March 2012 - 03:53 PM
#15
Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:17 PM
Coaches should focus on their team and the schedule they can get. Teams should not be punished because other teams will not schedule them. The system works great. Every team comes into the season knowing what they need to do, which is win and your in the playoffs (with 8 going now). Canadian teams would be the only issue if they play by different rules. Maybe have them and their other wins D4-5 points instead of 1 or 6?.
#17
Posted 04 March 2012 - 10:51 PM
Currently the OHSAA allows 32 teams per division to participate in the playoffs. That's 192 teams (D1 through D6) out of a total 717 football-playing schools (27%). I think it is very possible to allow every HS team to participate in the tournaments. If the playoffs (football sectionals) were extended by just 2 weeks, that would quadruple the number of possible participants (4x192 = 768) making it possible for everyone to participate. This way, "quality losses" would not hurt your chances of making the playoffs, but would actually HELP your chances of becoming a better team for the tournaments (much like any other sport that encourages tougher scheduling to become better). There would not be "creative" scheduling to slide into the playoffs ahead of better, more qualified teams...and I would go so far as to say that we would not be watching all of our leagues going through the current changes if making the playoffs were not such a huge issue.
Here's how the OHSAA could make this happen:
First, the OHSAA has instituted the "Foundation Game" the past couple years as an extra scrimmage. Do away with this game and just start the season ONE week earlier...we're out there playing anyways, aren't we?
Next, only play 9 regular season games. This may not seem very popular...BUT, at this point, we would already be 2 weeks ahead of schedule...and ready to start the sectional tournament.
By this point, each sectional bracket would be drawn up with each team seeded. The first sectional game would be each school's 10th game...the same number we currently play. The losers would be done (having played a full schedule), but we'd still have 64 schools getting an 11th game in, with the chance to advance...TWICE the number of schools currently given a shot at the playoffs. WHAT COACH WOULDN'T WANT THOSE KIND OF CHANCES TO PLAY EXTRA GAMES???...EVERY YEAR.
With this structure, every schools gets a chance. Each sectional send an upper bracket winner and lower bracket winner to the district...just like most other sports the OHSAA has tournaments for. I think this would actually bring in more $$$ for the OHSAA, since there are extra rounds of play. It also gives the kids a reason to not "throw in the towel" after 2 or 3 losses. We all know that the tourney is the "second season" in every other sport and is usually an exciting time for the schools.
You can say that there would be too many blowout games, and that some football teams just don't "belong" in the tournament based on the weakness of their program...BUT, we see blowouts and mis-matches in every other sport, yet we don't hear how those teams shouldn't be allowed the chance to participate.
I think it's about time the OHSAA starts to look at "solutions" that make sense...not like splitting D1 into 2 separate groups and allowing an unequal number of bigger schools the chance to play in the post season. Every time the OHSAA comes up with some sort of "equalizer", we get proposals that make less and less sense...think about last season's proposal for multipliers and bumping schools up or down divisions based on free lunches. It is way too complex and still unfair to many schools when a SIMPLE plan like mine would include EVERYBODY.
Edited by falconfan84, 04 March 2012 - 10:59 PM.
#18
Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:48 PM
LJ
#19
Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:18 AM
oberhaus, on 04 March 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:
Right, I guess I didn't really word that very well. It's still not a good way, by the State, to handle the situation. If accurate numbers cannot be provided, then it shouldn't be allowed to be scheduled, or consider them and their opponents Div 6. It's opens up another loophole if they are just considered a "game not played", because then teams will schedule them, fill the week, and get a lower divisor out of the deal.
#20
Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:32 AM
LimaJock, on 04 March 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:
LJ
While the example of CW and Kenton is a good one for the argument, I still don't believe the loser should get any points. The fact still remains that the winner is the winner and the loser is not the winner. How would anybody be able to classify which team gets these losing points? Remember, most of the games on most teams schedules are forced by the league they are in. They take the gamble on their non-league games. If you want an easy win, schedule an easy team. If you want the challenge by playing a (normally) good team to get BIG points, then schedule one. But remember, you may not win the game either. That's the gamble that makes it good. Not by giving sympathy points.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users