Okay, thats definitely the system I want to avoid. ESL, Rice, or whomever shouldn't get an "easier" route because their name is Rice or ESL. Also, this system doesnt work if they dont have a correct opinion on the #31 team, which in 30 years I've never seen anyone come up with.
With the expanded playoffs is it time to use computer seeding?
- Thread starter ClownBaby
- Start date
Bingo! The members schools don't care so obviously seeding isn't an issue so I'm not sure why every year around this time people feel the need to call the system "broken" and needs to be fixed.
I never said an opinion based system would work or should be the "system". I said for this example, in this conversation, we are just using opinion like most conversations on this board.
Massey says they shouldnt be a second round matchup
Maxpreps says they shouldnt be a second round matchup
Composite rankings say they should be a second round matchup
Media polls say they should be a second round matchup
EdgyTim poster polls say they shouldnt be a second round matchup
Would you be a yes vote if the IHSA adopted a system like Indiana and just had a random draw for the playoffs?
What's the 1-32 for all these entities?
No. That would be worse than the system we have and probably worse than the algorithm system.
Why would it be worse? There'd be no bias and could eliminate any complaints about improper seeding.
Because Im not opposed to an attempt to objectively systematically seed a tournament. A random seeding by definition isnt systematic. Also the problem you keep ignoring is that you never have an opinion about the #30 seed. It doesn't matter what you do with the team you think is 1 or 2 if you get the 32 and 31 wrong. No one ever looks at a team and says "thats the #26 seed for sure". Thats why Im asking you about the 1-32. Im sure if you were to post Masseys or MaxPerps 1-32 we would find some egregious seedings which defeats the whole purpose. I could see perhaps some changes to the PP's like only using teams defeated which would actually make sense.
Right now MaxPerps has Brook/MS the 16-17 game. I think thats egregious.
Recognizing the truth of a matter, and then using that truth effectively is usually the difference between success and failure in life. Pretending that objective truth does not exist is a formula for failure. Pretending that all 9-0 teams are equal in football-playing ability is a formula for seeding failure. Learning from history and placing current problems in their proper historical context is how successful solutions are found. It is vital for effective decision making.
With the above true statements in mind, here is how the current system can be made better. It is easily administered. It is still perfectly transparent. It does not use any computer rating systems.
Regardless of whether the IHSA moves forward with the new 48-team brackets or reverts back to the 32-team brackets, selecting teams for participation can be done as it has been in the past. The following modifications will be used only for seeding purposes.
1) Any team that plays in a conference/division that has not had any conference/division member (as currently comprised) qualify for a semifinal game in the last five years will have one game subtracted from its total wins. This would currently be the case, for example, for the West Suburban Gold Conference.
2) Any team that plays in a conference/division that has not had any conference/division member (as currently comprised) qualify for a semifinal game in the last ten years will have two games subtracted from its total wins. This would currently be the case, for example, for both divisions of the Upstate Eight Conference.
3) Any team that plays in a conference/division (as currently comprised) that has qualified more teams in the last five years for a semifinal game than any other conference/division in the state will have two games added to its total wins. This would currently be the case for the Chicago Catholic League Green Division with 15 such qualifiers.
4) Any team that plays in a conference/division (as currently comprised) that has qualified the second most teams in the last five years for a semifinal game, [or has tied for the most], will have one game added to its total wins. This would currently be the case for the Chicago Catholic League Blue Division with 11 such qualifiers.
The solution is that simple. Any person that denies learning from history has value in decision making, denies reality.
With the above true statements in mind, here is how the current system can be made better. It is easily administered. It is still perfectly transparent. It does not use any computer rating systems.
Regardless of whether the IHSA moves forward with the new 48-team brackets or reverts back to the 32-team brackets, selecting teams for participation can be done as it has been in the past. The following modifications will be used only for seeding purposes.
1) Any team that plays in a conference/division that has not had any conference/division member (as currently comprised) qualify for a semifinal game in the last five years will have one game subtracted from its total wins. This would currently be the case, for example, for the West Suburban Gold Conference.
2) Any team that plays in a conference/division that has not had any conference/division member (as currently comprised) qualify for a semifinal game in the last ten years will have two games subtracted from its total wins. This would currently be the case, for example, for both divisions of the Upstate Eight Conference.
3) Any team that plays in a conference/division (as currently comprised) that has qualified more teams in the last five years for a semifinal game than any other conference/division in the state will have two games added to its total wins. This would currently be the case for the Chicago Catholic League Green Division with 15 such qualifiers.
4) Any team that plays in a conference/division (as currently comprised) that has qualified the second most teams in the last five years for a semifinal game, [or has tied for the most], will have one game added to its total wins. This would currently be the case for the Chicago Catholic League Blue Division with 11 such qualifiers.
The solution is that simple. Any person that denies learning from history has value in decision making, denies reality.
No system is perfect. I feel the current system has the least inefficiencies.
How often do people say, "thats the number 1 seed for sure". Rarely is there a unaminous #1 so saying we will never all agree on a #26 is disingenous. Ive never said I dont have an opinion on lower seeds. The system or methodology used to determine seeds 1-4 can still be used to seed 29-32 (or 45-48 now.) Math matters. The eye test matters. Competition played matters. All of these things can be used, weighted if you prefer, to accurately assign seeds. And they can be implemented in a way where the faults or shortcoming of one can be mitigated by another.
The only way they could avoid being on the same side of the bracket is if another team that is currently undefeated loses a game, that way ESL moves up the seedings. It does seem like it’ll happen after week 9 because Prospect and Hersey are currently undefeated and they play each other week 9. So one of them will lose the game
Latest
-
01
Edgy Tim Football
Preview: Week 8 Top Games to Watch
-
02
Blue and Gold Football Recruiting
Lucky Charms: Four thoughts on Notre Dame’s upcoming recruiting weekend
-
03
Edgy Tim Football
Watch Live Tonight: WJOL Pigskin Preview
-
04
CaneSport football recruiting
Miami 'pretty high on the board' for Top 100 2028 WR Marshaun Thornton
-
05
Edgy Tim Football
RB Banire checked out Illinois