ADVERTISEMENT

Official 2A Bracket

S

sarcastico

Freshman
Oct 6, 2003
623
225
43
Well all the debate is over and we finally have the official bracket. Close to what most people expected. I think it is seeded pretty well. Some pretty good matchups right out the gate.


1. Western Christian
8. South Hamilton

4. Cascade
5. Camanche

2. Pella Christian
7. Van Meter

3. Carroll Kuemper Catholic
6. Garner-Hayfield

I think this will be one of the more competitive 2A fields we have seen in a while. Lots of good teams. Western is the defending champs but is beatable. Now we have to wait till Monday for the games to start and the real fun to begin!
 
Last edited:
Seems seeded pretty nicely to me as well. In the end, I was hoping Western and PC would be on opposite sides which is the case. It didn't matter to me much who was slated 1 or 2 as both had pretty solid cases.
 
Interesting that we have a regular season rematch between Pella Christian and Van Meter. You just don't see that down at state very often, especially in 2A. I guess it just makes their game prep a little easier having seen each other once already.
 
GatorBait1988 said:
Cascade and Camanche play for the 3rd time this year.....great move IHSAA! LOL!!!
Click to expand...
Oh jeez, I didn't even catch that. Well they will really know each other. I actually think that works in Camanche's favor. It is always tough to beat a team 3 times in one year. I'm sure their guys will be super fired up looking for the revenge win.
 
I'm happy. Top 4 in the right order, which is an improvement on previous years.
I felt pretty confident last year, but truly feel it's up for grabs this time.

Lots of Western/PC talk, but Kuemper is senior heavy with probably the best big in the field.

Good luck to all!
 
sarcastico said:
Oh jeez, I didn't even catch that. Well they will really know each other. I actually think that works in Camanche's favor. It is always tough to beat a team 3 times in one year. I'm sure their guys will be super fired up looking for the revenge win.
Click to expand...

I would definitely agree it helps Camanche. Their first two meetings were decided by around 6 points each, both going in the favor of Cascade.

I agree with the 3x in one year, although, Camcanche beat Northeast, Goose Lake 3x this year, which finished the season losing to Camanche and ended up 9th in BC's rankings.

Maybe Camanche has the recipe to pull of the win the 3rd time around. We shall see!!
 
GatorBait1988... When you leave it in the hands of the coaches ranking the teams, rematches are going to be much more likely to happen. That happened with the old system too. I remember Pella and Grinnell playing a first round game about 15 years ago, I think.

The only way to avoid it is to have the IAHSAA use the coach votes as a guide and then them tweaking it a bit. I'm sure the association wants nothing to do with that, though, with all they flack they receive already.
 
GatorBait1988 said:
Simply implement a Power Ranking and utilize the Power Ranking for the entirety of the playoffs. It's not that tough guys.
Click to expand...
That's not going to help avoid that which you complained about. If your recommendation was implemented, teams that have played each other will still be matched up in the first round from time to time.
 
HawkPT said:
That's not going to help avoid that which you complained about. If your recommendation was implemented, teams that have played each other will still be matched up in the first round from time to time.
Click to expand...

Very well could, but at least it wouldn't be done by voting. What does your regular season matter at this point? You worked your tail off 20+ games to have some guy who may have never seen you play vote on your "seed".....

Seems legit.
 
GatorBait1988 said:
Very well could, but at least it wouldn't be done by voting. What does your regular season matter at this point? You worked your tail off 20+ games to have some guy who may have never seen you play vote on your "seed".....

Seems legit.
Click to expand...
Alright. It just seems funny that you'd suggest an improvement that would result in the same outcome you complained about.

I'd say the current system is pretty good and is greatly improved from the old system. PC would be playing WC in the 1 vs. 8 first-round match-up under the old system.
 
You would have to limit everyone to the same number of games, then we could talk. The State should agree that every team is going to play 20 games. I understand games get cancelled, but they should build in a makeup date.

If that would ever be done, we could talk about logistics.
 
These were my predictions on a thread from 1/20/17 after districts were announced:

State Match-ups:

#1 Western Christian vs. #8 Van Meter
#2 Pella Christian vs. #7 Camanche
#3 Kuemper vs. #6 Des Moines Christian
#4 Cascade vs. #5 GHV

Not too far off. I got 7 of the 8 teams and the top 4 seeds right. Camanche moved up a bit, and South Hamilton got through instead of DMC.
 
I didn't "poo poo" it, I simply thought that PC had a tougher schedule than WC. BC I believe said they did too.

My ranking system would have to have all teams playing the same number of games. Then if you play a 4A school and win you get 24 points, 3A would be 20, 2A would be 16, 1A would be 12. A loss to a 4A school would get you 10 points, 3A would be 8, 2A would be 6, and 1A would be 4. Add up all of the points and divide by the number of games. This would reward teams for playing tougher competition thus maybe making teams schedule tough out of conference games.

Let's do an example: Pella vs MP (both had 21 regular season games)

Pella: 19-2, 3 wins against 4A=72, 1 loss against 4A=10, 12 wins against 3A=240, 0 losses against 3A, 3 wins against 2A=48, 1 loss against 2A=6, 1 win against 1A=12, 0 losses against 1A. Total would be 388, divide that by 21 and that equals 18.48.

MP: 19-2, 3 wins against 4A=72, 1 loss against 4A=10, 12 wins against 3A=240, 1 loss against 3A=6, 4 wins against 2A=64, 0 losses, 0 losses/wins against 1A. Total would be 394, divide by 21 and that equal 18.76.

MP would be the higher seed. Pella had just as many wins against 4A and 3A schools, yet played against a 1A school, thus that really killed them.
 
But BCMoore helps us understand that all teams are not equal within each class. If I understand your system, teams would be rewarded the same for beating a bad 4A team as they would for beating a good 4A team.

In reality, a 1-point loss on the road to a good 4A team might be a much better showing than a 20-point win at home to a bad 4A team. The higher class doesn't guarantee better competition, which is why people are so interested in debating the SOS.

Plus, no larger schools would want to play good 2A teams like PC, WC, Cascade, and Kuemper, and the Little Hawkeye Conference would probably want to kick out PC.

I'm good with the current system. Coaches can use BCMoore to help educate themselves about the teams they don't know well. I'd say that PC was well-rewarded for their tough schedule in this system as they increased their seeding 6 places this year relative to what they would have received with the old system. I'm not sure any team has a huge grievance, and that's pretty impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowalongs230
GatorBait1988 said:
My ranking system would have to have all teams playing the same number of games. Then if you play a 4A school and win you get 24 points, 3A would be 20, 2A would be 16, 1A would be 12. A loss to a 4A school would get you 10 points, 3A would be 8, 2A would be 6, and 1A would be 4. Add up all of the points and divide by the number of games. This would reward teams for playing tougher competition thus maybe making teams schedule tough out of conference games. .
Click to expand...
So beating a bad SE Polk is more valuable than beating a good PC?

This is close to the old point system.
Western used to play all the Sioux City schools and were dropped because a 4 team losing to a really good 2A was too costly, even though it was great competition.
A lot of 1A teams would really struggle to fill their schedule since local 2A/3A teams would refuse to play them, resulting in waay more travel.
Average CIML teams would rank higher than GOOD 4A teams.
How do you handle teams near the border that seek out really good out of state competition? How would you assign points? Why would ICW go up to Mineeapolis to play?
BCMoore's formula already <indirectly> factors school size, conference and more importantly rewards playing good teams of any class.
Every system has flaws. IMO, BCMoore has fewer than this.
I'd go with an average of BCMoore rank & INA/coaches poll.

Let's leave alone for a while.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iowalongs230
> BCMoore's formula already factors school size, conference and more importantly rewards playing good teams of any class

clarification:

inputs: game margin and home-field advantage (only)

model is statistical least-squares regression with a modifier to lessen the effect of non-competitive games

school size is not an input
conference is not an input
class is not an input
W/L record is not an input
last year's record is not an input
opponent's W/L records is not an input


rewards playing good teams of any class -- this is only true if they play "well"
 
I mean we are on the first year of a new system, do we really need to be complaining and trying to fix it already. I think this new system worked out fairly well this year. Even with your power rankings stuff gator there is no guarantee there would not have been rematches or that everyone would be happy. There are always going to be some complaints about the seedings. I think they did a good job and we have a very competitive field filled with good matches. Which team can really give a huge complaint as to where they were seeded? None that I can see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowalongs230, theocia and mylameusername
I am not worried about outcome as much as the process. I mean say it out loud..."A man seeds teams he's never seen play before".....how can that be a good system? At least this gives us some basis. Take Pella for example, in my system they would be rewarded for scheduling an out of conference 4A opponent as opposed to playing Grand View Christian. You could also implement rider points for out of conference games, for each team you beat, you receive 2 points for each win they have at the end of the year. This would benefit teams who play teams with good records out of conference. So, in essence, a win over a 18-2 4A team means more than a win vs a 14-6 4A team.

There.....that helps now......right?
 
But from the looks of things the coaches did reward teams for playing tougher opponents.The seeding wasn't by straight record. The coaches clearly took into consideration multiple factors, including who teams played.So what are you really complaining about? They may not have seen the teams play, but they clearly were doing their research. I just don't see the need to get all up in arms about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowalongs230
Who's up in arms about anything?

I was simply stating, I don't believe that a man who hasn't seen these teams play should be deciding their fate in the biggest tournament of the year.

Leave it to a formula as opposed to a human.
 
How about let's talk about the actual games instead of complaining.

I think Western should handle South Hamilton. I don't know much about them except for the fact that I have seen the two teams who beat them play. I wasn't impressed with either of them so based on that I like Western's odds. Looks like they have one real stud that Western's defense will need to focus on. Western has always done a good job game planning to shut down those type of players. I'm taking Western by 10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylameusername
Also, you could implement more Rider Points, for each team you beat, you get 1 point for their total losses at the end of the year.

Let's do this.

Pella played GV Christian (21-1) (1A): They receive 12 points for beating a 1A school, 42 points in Rider Points for wins (21 x 2=42) and 1 Rider Point for losses (1 x 1=1). This would be a total of 55 points.

MP beats Burlington (0-21) (4A): They receive 24 points for beating a 4A school, 0 Rider Points for wins (0 x 21=0) and 21 Rider Points for losses (1 x 21=21). This would be a total of 45 points.

This would then reward both playing a higher classification as well as playing "quality" teams based off of wins.

How about that?
 
GatorBait1988 said:
Who's up in arms about anything?

I was simply stating, I don't believe that a man who hasn't seen these teams play should be deciding their fate in the biggest tournament of the year.

Leave it to a formula as opposed to a human.
Click to expand...
And then humans would complain about the formula and demand changes. It's human nature.

Personally, I like the combination of data-driven analysis and the human factor. This system reduced obvious issues with the past system, and it got it close enough that the teams, not the coaches, will decide their fate in the biggest tournament of the year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iowalongs230
GatorBait1988 said:
Who's up in arms about anything?

I was simply stating, I don't believe that a man who hasn't seen these teams play should be deciding their fate in the biggest tournament of the year.

Leave it to a formula as opposed to a human.
Click to expand...

Were you happy before when "men who hadn't seen any teams play" seeded the teams strictly byW/L record. Or pre 2001 when you strictly got 1 point for beating a 1A school and 2 for beating a 2A school etc etc...???
 
Anyone know anything about Garner-Hayfield? Will they be able to give Kuemper a game? Looks like they have the height to match up with Kuemper. They played a much weaker schedule though. Dentlinger is the real deal, I am guessing G-H has not faced a player like him all year. I will take Kuemper for that fact, and because I know like nothing about G-H to give them the edge.
 
How about the PC-Van Meter game. PC people, you saw Van Meter once already. Was there anything from that game that has you worried going into this one? Looks like Van Meter is the tallest team at state, but I doubt that will intimidate the PC kids after the schedule they played. I will take Pella Christian to get another win by about the same amount as the first time around.
 
Looks like it is going to be the battle of styles in the Cascade-Camanche game. Cascade loves to slow the game down with their 2-3 defense. Camanche had the highest scoring offense in all of 2A. Cascade was able to win that battle twice during the regular season. Camanche has been able to see that D twice now though, can they figure it out and get the win? I am guessing that they do. I will take Camanche in a close one.
 
sarcastico said:
How about the PC-Van Meter game. PC people, you saw Van Meter once already. Was there anything from that game that has you worried going into this one? Looks like Van Meter is the tallest team at state, but I doubt that will intimidate the PC kids after the schedule they played. I will take Pella Christian to get another win by about the same amount as the first time around.
Click to expand...
Van Meter really frustrated PC in the first half in a game at Van Meter. They held PC to 19 first half points and led by 5 at the half. In Q3, PC put on a full-court zone press that sped VM up and caused several turnovers and quick shots. VM tried pressing PC most of the game, but it was ineffective.

Jungling had a huge second half and finished with 26 points. Kacmarynski was still hobbled with his ankle, which seems to be better the past couple of weeks. And Flagle, the back-up post for PC, played really well that game. PC won despite only going 10 for 20 from the line, which isn't likely to happen again.

PC is the better team, of course, but talented bigs can create difficulties for them, and VM has two good bigs. Fortunately, they are not quite experienced enough to take full advantage of PC, in my opinion. Plus, VM isn't as accustomed to the big stage of The Well like PC, and I believe PC's senior leadership (top 8 scorers are seniors) will be a huge factor over a team that doesn't play any seniors. I'd take PC by 10-15, which is about where BCMoore thinks it'll end up (11.95).
 
  • Like
Reactions: sarcastico
I'm expecting a big tourney from PC's big two. Amazing multi sport athletes. I know they will not go out of the tourney quietly, if they go out at all. Never fun playing against Seniors with something to prove, especially when they are as good as those two.
 
GatorBait1988 said:
Who's up in arms about anything?

I was simply stating, I don't believe that a man who hasn't seen these teams play should be deciding their fate in the biggest tournament of the year.

Leave it to a formula as opposed to a human.
Click to expand...
I think you would be surprised how many coaches probably use BCMOORE for their "leanings", I heard from one coach that it was used heavily in the substate seedings by many.
 
1. Western Christian ... WC
8. South Hamilton

4. Cascade
5. Camanche ... Camanche

2. Pella Christian ... able to withstand the Van Meter heater
7. Van Meter

3. Carroll Kuemper Catholic ... blowout win
6. Garner-Hayfield

WC over Camanche
Kuemper over PC in a thriller

Kuemper over WC big boy the difference for Kuemper. WC small this year, strange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: budman1
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LukeFeddersen

Q&A with West Lyon defensive end Jack Carolan

Replies
0
Views
188
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Q&A with Ankeny Centennial defensive end Isaiah Bassett

Replies
0
Views
135
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Iowa Preps High School Sports Talk

Replies
0
Views
106
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Iowa Preps High School Sports Talk

Replies
0
Views
116
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen

Q&A with Independence middle linebacker Cameron Roth

Replies
0
Views
169
Off the Record
LukeFeddersen
LukeFeddersen
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back