Should conference foes not play in the first round at state?
- Thread starter LukeFeddersen
- Start date
Des Moines and Dubuque had city rivalry conference games for the 4A substate finals, and 3A substate 4 was conference rivals for the champtionship. But, at state, if it is a formula or coaches' vote, then seeding, it's unable to be changed, or else it's meddling.
Last edited:
What "mathematical formula" was used in the seedings? I thought each coach in the tournament seeded all teams except their own and they took the average seed from that?
Well yeah, that's kind of a mathmetical formula. Basically what I meant was, you have to calculate the seeds and put them together so there should be no bias involved at all. Messing with the seeding after the coaches sent their rankings in would be wrong.
That's not a formula.....that's humans voting on the 8 teams that made the tournament. There's no math in that, a Coach says "Hey, I think Pella's pretty good, I will rank them as the 3rd seed." That's perception, not math.
So is there no math in getting the rankings from the 8 coaches and then putting them together to make the seeds? Because that's what they do. Ranked 1 gets you 1 point, ranked 2 gets you 2 points etc...that's what I mean by mathematical. My point is, the system eliminates any need for the state to screw with the seeding.
If you want to call that a "formula" go ahead, but it's a human ranking the team and then obtaining an average. That's far from a "formula" in my opinion. A real "formula" would include how many wins a team has, how many wins they have against each class, how many wins they have against "quality" opponents, etc.
I see how some would like to call it a formula, but it isn't. LOL.
I see how some would like to call it a formula, but it isn't. LOL.
GatorBait, you seem to imply that the coaches seed the teams based solely on their own impression or just a general feeling of who is better than whom. You don't think objective data comes into it all, like records, SOS, wins/losses, stats, BCM rankings, etc.?
It may, who knows? My point is there should be a system where it leaves human opinion out of it. There is WAY to much ambiguity in how each Coach evaluates the game, plus, we don't even know if the Coaches use objective data at all. Why would they? If I know there is substantial parity between two teams going to most likely be seeded 3 and 4, why wouldn't I want to vote them on the other side of the bracket as my own team?
That may or may not happen, but there shouldn't even be a way for it to happen, period.
Implement a power ranking at the beginning of the playoffs and those are your rankings. Period. Done.
Would the power ranking be similar to the scoring system you presented in the other thread? The system you presented made less sense to me than just going by BCM, to be honest with you. And I think virtually no one will agree to seed teams based on a purely statistical model.
I personally believe that it shouldn't be left to humans. I believe it should be left to a Power Ranking (based off of wins/losses against each class) and then there would be a Rider Point System in which you receive points based on how teams you beat finish the year. This rewards teams for playing higher classification, as well as playing teams who finish the year with a strong win/loss record.
The flaws with my system lie in the fact that it requires everyone to play the same number of games and you can't account for out-of-state games.
The system now seems to make a majority of people happy, so that's good. My only gripe is verbiage used. It's not a formula, at all. LOL.
The flaws with my system lie in the fact that it requires everyone to play the same number of games and you can't account for out-of-state games.
The system now seems to make a majority of people happy, so that's good. My only gripe is verbiage used. It's not a formula, at all. LOL.
The "human element" I refer to is choosing seeds.
You're correct, a human has to create an algorithm, but the algorithm would take out the human element of choice.
You're correct, a human has to create an algorithm, but the algorithm would take out the human element of choice.
Yeah math and algorithm's and computers will solve all the problems, just like it did for college football. No one had any complaints about that, right?
I'm not saying that having that stuff isn't valuable and doesn't help. I love the work BCMoore is doing. But you are still going to need a human element to disseminate that data and make decisions based off of it. Which is what college football went to. It is also how they do it in college basketball in deciding tournament teams. Now it is what we do with Iowa high school basketball.
I love this new system. It makes things way more interesting and gives us a much better way to seed the teams. Coaches use the information they have at hand, including it seems computer data, and make decisions based on it. I guess I just don't get what is so wrong with the human element. I think it worked this year. I am hopeful it will continue to work in the years to come.
I'm not saying that having that stuff isn't valuable and doesn't help. I love the work BCMoore is doing. But you are still going to need a human element to disseminate that data and make decisions based off of it. Which is what college football went to. It is also how they do it in college basketball in deciding tournament teams. Now it is what we do with Iowa high school basketball.
I love this new system. It makes things way more interesting and gives us a much better way to seed the teams. Coaches use the information they have at hand, including it seems computer data, and make decisions based on it. I guess I just don't get what is so wrong with the human element. I think it worked this year. I am hopeful it will continue to work in the years to come.
I believe the problem with College Football was the amount of teams that "deserved" (usually people thought that more than 2 teams were "deserving" to have a CHANCE to play in the title game, that's why they expanded to 4.) to play in the title game.
My system wouldn't hold teams out of the playoffs, it would seed the teams that make it in. You still have a chance to win the district/conference tournament and move on, it's just putting an emphasis on WHO you play in the regular season and HOW both you do and the team you beat does throughout the season.
No one is being held out of the tournament and/or playoffs.
No one.
My system wouldn't hold teams out of the playoffs, it would seed the teams that make it in. You still have a chance to win the district/conference tournament and move on, it's just putting an emphasis on WHO you play in the regular season and HOW both you do and the team you beat does throughout the season.
No one is being held out of the tournament and/or playoffs.
No one.
Yeah, it wasn't a one to one example. Of course we are talking about something entirely different here. I think you missed my point.
My point was that in instances where computers have been used to rank teams there have been a fair share of flaws as well. That computers and algorithms, as helpful as they can be, don't paint a complete picture. Which is why the human element is always reintroduced. The human element is needed to discern the data. Like I said, I am very hopeful our current system will be able to do just that.
My point was that in instances where computers have been used to rank teams there have been a fair share of flaws as well. That computers and algorithms, as helpful as they can be, don't paint a complete picture. Which is why the human element is always reintroduced. The human element is needed to discern the data. Like I said, I am very hopeful our current system will be able to do just that.
I will give you an example of what I mean. So according to the computer Camanche is better than Cascade. Even though Cascade beat Camanche twice during the year. So should Camanche be seeded over Cascade because of what the computer says? I don't think so. On the actual court Cascade was the better team twice. They deserve the higher seed. That is why the human element is needed.
I like computer rankings such as BC Moore's in the sense I know who played a tough schedule, but doesn't the human element have to be considered also? Sometimes coaches know which team is "coming on strong," or had a kid return from a major injury, or maybe the flu ravished a team during a spell where they lost a few games they shouldn't have, or the program is in turmoil because some parent is on the coach's case, or a dozen other factors. My gripe is when the substates are so out of balance. There is no way that all those five strong teams should have been piled into 3A Substate 4, when a couple of other eastern substates were, by comparison, almost a cakewalk for the top team in them. Yeah, once the teams for the substates were already determined, then they were seeded properly. By and large, the best teams get to state, and I basically agree with every team in every class that made it, but I think the state could try harder for more equitable distribution at the beginning of the process.
Last edited:
That's BC's rankings, not the formula that I would use. I can tell you from looking at their schedule that Camanche played 1 3A game, while Cascade played 2, that would help Cascade substantially in my system. Also, Camanche played 3 1A games, while Cascade played 1, that would also help Cascade substantially in my system.
Note, not all algorithms are the same fellas. You can tweak them to encompass everything, BC's is different than mine, no better, no worse, just different. But remember not to lump all "Computer Rankings" in together, they are different, drastically different.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
The “WE’RE NUMBER ONE” lounge is temporarily closed for remodeling…..
- Latest: HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA
-
-
-