Not-so-good games

[gatorman-uf]

I will continue to beat the promotion/relegation drum.

Promotion and Relegation is about solving the problem of competitiveness and participation on a weekly and season basis.
You put the 128 "worst" teams in one classification, where there are 16 districts of 8 teams each and only a district champion is making the playoffs. I promise the "state champion" of that classification is going to have 10-13 wins. For the average fan, we would look and see a deserving team winning. Now, would the people on here think they are a great team, probably not, but who cares. They faced teams of similar history and won. They most likely will move up a classification and be average for a while. 

If teams are competitive, you will see more players and more community involvement. 

[PinellasFB]

20 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

I will continue to beat the promotion/relegation drum.

Promotion and Relegation is about solving the problem of competitiveness and participation on a weekly and season basis.
You put the 128 "worst" teams in one classification, where there are 16 districts of 8 teams each and only a district champion is making the playoffs. I promise the "state champion" of that classification is going to have 10-13 wins. For the average fan, we would look and see a deserving team winning. Now, would the people on here think they are a great team, probably not, but who cares. They faced teams of similar history and won. They most likely will move up a classification and be average for a while. 

If teams are competitive, you will see more players and more community involvement. 

The problem with this system is it will create even more of a haves vs have-nots where players will transfer to the "premier league" teams, creating an even worse situation where the weaker teams cant hang onto their players.  If we cant shut down the transfer issue then there really isn't any solution that will work.

[Ray Icaza]

I am not opposed to Suburban/Metro change so no need to keep trying to sell me on that.  It is a step in the right direction as I am not arguing the advantage of Metro areas when it comes to transfers.  Columbia didn't just beat the state champion, they beat a previous years state champion but lost to them the two previous years.  Be it Madison County, Hawthorne, Baker, etc.... my contention was clearly they could beat teams ranked in the bottom half of all FL teams and now the example you want to throw out implies that is where Columbia is ranked.  I repeat "GET REAL".  Plus you are focusing on the smallest classification knowing 2A-8A would clearly put a running clock on those bottom feeders.  You decidedly have ignored my basic premise that state champions in the current system are excellent teams, all of them.  State champions in the Promotion/Relegation system would include several pitiful teams.  Thus my opposition to calling them that.  Give them a trophy, give them 5 trophies just don't call them a state champion. 

[DisabledAccount]

47 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

I am not opposed to Suburban/Metro change so no need to keep trying to sell me on that.  It is a step in the right direction as I am not arguing the advantage of Metro areas when it comes to transfers.  Columbia didn't just beat the state champion, they beat a previous years state champion but lost to them the two previous years.  Be it Madison County, Hawthorne, Baker, etc.... my contention was clearly they could beat teams ranked in the bottom half of all FL teams and now the example you want to throw out implies that is where Columbia is ranked.  I repeat "GET REAL".  Plus you are focusing on the smallest classification knowing 2A-8A would clearly put a running clock on those bottom feeders.  You decidedly have ignored my basic premise that state champions in the current system are excellent teams, all of them.  State champions in the Promotion/Relegation system would include several pitiful teams.  Thus my opposition to calling them that.  Give them a trophy, give them 5 trophies just don't call them a state champion. 

Okay that I do agree with 

 

That's the biggest reason I would not favor a promotion regulation system as one if you stick the top division with 64 "top" teams you will have maybe 5-10 who actually have a shot at winning and the others are punished for being good not elite teams while someone far weaker will win division B and act like they better than division A teams 

 

 

As for the current system I could argue the top teams in 4S would compete or even beat the 4M winner so there will be instances if this sticks around long enough the suburban champ will be better than metro

 

Tbh I think we are arguing in FAVOR of the same thing with metro/suburban being a step in the right direction

[gatorman-uf]

3 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

That's the biggest reason I would not favor a promotion regulation system as one if you stick the top division with 64 "top" teams you will have maybe 5-10 who actually have a shot at winning and the others are punished for being good not elite teams while someone far weaker will win division B and act like they better than division A teams 

Who cares? We are so obsessed with the "right" teams winning, the "right" teams making the playoffs, we forget that there are tons of kids who deserve a chance to have a competitive season and be able to play for something of noteworthiness. Fine, have the worst classifications play to a regional championship instead of a state championship, if we are so stuck on that idea. 

The idea that we are "punishing" these elite teams is silly. You constantly complain that you can't be an elite team in today's high school sports without transfers. If all of the "elite" teams are getting transfers than they should all have a chance to win a state when they play against each other.

If we took the top 32 teams from MaxPreps last year (minus IMG, Clearwater Academy International, University School (who had no record and still was ranked in the top 32, which should send a message to coaches that MaxPreps SUCKS, and Madison, because they are 1A).

You get this in alphabetical order:
American Heritage (Plantation)
Apopka
Berkeley Prep (Tampa)
Bolles (Jacksonville)
Buchholz (Gainesville)
Cardinal Gibbons (Fort Lauderdale)
Central (Miami)
Chaminade-Madonna (Hollywood)
Cocoa
Columbus (Miami)
Edgewater (Orlando)
Florida State University High School (Tallahassee)
Gulliver Prep (Miami)
Homestead
Jesuit (Tampa)
Jones (Orlando)
Killian (Miami)
Lake Gibson (Lakeland)
Lake Mary
Lakeland
Merritt Island
Northwestern (Miami)
Osceola (Kissimmee)
Palmetto (Miami)
Pine Forest (Pensacola)
Riverview Sarasota (Sarasota)
Seminole (Sanford)
St. Thomas Aquinas (Fort Lauderdale)
Tampa Bay Tech (Tampa)
Treasure Coast (Port St. Lucie)
Venice
West Orange (Winter Garden)

I fully acknowledge that for a school like Pine Forest and FSU High, this would suck for travel. But for the rest if you randomly chose 7 games for your regular season games, would those not be packed house, drive across the state to see them play kind of games? Is any team guaranteed to win this? Is any team really having no chance? How many "elite" teams are we missing from this?

[gatorman-uf]

6 hours ago, PinellasFB said:

The problem with this system is it will create even more of a haves vs have-nots where players will transfer to the "premier league" teams, creating an even worse situation where the weaker teams cant hang onto their players.  If we cant shut down the transfer issue then there really isn't any solution that will work.

Right, we can't shut down the transfer issue (well, we can but that would take intestinal fortitude from our state legislature, that they don't have.) But can we limit the effects of it.

Right now, if you are a 4M team that develops a player or two, they get snatched away by another 4M team and you then have to play that team for your district games. To me that seems worse than those players transferring away and you playing against other teams that are just trying to field a team. Transfers (both at the college and HS level) are quickly realizing that transferring doesn't guarantee playing time or a better situation. Eventually, kids and parents will realize that transferring to a "better" school doesn't get you recruited when you are on the bench or there is no film on you.

[Ray Icaza]

I used the public education analogy because this kind of thinking has created poor performing schools (not all mind you).  In a classroom you have A students, B students, C students, D students and F students.  So we don't hurt the feelings of the F students let's put them all in the same class and award an A to the best in the group so they have a "SENSE of ACCOMPLISHMENT".  Use the bell curve on the rest and promoted them along.  The one's that got A's we will move to the D group and so on and so forth.  Sounds like a brilliant idea to me. 

[Ray Icaza]

12 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

I used the public education analogy because this kind of thinking has created poor performing schools (not all mind you).  In a classroom you have A students, B students, C students, D students and F students.  So we don't hurt the feelings of the F students let's put them all in the same class and award an A to the best in the group so they have a "SENSE of ACCOMPLISHMENT".  Use the bell curve on the rest and promoted them along.  The one's that got A's we will move to the D group and so on and so forth.  Sounds like a brilliant idea to me. 

By the way, just to be clear I hate the free transfer rule and wish those in power would return to the old system.  At the same time i want to be clear that as I see it kids overwhelmingly transfer to not sit on the bench, not the other way around. 

[badbird]

20 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

It ain't about making me "FEEL BETTER" and I am okay with giving them trophies; bottom dwellers champion, one step up champion, mediocre champion, etc...  Just don't call it a State Championship as your comparison of a trophy for a shitty district with a trophy for a State Championship is not a worthy argument.  I would be fine with a scenario like you lay out with having a SINGLE state champion in the upper division only, however a team gets into that "Classification".  It should be decided by whichever schools feel they can compete and want to compete at that level; let in whomever wants.  

The team that wins the top class is the state champ.  We would finally have a true state champion. Everyone else would be champions of their class.

[gatorman-uf]

In track and field 2022, I looked at the 4 x 100 meter relay. The top 1A boys team in that event had a time of 41.91 seconds. That time would be 14th overall in the state finals last year. Should we not reward that team for being the best of a bad classification? Absolutely not, they competed under a set of rules and won. The same would be true in a promotion/relegation system. Not all teams would succeed, but some would and they should be rewarded.

As for your public education analogy, schools already have regular, honors, AP/IB, and Dual Enrollment College courses. We already are separating out the kids by ability levels. At some point, kids realize that the regular level isn't challenging enough or good enough for them so they move to honors. At some point the AP/IB kid realizes that the level of effort to sustain being a top notch AP/IB kid isn't worth it so they would rather be a regular kid. 

[Ray Icaza]

2 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

In track and field 2022, I looked at the 4 x 100 meter relay. The top 1A boys team in that event had a time of 41.91 seconds. That time would be 14th overall in the state finals last year. Should we not reward that team for being the best of a bad classification? Absolutely not, they competed under a set of rules and won. The same would be true in a promotion/relegation system. Not all teams would succeed, but some would and they should be rewarded.

As for your public education analogy, schools already have regular, honors, AP/IB, and Dual Enrollment College courses. We already are separating out the kids by ability levels. At some point, kids realize that the regular level isn't challenging enough or good enough for them so they move to honors. At some point the AP/IB kid realizes that the level of effort to sustain being a top notch AP/IB kid isn't worth it so they would rather be a regular kid. 

Agreed that we have kids in honors (the highest classification) that are achieving at a high level.  I am referring to kids in the bottom rung that are just promoted from one grade to the next who graduate with a second grade reading level instead of being challenged so we don't hurt their feelings.  This reward which you think is helpful actually hurts them in the end.  Your track analogy just proved my point as this time in the 4X100 was basically in the top 10% in the state that year.  That is achievement regardless of the size of the school.   But you want to give a sense of accomplishment to those in the bottom half instead of working to improve their performance.  Many (not all) in the bottom rung of your proposed system will come to believe by winning that class that they are good and will be content to perform poorly and still be recognized.   It does them no favors in the real world. 

[gatorman-uf]

5 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

Agreed that we have kids in honors (the highest classification) that are achieving at a high level.  I am referring to kids in the bottom rung that are just promoted from one grade to the next who graduate with a second grade reading level instead of being challenged so we don't hurt their feelings.  This reward which you think is helpful actually hurts them in the end.  Your track analogy just proved my point as this time in the 4X100 was basically in the top 10% in the state that year.  That is achievement regardless of the size of the school.   But you want to give a sense of accomplishment to those in the bottom half instead of working to improve their performance.  Many (not all) in the bottom rung of your proposed system will come to believe by winning that class that they are good and will be content to perform poorly and still be recognized.   It does them no favors in the real world. 

Using your analogy, I look at Johnny Rotten's previous 4 years and see that he was in AP classes that he was ill-prepared for. The system forced him into it, but Johnny lacks the parental(community) support that Markie Moneybags has and doesn't have the natural ability that Mr. Perfect does. He is in a class where they grade on a curve, so even when he does well, he never does as well as those other two and constantly earns an F (fails to make the playoffs). Sure, in the very long run, if Johnny sticks with it, he might be barely able to not be in the F range, but until then, he is stuck there (according to the current system). He is losing motivation and at some point quits even trying because he knows he can't compete with those others.

He is in the wrong environment. I want to put him in an environment on similar ability and support kids and let them compete. The ones that truly excel in a situation like this over a course of 4 years (mind you, in my system it would be only 12% of that class) would be able to moved up and kids who were struggling move down. 

Leaving the analogy now, I don't want to move a team up for 1 year of greatness, I want that school to have several (4) years of greatness before they move up. I want them to prove that they can run, pass, block, and tackle on their level before we move them up to more advanced things (a higher class). I would also contend that some in my promotion/relegation system that we are only talking about 16 district champions out 128 teams making the playoffs. (8 team districts). That means to win your district you probably have 5 or 6 wins. To win the playoff you would need 4 wins, so we are talking a 9 or 10 win team that eventually wins a state championship at the lowest level. If we need to, allow district runner-ups in and play down to a regional championship instead if you want the precious title of state champion not to be sullied.

As for the 1A 4x100 state champion, you missed the point. That team wouldn't have made it to the final heat, but we still recognize their pitifulness as a state champion. They excelled, the same way that a team in promotion/relegation system could. You are looking at their past 4 years and declaring that they are unfit for the title champion. I am looking at what they accomplished in that year and recognizing their championship.

[Ray Icaza]

9 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Using your analogy, I look at Johnny Rotten's previous 4 years and see that he was in AP classes that he was ill-prepared for. The system forced him into it, but Johnny lacks the parental(community) support that Markie Moneybags has and doesn't have the natural ability that Mr. Perfect does. He is in a class where they grade on a curve, so even when he does well, he never does as well as those other two and constantly earns an F (fails to make the playoffs). Sure, in the very long run, if Johnny sticks with it, he might be barely able to not be in the F range, but until then, he is stuck there (according to the current system). He is losing motivation and at some point quits even trying because he knows he can't compete with those others.

He is in the wrong environment. I want to put him in an environment on similar ability and support kids and let them compete. The ones that truly excel in a situation like this over a course of 4 years (mind you, in my system it would be only 12% of that class) would be able to moved up and kids who were struggling move down. 

Leaving the analogy now, I don't want to move a team up for 1 year of greatness, I want that school to have several (4) years of greatness before they move up. I want them to prove that they can run, pass, block, and tackle on their level before we move them up to more advanced things (a higher class). I would also contend that some in my promotion/relegation system that we are only talking about 16 district champions out 128 teams making the playoffs. (8 team districts). That means to win your district you probably have 5 or 6 wins. To win the playoff you would need 4 wins, so we are talking a 9 or 10 win team that eventually wins a state championship at the lowest level. If we need to, allow district runner-ups in and play down to a regional championship instead if you want the precious title of state champion not to be sullied.

As for the 1A 4x100 state champion, you missed the point. That team wouldn't have made it to the final heat, but we still recognize their pitifulness as a state champion. They excelled, the same way that a team in promotion/relegation system could. You are looking at their past 4 years and declaring that they are unfit for the title champion. I am looking at what they accomplished in that year and recognizing their championship.

You are right, I am convinced by your argument.  I had forgotten that "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" is the long forgotten standard which is replaced by equity and inclusion (what you folks define as "FAIRNESS").  GOT IT!!

[gatorman-uf]

2 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

You are right, I am convinced by your argument.  I had forgotten that "EQUAL OPPORTUNITY" is the long forgotten standard which is replaced by equity and inclusion (what you folks define as "FAIRNESS").  GOT IT!!

Sigh.
Where is the equal opportunity? One team is getting transfers, one team isn't. By accepting the Metro/Suburban split you already acknowledge the idea of creating a more fair system. If anything, my system is the truly capitalist system of allowing good programs to move up and bad programs to move down (since we can't bankrupt them). 

[Ray Icaza]

27 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

Sigh.
Where is the equal opportunity? One team is getting transfers, one team isn't. By accepting the Metro/Suburban split you already acknowledge the idea of creating a more fair system. If anything, my system is the truly capitalist system of allowing good programs to move up and bad programs to move down (since we can't bankrupt them). 

Equal Opportunity is there, what you're premise really is all about is that it isn't always fair.  That is correct and that is life. I respect your opinion, mine comes from a different angle, view, maybe even upbringing.  This view was engrained in my consciousness by my mother at an early age.  We moved to central FL in 1959 from my native Panama at the age of 11 with good English skills though not my first language.  The only teams sports I was famliar with were baseball and soccer, no football or basketball.  OHS was a small HS when I started attending there and because I was a pretty good athlete and not a lot of bodies to choose from coaches convinced me to come out for these other 2 sports.  My initial tryouts for basketball did not go well as the 20 odd students trying to make the team were going to be cut to 10.  I was cut on the final day and went home distraught explaining to my Mom that what was most upsetting was the fact they kept 3 kids that belonged to prominent ranching families that were lousy.  She proceeded to use the belt on me for excusing failure for this perceived "Unfairness".  She told me that life would always have situations like this and I needed to focus on beating out the other 7 as that problem would persist.  I had not experience this in other sports I had participated in so I decided to focus more on basketball. By my senior year I was selected by my teammates as team captain and earned MVP for the season eventually attending college on a scholarship. The successes I have enjoyed were triggered by that lesson that you can look at setbacks due to "Unfairness" as a curse or as a blessing.  Hope you understand what I chose.  This story isn't about me, but the hundreds of thousands that have reached the top despite roadblocks, impediments, unfairness or any other excuse that could be used.  That's what made America great, my sister and I being the only Hispanics in the entire school system had the "Opportunity" to succeed.  I am afraid we are losing that.  Just to be clear I was then and am now a huge Gator fan as that was my college of choice but wasn't good enough to be accepted at the time.  That is how it works. 

[Perspective]

11 minutes ago, Ray Icaza said:

  OHS was a small HS when I started attending there and because I was a pretty good athlete and not a lot of bodies to choose from coaches convinced me to come out for these other 2 sports.  My initial tryouts for basketball did not go well as the 20 odd students trying to make the team were going to be cut to 10.  I was cut on the final day and went home distraught explaining to my Mom that what was most upsetting was the fact they kept 3 kids that belonged to prominent ranching families that were lousy.  . . .  I had not experience this in other sports I had participated in so I decided to focus more on basketball. By my senior year I was selected by my teammates as team captain and earned MVP for the season eventually attending college on a scholarship.

Cut from the JV basketball team, but later had tremendous success in the sport?  Hmmm, in my mind, you are now the Panamanian Michael Jordan! 

[Ray Icaza]

1 hour ago, Perspective said:

Cut from the JV basketball team, but later had tremendous success in the sport?  Hmmm, in my mind, you are now the Panamanian Michael Jordan! 

Proud of my heritage, but more proud to have earned my citizenship and get to call myself an American.   The red, white and blue is what I choose to fly in my front yard. 

[Perspective]

1 hour ago, Ray Icaza said:

Proud of my heritage, but more proud to have earned my citizenship and get to call myself an American.   The red, white and blue is what I choose to fly in my front yard. 

That's awesome . . . but I can't very well call you the 'American Michael Jordan' because there's already been one of those.     I guess I'll just have to call you Ray.  

[gatorman-uf]

Ray,
I appreciate what you are saying, but I don't think it is as simple as stick-to-it-ness and pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. You already acknowledge that the system is unfair by saying that you think the split of metro/suburban is a good thing. In other words, you want more fairness when compared to the old system. I do to, I just don't think the Metro/Suburban split really solves the issue.

For various reasons, some of these programs are bad. They are punching bags for other teams in their districts. Every region of the state has 5-10 of these teams easily. Teams that are so bad, you put a W in pen before the season starts when you see them on the schedule. Teams that were bad when grandpa played, dad played, and now the grandson plays. Teams that a 3 win season is a sign of a good coach, before he jumps ship to a better school. 

I look at these schools and feel sorry for them. No coach is going to stay long enough to change the culture and maintain that culture. No booster program is going to invest in a horribly losing program. And by keeping them in these classifications, you give them a ready made excuse for their failures (there are other teams have more money, resources, transfers, etc).

I want to take those excuses away. I want to put them in a bottom classification against other horrible teams, so they can't complain that a SuperTeam beat their brains in. They can't complain that some team in their new classification is getting a ton of transfer, because few players transfer to the worst school in the area. And they are all competing against the worst school.

[SFLfootball]

Some posters on here care more about state championships and making playoffs then the kids at these schools that are getting killed. 
 

Relegation, independent leagues, or freedom of scheduling with no districts is all that’s needed for them. Pick 1. All the same result.  The kids that stay behind at these bottom barrel schools while their friends transfer just want to play football, have that experience, and compete or they would have transferred as well.  Let them freely play other “bad” teams. Not everyone grows to be a D1 athlete. Doesn’t mean they don’t have undersized kids who can play and just enjoy the sport. Scores will be closer and they will have fun. They are kids. That’s all they care about. 10 competitive games. Some years they win and some they don’t. 

[Dr. D]

Part 2: In order to get a larger sample size, I tallied the margin of victory for the 502 games played in Weeks 9 & 10.  Since these were weeks where a significant number of district games were played, I thought there would be more close games and fewer blowouts.  The results are in, and the numbers are not good.  The margin of difference in those games breaks down as follows:

“Competitive game”               1 – 14 points        159 games (32%)

“Marginally competitive”      15 – 23 points         66 games (13%)

“Not really competitive”       24 – 34 points       105 games (21%)

“Blowout/Running clock”       35+ points            172 games (34%)

There were 131 shutouts (26%).  Since the primary selling point of the Metro-Suburban reclassification was that it would improve "competitive balance", these numbers do not seem to support that idea (although I do not have last year's results for a numerical comparison).  It will be interesting to see if this year's playoffs display more "competitive balance" than 2021.