Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Joshua Wilson

      Rules of the Forums   09/02/2017

      Please be sure to read the rules of the forums. This is only to help all of us have a good time and we want to keep this board as fun as possible. 
    • SportsNut25

      Talking Other Sports   11/08/2017

      For those interested in talking about other sports, you can talk about them here. 
Sign in to follow this  
h8r

FHSAA football advisory committee/RPI included

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, OldSchoolLion said:

Just like the present system, this appears to be a "hybrid" system  using a combination of district championships and RPI for seeding  Just like I suggested for the present system, if it makes sense, then why a hybrid system and not all in, ie use RPI to seed ALL teams?  I am not suggesting that, just curious "why?" 

If the purpose of the new system is to "create better matchups,"...well, some of the most problematic matchups this past season IMO involved teams that were seeded top 4 because they won district, but obviously were much weaker than some of the lower seeds in their region.  So, if we had used RPI this past season, we likely would have had some of the same first round mismatches as below, maybe just involving different lower-seeded teams.

8A

#6 South Dade 49   #3 Hialeah 14

#5 Palmetto 45   #4 Belen Jesuit 7

 

7A

#5 Lee 48   #4 Hagerty 7

#7 Edgewater 65   #2 Buchholz 21

#5 Ft Lauderdale 54   #4 Doral Academy 7

 

6A

#5 Escambia  33   #4 St Augustine 16

#6 Northwestern 31   #3 Mainland 16

 

5A

#5 American Heritage 37   #4 Westwood 14

#6 Immokalee 45   #3 Dunbar 21

 

OSL

 

They did propose it being like you describe but the coaches and athletic directors in 5-8a were against the idea of dissolving districts and they needed the athletic director board to approve the system for it to be used so part of the compromise included preserving the district champs and them hosting the first round playoff game and just replacing runner ups with wild cards

 

The idea you suggesting is basically what 1-4a has had with the system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, for the larger classifications, I like the concept of districts and I like that district champions are assured of hosting at least one home playoff game.   As long as there are 8 classifications, public and private schools playing together, free transfer rules, and areas of the state that put more emphasis on youth football than others, there are always going to be blowouts in the playoffs -- especially in the opening rounds.   It's inevitable. 

But Districts change.  Some teams move up a class and other teams move down a class.  Coaches retire or get fired.  One school or another becomes the "hot" school for a certain period of time and then, for whatever reasons, they cool off again.  Regression to the mean.   Winning a District title ought to get a team a little more than just some stitching on their varsity letter.  It won't surprise me at all if, over time (and so long as the current system - or one like it - is in effect), 5 seeds have a better winning percentage in the state playoffs than 4 seeds, at least in 5A-8A.   In a match-up between the winner of a relatively weak district and the best team in the other three districts in that same region that doesn't end up winning their district, I'd take the non-district winning team on the road most of the time. But, I still think the district winners should continue to host the first-round games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

The point system issues we saw this year could have been fixed by increasing the region sizes in the small classes by having 2 regions instead of 4

 

Instead the brilliant people in charge think we should change to another system, SMH

Be careful you are starting to sound like me and my rants about returning to district champions and runner-ups.

But if we are going to keep the current system, all they needed to do was spread points out more for victories and losses. No longer are playoff Tier 1 teams gaining less points than a victory over a Tier 4's loss. Big wins count more.  

Tier 1 Victory: 70 points
Tier 2 Victory: 55 points
Tier 3 Victory: 45 points
Tier 4 Victory: 40 points
Tier 1 Loss: 35 points
Tier 2 Loss: 30 points
Tier 3 Loss: 20 points
Tier 4 Loss: 5 points

Again the question comes down to when deciding who makes the playoff, is the goal to give every team that has a chance a spot (even if this allows teams that have no chance in) or only teams that have a chance to win (but leaves 1 or 2 teams that have a chance out)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Again the question comes down to when deciding who makes the playoff, is the goal to give every team that has a chance a spot (even if this allows teams that have no chance in) or only teams that have a chance to win (but leaves 1 or 2 teams that have a chance out)?

Bingo...perfectly said...and if the latter, how does RPI do a better job of predicting such teams than the present system or the one prior(district runners-up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Be careful you are starting to sound like me and my rants about returning to district champions and runner-ups.

But if we are going to keep the current system, all they needed to do was spread points out more for victories and losses. No longer are playoff Tier 1 teams gaining less points than a victory over a Tier 4's loss. Big wins count more.  

Tier 1 Victory: 70 points
Tier 2 Victory: 55 points
Tier 3 Victory: 45 points
Tier 4 Victory: 40 points
Tier 1 Loss: 35 points
Tier 2 Loss: 30 points
Tier 3 Loss: 20 points
Tier 4 Loss: 5 points

Again the question comes down to when deciding who makes the playoff, is the goal to give every team that has a chance a spot (even if this allows teams that have no chance in) or only teams that have a chance to win (but leaves 1 or 2 teams that have a chance out)?

Again there is a solution that could have made point system more effective

 

Instead we changing it up again, a few simple tweaks to current system would have made point system effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OldSchoolLion said:

I would like to see the RPI numbers for this past season to see who would/would not have made it and what the first round matchups would have been.   Please tell me this was done as part of the "proving" process. 

Exactly what I've said on Twitter multiple times last few days

 

 

This system was thrown in last minute for vote with the idea "trust us" yet no one has a damn sample to show how this is better than what we using now

 

If this idea was in their heads they should have worked on it as soon as regular season ended and start on the RPI sample for these board meetings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pretend we used the RPI system this past season, and that these teams, who missed the playoffs this season, made it.  Realistically, how would they have done in their respective regions?  Just curious to hear from people familiar with these teams and the teams they likely would have met in the playoffs.

George Jenkins(8A) 7-3   

Liberty(8A) 8-2   

Park Vista(8A) 7-3   

Seminole(8A) 8-2   

Chamberlain(6A) 8-2   

New Smyrna Beach(6A) 7-3   

Springstead(6A) 7-3   

River Ridge(5A) 7-3  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

This system was thrown in last minute for vote with the idea "trust us" yet no one has a damn sample to show how this is better than what we using now

If this idea was in their heads they should have worked on it as soon as regular season ended and start on the RPI sample for these board meetings

 

Again, same thing I said about the playoff system in terms of points. They suggest something without putting out the numbers.

In defense of the FHSAA, an RPI system is A LOT of work for a sample size so I understand why they might not want to do it if it were to get voted down. 

In case anybody is curious on how RPI works, here ya go.
I get it, but it would be an absolute nightmare to try and do on a weekly basis with consistent accuracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_percentage_index

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

 

Again, same thing I said about the playoff system in terms of points. They suggest something without putting out the numbers.

In defense of the FHSAA, an RPI system is A LOT of work for a sample size so I understand why they might not want to do it if it were to get voted down. 

In case anybody is curious on how RPI works, here ya go.
I get it, but it would be an absolute nightmare to try and do on a weekly basis with consistent accuracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_percentage_index

"The RPI lacks theoretical justification from a statistical standpoint. Other ranking systems which include the margin of victory of games played or other statistics in addition to the win/loss results have been shown to be a better predictor of the outcomes of future games. However, because the margin of victory has been manipulated in the past by teams or individuals in the context of gambling, the RPI can be used to mitigate motivation for such manipulation."

...some random thoughts....

-Info above does not give me a warm and fuzzy as to how the RPI will make things any better.

-Would seem to me that one of the best predictors for playoff performance of hs wildcards teams is their ability to play tough on the road, recognizing they might be playing all of their playoff games on the road. Yet that does not come into play in the proposed system.

-There is so much emphasis on strength of schedule in RPI, and using opponent's opponents potentially doubles up a problem in relatively weak counties like Pinellas where your weak opponents are likely playing weak opponents.  As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, this system creates incentive for scheduling a certain way.  Why would would I want to schedule an out-of-district game against schools from weaker counties/districts, knowing it could ultimately hurt me?  Seems to me the ideal would be to schedule a B+ team from a super-tough district whose opponent's opponents winning percentage will be very high...like a Miami Norland this past season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, I don't think it will change to much how a team schedules. I think after district games, teams play local rivals (in county, just over county line) and in big metro areas that fills the schedule. You will not see for example Lakeland playing Miami Northwestern in Miami. 

You won't see average Hillsborough County team playing average Orange County team. As a result, I don't think the playoff points or the RPI will really change too much of our scheduling because there are so many other factors that go into scheduling. When the SEC basketball conference got only like 2-3 bid to March Madness one year, the SEC told it's teams to start scheduling tougher. And they did, but high schools can't replicate this exactly as we don't have the same budget as a college basketball program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

Ultimately, I don't think it will change to much how a team schedules. I think after district games, teams play local rivals (in county, just over county line) and in big metro areas that fills the schedule. You will not see for example Lakeland playing Miami Northwestern in Miami. 

You won't see average Hillsborough County team playing average Orange County team. As a result, I don't think the playoff points or the RPI will really change too much of our scheduling because there are so many other factors that go into scheduling. When the SEC basketball conference got only like 2-3 bid to March Madness one year, the SEC told it's teams to start scheduling tougher. And they did, but high schools can't replicate this exactly as we don't have the same budget as a college basketball program. 

I agree that's the case for the vast majority of teams.  But there are some teams who seem to have more flexibility than others (for whatever reason) who could have an advantage, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

You won't see average Hillsborough County team playing average Orange County team. As a result, I don't think the playoff points or the RPI will really change too much of our scheduling because there are so many other factors that go into scheduling.

With respect to public schools, and with rare exception, you won't see an average Hillsborough County team playing an average team from any other county in the state.  In fact, you won't see a superior Hillsborough County team playing a superior team from any other county and you won't see a rotten Hillsborough County team playing a rotten team from any other county.  Perhaps I can make this easier:  you won't see a Hillsborough County team playing a team from another county. 

This is, admittedly, Hillsborough County's cross to bear.  It's the way the County AD wants it.  Centralized funding.  HC teams play HC teams and all the money from all the games stays in Hillsborough County.  Perhaps this is good from a financial standpoint, but it's already had a detrimental affect on HC teams and will continue to do so with the new RPI system. 

So, take this a step further.  How can you compare the strength of a Hillsborough County team with the strength of a non-HC team?  Yes, there are a small handful of private schools that play a small number of games against non-HC schools, in addition to the games they play against HC schools.   Aside from those games, if HC schools aren't playing non-HC schools, how do gauge the relative strength of the teams under an RPI format?  If my math is right (and excluding the relatively small number of games between HC teams and non-HC teams), at the end of the regular season, there should be an equal number of cumulative wins and losses.  Within the county, you'll know who the best/better teams are.  But how, for example, do you compare an 8-3 HC team with an 8-3 team from outside HC for purposes of determining the 7th or 8th seed in a region (vs. the 9th or 10th seeds who are home cleaning out their lockers)? 

And, yes, I understand that playing for the 8th seed in a region is a bit like being the team in the NCAA basketball tournament who surprises everyone to win their conference tournament and slide into the Big Dance as a number 16 seed.  Odds are, it's a one-and-done tournament for that team.  But, they can say they made the playoffs and build on that in the future.  Not too many 8 seeds are going to go on the road and knock off a region's number 1 seed.  So, perhaps the RPI system isn't that big of a deal from that standpoint.   Where I think it is a big deal comes in determining the power rating (or, now, the RPI) of the top 4 seeds if this is going to continue to be the way that home-field advantage is determined and,  conversely, who has to travel 3 or 4 hours for a playoff game.  

I'm assuming that the vast majority of folks on this Board aren't Hillsborough County guys or gals, so I suspect the vast majority of you really won't care.    But it will remain an issue for the HC teams for the foreseeable future. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×