How to Improve the Wild Card System

[ClkTwr2011]

There seems to always be some type of discussion about our Wild Card Points system intertwined with various threads.

Some people feel the system extremely flawed, others suggest some adjustments, and others seem to be ok with it. I believe many that are ok with it are taking that stance because they really don't have a better idea.

I believe this thread can go off without attaching the current Wild Card Systems for the various sports. However, if anyone feels we should attach them, please let me know and I will add or post links to them.

I would like to hear the suggestions or comments. This is a very interesting topic to me.

 

[hailvictors2]

Teams should be given 2 bonus points when they play teams that have opted down a classification. As an example, if a team should be class B based on enrollment but choose to play C1, the teams they play in C1 should get the 2 bonus points that other teams get for playing class B schools.

 

[Llama57]

-Point deduction for playing down more than 1 class.
-Maximum # of bonus points for playing up (maybe 3-4 games/year)

 

[Yossarian23]

-Point deduction for playing down more than 1 class.
-Maximum # of bonus points for playing up (maybe 3-4 games/year)

That first one would make it difficult for some smaller eastern schools to fill VB and Basketball schedules without adding significantly to their travel. I know western schools are saying 'cry me a river', but it would make a big difference.

Enough schools and fans already believe you lose points for playing down without it actually being a thing.

 

[saluno22]

I agree with penalties for playing opponents from smaller-enrollment classes.

Why not just have a unified points system where D2 is the baseline and you add a point or two for each class above that regardless of which class you're in?

Say two points per class, Div 4 win against opponent from...
D2: 41 pts
D1: 43 pts
C2: 45 pts
C1: 47 pts
B: 49 pts
A: 51 pts

Yes, it will impact how some teams schedule, but it will prevent inflated wild card averages from teams routinely playing opponents from a class or two smaller (which impacts postseason seeding and hosting).

Personally, I think postseason wins against opponents which have a detrimental impact on a team's wild card average should be omitted from the average. I can't stand when there are some 3-team subdistricts and some 4-team subdistricts, and the #1 seeds from the 4-team subdistricts have to play a Div 4 or Div 3 opponent who hurt their wild card average even with a win. They have no control over this (as opposed to regular season and in-season tournaments) and is simply luck of geography/assignments.

Edit: Class A ostensibly created a penalty for playing non-Class A schools last year by awarding two bonus points for playing other Class A schools, so there is precedence. Maybe just follow that lead and award two bonus points for playing your class and above, in addition to the bonus points for playing opponents from larger classes.

 

[bballcoach15]

I don't believe you should get the same amount (or even more) points for losing to a good team in a higher class, than you do for winning against a poor team in an equal or lower class. Example: Class D1 school loses to an undefeated Class C1 school and gets 42 points for LOSING. The same Class D1 school wins against a 5-18 class D1 school and only gets 41 points. Maybe we put a cap on powerpoints for a loss at 40?

 

[saluno22]

I don't believe you should get the same amount (or even more) points for losing to a good team in a higher class, than you do for winning against a poor team in an equal or lower class. Example: Class D1 school loses to an undefeated Class C1 school and gets 42 points for LOSING. The same Class D1 school wins against a 5-18 class D1 school and only gets 41 points. Maybe we put a cap on powerpoints for a loss at 40?

Raise the stakes: All losses are zero points. Points only for wins.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Teams should be given 2 bonus points when they play teams that have opted down a classification. As an example, if a team should be class B based on enrollment but choose to play C1, the teams they play in C1 should get the 2 bonus points that other teams get for playing class B schools.

I personally believe that those games should not count for anything, but I really like your thinking here.

Yes the team is playing in D1, but that fact is they are really a C2 school (as an example) therefore should be treated as such with the bonus points. Good idea.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

-Point deduction for playing down more than 1 class.
-Maximum # of bonus points for playing up (maybe 3-4 games/year)

I like this too, with a concession for games that are part of a Conference Tournament where the schools can't really pick their opponents. East Husker Conference has C1, C2, D1, and maybe even D2 but I don't remember and am too lazy to look. There are instances in which a C1 has no choice but to play a D1. I believe it would be easy to adjust for that. Good ideas.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

I agree with penalties for playing opponents from smaller-enrollment classes.

Why not just have a unified points system where D2 is the baseline and you add a point or two for each class above that regardless of which class you're in?

Say two points per class, Div 4 win against opponent from...
D2: 41 pts
D1: 43 pts
C2: 45 pts
C1: 47 pts
B: 49 pts
A: 51 pts

Yes, it will impact how some teams schedule, but it will prevent inflated wild card averages from teams routinely playing opponents from a class or two smaller (which impacts postseason seeding and hosting).

Personally, I think postseason wins against opponents which have a detrimental impact on a team's wild card average should be omitted from the average. I can't stand when there are some 3-team subdistricts and some 4-team subdistricts, and the #1 seeds from the 4-team subdistricts have to play a Div 4 or Div 3 opponent who hurt their wild card average even with a win. They have no control over this (as opposed to regular season and in-season tournaments) and is simply luck of geography/assignments.

Edit: Class A ostensibly created a penalty for playing non-Class A schools last year by awarding two bonus points for playing other Class A schools, so there is precedence. Maybe just follow that lead and award two bonus points for playing your class and above, in addition to the bonus points for playing opponents from larger classes.

Maybe Wildcard points are "frozen" when the regular season ends. This would eliminate the situation in which a team actually hurts their District Final seeding while winning Sub-District games. I like your idea here, but would oppose a situation in which the Wild Card points are only assigned when they are advantageous to a team. That could be a tough sell.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Raise the stakes: All losses are zero points. Points only for wins.

This is interesting. This would certainly simplify things.

 

[saluno22]

Maybe Wildcard points are "frozen" when the regular season ends. This would eliminate the situation in which a team actually hurts their District Final seeding while winning Sub-District games. I like your idea here, but would oppose a situation in which the Wild Card points are only assigned when they are advantageous to a team. That could be a tough sell.

I can get on board with that and suggested that elsewhere with the idea of once you reach the postseason, there shouldn't be any outside-the-class factors impacting developments anymore.

When I posed this to another group, it was just between District Final and State competitions because, other than Class A, there is no more wild card to worry about the wild card average. I say keep it for the District Final seeding because there needs to be a means to slot (and qualify) the wild card teams who advance to that round. At that point, take the whole picture and allow that influence.

However, there will be no losing teams advancing after the District Final round, so there is no need to use a formula to place teams. Frankly, State starts with the District Finals, they just re-seed after that to make a buttoned-up 1 through 8 bracket. In my opinion, it's unnecessary. That being said, I get it. They want to still reward the highest performing teams with higher seeds, and it shouldn't matter if your goal is to win the state title, you have to play tough teams regardless. I just think it's silly to say "okay, we seeded you for the District Finals, but now, with advancement simply based on winning, we're going to re-seed you." How many times does the deck need to be re-shuffled (or re-stcaked)? If that #16 beats the #1, let them play the winner of #8 vs. #9.

 

[saluno22]

I like this too, with a concession for games that are part of a Conference Tournament where the schools can't really pick their opponents. East Husker Conference has C1, C2, D1, and maybe even D2 but I don't remember and am too lazy to look. There are instances in which a C1 has no choice but to play a D1. I believe it would be easy to adjust for that. Good ideas.

I disagree here. I used to have the same thought as well, but teams can pick which conference they align with.

I do like what one of the larger small-school conferences does. I can't remember which one it is, but it's a 16-team conference. They break their conference tournament in half based on I assume wild card average. Not two balanced tournaments, but essentially a championship bracket (top 8) and consolation bracket (bottom 8). This guarantees the conference's elite teams don't have their wild card average dragged down with some 1v16 or 2 v15 or whatever matchup against a Div 4 team. Kind of like low-major college basketball conferences do with double and triple byes to minimize the number of games for their regular season top-performing teams to have a better chance of those teams making the NCAA tournament. It doesn't seem right, but it makes sense if your goal is to not hurt or otherwise burden your elite teams with unnecessary risk.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

I disagree here. I used to have the same thought as well, but teams can pick which conference they align with.

I do like what one of the larger small-school conferences does. I can't remember which one it is, but it's a 16-team conference. They break their conference tournament in half based on I assume wild card average. Not two balanced tournaments, but essentially a championship bracket (top 8) and consolation bracket (bottom 8). This guarantees the conference's elite teams don't have their wild card average dragged down with some 1v16 or 2 v15 or whatever matchup against a Div 4 team. Kind of like low-major college basketball conferences do with double and triple byes to minimize the number of games for their regular season top-performing teams to have a better chance of those teams making the NCAA tournament. It doesn't seem right, but it makes sense if your goal is to not hurt or otherwise burden your elite teams with unnecessary risk.

That is the East Husker Conference that does it. The conference covers 3 Classes for sure, and possibly 4.

 

[hailvictors2]

A team shouldn't be able to achieve a division until they defeat a team in that division. Example below

Team A is 7-3. The 7 wins come against 5 teams that are level 4 teams (winning % below 25%, worth 41 points) and 2 teams that are level 3 teams (winning % between 25-49%, worth 44 points). Even though team A has a 7-3 record that lands them in the level 2 winning % zone (50%-74%) they are treated as a level 3 team because that is the highest level team they have defeated throughout the year. If a team beats Team A during the year they should only get 44 points, not 47. If at some point later in the year Team A beats a level 2 team then the point value for beating Team A maxes out at 47.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

I disagree here. I used to have the same thought as well, but teams can pick which conference they align with.

I do like what one of the larger small-school conferences does. I can't remember which one it is, but it's a 16-team conference. They break their conference tournament in half based on I assume wild card average. Not two balanced tournaments, but essentially a championship bracket (top 8) and consolation bracket (bottom 8). This guarantees the conference's elite teams don't have their wild card average dragged down with some 1v16 or 2 v15 or whatever matchup against a Div 4 team. Kind of like low-major college basketball conferences do with double and triple byes to minimize the number of games for their regular season top-performing teams to have a better chance of those teams making the NCAA tournament. It doesn't seem right, but it makes sense if your goal is to not hurt or otherwise burden your elite teams with unnecessary risk.

almost every conference that is C1 down covers several classes, I would say you need to take a better look at what C1 down has to schedule. This is a bad idea. You also have to understand, you could be C1 this year and C2 the next year or even C2 to D2 in two year time and back to C2 in two or three more. Also your boys could be C2 and Girls D1 you are over looking a bunch of stuff

 

[saluno22]

almost every conference that is C1 down covers several classes, I would say you need to take a better look at what C1 down has to schedule. This is a bad idea. You also have to understand, you could be C1 this year and C2 the next year or even C2 to D2 in two year time and back to C2 in two or three more. Also your boys could be C2 and Girls D1 you are over looking a bunch of stuff

I don't think I ever said it was a bad thing, just a function of the given circumstances. But there are classes for a reason and points should be assigned accordingly.

I think in another thread someone mentioned consolidating from six to four classes. That would alleviate a lot of the class hopping you mention.

We could just create a system where you only count games against other teams in your own class for the purpose of wild card standings, but I think everyone knows that would be ridiculous. There used to be a rule where you could only qualify for the state tournament as a wild card (obviously a while ago) if you played a minimum number of games against teams from your class. I feel like this was in the 2004-2007 time frame and it was like 6 games in basketball, but can't recall exactly.

 

[Alum-Ni]

I disagree here. I used to have the same thought as well, but teams can pick which conference they align with.

I do like what one of the larger small-school conferences does. I can't remember which one it is, but it's a 16-team conference. They break their conference tournament in half based on I assume wild card average. Not two balanced tournaments, but essentially a championship bracket (top 8) and consolation bracket (bottom 8). This guarantees the conference's elite teams don't have their wild card average dragged down with some 1v16 or 2 v15 or whatever matchup against a Div 4 team. Kind of like low-major college basketball conferences do with double and triple byes to minimize the number of games for their regular season top-performing teams to have a better chance of those teams making the NCAA tournament. It doesn't seem right, but it makes sense if your goal is to not hurt or otherwise burden your elite teams with unnecessary risk.

IIRC, the East Husker Conference is still one large bracket.

It is the Lewis & Clark Conference that splits into two separate conference tournaments, and it has teams that range from C1 to D2 depending on the year.

This year, on the boys side the Lewis Division tournament was the top eight seeds (Hartington-Newcastle, Homer, Laurel-Concord-Coleridge, Walthill, Wakefield, Wausa, Winnebago, and Wynot)

The Clark Division tournament was the bottom eight seeds (Bloomfield, Creighton, Osmond, Plainview, Ponca, Randolph, Tri County Northeast, and Winside)

 

[saluno22]

A team shouldn't be able to achieve a division until they defeat a team in that division. Example below

Team A is 7-3. The 7 wins come against 5 teams that are level 4 teams (winning % below 25%, worth 41 points) and 2 teams that are level 3 teams (winning % between 25-49%, worth 44 points). Even though team A has a 7-3 record that lands them in the level 2 winning % zone (50%-74%) they are treated as a level 3 team because that is the highest level team they have defeated throughout the year. If a team beats Team A during the year they should only get 44 points, not 47. If at some point later in the year Team A beats a level 2 team then the point value for beating Team A maxes out at 47.

Interesting concept and it reminds me of something else I've mentioned to others previously.

When accounting for an opponent's record in a given team's wild card calculation, don't count that opponent's games against the team in question. This way you are assigning value for that opponent based on how they perform against everyone else, and your result (win or lose) won't have an impact. For example...

Team A (6-3)
Team B (4-5)
Team C (2-7)
...

Team A beat both B and C, Team C beat Team B.

For Team A, Team B would be 4-4 (Div 2) rather than 4-5 (Div 3) and Team C would be 2-6 (Div 3) rather than 2-7 (Div 4).
For Team B, Team A would be 5-3 rather than 6-3 (Div 2 regardless) and Team C would be 1-7 rather than 2-7 (Div 4 regardless)
For Team C, Team A would be 5-3 rather than 6-3 (Div 2 regardless) and Team B would be 4-4 (Div 2) rather than 4-5 (Div 3).

This would be complicated and "less accessible" to the casual fan, but on the merits, I like the concept of assigning value to an opponent based on how they performed against everyone else and not have that division standing impacted by something you did yourself (whether it is a positive because you lost or negative because you won).

This idea spawned from seeing some teams play each other four times in a season. From a wild card average perspective, there have been instances where a team intentionally losing the fourth game would boost their own wild card average. Say a pair of teams are playing for a fourth time and it's a postseason game, and one team is 5-16 (Div 4). If the other team lets that 5-16 team win and clinch a Div 3 standing (6-16 with the potential for only one more loss). Say the other team won the first three matchups for example. Going into that game, those are three 41s (123) and another win would be another 41 (164). If they lose, those first three turn into 44s (132) plus a 33 (165). In the aggregate, they just made a gain by losing. This can be the difference between hosting and not hosting a District Final.

This brings me back to a proposal from earlier in the thread: eliminate the detrimental effect of beating low-division opponents in unavoidable postseason matchups.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

I don't think I ever said it was a bad thing, just a function of the given circumstances. But there are classes for a reason and points should be assigned accordingly.

I think in another thread someone mentioned consolidating from six to four classes. That would alleviate a lot of the class hopping you mention.

We could just create a system where you only count games against other teams in your own class for the purpose of wild card standings, but I think everyone knows that would be ridiculous. There used to be a rule where you could only qualify for the state tournament as a wild card (obviously a while ago) if you played a minimum number of games against teams from your class. I feel like this was in the 2004-2007 time frame and it was like 6 games in basketball, but can't recall exactly.

sorry I was talking mainly to the first post, I still think the rule is 5 teams in your class but that includes district games I would say a 5 teams in regular season could work for sure, some teams are traditional duckers as they have been in a class or conference below their classification for many years but those same schools rarely if ever make it to state, and under this new system may get to a district final but wont win that game

 

[nenebskers]

I disagree here. I used to have the same thought as well, but teams can pick which conference they align with.

I do like what one of the larger small-school conferences does. I can't remember which one it is, but it's a 16-team conference. They break their conference tournament in half based on I assume wild card average. Not two balanced tournaments, but essentially a championship bracket (top 8) and consolation bracket (bottom 8). This guarantees the conference's elite teams don't have their wild card average dragged down with some 1v16 or 2 v15 or whatever matchup against a Div 4 team. Kind of like low-major college basketball conferences do with double and triple byes to minimize the number of games for their regular season top-performing teams to have a better chance of those teams making the NCAA tournament. It doesn't seem right, but it makes sense if your goal is to not hurt or otherwise burden your elite teams with unnecessary risk.

Lewis and Clark Conference does it. Started last year. It was a great change for both the top 8 and the bottom 8 teams as they are getting more competitive games. Also helped with scheduling by freeing up a night for cancelations due to weather.

 

[Llama57]

I disagree here. I used to have the same thought as well, but teams can pick which conference they align with.

I do like what one of the larger small-school conferences does. I can't remember which one it is, but it's a 16-team conference. They break their conference tournament in half based on I assume wild card average. Not two balanced tournaments, but essentially a championship bracket (top 8) and consolation bracket (bottom 8). This guarantees the conference's elite teams don't have their wild card average dragged down with some 1v16 or 2 v15 or whatever matchup against a Div 4 team. Kind of like low-major college basketball conferences do with double and triple byes to minimize the number of games for their regular season top-performing teams to have a better chance of those teams making the NCAA tournament. It doesn't seem right, but it makes sense if your goal is to not hurt or otherwise burden your elite teams with unnecessary risk.

Lewis & Clark does that. They make an "upper" & "lower" bracket based on better teams. Not sure if it's power points, or win %.

 

[Llama57]

I don't think I ever said it was a bad thing, just a function of the given circumstances. But there are classes for a reason and points should be assigned accordingly.

I think in another thread someone mentioned consolidating from six to four classes. That would alleviate a lot of the class hopping you mention.

We could just create a system where you only count games against other teams in your own class for the purpose of wild card standings, but I think everyone knows that would be ridiculous. There used to be a rule where you could only qualify for the state tournament as a wild card (obviously a while ago) if you played a minimum number of games against teams from your class. I feel like this was in the 2004-2007 time frame and it was like 6 games in basketball, but can't recall exactly.

Why is everyone always move from 6 to 4 classes? IMO that would create some HUGE spreads in enrollments, especially with the 2 classes just below A. 5 classes may be a better #. Just my .02

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Why is everyone always move from 6 to 4 classes? IMO that would create some HUGE spreads in enrollments, especially with the 2 classes just below A. 5 classes may be a better #. Just my .02

I would be interested in seeing the correlation between success and enrollment. I am sure there is some, but the quick glance I took didn't disclose the type of disparity I expected. Howells/Dodge, Humphrey/LHF, and Hartington/Newcastle are all near the bottom of their class in enrollment. St Francis, Riverside, St Marys, all the same...near the bottom in enrollment.

I would really like to see a 4 Class system, but that is just me. 5 may be better.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

A team shouldn't be able to achieve a division until they defeat a team in that division. Example below

Team A is 7-3. The 7 wins come against 5 teams that are level 4 teams (winning % below 25%, worth 41 points) and 2 teams that are level 3 teams (winning % between 25-49%, worth 44 points). Even though team A has a 7-3 record that lands them in the level 2 winning % zone (50%-74%) they are treated as a level 3 team because that is the highest level team they have defeated throughout the year. If a team beats Team A during the year they should only get 44 points, not 47. If at some point later in the year Team A beats a level 2 team then the point value for beating Team A maxes out at 47.

This is a really good idea (in my opinion). Being 9-2 with all wins coming to Division 3 or 4 opponents...does NOT make me a Division 1 team.

As I think through this, it wouldn't really effect the points of the actual team that is 9-2, or am I overthinking this? Yes it would effect the assigned value to this team's opponents, but really would never effect the team we are talking about. Go farther with this side discussion. I like this.

Great thinking here.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

I think you are all over thinking it to much LOL

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Interesting concept and it reminds me of something else I've mentioned to others previously.

When accounting for an opponent's record in a given team's wild card calculation, don't count that opponent's games against the team in question. This way you are assigning value for that opponent based on how they perform against everyone else, and your result (win or lose) won't have an impact. For example...

Team A (6-3)
Team B (4-5)
Team C (2-7)
...

Team A beat both B and C, Team C beat Team B.

For Team A, Team B would be 4-4 (Div 2) rather than 4-5 (Div 3) and Team C would be 2-6 (Div 3) rather than 2-7 (Div 4).
For Team B, Team A would be 5-3 rather than 6-3 (Div 2 regardless) and Team C would be 1-7 rather than 2-7 (Div 4 regardless)
For Team C, Team A would be 5-3 rather than 6-3 (Div 2 regardless) and Team B would be 4-4 (Div 2) rather than 4-5 (Div 3).

This would be complicated and "less accessible" to the casual fan, but on the merits, I like the concept of assigning value to an opponent based on how they performed against everyone else and not have that division standing impacted by something you did yourself (whether it is a positive because you lost or negative because you won).

This idea spawned from seeing some teams play each other four times in a season. From a wild card average perspective, there have been instances where a team intentionally losing the fourth game would boost their own wild card average. Say a pair of teams are playing for a fourth time and it's a postseason game, and one team is 5-16 (Div 4). If the other team lets that 5-16 team win and clinch a Div 3 standing (6-16 with the potential for only one more loss). Say the other team won the first three matchups for example. Going into that game, those are three 41s (123) and another win would be another 41 (164). If they lose, those first three turn into 44s (132) plus a 33 (165). In the aggregate, they just made a gain by losing. This can be the difference between hosting and not hosting a District Final.

This brings me back to a proposal from earlier in the thread: eliminate the detrimental effect of beating low-division opponents in unavoidable postseason matchups.

There is some general consistency between this and the RPI system that College Basketball uses. That metric also excludes head to head matchups.

Another good post! Thank You.

 

[saluno22]

I wish I had the time to just take all the data from a regular season and see what impacts these tweaks would have.

 

[Llama57]

I would be interested in seeing the correlation between success and enrollment. I am sure there is some, but the quick glance I took didn't disclose the type of disparity I expected. Howells/Dodge, Humphrey/LHF, and Hartington/Newcastle are all near the bottom of their class in enrollment. St Francis, Riverside, St Marys, all the same...near the bottom in enrollment.

I would really like to see a 4 Class system, but that is just me. 5 may be better.

There's a 20 boy difference between the largest C2 team & smallest, 10 between D1, and 16 in D2.
There's an 84 boy difference between biggest & smallest in C1.

Splitting up just below A is a challenge. If you even went to 50 schools in B, they'd range from South Sioux (484) to Scotus (96).

I've though if you take the largest 64, split them for A/B, then split the rest evenly between 3 classes, that would make ratios a little better.
A: O South - SSC
B: Hastings - DC West
C: Chadron - Twin River
D: Tekamah - Mead
E: East Butler - Spalding Academy

I've also though that B should be a cutoff like Class A. 850 total enrollment & up, Class A. 250 total enrollment & up Class B. Then split up the rest 3 ways.

Sorry for the rambling, just some thoughts, totally getting off the "wild card improvement" topic!

 

[ClkTwr2011]

I think you are all over thinking it to much L

You are right, we are!!

 

[ClkTwr2011]

There's a 20 boy difference between the largest C2 team & smallest, 10 between D1, and 16 in D2.
There's an 84 boy difference between biggest & smallest in C1.

Splitting up just below A is a challenge. If you even went to 50 schools in B, they'd range from South Sioux (484) to Scotus (96).

I've though if you take the largest 64, split them for A/B, then split the rest evenly between 3 classes, that would make ratios a little better.
A: O South - SSC
B: Hastings - DC West
C: Chadron - Twin River
D: Tekamah - Mead
E: East Butler - Spalding Academy

I've also though that B should be a cutoff like Class A. 850 total enrollment & up, Class A. 250 total enrollment & up Class B. Then split up the rest 3 ways.

Sorry for the rambling, just some thoughts, totally getting off the "wild card improvement" topic!

You aren't rambling. This is a good post!

 

[Power_I_82]

This is a really good idea (in my opinion). Being 9-2 with all wins coming to Division 3 or 4 opponents...does NOT make me a Division 1 team.

As I think through this, it wouldn't really effect the points of the actual team that is 9-2, or am I overthinking this? Yes it would effect the assigned value to this team's opponents, but really would never effect the team we are talking about. Go farther with this side discussion. I like this.

Great thinking here.

Don't necessarily hate that idea however I'll play the other side here just for discussion. (In Football) You have a good team that finishes undefeated. Their schedule isn't great so they beat a bunch of D3 and D4 type teams. The state schedules the entire schedule for football. Does that undefeated team get punished in wildcard points even if they beat the doors off of everyone on their schedule and run clock on them? If schools had more control over their schedule it would be one thing. Yes you have your prefered teams and you can definitely try to add good games through there knowing your district might be weak.

Anyway, just a discussion point on the football side of things. I'd love to see more premier nondistrict games to start the season. It would be really fun seeing some teams that don't normally see each other playing to kickoff the season.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Don't necessarily hate that idea however I'll play the other side here just for discussion. (In Football) You have a good team that finishes undefeated. Their schedule isn't great so they beat a bunch of D3 and D4 type teams. The state schedules the entire schedule for football. Does that undefeated team get punished in wildcard points even if they beat the doors off of everyone on their schedule and run clock on them? If schools had more control over their schedule it would be one thing. Yes you have your prefered teams and you can definitely try to add good games through there knowing your district might be weak.

Anyway, just a discussion point on the football side of things. I'd love to see more premier nondistrict games to start the season. It would be really fun seeing some teams that don't normally see each other playing to kickoff the season.

Good points. Football certainly can be a little different due to the low game count.

Can you think of an instance where this happened? I'll try to look, but thought you may know of some.

 

[Yossarian23]

I don't think I ever said it was a bad thing, just a function of the given circumstances. But there are classes for a reason and points should be assigned accordingly.

I think in another thread someone mentioned consolidating from six to four classes. That would alleviate a lot of the class hopping you mention.

We could just create a system where you only count games against other teams in your own class for the purpose of wild card standings, but I think everyone knows that would be ridiculous. There used to be a rule where you could only qualify for the state tournament as a wild card (obviously a while ago) if you played a minimum number of games against teams from your class. I feel like this was in the 2004-2007 time frame and it was like 6 games in basketball, but can't recall exactly.

I thought this was still a rule...but looking through both the volleyball and basketball manual, I cannot find it.

However, I thought it was you had to play a minimum number of games in your class OR higher. So it would punish a school that played exclusively down, but no those that played up often.

 

[Llama57]

I thought this was still a rule...but looking through both the volleyball and basketball manual, I cannot find it.

However, I thought it was you had to play a minimum number of games in your class OR higher. So it would punish a school that played exclusively down, but no those that played up often.

I believe it's been fairly recently. Pretty sure I had the conversation with someone in '15, that if Winnebago didn't win a district final, that they wouldn't be able to have a wild card because they hadn't played enough C1 teams.

Including the district final, they only had 5 games vs C1 or higher competition.

 

[Alum-Ni]

I believe it's been fairly recently. Pretty sure I had the conversation with someone in '15, that if Winnebago didn't win a district final, that they wouldn't be able to have a wild card because they hadn't played enough C1 teams.

Including the district final, they only had 5 games vs C1 or higher competition.

In the NSAA manual, for classes C1 thru D2, in order to be eligible for a wildcard for a district final, teams must have played at least four (4) games at or above their classification.

 

[TC53]

I have traditionally been a big proponent of reinstating the penalty for playing a smaller class, but as Nebraska's classes have shrunk I'm not sure that is important. I have not run all the numbers, but I looked at Class B basketball and found that Class B teams and Class C1 teams were about 50/50 against each other. Of course, a wider look is needed, but what I found, rather than evidence of the need for the penalty, the evidence says we don't need separate B and C1 classes. It is time to return to four classes.

Someone asked if schools size is a great predictor of success. When I looked closely at this question in 2016 to present to the NSAA classification committee, school size was not a great predictor of success at all. Much better predictors were levels of poverty in a school (low free-reduced lunch numbers meant more wins), proximity to larger schools (being 15 miles from a 600+ student school), and prior success (if you've won a lot in the last five years, you should expect to win a lot in the next five years). (Oh, of course, the best way to predict success is to ask if the school is public or private, but for a variety of reasons Nebraska is never going to use that for classification.)

Here's the slide show I put together for my presentation to the committee. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1a-g4f6RlR70L7qF3_R7-BvJAna8zNCDXwvLjtTZgymU/edit?usp=sharing

I did a podcast episode where I talked thru the data.

In the 5-6 years since this, I've come to believe that the state will never take a 'complicated' way to address the classification issue, but that it is time for contraction back to four classes.

 

[saluno22]

Good points. Football certainly can be a little different due to the low game count.

Can you think of an instance where this happened? I'll try to look, but thought you may know of some.

2019: Mount Michael went 7-2 (Div 1) in the regular season but beat only Div 3 and Div 4 opponents:

Date Opponent Class W-L Div W/L Score Points
08/30/19 @ Ralston B 1-8 4 W 20-12 41
09/06/19 @ Gross Catholic B 3-6 3 W 34-28 44
09/13/19 Omaha Concordia C1 2-7 4 W 55-0 41
09/20/19 Plattsmouth B 4-5 3 W 17-7 44
09/27/19 @ Schuyler B 0-9 4 W 50-0 41
10/04/19 @ Omaha Roncalli Catholic B 7-2 1 L 31-34 36
10/11/19 Blair B 3-6 3 W 24-21 44
10/18/19 @ South Sioux City B 2-7 4 W 38-6 41
10/25/19 Bennington B 6-3 2 L 13-42 33

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

I dont think you can put a penalty in for who you play, things that make that impossible are:
1. One year shift by schools in classifications C1 to D-1
2, Boys and Girls in different classes ( C2 down for sure plays these games on same night and same opponent with JV games followed by varsity on same night
3. Location of school, with in a 100 miles and with 20 games, very easily could not even be 20 teams to play, just only have so many choices
4. This would be all but cancelling conference play and most all conferences range two or three clarifications and again conferences are based off of location as much as classification
This is just a few reasons off the top of my head, heck in class B alone is there even enough schools to fill a schedule

 

[Llama57]

I have traditionally been a big proponent of reinstating the penalty for playing a smaller class, but as Nebraska's classes have shrunk I'm not sure that is important. I have not run all the numbers, but I looked at Class B basketball and found that Class B teams and Class C1 teams were about 50/50 against each other. Of course, a wider look is needed, but what I found, rather than evidence of the need for the penalty, the evidence says we don't need separate B and C1 classes. It is time to return to four classes.

Someone asked if schools size is a great predictor of success. When I looked closely at this question in 2016 to present to the NSAA classification committee, school size was not a great predictor of success at all. Much better predictors were levels of poverty in a school (low free-reduced lunch numbers meant more wins), proximity to larger schools (being 15 miles from a 600+ student school), and prior success (if you've won a lot in the last five years, you should expect to win a lot in the next five years). (Oh, of course, the best way to predict success is to ask if the school is public or private, but for a variety of reasons Nebraska is never going to use that for classification.)

Here's the slide show I put together for my presentation to the committee. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1a-g4f6RlR70L7qF3_R7-BvJAna8zNCDXwvLjtTZgymU/edit?usp=sharing

I did a podcast episode where I talked thru the data.

View embedded media

In the 5-6 years since this, I've come to believe that the state will never take a 'complicated' way to address the classification issue, but that it is time for contraction back to four classes.

I'd guess the majority of those C1 teams splitting games with B teams fit a lot of the data points listed. Close to metro, low reduced lunch #s, etc.

How many Class B teams would you propose?