How to Improve the Wild Card System

[ClkTwr2011]

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.

WOW! Well done. Seriously, that is a really good presentation.

The only thing of note in there (and I realize this was raw data and there are always details to iron out of the raw data) is that a consideration would have to be made for the 8 Man to 11 Man reclassification.

I can't compliment you enough for the work that you put into that. Thank You.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

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

I am certain that there are others.

 

[saluno22]

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 still need to listen to the audio but was able to read through the slides over lunch. That is great stuff, thank you so much for putting it together and sharing!

This would be a lot more palatable means of moving teams up a class than simply adding a multiplier to private schools which seems like a typical thought when this topic is broached.

EDIT: The audio did not disappoint.

 

[saluno22]

I am certain that there are others.

Oh yeah, just the first one that came to mind for me personally.

I would love for an RPI-style metric to be used where opponents' opponents records are accounted for to give a better barometer on the strength of a record. However, that would make it much less accessible to the average observer and those trying to plan postseason travel. That's the main benefit of the current system: simplicity/accessibility.

 

[Alum-Ni]

Just for conversation purposes.....

SDHSAA amendment would change formula used to deter mine activities classifications

Perhaps the most far-reaching of the amendments would use a free and reduced lunch formula to adjust the enrollment numbers that are used to determine classifications and alignments for schools in sports and activities.

www.argusleader.com

Member schools of the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) will vote on an amendment that would use a free-and-reduced lunch formula to adjust enrollment numbers used for classifications.

The formula could reduce a school's enrollment by 30%. An example offered Tuesday proposed a high school with an enrollment of 400 in which 85% of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The formula calls for 30 to be multiplied by 0.85 for 25.5. That number is then subtracted from 100 for 74.5. Used as a percentage, 0.745, that number is then multiplied by the enrollment figure, 400, reducing the enrollment number used for classification from 400 to 298.

The rationale for the amendment, as offered by SDHSAA staff and the organization’s Native American Advisory Council says: “We have a number of schools on the line between classifications with large populations of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. In general, those schools and students have severe discrepancies in access to equipment and school/personal access to outside training opportunities as compared to similar-sized schools with low populations of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch.”

The rationale statement goes on to note that the free and reduced lunch multiplier is used in other states where it is “widely accepted” as a major factor in athletic and activity success. Using the formula, according the rationale, would allow schools to remain at a classification level that appropriately reflects their opportunities.

“There’s a big difference there” in access to facilities, said SDHSAA Executive Director Dan Swartos, noting that similar formulas are used in Minnesota and North Dakota.

 

[northeastNebraska]

Just for conversation purposes.....

SDHSAA amendment would change formula used to deter mine activities classifications

Perhaps the most far-reaching of the amendments would use a free and reduced lunch formula to adjust the enrollment numbers that are used to determine classifications and alignments for schools in sports and activities.

www.argusleader.com

Member schools of the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) will vote on an amendment that would use a free-and-reduced lunch formula to adjust enrollment numbers used for classifications.

The formula could reduce a school's enrollment by 30%. An example offered Tuesday proposed a high school with an enrollment of 400 in which 85% of the students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The formula calls for 30 to be multiplied by 0.85 for 25.5. That number is then subtracted from 100 for 74.5. Used as a percentage, 0.745, that number is then multiplied by the enrollment figure, 400, reducing the enrollment number used for classification from 400 to 298.

The rationale for the amendment, as offered by SDHSAA staff and the organization’s Native American Advisory Council says: “We have a number of schools on the line between classifications with large populations of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. In general, those schools and students have severe discrepancies in access to equipment and school/personal access to outside training opportunities as compared to similar-sized schools with low populations of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch.”

The rationale statement goes on to note that the free and reduced lunch multiplier is used in other states where it is “widely accepted” as a major factor in athletic and activity success. Using the formula, according the rationale, would allow schools to remain at a classification level that appropriately reflects their opportunities.

“There’s a big difference there” in access to facilities, said SDHSAA Executive Director Dan Swartos, noting that similar formulas are used in Minnesota and North Dakota.

So if this proposal was submitted and passed in Nebraska, this would probably put the majority of lower Class A enrollment schools outside of Lincoln and Omaha in Class B. Fremont, Norfolk, Columbus, North Platte, SSC, Hastings.

No schools would move up a class from this idea? Everyone would just get pushed down or stay put in their current classes right?

 

[sportscabbie]

So if this proposal was submitted and passed in Nebraska, this would probably put the majority of lower Class A enrollment schools outside of Lincoln and Omaha in Class B. Fremont, Norfolk, Columbus, North Platte, SSC, Hastings.

No schools would move up a class from this idea? Everyone would just get pushed down or stay put in their current classes right?

Teams would move up if that didn't get much of enrollment reduction as other schools that did get a bigger reduction would go below them.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

So if this proposal was submitted and passed in Nebraska, this would probably put the majority of lower Class A enrollment schools outside of Lincoln and Omaha in Class B. Fremont, Norfolk, Columbus, North Platte, SSC, Hastings.

No schools would move up a class from this idea? Everyone would just get pushed down or stay put in their current classes right?

Under the current number used to classify, correct.

However, I am quite certain that the classification numbers would be adjusted to reflect any adjustments or allowances that are introduced by a system like South Dakota is proposing.

It will still be the largest (according to adjusted student count) "thirty-ish" teams will be Class A, Next
24 are Class B, etc. Add in the allowance for schools to Opt Up, and it is workable for sure.

I personally believe this (or similar) is something that Nebraska should consider. I also believe that Nebraska will not consider it.

 

[bballcoach15]

It will still be the largest (according to adjusted student count) "thirty-ish" teams will be Class A, Next
24 are Class B, etc. Add in the allowance for schools to Opt Up, and it is workable for sure.

Kind of a different topic, but definitely still affects wildcard (and sorry if I've missed a thread that hit on this): Why is class B the smallest class?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but demographically some class B schools aren't competitive in certain sports and therefore "24 schools" is more like 20 schools when it comes to competitiveness -- and 16 make football playoffs? I know all classes have a few schools who struggle yearly in athletics, but I feel like class B stands out most years for the small class size (low-mid 20's). I know there are a few opt-ups/opt-downs but there are C1 schools who can compete/win at the B level... so does C1 really need to have 43 teams while B has 25 and C2 has 32? (these numbers were football this year). Maybe it's something legislative through the nsaa that I'm unaware of, but any feedback is appreciated.

 

[balsy]

Kind of a different topic, but definitely still affects wildcard (and sorry if I've missed a thread that hit on this): Why is class B the smallest class?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but demographically some class B schools aren't competitive in certain sports and therefore "24 schools" is more like 20 schools when it comes to competitiveness -- and 16 make football playoffs? I know all classes have a few schools who struggle yearly in athletics, but I feel like class B stands out most years for the small class size (low-mid 20's). I know there are a few opt-ups/opt-downs but there are C1 schools who can compete/win at the B level... so does C1 really need to have 43 teams while B has 25 and C2 has 32? (these numbers were football this year). Maybe it's something legislative through the nsaa that I'm unaware of, but any feedback is appreciated.

There’s growth in three areas: Omaha, Lincoln, and parts of the Tri cities. The rest of the state is ancient, and getting older unless there is a packing plant in town. Just the slow death of small town America. Unless they adopt a multiplier to bump parochials up from class C-1, I don’t see how class B numbers would improve.

 

[saluno22]

There’s growth in three areas: Omaha, Lincoln, and parts of the Tri cities. The rest of the state is ancient, and getting older unless there is a packing plant in town. Just the slow death of small town America. Unless they adopt a multiplier to bump parochials up from class C-1, I don’t see how class B numbers would improve.

Or have fewer classes. Or change the thresholds.

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Kind of a different topic, but definitely still affects wildcard (and sorry if I've missed a thread that hit on this): Why is class B the smallest class?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but demographically some class B schools aren't competitive in certain sports and therefore "24 schools" is more like 20 schools when it comes to competitiveness -- and 16 make football playoffs? I know all classes have a few schools who struggle yearly in athletics, but I feel like class B stands out most years for the small class size (low-mid 20's). I know there are a few opt-ups/opt-downs but there are C1 schools who can compete/win at the B level... so does C1 really need to have 43 teams while B has 25 and C2 has 32? (these numbers were football this year). Maybe it's something legislative through the nsaa that I'm unaware of, but any feedback is appreciated.

You make a great point, and I would venture to say that the advocates of a 4 Class system are referencing the same logic you are using right here.

 

[TC53]

The one thing about my data is that it was gathered in a classification system. In other words, having classes already skews the data. On the other hand, the data is pretty clear that being in the bottom third of your class is not nearly as big an obstacle as other things. I've got to say that shocked me.

I think that the South Dakota system is very interesting. It would have to be matched with a number-of-teams-in-the-class system and not a hard-enrollment-number system. Nebraska has used both through the years and has a hybrid now. They'd have to go back to an old system of number-of-teams. In 1955 they did that for the first time and the counts were 16-32-64-128-128-the rest, I believe. In 1960, they went to four classes and it was 32-64-128-the rest.

I think four classes would be the best for Nebraska basketball/volleyball, just like it is for track. I'd be fine with an A that was anywhere from 30 to 40. There were about 280 schools in basketball districts this year, so maybe 32-48-100-100?

Football is a different animal. I wish something could be developed there to take roster size into consideration without incentivizing the cutting of kids to stay down in class. I've toyed with ideas that factored enrollment and free/reduced lunch with number of underclass games played over a 3-5 year period. How many junior high/freshmen/reserve/JV games does your program support. That gives a great read on competitiveness level.

 

[saluno22]

The one thing about my data is that it was gathered in a classification system. In other words, having classes already skews the data. On the other hand, the data is pretty clear that being in the bottom third of your class is not nearly as big an obstacle as other things. I've got to say that shocked me.

I think that the South Dakota system is very interesting. It would have to be matched with a number-of-teams-in-the-class system and not a hard-enrollment-number system. Nebraska has used both through the years and has a hybrid now. They'd have to go back to an old system of number-of-teams. In 1955 they did that for the first time and the counts were 16-32-64-128-128-the rest, I believe. In 1960, they went to four classes and it was 32-64-128-the rest.

I think four classes would be the best for Nebraska basketball/volleyball, just like it is for track. I'd be fine with an A that was anywhere from 30 to 40. There were about 280 schools in basketball districts this year, so maybe 32-48-100-100?

Football is a different animal. I wish something could be developed there to take roster size into consideration without incentivizing the cutting of kids to stay down in class. I've toyed with ideas that factored enrollment and free/reduced lunch with number of underclass games played over a 3-5 year period. How many junior high/freshmen/reserve/JV games does your program support. That gives a great read on competitiveness level.

Long-distance travel in the football playoffs seems to be a common complaint year after year. Reducing the number of classes (i.e., more schools in the fewer classes) would mean overall more schools in close proximity. This will reduce travel for district games and for playoff games when considered in the aggregate (there will obviously still be outliers).

 

[northeastNebraska]

Football should be five classes.

Class A
Class B
Class C
Class D (8 man) (Enrollment of 60 to 30)
Class E (6 man) (Enrollment of 29 and below 6 man)

 

[LTFO]

Football should be five classes.

Class A
Class B
Class C
Class D (8 man) (Enrollment of 60 to 30)
Class E (6 man) (Enrollment of 29 and below 6 man)

What really needs to happen is a Class AA, fix it from the top down. New schools keep opening in in the cities. Big Suburban and Metro schools would be AA. Smaller Suburban and mid sized cities would be A. Then B would become your traditional B schools in towns form 3,000 to 10,000. Half of current C-1 would be bumped up (Wahoo, Ashland for example). Then you could have just one class of C. Leave 8-Man and 6-Man as they are.

 

[saluno22]

What really needs to happen is a Class AA, fix it from the top down. New schools keep opening in in the cities. Big Suburban and Metro schools would be AA. Smaller Suburban and mid sized cities would be A. Then B would become your traditional B schools in towns form 3,000 to 10,000. Half of current C-1 would be bumped up (Wahoo, Ashland for example). Then you could have just one class of C. Leave 8-Man and 6-Man as they are.

So... the same number of classes as there are.

In that case, change the thresholds.

 

[northeastNebraska]

The six man game is growing. We all know how participation numbers are when it comes to football. The 6 man number needs to be 30. 8 man should be 31-60.

 

[highschoolfootballnut]

The six man game is growing. We all know how participation numbers are when it comes to football. The 6 man number needs to be 30. 8 man should be 31-60.

I am not sure I agree a school with 40 boys in high school should be 6-man. or a school with 80 boys in high school should be 8-man. I think 27 is right for 6-man and 50 or 54 is correct for 8-man. The truth social economics has more to do with winning and losing than anyone cares to talk about, some of these school you want to help by increasing enrollment will not win no matter what class you put them in

 

[ClkTwr2011]

Long-distance travel in the football playoffs seems to be a common complaint year after year. Reducing the number of classes (i.e., more schools in the fewer classes) would mean overall more schools in close proximity. This will reduce travel for district games and for playoff games when considered in the aggregate (there will obviously still be outliers).

There will obviously be outliers. Words of wisdom right there.

It seems so often when we discuss potential improvement ideas, we are presented with the outlier as an argument against. We must look at the majority rather than the extreme minority. Yes there will be situations in which teams will have extreme travel requirements. There will be many more situations in which the travel requirements will be less than 2 hours.

 

[TC53]

My craziest idea is that we should use conferences to classify. That way schools could choose a class but their class would also have to choose them (i.e. you can't be in a conference if the other schools don't want to play with you). It would have to be passed a couple of years in advance so that teams could make conference adjustments if needed, but I think generally schools make pretty good decisions about conferences competition-wise. I don't have details, but I am interested in the theory. Still wouldn't resolve the 'how many classes' question.

 

[saluno22]

My craziest idea is that we should use conferences to classify. That way schools could choose a class but their class would also have to choose them (i.e. you can't be in a conference if the other schools don't want to play with you). It would have to be passed a couple of years in advance so that teams could make conference adjustments if needed, but I think generally schools make pretty good decisions about conferences competition-wise. I don't have details, but I am interested in the theory. Still wouldn't resolve the 'how many classes' question.

Interesting concept for sure. I can just imagine schools banding together to blackball a team for whatever reason and they're left without a home. What would happen in that case with the "independent" schools?