Great to see programs like North Bend Central, Centura, Ord, Auburn, and Ravenna with 5-0, 4-1 records. North Bend will have their toughest test of the year in Centennial Friday. It’s been awhile since these programs have has post season success.
Football Nice surprises this year so far
- Thread starter northeastNebraska
- Start date
It is good to see some non-perennial power teams with some winning records. Looking at their schedules specifically he C 2 teams you mentioned, their strength of schedule has not been the greatest. And yes this is a big week for North Bend Central. A win this week, or at least playing Centennial tough, should solidify their spot in the top 10. But there are some teams, Ponca for example, that have already played 4 teams in the top 10 ( according to Lincoln Journal Star) and will be playing one more (Norfolk Cath) or possibly 2 more (Battle Creek if they continue winning out) before the season is over. So as I have said before, the NSAA, can have as much affect on win/loss record, as on field performance. Some teams have already started their playoffs long before others officially join the post season.
100% agree with that, every year you see teams at the 4-1 or 5-0 mark that you hope your team gets in the playoffs, because you know they have played no one, and Ravenna at the number they have and playing 8-man not sure about that
Camden I am not picking on NBC in particular, and yes I see where they are in power points. But I also question a system where NBC (or any other team) gets 43 points for beating a 1-4 Logan View or 44 points for beating a couple 2-3 teams, but a Ponca gets 36 points for losing to 5-0 Oakland Craig, or Battle Creek gets 36 points for losing to 5-0 Centennial. To me losing to a Div. 1 team should not be worth 7 power points fewer than beating Div. 4 team. I know, you play the schedule that is in front of you, and win all your games and things take care of themselves. But all schedules are not equal.
also, look if your Ponca you have had 4 chances at stepping up to the next level and it just has not happened. They are just not good enough
No doubt about it that Ponca is down this year from where they were the last two years. I also think they are probably the best 1-4 team in the state. If Ponca was located in a different part of the state or even had a little easier schedule they could be 3-2 or 4-1.
I get what you guys are saying. And yes wins should be worth more than losses. An ugly win is always better than a good looking loss. I just think that there is too much difference in beating a lower division and losing to an upper division. Ask coach Stieren at NBC which game should be worth more, this week against Centennial or their game against Stanton. I think most people can agree on that. Look at the all the polls, they are not full of only 5-0 or 4-1 teams. The guys that do the rankings take into account the quality of the competition. Yes, polls are only opinions. And it is just my opinion that when talking about powerpoints, the NSAA is a bit skewed in awarding points.
I get the debate regarding how points are awarded for wins and losses. I agree that a 1 point loss to a 5-0 team may be a much better indication of a teams quality as compared to a 40 point win over a 1-4 team.
The thing that I believe helps a great deal is that the point system is a retroactive system in which the points you were awarded for a game played a month ago will change throughout the season based upon your opponents continued performance. Through the season, the points may be a little misleading, but by the end of the year they seem to generally be a pretty good indication of the actual quality of the teams. Notice that I said generally. I know that there will always be exceptions, and often times these exceptions involve geography as much as anything. We see this a lot in Softball (I realize we are talking about football, I am using an obvious example). Inevitably there will be a softball team that will ride at the top of the Wildcard points for a great deal of the season. This happens because geographically there just aren't many high quality teams in their vicinity. This team gets to the State Tournament and goes 0-2 and may even get run ruled in the process.
I guess what I am getting at is if the points system is changed, and all teams operate within the same points system...nothing will ultimately change. The point differential will simply be more narrow, but the end result will be the same. (Remember, caution needs to be exercised when changing a points system so as not to cause a "loophole" that teams can take advantage of if they so desire.)
I wish there were a perfect system. We can all give specific examples in which very deserving teams don't get the opportunities that they likely deserve. It is a very involved process and I am not sure we will ever see anything that is much better than what we have now.
The thing that I believe helps a great deal is that the point system is a retroactive system in which the points you were awarded for a game played a month ago will change throughout the season based upon your opponents continued performance. Through the season, the points may be a little misleading, but by the end of the year they seem to generally be a pretty good indication of the actual quality of the teams. Notice that I said generally. I know that there will always be exceptions, and often times these exceptions involve geography as much as anything. We see this a lot in Softball (I realize we are talking about football, I am using an obvious example). Inevitably there will be a softball team that will ride at the top of the Wildcard points for a great deal of the season. This happens because geographically there just aren't many high quality teams in their vicinity. This team gets to the State Tournament and goes 0-2 and may even get run ruled in the process.
I guess what I am getting at is if the points system is changed, and all teams operate within the same points system...nothing will ultimately change. The point differential will simply be more narrow, but the end result will be the same. (Remember, caution needs to be exercised when changing a points system so as not to cause a "loophole" that teams can take advantage of if they so desire.)
I wish there were a perfect system. We can all give specific examples in which very deserving teams don't get the opportunities that they likely deserve. It is a very involved process and I am not sure we will ever see anything that is much better than what we have now.
I know clktwr there is not a perfect system. And we are not talking about things that affect the top maybe 8 or 10 teams, they do affect the next 6-8 teams. Will that ultimately determine who is state champion? Probably not. But since this is an open forum, that is designed to encourage debate, I am just posing that the point system is a bit faulty. Especially since we switched to a 16 team playoff field. I am in no way pushing for a 32 team field but, I do think the NSAA penalizes a mid-range team that plays four division I schools and aides the mid-pack team that plays one division 1 and three division 4 schools on the same weekends. Lets then assume the other five games on their schedules have equal numbers of division 2 and 3 schools. Lets assume both mid pack teams beat the division 4 schools, but lose to the division 1 schools on their schedules , points advantage goes the team who played the easier schedule159 to 144. And taking it a step further, lets say the team playing the four division 1 schools upsets one of them, and the other beats the three division 4 schools and loses to the division 1 school, the points advantage still goes to the team who plays the weaker schedule 159 to 158.
If you go 6-3 and play a good schedule your in, if you go 5-4 your out and should be out
Couldn't have said it better! This also says something about how good football is in northeast Nebraska, once again.
I apologize if my post came across wrong. I certainly don't discourage open debate, and actually understand the point you make.
I believe that in addition to the existing complexity of the current system, we also have to add in the element of chance. We don't know how "tough" a teams schedule will be until the season plays itself out. In Class C and below, the year to year thing is a roller coaster. Quarterfinal teams this year may be 2 win teams next year. So much of it is simply the luck of the draw when it comes to strength of schedule.
Nonetheless, I wasn't criticizing your perspective. I just don't know of a better system.
No offense taken clktwr, so no apology needed. And as I stated in my post, it really doesn't affect the top teams, just WHICH lower team will be sacrificed to them in the first round. Much like the March Madness brackets,every year there will be teams that are passed over. District champions get in automatically to give all the regions of the state representation, and the wildcards are just like the at large teams in the NCAA bracket. I just happen to think strength of schedule needs a little more consideration than just win/loss record. I can understand if you want to have a rule that no team with a losing record is playoff eligible. And yes I know 5-4 is not that far off. Just my opinion.
Yes, Llama that is what I am saying. The good thing is we have 3 more weeks for things to shake out. And if teams like Cedar Catholic can win out against some of those lower ranked teams then maybe they can sneak in because of their strength of schedule. But I have to agree with NUT, 8- 10 may be stretching it. Northeast Nebraska football may be good, but not that good.