Overrated boys teams in state tornament
- Thread starter peyton00
- Start date
None. Just f'ing enjoy it and be happy for those who made it. Jeepers.
Since they all earned their trip to state, I would say that zero percent of them are overrated.
If you read the basketball manual, it details how power points are calculated.
I was not shocked Amherst beat Freeman. Amherst might be the best 8 seed to ever play in a state tournament.
The new format helps prevent overrated teams getting in because they get beat in substate. Like in Class D1, I thought Ainsworth was a little “overrated”, that proved to be right when Lourdes (15-10) beat them soundly to make state. I don’t think Ogallala is overrated, they’ll probably lose by 10-15 to AG. AG is just that good.
I think all the teams that make state are pretty solid. Are some way better? Yes. But this new format helps a lot.
The new format helps prevent overrated teams getting in because they get beat in substate. Like in Class D1, I thought Ainsworth was a little “overrated”, that proved to be right when Lourdes (15-10) beat them soundly to make state. I don’t think Ogallala is overrated, they’ll probably lose by 10-15 to AG. AG is just that good.
I think all the teams that make state are pretty solid. Are some way better? Yes. But this new format helps a lot.
I don’t think Ogallala is very good. They’ve had much better teams than this one recently, in my opinion.
Reminds me of Alliance losing as the #1 seed in the district final last year.
Personally, I would like to see a penalty for playing teams in lower classifications. I know this will likely lead to some longstanding matchups likely ceasing, but it will help eliminate inflated wild card averages. Maybe a 1-point deduction rather than 2 points. Not a full penalty congruent with the bonus for playing up a class (2 points). Class A essentially backed into that this year to penalize the teams who play non-A schools (mostly the non-Omaha/Lincoln schools) by awarding 2 extra points for games against Class A teams, so there is precedent.
Or just come up with an "all class" points system and use that: baseline points for the lowest class, then add a set number of points for each class above the baseline.
I think you have to make an exception for C-1 to C-2 and D-1 to D-2. I don’t think KC should be punished for a couple wins over Amherst or GICC as an example. But yes, north platte should get spanked for playing kc…and losing 🥴
Last edited:
Wow, that's crazy. I watched Wahoo handle Beatrice with ease and came away thinking if they were in class B they'd be a top 5 team. Maybe they played out of their minds that one game but I was really impressed.
That brings me to my next (unpopular) opinion: Reduce to four classes.
Would love a four class option again. Even five wouldn't be so bad. Merge D1 and D2.
I agree, but I don't think they are bad. They are best C1 team west of Kearney this year. Their teams 2-3 years ago were better no doubt.
Aren't track and wrestling only four classes? Divide it up similarly (not necessarily straight combining C1/C2 and D1/D2).
Agree X 1000... I think playing down a class should give you equal points. Play down 2 classes, minus 1 point, and down 2 classes, minus 2 points. No offense, but beating a division 1 C-1 team should have more value than betting a division 1 D1 team. Just my $.02
You can’t do that in the team sports, imo. It kind of works in wrestling because of the rate of participation and D teams rarely fill out all the weight classes. Every class D team can field a basketball team. There were 22 teams in each district in class D. There was 8 in class A.
Last edited:
I agree that Freeman was very overrated
Along with wahoo.
Reducing class down to 4 divisions doesn’t make sense.
I wish they would split all 6 classes equally among member schools
let’s see how the larger class b schools compete in class A and so on for other classes. It’s all a numbers game, the more kids you have to choose from the better odds you have
Along with wahoo.
Reducing class down to 4 divisions doesn’t make sense.
I wish they would split all 6 classes equally among member schools
let’s see how the larger class b schools compete in class A and so on for other classes. It’s all a numbers game, the more kids you have to choose from the better odds you have
Yeah...Wahoo was totally over rated...SMH. They had 6 wins over CLASS B qualifying teams for cripes sake. They just had a bad game today. Nothing more, nothing less.
Wahoo has to many dads in the stands and yes they are over rated
They didn’t play any defense and we’re a turnover fest
I can appreciate the individual nature of track and wrestling. But where you lose me if when you mention the number of teams. To me, it's about the pool of students those teams are representing. Those finite number of wrestlers on a Class A team are coming from a much larger pool of students than the finite number of wrestlers from a Class D school. I wish I had time to add up all the numbers (and it would be simple, I did it a couple years ago), but sum the NSAA enrollment of each class. Here were the numbers for the 2020-2021 school year I ran at that time:
Class A: 31 schools (10.23%), 22,931 students (55.88%)
Class B: 29 schools (9.57%), 7,417 students (18.07%)
Class C1: 56 schools (18.48%), 4,826 students (11.76%)
Class C2: 62 schools (20.46%), 2,720 students (6.63%)
Class D1: 66 schools (21.78%), 1,921 students (4.68%)
Class D2: 57 schools (18.81%), 1,180students (2.88%)
No Sports: 2 schools (0.66%), 41 students (0.10%)
6 classes with even split for number of teams? You want to see Schuyler, Gering, Seward, etc...in class A with Central, the Millards, etc.. Then shrink class D1 and D2 by even more than they are already? Only 20 of 55 boys teams and 21 of 55 girls teams in D2 had a winning record this year with most being only a few games over. Ha, no thanks.
Well heck, why four? Let’s just do three. Bump up a few big C teams into B and let’s throw 180+ schools in one class so the number of students are pretty equal. Districts would be fun. Hyannis against Kearney catholic would be exciting. You have to look at the number of schools in a team sport, imo.
I guess if you did lower the classes to 4, conference tournaments would probably mean a lot more to schools. The chances of actually making it to Lincoln for a lot of schools would probably be generational at best.
Last edited:
People keep saying "team sport". Wrestling is a team sport. They give out a team title. Track is a team sport. They give out a team title. Both wrestling and track have 4 classes.
Agree, but you can compete with not all weight classes or events represented. You can't really play basketball without 5 on the court.
right, but the competition is one on one. Valentine can go to a wrestling tournament in Columbus( they do) and compete pretty well with Lincoln East. Do you see them doing that in bball volleyball or basketball, I don’t.
6 classes is great. This board specializes in fixing stuff that isn't broken (for example, moving HS baseball to summer). It works fine the way it is.
Ravenna played with Bell West. Have we all forgotten that? That was arguably the greatest HS basketball game ever played in our state. That was in 2006. Both teams finished as state runner-up that year. Bellevue West in Class A, Ravenna is class C2. Those that say the smaller schools can't compete are underestimating them.
That was a great game, but exception rather than the rule. In isolated situations, yes, SOME elite small school teams can compete. But it wouldn't be sustainable over the course of a season.
I don't disagree with you there at all. I guess I am referring to the state tournament. Outside of the state tournament is not relevant in this conversation because schools make their own schedules. If Ravenna is class C (in 4 classes) they can still play a bunch of class D schools.
With real life examples, tell us how this new points system will change anything. I am not looking for theory, I am looking for real life examples of teams and how things would be different when we get to the end result.
I am not saying you are wrong (or right for that matter). I am sayin that I am not able to wrap my head around what these point changes bring to the party and how they will make anything different BEYOND moving a seeding on rare occasions...which likely will not change any outcomes.
It's not entirely a "new" system, just a tweak. I don't have the time, or enthusiasm to go through all the schedules. Just my thought is, a C1 team beating a D2 team shouldn't be the same amount of points as beating a C1 team. Just throwing ideas out there. I think the method we have now is the best it's ever been.
Man, I wish I had the time to do this, too.
Once you start looking at it applied, people are more likely to show biases in the forms of "I like/dislike this change because it helps/hurts my team." I think on a philosophical level, it's hard to disagree there should be a penalty for playing teams from lower classes if there's a bonus for playing teams in higher classes. I understand the unfortunate circumstances of geography/school size challenges in many cases dictating going out-of-class (and sometimes multiple class levels) to fill out a schedule.
Class A went to a de facto penalty for playing non-Class A schools this year by awarding two bonus points for games against another Class A school.
Come on man! You are going the wrong direction here.
We need to go to 10 Classes. We need more, not less.
OR, we could theoretically go to 16 team State Tournament brackets, and just have every team in the state make the tournament. We could have about 18-20 classes this way. Yes the cost of medals would increase. We could just switch to little ribbons that can be made out of Construction Paper by the art department of each respected school. So each school will be responsible for providing ribbons NOT TO EXCEED 15 ribbons (so as to keep costs at a reasonable level).
I believe that the elimination of Wild Card tournament berths has somewhat neutralized whatever result a tweak to the points system would have.
Years ago, there was a Class C Softball program that was very successful. They would host 2 or 3 tournaments each fall that were comprised primarily of Class A teams that were middle of the road at best. They did this for one reason only...to pad their Wild Card Points. Most years they could lose their district and easily get into the State Tournament on a Wild Card. Yes they were talented, but the points boost they got was significant.
I guess what I am saying is that these things work both ways. There is a general belief that playing up a couple classes will render a more valuable win (or loss). This is not always the case. Personally, I would just drop the bonus points either direction and let it all sort out at the Sub District and Sub State level. If there are no Wild Card berths, eventually these things sort themselves out on the field or court.
There certainly are teams who know how to use the wild card system and I agree, getting rid of the state wild card (save for the one Class A spot) and moving the wild card qualification to the district final round was a great move.
Agree on the improvement in pre-state elimination over the years and no longer having state spots directly related to geography. Worst that happens now is a team with an inflated wild card (whether playing up or down) gets to host subdistrict and district games (and gets an advantage in qualifying for the district finals). In the end, every team has a merit-based path to the state tournament and no team is backing in to the state tournament, and that I can really appreciate.
I mean…I’m assume u are giving me a hard time here but I don’t really follow 😅. Being top 8 out of 50-55 similar sized schools doesn’t equal participation ribbons to me, but carry on I guess.
Of course I am kidding.
My point is that it really doesn't matter how many classes there are, someone is going to bitch about it.
If it were my choice, I would combine C and combine D and have 4 classes.
