Anyone who thinks our state should be 4 classes doesn't understand how the population of our schools lays out. Most of our schools are smaller than B and its not close. Our current structure is fine, it matches our school numbers the best.
Overrated boys teams in state tornament
- Thread starter peyton00
- Start date
I think it depends upon how the transition is made, with the understanding that this would be for BASKETBALL. I am trying to avoid the typical "that won't work for football" argument.
To divide into 4 equally numbered classes won't work. I don't think anyone that gives this even a little thought would believe that would be a viable option.
However, to combine both C1 and C2 into a single class as well as D1 and D2 into a single class is actually an option that could work pretty well.
When we throw out the Top 15% and the Bottom 15%, what is the difference between D1 and D2 as well as the difference between C1 and C2? The quality of play is pretty equal. It isn't like the jump from C1/C2 up to B or like the jump from D2 to C1.
Now if we look at just the Top 15%, it is really difficult to pick out the C1 vs C2 team as well as the D1 vs D2 team...when putting them to the eye test.
If I were the sole decision maker, I would give a long hard look at combining C and combining D and moving to a 4 Class system for basketball.
Nebraska's classification system for every sport is very narrow in total numbers from the top of any class to the bottom, when compared to states like Missouri or Iowa This can be seen as a benefit or a hazard of a State with a lower population. personally I see it as a benefit to have more teams experience successes, in turn keeping more students involved in sports.
Nebraska has choices to make. It may be this decade or in the next couple, but there are going to be fewer and fewer schools/teams either thru consolidation or co-ops. Population trends are going to continue to concentrate. As teams get fewer and more spread out, we have given more and more weight to the playoff point system. Adjustment of that system toward some things we all know to be true would be wise: winning on the road is harder than at home, defeating teams from larger classes is generally more difficult than the opposite, games later in a season give a more accurate view of team strength in the post-season than early-season games. Why would we not look for ways to incorporate these into the system?
I thought about adding a "road game" bonus. Do you do anything for neutral site? Maybe 2 bonus for road, 1 bonus for neutral, and 0 for home? I generally like the idea.
I don't think I can get on board with weighting later games more than earlier ones. I get it for projecting winners, but the postseason seeding should be based on the complete body of work. Then once you're there, just play as they fall.
I like the idea of thinking outside of the traditional methods so I will certainly give respect for that.
Where I am at on this is pretty simple, we are no longer talking about a team "backing their way in" to the State Tournament. We are now talking about moving a team possibly one seeding in a Sub District...perhaps another in a Sub State tournament. The implications are nothing like they were before the Sub State format. Is there value in that seeding change? Maybe, maybe not. It depends if it is moving a 3 seed to a 2, or if it is moving a 2 seed to a 1. Really we are talking about hosting Sub State.
I personally don't believe there is that much of an advantage playing at home WITH THE EXCEPTION of non regulation sized basketball courts which still do exist.
I think there's some advantage to not traveling and to playing in front of friendlier fans.
One of the nice things about the wild card calculation is its accessibility. There was a similar long thread during the basketball district finals last year. Keeping the divisions grouped generally as they are, making the points simple. Really helps more people (both fanatics and average fans) understand implications of certain games.
Of all the ideas discussed in this thread, assigning home/neutral/away bonus is the only one which would add another variable to the data/calculation set. And given how nebulous this advantage can be, it would seem not worth it. Plus really it would just relatively penalize teams for hosting holiday tournaments and hosting conference tournament games given in general most teams enter into home/away scheduling agreements on even-year-duration lengths.
