Undefeated Gibsonburg Could Miss OHSAA Football Playoffs...See Why

[algernonsidney]

Here are the WL records of the teams Gibsonburg has defeated in chronological order. 6-3, 0-9, 5-4, 4-4, 0-9. 4-5, 0-9, 4-4, 2-7.
They have defeated 3 winless teams. 2 teams with winning records and 2 teams at .500. Other two victories are over a 4-5 and a 2-7 team. Not a very impressive or imposing lineup. Best team they defeated is 6-3. I understand this weak lineup is NOT necessarily their own fault, when they scheduled their lineup for this season, but regardless, they didn't exactly face Murderer's Row, just the same way Newcomerstown didn't when they missed the 2001 (I believe) playoffs at 10-0-0. Give either team a decent schedule and probably neither goes 10-0-0.

The big thing that hurt Newcomerstown was that they got bumped from D5 to D4. They were D5 the two previous years and went back to D5 the next year. They had a schedule of five D6, two D5, and three D4 schools. They did defeat one team who had made the D6 playoffs. Their opponents won a total of 30 games. Unfortunately, the three D4 teams also won a total of three games.

I remember this and didn't feel all that sorry for them though. Even if OHSAA took the top 32 in the state, they still would have been out of the playoffs.

You may also remember that Walsh Jesuit made the playoffs this year with a 3-6 record. Every team on their schedule made the playoffs.

 

[algernonsidney]

^^^
By the same token, should there be something that would account for who you have beaten? Is beating a 0-9 team the same as beating a 4-5 team? Oh wait, that is covered by Harbins.

This might be the most intelligent post ever made on this board.

 

[LetTheDogEat]

Being fairly close to this situation at Gibsonburg, I felt the need to make an account and reply here after reading this thread. First of all, people in GB are very aware the schedule this year was not great. Before the season most knew that going 8-2 wasn’t going to cut it. 9-1 would be close. 10-0 would make it, but that’s a hard ask. Here we are. Other posts have made great and correct points in explaining the unfortunate series of events that led to this situation. A few key points I felt were lost in the “they need to schedule harder” narrative…

• Not adding the 10th game with winless Antwerp would decrease the divisor and give GB a better shot at making it. However, the very fact they scheduled this game shows they wanted the competition knowing they would been to go at least 9-1 to make the playoffs in Region 23. Bad luck that the team available had an epic bad year after 6-4. I would be curious to see when all is said and done if removing that game and reducing the divisor by 10 would have changed anything.
• GB left the TAAC in search of better competition and joined the SBC River in 2018. This year, Willard (Div 5) moved up to the Bay combined with SMCC and Danbury barely being able to field a team, with one (SMCC) cancelling. The move to increase competition has somewhat backfired, but when they joined they had Calvert (powerful D7) and Willard and Lakota as Div 5 teams. They point being they moved to challenge themselves, and in some ways have found themselves worse off football wise.
• With all that being said, this year’s schedule is putrid and of that there is no debate. However, GB’s average score over the 9 games is 42-12. Running clock territory. I think that needs to be pointed out that while they are playing bad teams, they aren’t exactly winning 21-20. They are pounding them.

Region 23 is a MONSTER and you cannot argue for GB in place of any of those 8 teams that will qualify. But I can argue that GB does deserve a shot. However, those aren’t the rules and GB will have to live with the Harbin consequences this year. I simply ask that before you post “schedule harder” nonsense that you pay attention to the particulars in the case. There is a great group of 30 young men on a good football team that will have to come to terms with the reality in a few days that they did everything that was asked of them and yet, no dice. That is the shame here.

 

[The Dock]

The only flaw I presently see with the Harbin system and the tangentially related regional playoff format is how teams have incentive to take bye weeks (or play a club opponent) while teams also get penalized for having to eat an 0-10 conference opponent. You can negate, or at least cut down, the effect of the 0-10 on your L2’s by taking a bye. Sometimes that difference can be decently significant (an L2 divisor of 86 increased my team’s average by ~.7 than if it were 96, last year.) I’m not personally a fan of trying to engineer a schedule that best makes playoffs possible, but the current system gives no incentive for teams to punch above their weight class or to play a team three-four touchdowns better than you. An ‘L’ is an L.

I have no idea if this would completely solve the issues I see, but maybe the system should only weigh a team’s nine best points yields and divide the sum of those gains by ninety (or whatever integer below ninety that is the sum of all the opponents’ games played) to give a team their final average. That way a team isn’t totally hurt by the 0-10 black sheep conference game, they would likely have lesser incentive to take a bye or play a club, and as a result we’d see better matchups. (Maybe we won’t see teams scheduling their conference opponents twice?)

 

[algernonsidney]

Scheduling better sometimes comes back to bite you square in the rear end. See Winton Woods. But when it's all said and done, I think there's going to be a small number of 9-1 teams not making it, as well. One fact that comes up personally, is that when Greenville qualified back in 1992, when only 4 teams per region got in, is that they made it at 7-3. This year, they look to match that record, and it doesn't appear they'll make top 8. Still, in general I don't have any real issue with the Harbins.

And, of course, there were teams in other regions that did not get into the playoffs, even though they had MORE points.

 

[The Dock]

Not saying that this is the way it “ought” to be, but would the hosting sites (as a contingency) be vocal against an elimination of regions... enough for it to stand in the way. With the top 32, a hosting site has no idea what two teams they’ll draw to play host to or even how far away the schools are until the week of. So there’s no guarantee that a site is getting a matchup that generates enough concessions (and... parking?) revenue under the statewide format versus the regional.

Although this can be somewhat true for the regional format, the regional format almost assuredly gives hosting schools a much higher probability for “backyard brawl” matchups in week(s) 12 and 13 that will be of local interest (especially in D1.)

 

[LetsGoQuakers]

Not necessarily. Teams that schedule better would get in.

Still have to win those games

 

[algernonsidney]

If top 32 made it in then why be in a conference? I could see teams electing to go it alone to schedule wins and Harbins knowing you might have to beat out a team on the other half of the State.

Sometimes I am truly amazed at how ridiculous some comments on these high-school boards are.

I don't know of any football-only conferences. When you join a conference, it is generally for all sports. Teams will still be in conferences if the playoffs get rid of the regions.

 

[algernonsidney]

Being fairly close to this situation at Gibsonburg, I felt the need to make an account and reply here after reading this thread. First of all, people in GB are very aware the schedule this year was not great. Before the season most knew that going 8-2 wasn’t going to cut it. 9-1 would be close. 10-0 would make it, but that’s a hard ask. Here we are. Other posts have made great and correct points in explaining the unfortunate series of events that led to this situation. A few key points I felt were lost in the “they need to schedule harder” narrative…

• Not adding the 10th game with winless Antwerp would decrease the divisor and give GB a better shot at making it. However, the very fact they scheduled this game shows they wanted the competition knowing they would been to go at least 9-1 to make the playoffs in Region 23. Bad luck that the team available had an epic bad year after 6-4. I would be curious to see when all is said and done if removing that game and reducing the divisor by 10 would have changed anything.
• GB left the TAAC in search of better competition and joined the SBC River in 2018. This year, Willard (Div 5) moved up to the Bay combined with SMCC and Danbury barely being able to field a team, with one (SMCC) cancelling. The move to increase competition has somewhat backfired, but when they joined they had Calvert (powerful D7) and Willard and Lakota as Div 5 teams. They point being they moved to challenge themselves, and in some ways have found themselves worse off football wise.
• With all that being said, this year’s schedule is putrid and of that there is no debate. However, GB’s average score over the 9 games is 42-12. Running clock territory. I think that needs to be pointed out that while they are playing bad teams, they aren’t exactly winning 21-20. They are pounding them.

Region 23 is a MONSTER and you cannot argue for GB in place of any of those 8 teams that will qualify. But I can argue that GB does deserve a shot. However, those aren’t the rules and GB will have to live with the Harbin consequences this year. I simply ask that before you post “schedule harder” nonsense that you pay attention to the particulars in the case. There is a great group of 30 young men on a good football team that will have to come to terms with the reality in a few days that they did everything that was asked of them and yet, no dice. That is the shame here.

Thanks for sharing all of this. You are certainly correct that we can't always predict how good or how bad a schedule will be. Since contracts are often years ahead, you just can't know. Teams go from 9-1 to 1-9 and go from 1-9 to 9-1.

And, of course, the "thirty young men" have nothing to do with the schedules. They just went out and got the job done.

Travesties like this continue as long as Ohio has the regions. They have happened plenty of times before this, and they will continue. An undefeated team with more points will be out, while two teams at 5-5 with less points will probably get in.

 

[Indiandad]

Sometimes I am truly amazed at how ridiculous some comments on these high-school boards are.

I don't know of any football-only conferences. When you join a conference, it is generally for all sports. Teams will still be in conferences if the playoffs get rid of the regions.

It is not inconceivable to think that teams will opt out of conferences to chase Harbin points.
We have seen teams do it now. Removing regions would exacerbate the issue.

There's no need to change the current system. It is working just fine.

 

[algernonsidney]

Not saying that this is the way it “ought” to be, but would the hosting sites (as a contingency) be vocal against an elimination of regions... enough for it to stand in the way. With the top 32, a hosting site has no idea what two teams they’ll draw to play host to or even how far away the schools are until the week of. So there’s no guarantee that a site is getting a matchup that generates enough concessions (and... parking?) revenue under the statewide format versus the regional.

Although this can be somewhat true for the regional format, the regional format almost assuredly gives hosting schools a much higher probability for “backyard brawl” matchups in week(s) 12 and 13 that will be of local interest (especially in D1.)

It is not "somewhat true." It is MOST DEFINITELY true. We already have teams three hours away from each other in some of the regions. You don't know whom you will be playing until the brackets are set. And, again, West Virginia schools have no problem dealing with these issues.

Weather is also a factor in attendance. My old high school had a playoff game at home, and we didn't go because the weather was so bad. It also can not be predicted that easily.

The people dealing with this stuff have to deal with all kinds of factors that can impact attendance either positively or negatively. Your argument seems quite desperate.

I actually could see a state-wide format possibly generating more attendance. Let's say your team lost 35-0 to another regular team in the regular season. Then you have a playoff game with them--how likely are you to go to this game? The fact that so many teams end up playing each other over and over could actually be keeping fans away.

 

[Indiandad]

Travesties like this continue as long as Ohio has the regions. They have happened plenty of times before this, and they will continue. An undefeated team with more points will be out, while two teams at 5-5 with less points will probably get in.

A 10-0 Team has never missed the playoffs since they expanded.

 

[queencitybuckeye]

A 10-0 Team has never missed the playoffs since they expanded.

Yet it happens one time and changes MUST be made according to some. Ridiculous.

 

[psavitt05]

Yet it happens one time and changes MUST be made according to some. Ridiculous.

You guys miss how many times Newcomerstown in 2001 has been mentioned in this thread? I'm not on the side of changes must be made, but a 10-0 has missed the playoffs since they expanded

 

[Termite2]

You guys miss how many times Newcomerstown in 2001 has been mentioned in this thread? I'm not on the side of changes must be made, but a 10-0 has missed the playoffs since they expanded

Since the last time the playoffs were expanded, no 10-0 team has missed the playoffs; is correct. The playoffs were last expanded in 2013.

BTW Newcomerstown finished 12th in their region or 37th in their division statewide in 2001

 

[Sunuvaditchdigger]

It is not inconceivable to think that teams will opt out of conferences to chase Harbin points.
We have seen teams do it now. Removing regions would exacerbate the issue.

There's no need to change the current system. It is working just fine.

I also think that the converse of teams opting out of conferences is true. When the playoffs greatly expanded over several years from five divisions of sixteen to seven divisions of thirty-two, getting a playoff bid became less like getting a bowl invite ("great if it comes, but we could go 10-0 and not get one, so let's win our conference and get the best record that we can."), and more like a goal that virtually everyone believed that they could achieve with just one more win, or one more game with a points-cow. Schools started trying to create designer schedules, and, I do recall a few powerhouse schools successfully asking to opt out of some league games, or out of the league for football completely.

But, I've also seen the converse, where it became fashionable for leagues to pressure schools out. One long-standing conference pressed a county-seat-sized school to leave because they were too big, and the usual loss for a, say, 8-2, small school was blocking playoff bids. The old SBC ranged from Clyde to St. Mary (who once got a 3-7 bid because of the discrepancies), which (messily) collapsed, eventually leading to the three-tiered SBC with ouchie opinions about crossovers. And, the old SLL, with a then-mix of D4s and D6s, once a small school dropped out, and the league fell out of balance at 4 and 3, respectively, fell apart as the larger schools wanted to build a homogeneous designer league with more predictable points (only marginally successful as the end result was 6 and 2, but with the larger schools almost all dropping to at least D5 themselves).

I like one-and-done playoff football a much as any fan, but the increase in the pool of invitations has had a dramatic effect on scheduling, even among close rivalries, and not all of it has been positive.

 

[psavitt05]

Since the last time the playoffs were expanded, no 10-0 team has missed the playoffs; is correct. The playoffs were last expanded in 2013.

My apologizes then to those two posters. Whenever I've seen people talk about the playoffs expanding it usually had to do with regions going from 4 to 8. Forgot about that whole 7th division thing there for a second

 

[queencitybuckeye]

You guys miss how many times Newcomerstown in 2001 has been mentioned in this thread? I'm not on the side of changes must be made, but a 10-0 has missed the playoffs since they expanded

OK, twice in two decades. Two teams out of thousands who qualify over that period. Tough for those two, but an aberration not remotely worthy of changes.

 

[Cali_Eagle]

I have few complaints with the Harbin system. It is certainly better than the point system that West Virginia has.

If there is anything I would change with the Harbin system, I would have something which accounts for who has beaten you. Under the current system, a loss to a 10-0 team counts the same as a loss to a 1-9 team.

Of course, complexity just creates more potential for controversy.

I have posted this (below -V) MANY times or something very similar. This post is from Sept 14, 2019. It's Post # 44 about accounting for losses within the Harbin System but please be aware it's in a thread that's topicked about playing out-of-state opponents.

Too many Ohio teams scheduling out of state opponents

Or teams who do well. We don't cheat and get dodged a ton by public schools in d1 Mentor is a perfect example of a school and program that has set a standard for how to build a program from the middle school level up. And the " reward" is that other public schools avoid them. The advantage...

yappi.com

 

[Cali_Eagle]

This might be the most intelligent post ever made on this board.

See my post at #199 on this thread, you might just like it even better. It's post #44 on it's original thread. Just follow the link....

 

[JohnnyComeLately]

I have posted this (below -V) MANY times or something very similar. This post is from Sept 14, 2019. It's Post # 44 about accounting for losses within the Harbin System but please be aware it's in a thread that's topicked about playing out-of-state opponents.

Here is the problem with the system you describe. It makes it more imperative to schedule games against teams you know you are going to beat. It would not foster more freedom to schedule games against tougher opponents, it would make it more important to not schedule games against teams that you will lose against. Of course this would only apply to those schools just trying to get into the Playoffs. For those who are trying to make a deep run, they are more concerned with preparing for the deep run, so they will schedule tougher opponents to make them better.

Just my 2 cents

 

[CatFoodFlambe]

Keep the existing system - with one change. The top seven teams in each region get the automatic playoff slots. Then pull the four teams in the division (statewide) with the highest number of points that did not make the top seven in their region- regardless of region - and ship 'em off to play at the #1 seed in each region (the "last team in" plays the #1 with most points, next-to-last plays the second highest #2, etc.

2-7, 3-6, and 4-5 still play one another

If we look this format for D5 after Week 8 as an illustration, the following tidbits show up:
1/ Statewide, the “top 32” cut would be at 10.70 average points. Five teams currently in playoff spots are currently below this level – amazingly, #33 Fairbanks R24, and FOUR teams from R22 (Black River/36, Hillsdale/37, Norwayne/39, and Carey/44

2/ Of the four 8th place teams, Sherwood (R23, 18th place in state) and Brookfield (r21, 26th place) get back in as wild cards (WC1 and WC2 respectively). The other two WC teams would be both be from r23 – Spencerville (22nd state) and Gibsonburg (24th state) and would be the WC3 and W4 team.

“Top 32” teams still not dancing – #30 Western Reserve in R21, #31 Nelsonville York in R21, and #32 Columbus Grove.

Non-Top 32 teams still in the playoffs - Black River, Hillsdale and Creston, , #5-7 in R22.

Week 11 WC games
Gibsonburg @ New Middletown Springfield
Spencerville @ Liberty Center
Brookfield @ Chillicothe Southeastern
Sherwood @ Collins Western Reserve

 

[algernonsidney]

Yet it happens one time and changes MUST be made according to some. Ridiculous.

I have been saying that OHSAA should get rid of the regions since 1992 or earlier. My opinions have not changed. One reason is that I wanted to prevent something like this.

Again, please tell us why a team with less Harbin points should be in the playoff while a team with more is out?

 

[LetTheDogEat]

I do find the top 32 by division without Regions intriguing. With OHSAA moving schools up and down divisions and as such regions every few years, the regions seem to simply be a way to categorize schools into 4 quadrants. However, they are NOT geographically based, at least in Div 6. Carey and Hopewell-Loudon are both further south and west than Gibsonburg, but are in 22 when they are way close to the MAC schools. Seems arbitrary and if it isn't going to be true geographical then why have regions at all?

If we are going to argue about week 11 distances in an All State 32 model, I would argue Gibsonburg to Coldwater/Minster/Anna would be just as far as many other potential (around 2 hours). I'm sure each "region" has similar cases where teams are hours apart. Sure it is possible to get the extreme NW Ohio to SE Ohio, but I'd be curious to see how often that would happen. Also, only the first round is hosted by schools. From Week 12 on, the state could pick neutral locations between the two schools as is already done.

I think someone interested and has a lot of free time could figure out the top 32 and what a 1v32, 2v31, 3v30, etc.. would look like. Certainly would create some interesting and fun matchups!

 

[LetTheDogEat]

Final points/observations about Harbin points. Harbin does a great job at evaluating a teams schedule, of that there is no doubt. However I wonder how well it evaluates a team considering it doesn't take into account margin of victory. A team with a "C-" schedule that wins by an average of 35 points can easily be just as good as a team with an A/B schedule that wins each game by 3. A win counts in Harbin as a win equally if by 1 or 50. So a teams Harbin points certainly tells us how good the teams schedule was... I don't know we can always extrapolate that to tell us how good that TEAM is or use it as some predictive test.

Also, and this is getting very into the weeds, but Harbin does't tell us how good the schedule of the teams that team has beaten are. Perhaps a 3rd level of points (2nd level points of every team you beat) could be fun!

Food for thought.

 

[USA70PP]

Doggie
If you want to use some form of "margin of victory" input, would you also be in favor of doing away with the running clock?

 

[LetTheDogEat]

Doggie
If you want to use some form of "margin of victory" input, would you also be in favor of doing away with the running clock?

Good question. At this level you can't do that to kids... maybe cap it at 30. IDK what the answers are, and there is no perfect system, but it's fun to think about it!

 

[serpico]

I remember hearing that when Jack Harbin devised his system it was with regions in mind. The theory was that teams tended to play teams in the same region more often than not, so comparing teams across regions wasn’t an accurate measurement of their comparative strengths.

I think that theory has some merit, so I did a little research.

The team I follow (Marion Local) has been placed in the Southwest region in each of the past 10 years, and when looking at other regions it has seemed that the SW region tends to have lower point totals than teams in the Northeast region.

Thus, I went back 10 years and looked at the SW vs. NE Harbin averages for the divisions Marion Local has played in (either 6 or 7) and there was a distinct difference. In only two of those years did the SW average point total eclipse that of the NE. Furthermore, the average for playoff qualifiers in the NE over those 10 years was 16.58 while the average for SW teams was 15.46.

I realize it’s a small and skewed sample, but I think there could be something to the possibility that teams in some regions (at least in the smaller divisions) have the ability to garner more points than in other regions.

 

[Cali_Eagle]

Final points/observations about Harbin points. Harbin does a great job at evaluating a teams schedule, of that there is no doubt. However I wonder how well it evaluates a team considering it doesn't take into account margin of victory. A team with a "C-" schedule that wins by an average of 35 points can easily be just as good as a team with an A/B schedule that wins each game by 3. A win counts in Harbin as a win equally if by 1 or 50. So a teams Harbin points certainly tells us how good the teams schedule was... I don't know we can always extrapolate that to tell us how good that TEAM is or use it as some predictive test.

Also, and this is getting very into the weeds, but Harbin does't tell us how good the schedule of the teams that team has beaten are. Perhaps a 3rd level of points (2nd level points of every team you beat) could be fun!

Food for thought.

Jack Harbin was against using margin of victory because he didn't believe in what ESPN commentators used to/still call "style points" (I hate them myself) and didn't think it was right to have a system that encourages HS coaches to "run up the score(s)" (AKA very poor sportsmanship, which is not what we are trying to teach young boys.) I agree with Mr. Harbin on that point 100%.

 

[Cali_Eagle]

I remember hearing that when Jack Harbin devised his system it was with regions in mind. The theory was that teams tended to play teams in the same region more often than not, so comparing teams across regions wasn’t an accurate measurement of their comparative strengths.

I think that theory has some merit, so I did a little research.

The team I follow (Marion Local) has been placed in the Southwest region in each of the past 10 years, and when looking at other regions it has seemed that the SW region tends to have lower point totals than teams in the Northeast region.

Thus, I went back 10 years and looked at the SW vs. NE Harbin averages for the divisions Marion Local has played in (either 6 or 7) and there was a distinct difference. In only two of those years did the SW average point total eclipse that of the NE. Furthermore, the average for playoff qualifiers in the NE over those 10 years was 16.58 while the average for SW teams was 15.46.

I realize it’s a small and skewed sample, but I think there could be something to the possibility that teams in some regions (at least in the smaller divisions) have the ability to garner more points than in other regions.

What you say about Jack Harbin's belief in the Regional concept is correct. He didn't believe there was enough cross regional play to make comparisons valid in most cases. I also believe that to be true. That was one big reason he wanted to see playoffs rather than wire service polls. Some teams play some games across Regions mainly the big parochials and or teams/cities on or close to a Regional border, but most don't.

I am from Euclid originally and Jack Harbin was a cash register repairman and dealer from neighboring border city Wickliffe. His original concepts for the Harbin System were written up in detail by both the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the old now defunct Cleveland Press at the time OHSAA was considering the system and voting to adopt it back in 1971 or so.