Harbins...Get Lost

K

KramericaIndustries

Moderated User
A lot of Karen-ing going on about how various coaches voted, and some very impressive troll jobs by many of the coaches, but the really interesting thing is despite how incredibly bad some of that voting was, the end result was still MILES ahead and FAR more equitable than the brackets the archaic 1940's Harbin computer produces.

Harbins are COMPLETE GARBAGE and for as outraged as so many of you homers are capable of getting on other subjects, I find it amazing that we can't channel this outrage for the common cause of modernizing this hopelessly outdated and incredibly unfair and illogical rating system.

I bet if someone broke one of the vacuum tubes on the Harbin computer, it would be so old that no one is making replacement parts for it anymore
 
Last edited:
 
KramericaIndustries said:
A lot of Karen-ing going on about how various coaches voted, and some very impressive troll jobs by many of the coaches, but the really interesting thing is despite how incredibly bad some of that voting was, the end result was still MILES ahead and FAR more equitable than the brackets the archaic 1940's Harbin computer produces.

Harbins are COMPLETE GARBAGE and for as outraged as so many of you homers are capable of getting on other subjects, I find it amazing that we can't channel this outrage for the common cause of modernizing this hopelessly outdated and incredibly unfair and illogical rating system.

I bet if someone broke one of the vacuum tubes on the Harbin computer, it would be so old that no one is making replacement parts for it anymore
Click to expand...
You lost all credibility as soon as you wrote that.
 
Writing computer programs that factor in more than who beat who are becoming easier all the time. There are countless examples at the pro and college level, but just for starters, the Drew Pastuer computer does 10X better job of providing fairer rankings than Harbin ever did. Bill Connellys S/P+ rankings for college are among the most detailed and accurate I've seen. Just takes a little effort to write criteria and have someone program it.

Otherwise you end up with crap like Winton Woods beating the eventual D2 champion in week 10, but not making the playoffs in favor of some goat herder school who ran up a 9-1 record beating up on tomato cans
 
KramericaIndustries said:
Harbins are COMPLETE GARBAGE and for as outraged as so many of you homers are capable of getting on other subjects, I find it amazing that we can't channel this outrage for the common cause of modernizing this hopelessly outdated and incredibly unfair and illogical rating system.
Click to expand...
So a mathematical model that accounts for direct wins & quality/ size of opponent is “outdated” but coaches voting for teams they’ve never seen or may not like is better?
My guess is you would be immensely popular in a certain town in Stark Co....
 
KramericaIndustries said:
Writing computer programs that factor in more than who beat who are becoming easier all the time. There are countless examples at the pro and college level, but just for starters, the Drew Pastuer computer does 10X better job of providing fairer rankings than Harbin ever did. Bill Connellys S/P+ rankings for college are among the most detailed and accurate I've seen. Just takes a little effort to write criteria and have someone program it.

Otherwise you end up with crap like Winton Woods beating the eventual D2 champion in week 10, but not making the playoffs in favor of some goat herder school who ran up a 9-1 record beating up on tomato cans
Click to expand...


You are doing a lot of Karen-ing about the Harbins
 
I know the OHSAA probably doesn’t have the resources for this but personally, i would prefer a committee-like selection like they have in college football. I’m not a big fan of harbins and the only thing when it comes to coaches voting is that moving forward, only 12 teams will make it from each region meaning coaches could work together to keep certain teams out. That’s why I prefer either a committee or some of the other computer rankings like Kramer mentioned. Drew Pasteur is fairly accurate.
 
chs1971 said:
You lost all credibility as soon as you wrote that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you dont realize that a ranking algorithm system oriented around a single piece of logic (wins) that literally was written over 50 years ago is both archaic in absolute terms and in terms of what computer science is able to do. Back then, yes it was tough to write logic and you would have to accept a lazy algorithm with 1 argument. Now a kid could do it on his home computer and use 10 factors.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
I'm sorry you dont realize that a ranking algorithm system oriented around a single piece of logic (wins) that literally was written over 50 years ago is both archaic in absolute terms and in terms of what computer science is able to do. Back then, yes it was tough to write logic and you would have to accept a lazy algorithm with 1 argument. Now a kid could do it on his home computer and use 10 factors.
Click to expand...
Please, stop on your pursuit of perfection.
 
cjb56 said:
After this year you might see some push toward what was always considered unthinkable...to shorten the regular season and let everyone in the playoffs. Not my favorite idea, but this season will sort of be a model for it.
Click to expand...
I don't know that the majority of schools would go for it unless they can get a big cut of playoff revenue to replace what they'd lose from having what I presume would be 1 less regular season home game. I'm envisioning an 8-game regular season, so most teams would have 4 home games instead of 5. 8 games instead of 10 also means 2 less chances for inner-city teams to schedule guaranteed payout games because any reduction in regular season games is likely to come from the nonconference portion of the schedule.
 
Last edited:
cjb56 said:
After this year you might see some push toward what was always considered unthinkable...to shorten the regular season and let everyone in the playoffs. Not my favorite idea, but this season will sort of be a model for it.
Click to expand...
The better idea is to create some threshold for qualification: either .500 or above or ‘x’ amount of wins. JMO.
 
My criticism of the Harbins: computers don’t watch football. They don’t know if key players are out for the remainder of the season and that’s why a team’s performance is waning compared to earlier in the season (see: big win over an opponent in week 2 that a team would not beat the second time around with said players are out.) They don’t account for when transfers have to sit out the remainder of the season.

While I, in general, think the Harbin system is alright, there should be more to the equation when it comes to assessing a team’s worthiness of making it in or not. There’s nothing qualitative about the system, beyond “a team beat a Harbins cow (a team that racks up L1 points by virtue of playing weaker/smaller schools in their conference slate.”

It would be ideal if there was a way for coaches to vote on seeds to qualify with the Harbins indexed in. Or... even better, have a Harbins system that sets the L2 divisor at “n - 1 x sum of all opponents but one’s games.” Drop the worst win (e.g. an 0-10 conference opponent.)
 
algernonsidney said:
Harbin system is pretty good. It's definitely better than West Virginia.

The only issue I have with the Harbin system is that a loss to a 10-0 team and a loss to a 1-9 team count the same.

Getting rid of something just because it's old is the worst possible reason. All that matters is whether or not it works.
Click to expand...

This isn't the "only issue". This is THE issue. Harbin's do NOT measure the quality of the opponent, they only measure wins. Massillon can lose a 24-23 game to St Eds and get ZERO playoff consideration for it while Wooster is earning points for beating D3 New Lexington, and then earning more points when New Lexington goes off and beats some D4 teams. It's positively laughable.
 
Perhaps Harbins are more accurate at the D1 big school level, but for small schools they stink.

Some small school conferences are loaded with great teams top to bottom, but since they play each other you are going to have very good teams with a losing record ( see Cleveland Browns or Cincinnati Bengals records for example of good teams in tough conference).

On the flip side, there are conferences that are extremely weak, they play each other, and low and behold they produce a team with a winning record that qualifies for the playoffs based on the Harbin system.

I say either go to a model of power rankings like the Drew Pasteur model, or let them all in.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
This isn't the "only issue". This is THE issue. Harbin's do NOT measure the quality of the opponent, they only measure wins. Massillon can lose a 24-23 game to St Eds and get ZERO playoff consideration for it while Wooster is earning points for beating D3 New Lexington, and then earning more points when New Lexington goes off and beats some D4 teams. It's positively laughable.
Click to expand...
Understand what you're trying to say, but in this case Team A won and Team B lost. If you want the system to give teams credit for who they schedule then I refer you to Harbin's 2nd level points. Team A lost so they won't get 2nd level points and Team B played a crappy school that won't win many games so they get very little 2nd level points. But Team B gets more. Because they won.
 
Last edited:
KramericaIndustries said:
A lot of Karen-ing going on about how various coaches voted, and some very impressive troll jobs by many of the coaches, but the really interesting thing is despite how incredibly bad some of that voting was, the end result was still MILES ahead and FAR more equitable than the brackets the archaic 1940's Harbin computer produces.

Harbins are COMPLETE GARBAGE and for as outraged as so many of you homers are capable of getting on other subjects, I find it amazing that we can't channel this outrage for the common cause of modernizing this hopelessly outdated and incredibly unfair and illogical rating system.

I bet if someone broke one of the vacuum tubes on the Harbin computer, it would be so old that no one is making replacement parts for it anymore
Click to expand...


Wrong.
 
Union County Fan said:
I know the OHSAA probably doesn’t have the resources for this but personally, i would prefer a committee-like selection like they have in college football. I’m not a big fan of harbins and the only thing when it comes to coaches voting is that moving forward, only 12 teams will make it from each region meaning coaches could work together to keep certain teams out. That’s why I prefer either a committee or some of the other computer rankings like Kramer mentioned. Drew Pasteur is fairly accurate.
Click to expand...

I tried but I can not come up with a funny or witty way of saying it so straight up......
NO WAY I TRUST AN OHSAA COMMITTEE
I like the creative thought and not a bad idea but who you are suggesting to carry it out....... I wish I had an alternative
 
Just occurred to me that this conversation has replaced the normal “no way Team 8 should have qualified for playoffs, Teams 9-11 are much better” that we normally get in the days between week 10 & 11.
 
I would have liked to seen voting this year WITHOUT Joe Eitel doing his thing...and then maybe have him release points after that vote. You could def see some voting follow the points.
 
Ok, we go over this every year, the Harbins work. Strength of Schedule is a judgement based off of who humans think are good teams. My only complaint for the Harbins is how it rewards you for playing higher divisions. Higher divisions doesn't mean your are better at football. I think too often the top 5-6 teams in each division have difficulty filling schedules; but won't entertain playing a lower division power because it effects their points.

Anyone who pointed to the CFP is automatically not credible as that system is beyond flawed.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
A lot of Karen-ing going on about how various coaches voted, and some very impressive troll jobs by many of the coaches, but the really interesting thing is despite how incredibly bad some of that voting was, the end result was still MILES ahead and FAR more equitable than the brackets the archaic 1940's Harbin computer produces.

Harbins are COMPLETE GARBAGE and for as outraged as so many of you homers are capable of getting on other subjects, I find it amazing that we can't channel this outrage for the common cause of modernizing this hopelessly outdated and incredibly unfair and illogical rating system.

I bet if someone broke one of the vacuum tubes on the Harbin computer, it would be so old that no one is making replacement parts for it anymore
Click to expand...
This is ... just silly. Certainly, the Harbin system could be improved to account for quality losses to reward teams for playing tough competition. But first off, the playoffs didn't start until the 1970s, so you're off by a few decades. Secondly, coaches' voting opens up room for politics. Just look at how Perry voted Massillon in Division II, Region 7. Simply because of how low Perry voted Massillon, Perry could host the Regional Final vs. Massillon if both make it.

Asking coaches to rank teams they've never seen is not the best way to assign playoff seeding. For example, Stow (D1, R1) has not played ANY of the teams in their region. If you're a coach, how do you rank teams you've never seen? As a coach, you're certainly not going to spend a ton of time to watch film and pour over stats in the midst of a game week.

Your argument is deeply flawed. Long live the Harbins and objectivity over subjectivity.
 
Elder fans this year - this Voting process is garbage
Elder fans a few years ago when they didn’t make the playoffs - the Harbins are garbage

Its not the process, it’s the entitled complainers. When you think you walk on water, nothing is good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top