bkmk1
Well-known member
Garbage in, garbage out. The math/formula behind the Harbin system really is flawed in many ways. I know there is no perfect system, but It would not be rocket science to get it much better.
Harbins...Get Lost
- Thread starter KramericaIndustries
- Start date
eastisbest
Well-known member
Over the Harbin years, which state championship teams got left at the door stop?
Kram, it's easier to cheat a system when people do the picking. State Football is so regionalized, knowing which undefeated team had the harder schedule isn't possible. And we had a couple last year, that didn't get in. Your method still comes down to the self chosen gurus deciding. Or deciding by a committee that has no comparison other than long held biases.
algernonsidney
Well-known member
It is for teams you beat. It is not there for teams who beat you.
algernonsidney
Well-known member
I don't know of any mathematical rating system that takes this into consideration. Actually the fact that a computer doesn't watch football is a virtue. The system totally takes out any personal bias.
That’s why a lot of teams now schedule down. A loss is a loss, so you beat a couple extra bums and get a higher seed. Lots of big games not getting played as much.
Simply add L3, L4 points to the Harbins for quality of loss. L3 could be the opponents L1 times 1/3. Then L4 could be the opponents L2 times 1/4. This then gives something to teams for scheduling tough and puts a strength of schedule into the formula. No idea if the formula I made up is good (not a math guy, LOL),but something like this would help. This would give more points to a team that loses to a 9-1 opponent than a team that loses to a 1-9. Need some formula, because this test year for voting shows no coaches have any integrity to vote correctly.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Results of change are hard to predict but it's not hard to do retroactively, look at the effects on past years and see if the predictions are better.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
There is absolutely no OBJECTIVE way to determine strength of schedule, none. Let's say a team loses to a 9-1 team, who is to say that 9-1 team isn't one of those "goat herder" schools people keep mentioning? Who determines if that is a good loss or not? The Harbins is objective and rewards WINNING. It also rewards winning against schools that win. It's a great system. Quit ing and win your games. Too much if our society rewards losing, we don't need to add that to football in Ohio.
If your team didn't make the playoffs because of your "tough schedule" then what do you think will happen in the playoffs? I promise you no team missed the playoffs that would have won a state championship. Every team controls their own destiny, just win. Again, just win. Pretty simple philosophy.
If your team didn't make the playoffs because of your "tough schedule" then what do you think will happen in the playoffs? I promise you no team missed the playoffs that would have won a state championship. Every team controls their own destiny, just win. Again, just win. Pretty simple philosophy.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Don't forget "hope." Just win and hope you don't fall through one of the cracks. We know undefeated teams are left out. As you say and I agree, there is no objective way to know for sure that undefeated team's strength of schedule. Those teams they beat with poor records might very well have had less poor records with different schedules of their own.
Strength of schedule works in the pros or even college where there is a lot of inter-regional play. Not so much at a state level I think. Harbins is fine. For conversation's sake, still worth looking at L3s.. to see how they would have affected past years.
Strength of schedule works in the pros or even college where there is a lot of inter-regional play. Not so much at a state level I think. Harbins is fine. For conversation's sake, still worth looking at L3s.. to see how they would have affected past years.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
I agree with you minus the strength of schedule working in college. It leaves out many deserving teams and favors Power 5 conferences. The entire point of being FBS is you are supposed to be the same quality wise as everyone else. The fact that the non OR schools are ok with the CFP is beyond me when they literally have zero chance of ever making it.
Also many OF teams regularly duck solid non P5 schools because if they somehow lose, it kills any chance of making the playoff.
kingpin2010
Well-known member
L3’s used to be included until you realize there are common late season scenarios where losing is more beneficial than winning.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Bolts_Fan
Well-known member
Northmont is the 2 seed and Sprinfield is the 3 seed.
Not talking about a state championship. Only 3-4 teams in each division have that realistic chance. Give some teams a chance to play an extra game or 2 is my reasoning for strength of schedule. Getting into the playoffs and/or winning a playoff game is Huge for Many schools
eastisbest
Well-known member
YTown's been expert in a lot of things for decades. Probably centuries.
COLTCOUNTRY
Well-known member
I like Harbins. Beat the teams that beat the teams. Cupcake scheduling (playing lower division teams, teams that don’t have good programs for examples) can hurt you.
And a loss is a loss. If you schedule a tough team and lose, too bad. Win next time or don’t play that team.
And quit your whining!!!
And a loss is a loss. If you schedule a tough team and lose, too bad. Win next time or don’t play that team.
And quit your whining!!!
I'll throw this out there and you can do with it what you want.
2019 total won-loss record for each of the top four seeds in each region of division 1 of the teams they played during the year.
region 1
100-57
97-48
81-51
88-49
region 2
94-66
72-59
84-62
72-59
region 3
81-56
105-64
67-62
86-60
region 4
90-48
73-63
77-68
121-57
1st place seed in region 1 was runner-up
region 2 lost in in semis
region 3 lost in 2nd round
region 4 lost in 2nd round
the state championship team of division was the 4 seed in region 4
2019 total won-loss record for each of the top four seeds in each region of division 1 of the teams they played during the year.
region 1
100-57
97-48
81-51
88-49
region 2
94-66
72-59
84-62
72-59
region 3
81-56
105-64
67-62
86-60
region 4
90-48
73-63
77-68
121-57
1st place seed in region 1 was runner-up
region 2 lost in in semis
region 3 lost in 2nd round
region 4 lost in 2nd round
the state championship team of division was the 4 seed in region 4
Cali_Eagle
Active member
Well.... If you were going to let everyone in.... (and that's not anything at all that I am in favor of, I prefer a small elite field myself ) you could always shorten the regular season to 8 or 9 games BUT... allow teams that were knocked out in the first couple of rounds to schedule another couple of games after they left the tourney or playoffs. Just a thought.
Cali_Eagle
Active member
You don't have to add "quality losses" (I.E. a reward for "good" losses) to the Harbin System. What is needed (as I have posted many times over a period of many many years) is treating losses with an inverse Harbin penalty. Lose to a team, have points deducted for each loss the team that beats you sustains. Lose to a 10-0 Lakewood St Edward team have first level points deducted for the loss and second level points deducted for each game they lost. (In this fictitious example that would be none.) Lose to a 2-8 "Cleveland East" (now defunct school, used strictly for example purposes) have first level points deducted for the loss and second level points deducted for each game they ("East") lost. Which would be X number of points times 8 in this hypothetical example. IOW a loss to St Ed in this case would cause a little damage and a loss to "East" would be catastrophic.
Again for the posters that ALWAYS fail to understand this point, this is NOT "quality losses" it is a PENALTY for each loss you suffer. Lose to a very good team, the penalty is slight. Lose to a bad team and the penalty really stings.
Again for the posters that ALWAYS fail to understand this point, this is NOT "quality losses" it is a PENALTY for each loss you suffer. Lose to a very good team, the penalty is slight. Lose to a bad team and the penalty really stings.
I pretty much totally agree with this. The only change I would make is that if you are 10-0 you should be in the playoffs. Just replace the 8th seed with the 10-0 team. That's it.
I think OHSAA is cutting a week of preseason to enable the extra week of post-season play coming in next year. A team seeded 5-12 in their region could play a 16th game if they win a state title.
Shrinking down to nine regular season games with everyone getting a 10th playoff game would prove to be unpopular unless you're allowed to either opt out of the all-in playoffs, or pick up an 11th game if you get eliminated in your first playoff game -- especially if teams need that extra home game to "make it work".
Shrinking down to nine regular season games with everyone getting a 10th playoff game would prove to be unpopular unless you're allowed to either opt out of the all-in playoffs, or pick up an 11th game if you get eliminated in your first playoff game -- especially if teams need that extra home game to "make it work".
I don't think that word means what you think it does. In fact, there are many, many, many objective ways to determine strength of schedule. You may disagree with the methodology/outcome of a mathematical formula that determines strength of schedule - but there is zero question whether or not it is OBJECTIVE.
What we had this year was SUBJECTIVE and the results (at least in Region 4) showed the huge downside to a subjective system. I will take an OBJECTIVE system to a SUBJECTIVE system everyday and twice on Sundays.
I agree that the Harbins are a flawed objective system that can be improved (easily, in fact). But give me the objective Harbins over a subjective system (even the subjective committee system used by the CFP) every time.
bkmk1
Well-known member
I have 2 better and more relevant questions/issues (at least for me).
1. which teams have been left out due to the Harbin system and their schedule being brutal as well as EVERYONE in Ohio knowing that the team Harbins left out, was clearly better than 3/4 of the teams that got in. So when it comes to strictly record and points, you are in most cases comparing apples to oranges. Not a true comparison to decide who gets in and who doesn't.
2. when a system means you are better off not playing a game over playing a team and winning said game, that is a real issue and a MAJOR flaw.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
So please show me objective strength of schedule formulas.
The Harbin second level point system is an OBJECTIVE strength of schedule formula - Opponent's win total points (based upon Division of team they beat)) divided by number of games played by all of your Opponents times 10).
More importantly, I will share with you the definition of OBJECTIVE - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
All mathematical formulas are considered OBJECTIVE - in other words - it does not matter what you believe or what the names on the jersey are, if you put in the input, you get the same output - period.
SUBJECTIVE is what happens when you have people voting or using "the eye" test.
In any event, just because you disagree with the methodology of the Harbin second level point system (Hey - I do too! - mainly because you get the same credit for simply PLAYING a team whether you beat them by 40 or lose by 40), does not mean the Harbins are not objective - they clearly are.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
There are 8 spots in a normal year, of the playoffs. If a 9-1 teams gets in, that "shouldn't" they will lose, who cares?
KramericaIndustries
Moderated User
Just for starters....
Last year in D2/R8 Winton Woods MISSED THE PLAYOFFS at 6-3 after beating eventual D2 Champion LaSalle in week 10. LaSalle went on to have 3 running clock games in the R8 regional games, stomping tomato cans who "had better records" than Winton Woods and thus got better Harbin scores.
That would have NEVER happened in either a coach vote, or a computer with ANY kind of additional logic beyond the dumb "number of wins" against schools weighted by what division they were in as opposed to how good they actually are.
What computer has a far more objective strength of schedule algorithm? Drew50 is an easy example
And by the way, last year's 5-5 Olentangy team is yet another example. Nearly missed the playoffs due to "points", put a running clock on "8-2" Troy and beat "11-0" Anthony Wayne by 10 in the playoffs.
Records mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how good a team is, unless they are playing teams of similar strength.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
There are already lots of blow outs in the first, and even the second rounds. Why add additional rounds of blow outs? Teams would be better off just playing a week 10 game that they have a chance to compete in. Bye weeks suck, just sayin'.