If they are going to run it a different way, why did the coaches association release this information now? Perhaps the new proposal, if it is accepted, will take a year to implement.I don't think Team States will be run this way. There is an alternative proposal circulating that appears to have huge interest from the Coaches, and I believe it'll be implemented for this coming season.
It looks like the change for this year is that the seeding will take place right before the start of the prospective season instead of being based fully on the formula points of the retrospective post-season. That seems to be a positive step.
I'm likely operating/thinking on outdated information. I just really despise the whole underclassman formula method based upon previous year's results. I would really love to see other teams attempt this methodology (like football) based on how many All-Conference players are coming back, and completely dismiss the current season record. Just stupid! Just let the Coaches vote for seeding, and then this proposal could be a bit more palatable to me. But, I'm just one lonely voice of reason ...If they are going to run it a different way, why did the coaches association release this information now? Perhaps the new proposal, if it is accepted, will take a year to implement.
In the past they competed in the division they were in the previous year.What about those teams that will be switching divisions and those that will be switching to new district sites this coming year?
I like the qualifying the top 8 based on previous year. I think seeding should be done by those 8 coaches to determine seeds.I'm likely operating/thinking on outdated information. I just really despise the whole underclassman formula method based upon previous year's results. I would really love to see other teams attempt this methodology (like football) based on how many All-Conference players are coming back, and completely dismiss the current season record. Just stupid! Just let the Coaches vote for seeding, and then this proposal could be a bit more palatable to me. But, I'm just one lonely voice of reason ...
I suspect that would not go over very well, especially if you could potentially have a perennial D2 school (or a few of them), that is/are now D1, but is/are forced to compete in D2 duals.In the past they competed in the division they were in the previous year.
I don't disagree that seeding introduces a variable that doesn't exist with the other way, but at least the Coaches would have current data at their disposal. I mean, injuries, grades and other stuff decimates teams each year, so why would we not consider all of that? Plus, and just as an example, a team that has 6 District placers returning but can't fill 3-5 holes in a 14-person line-up doesn't exactly add up to a quality dual team.I like the qualifying the top 8 based on previous year. I think seeding should be done by those 8 coaches to determine seeds.
The problem with using coaches or any individual to to determine the 8 teams that should be involved, is there is no one that knows all of the team equally. Some teams wrestle completely different schedules than others. Using a set formula to get the 8 participants seems like the only "fair" way to pick 8.
I can tell you, if we got to pick the top 8, many different people would have many different choices.
Just my thoughts.
It has gone over fine in years past.I suspect that would not go over very well, especially if you could potentially have a perennial D2 school (or a few of them), that is/are now D1, but is/are forced to compete in D2 duals.
It'll all be fine in the end, just trying to think of ways to potentially improve upon it.It has gone over fine in years past.
Who would it not go over well with?
It is not like they are choosing it, it is just how the numbers work on a 2 year cycle. Year 2 they would be in the new division.
What about those teams that will be switching divisions and those that will be switching to new district sites this coming year?
Saying Legacy Christain without saying Legacy Christian. Btw it is a good example of a great tournament team but not a great dual team.Plus, and just as an example, a team that has 6 District placers returning but can't fill 3-5 holes in a 14-person line-up doesn't exactly add up to a quality dual team.
Saying Legacy Christain without saying Legacy Christian. Btw it is a good example of a great tournament team but not a great dual team.
They are only returning 3 DQs.(All state qualifiers too, so 30 points).I must be reading this wrong. I have not done the math but Elyria is in a stand by position? Behind Iggy, North Olmsted and Whitmer?
My understanding is OHSAA is waiting on Boro's rankings due out in August before they decide anything more on this matter.
Fixed it i think. LOLThis would have worked better had you not said OHSAA.
Really ? Tough? 0 placers? How many state qualifers?1 How tough can they be? Maybe Carrollton.Braves at 2. Going to be tough next season. Carrollton will be tough as well.
Really ? Tough? 0 placers? How many state qualifers?1 How tough can they be? Maybe Carrollton.
We will have a few placers next season. Multiple qualifer's as well. They wasn't a 2 for nothing.Really ? Tough? 0 placers? How many state qualifers?1 How tough can they be? Maybe Carrollton.