Harbins...Get Lost

KramericaIndustries said:
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
View attachment 10485

View attachment 10486

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.
Click to expand...
But Olentangy didn't miss the playoffs. And sure, in any given year there will be deserving teams that are left out. My kid played on a 9-1 team that missed the playoffs. You know what our coach did? he scheduled better. Coaches are only watching film on the teams they are going to play, having them vote is stupid. Same in college.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
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
View attachment 10485

View attachment 10486

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.
Click to expand...
Great example... except WW only played 9 games. If they’d have played 10 & won 7 would have been in easy.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
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
View attachment 10485

View attachment 10486

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.
Click to expand...
I hope you realize we are in agreement.
 
I wouldn't mind an update to the system, but a complete scrap IMHO is not really needed. But like everything else some updating could be made.
 
Raylan_Givens said:
Great example... except WW only played 9 games. If they’d have played 10 & won 7 would have been in easy.
Click to expand...

They did play 10, they played a MO team that wasnt recognized in the standings.

Which completely misses the point regardless, they did plenty in their 9 games over local opponents to deserve a spot in the playoffs.

And yes, Olentangy did make the playoffs, but you've again completely lost the point. The best teams don't necessarily have the best records. We should not be rewarding schools who schedule tomato cans and goat herders. We should be rewarding the best teams.

This is how the Drew computer ranked D7 last year
1601836825608.png
 
You won’t ever see a system like Drew’s because it encourages running up the score. Even if you cap it at say 30 points, a team that is up 24 with 3 minutes left instead of running the clock out would be very much incentivized to score a td.
 
L Hand said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are misinterpreting my position. I am 100% in favor of Harbins and understand the L2. I thought you were saying there are other formulas for strength of schedule to use instead.

Looks like we both misunderstood each other's points.
 
cincifbfan said:
I think you are misinterpreting my position. I am 100% in favor of Harbins and understand the L2. I thought you were saying there are other formulas for strength of schedule to use instead.

Looks like we both misunderstood each other's points.
Click to expand...

I didn't misunderstand anything - I objected to your misuse of the word "objective."

As for the overall discussion, if I were king I would scrap the Harbin system and go to a more sophisticated computer ranking system that takes into account a lot more than the Harbins (and would definitely include margin of victory). But I still prefer the objective Harbin system to any subjective alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Hammerdrill said:
But Olentangy didn't miss the playoffs. And sure, in any given year there will be deserving teams that are left out. My kid played on a 9-1 team that missed the playoffs. You know what our coach did? he scheduled better. Coaches are only watching film on the teams they are going to play, having them vote is stupid. Same in college.
Click to expand...

No one can honestly predict their strength of schedule. Even an Iggy can have a fall-off year ;)

And "better" schedules are no always available. A school is limited by geography and expense. I would think it particularly difficult for a strong smaller division team. There are only a couple games flexibility most after the traditional OOC and conference rivalries and those may have gotten you into play-offs historically. Should a team really be victim to the bad year of other teams?

No perfect system. So yes, sometimes a team is going to be victim to the bad years of others but I wouldn't let that comment "schedule better" pass without some opposition.
 
eastisbest said:
No one can honestly predict their strength of schedule. Even an Iggy can have a fall-off year ;)

And "better" schedules are no always available. A school is limited by geography and expense. I would think it particularly difficult for a strong smaller division team. There are only a couple games flexibility most after the traditional OOC and conference rivalries and those may have gotten you into play-offs historically. Should a team really be victim to the bad year of other teams?

No perfect system. So yes, sometimes a team is going to be victim to the bad years of others but I wouldn't let that comment "schedule better" pass without some opposition.
Click to expand...
Interesting, but our team's issue was our propensity to not schedule tough teams. 8 teams get in, it really isn't that hard.
 
L Hand said:
I didn't misunderstand anything - I objected to your misuse of the word "objective."

As for the overall discussion, if I were king I would scrap the Harbin system and go to a more sophisticated computer ranking system that takes into account a lot more than the Harbins (and would definitely include margin of victory). But I still prefer the objective Harbin system to any subjective alternatives.
Click to expand...
How and when did I misuse objective?
 
cincifbfan said:
How and when did I misuse objective?
Click to expand...

You said - "There is absolutely no OBJECTIVE way to determine strength of schedule, none." That is just wrong as I stated in multiple different posts. Did you even read them?

If what you meant was that there is no perfect or foolproof way to determine strength of schedule, I might agree with you. If you had said the Harbin's use of second level points is an imperfect way of measuring strength of schedule, I definitely agree with you. But your use of "objective" in the way you used it was wrong - at the time I was not sure if it was just a mistake on your part or a misunderstanding as to what the word "objective" means - and I still don't know the answer to that.
 
Last edited:
BelowTheLine said:
So why not do what we are doing this year but just with some adjustments?

1. Play a 9-game regular season.
2. Teams can still opt-out of playoffs just like this year and schedule a 10th game with another opt out.
3. The teams & the OHSAA will split the revenue of first round & second round (week 10 & 11) playoff games. This will make up for lost home game for schools and give the OHSAA revenue they currently do not have.
4. The top seeds still get byes for week 10 which is good because they are the most likely to play 6 playoff games.

What the downside to this?
Click to expand...
Letting everyone in is a disgrace. You should have to qualify into the playoffs. Do we really need 1-9 teams in the playoffs?
 
First, I agree that Winton Woods was one of the 8 "best" teams in R8 last year; but the they didn't win enough games on their schedule to qualify.
Last year was an anomaly in that in the previous 10 years; WW 2019 Harbins would have qualified them for the playoffs every year, and in half of those years they would have hosted a first round game.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
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
View attachment 10485

View attachment 10486

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.
Click to expand...
In WW 3 losses they allowed 51 and 42 twice. Play better defense and they are in the playoffs. It's not the systems fault.
 
Hammerdrill said:
Interesting, but our team's issue was our propensity to not schedule tough teams. 8 teams get in, it really isn't that hard.
Click to expand...

perhaps not in your region. In some regions, the schedule can be dicey as we saw last year when two similarly situated undefeated schools in different divisions, didn't get in. Won their schedules handedly but their oppornents, who normally are good enough to get the other teams in, had uniformly off years. I doubt even L3s and L4s would have gotten them in but I' bet they were top 16 in the state.

Point being, there will always be cracks in a ranking system. Be it objective or subjective by anyone's definition. For me I'm comfortable saying the team that under any conditions that would be state champ, probably did get in. Now that Winton Woods situation is kind of interesting though.
 
eastisbest said:
perhaps not in your region. In some regions, the schedule can be dicey as we saw last year when two similarly situated undefeated schools in different divisions, didn't get in. Won their schedules handedly but their oppornents, who normally are good enough to get the other teams in, had uniformly off years. I doubt even L3s and L4s would have gotten them in but I' bet they were top 16 in the state.

Point being, there will always be cracks in a ranking system. Be it objective or subjective by anyone's definition. For me I'm comfortable saying the team that under any conditions that would be state champ, probably did get in. Now that Winton Woods situation is kind of interesting though.
Click to expand...
Agree, no system is perfect.
 
BlessEmAll said:
The basis of this thread is that some schools don't make it and some schools, goat herder schools, do make it. Again, in life, there are winners and losers. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

more pertinently phrased IMO, there are winners that lose and losers that win, deal with it.

But that doesn't mean end all discssion does it?
 
I understand the
L Hand said:
You said - "There is absolutely no OBJECTIVE way to determine strength of schedule, none." That is just wrong as I stated in multiple different posts. Did you even read them?

If what you meant was that there is no perfect or foolproof way to determine strength of schedule, I might agree with you. If you had said the Harbin's use of second level points is an imperfect way of measuring strength of schedule, I definitely agree with you. But your use of "objective" in the way you used it was wrong - at the time I was not sure if it was just a mistake on your part or a misunderstanding as to what the word "objective" means - and I still don't know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
I understand the word completely and used it properly.
 
Thought this thread was satire at first, but it's pretty obvious that some folks have hard feelings about the Harbin system. I'm sure it could be improved, but if you 1) don't play 10 games or 2) don't win enough of your games then the only blame would go to the team and/or AD for how they scheduled.

Any other argument (ie - strength of schedule) uses the benefit of hindsight. If we know the cops is hiding under the bridge we wouldn't speed, would we.

At the end of the day (and in a "regular" season), the playoffs are a reward for some teams and a path to a title for others. If you don't win enough you run the risk of missing out no matter who you play. They're trying to crown a champ so winning has to be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd consideration for selecting the teams.
 
L Hand said:
if I were king I would scrap the Harbin system and go to a more sophisticated computer ranking system that takes into account a lot more than the Harbins (and would definitely include margin of victory).
Click to expand...

I’d be fine with a margin of victory component, but only if it were capped.
 
serpico said:
I’d be fine with a margin of victory component, but only if it were capped.
Click to expand...

No problem with a cap on margin of victory or diminishing returns - but if you really care about a ranking being accurate, it is a necessary input. Of course, practically any model you could come up with would be an improvement over the Harbin system.

I don’t understand why the OHSAA is so wedded to the Harbins when any high school kid who has taken a stats class can point out the obvious flaws.
 
Raylan_Givens said:
Thought this thread was satire at first, but it's pretty obvious that some folks have hard feelings about the Harbin system. I'm sure it could be improved, but if you 1) don't play 10 games or 2) don't win enough of your games then the only blame would go to the team and/or AD for how they scheduled.

Any other argument (ie - strength of schedule) uses the benefit of hindsight. If we know the cops is hiding under the bridge we wouldn't speed, would we.

At the end of the day (and in a "regular" season), the playoffs are a reward for some teams and a path to a title for others. If you don't win enough you run the risk of missing out no matter who you play. They're trying to crown a champ so winning has to be the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd consideration for selecting the teams.
Click to expand...

For starters, as I mentioned above, the Harbin system DOES have a strength of schedule component - that’s exactly what second level points are!

Frankly, the two biggest flaws in the Harbin system (much like the RPI which the NCAAs FINALLY scrapped) are: (1) the Harbins reward you for playing a difficult schedule (or, more accurately, playing a bunch of teams who won a bunch of games - preferably against big schools) regardless of how you do against it and punish you for playing a poor team (or, more accurately, a team that hasn’t won much) no matter how you do against that team or how difficult THAT team’s schedule might have been; and (2) margin of victory isn’t used. A more minor flaw (but still a flaw) is the relatively arbitrary assigning of point differences based on enrollment.

And we have proven over and over that “just win” isn’t necessarily true. More importantly, it’s just a bad argument. If you are going to use a computer model to determine which teams are most deserving of getting into the playoffs (and in what order), why use a terrible one when there are SO MANY better options and there is almost zero cost and/or effort needed to change? It’s just plain boneheaded.
 
y2h said:
Letting everyone in is a disgrace. You should have to qualify into the playoffs. Do we really need 1-9 teams in the playoffs?
Click to expand...
No doubt it’s a screwy year but God will sort em out! Lol! Hopefully next year we will be back to normal.
 
y2h said:
In WW 3 losses they allowed 51 and 42 twice. Play better defense and they are in the playoffs. It's not the systems fault.
Click to expand...

And had the other 7 teams in the region played the teams WW did, they would be mostly winless.

If the system lets teams in that get running clocks put on them by the region winner 3 times in a row and doesnt let in a team that already beat them, then yes it is the system's fault and it's incredibly flawed.

And then there's this gem:
The basis of this thread is that some schools don't make it and some schools, goat herder schools, do make it. Again, in life, there are winners and losers. Deal with it.

that basically teaches ppl, even if you find yourself in a system that is completely illogical and is constantly rewarding less deserving people/things, don't say anything. Just be a meat-headed sheep and accept the ridiculous status quo. Medieval thinking 500 years past it's prime.
 
KramericaIndustries said:
And had the other 7 teams in the region played the teams WW did, they would be mostly winless.

If the system lets teams in that get running clocks put on them by the region winner 3 times in a row and doesnt let in a team that already beat them, then yes it is the system's fault and it's incredibly flawed.

And then there's this gem:
The basis of this thread is that some schools don't make it and some schools, goat herder schools, do make it. Again, in life, there are winners and losers. Deal with it.

that basically teaches ppl, even if you find yourself in a system that is completely illogical and is constantly rewarding less deserving people/things, don't say anything. Just be a meat-headed sheep and accept the ridiculous status quo. Medieval thinking 500 years past it's prime.
Click to expand...
Upsets happen ?‍♂️

Nice win but it doesn't in itself mean you deserved to go over someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top