Harbins...Get Lost

[y2h]

I agree. It's HS. It makes your league mean more. It stabilizes leagues. It allows for teams to get better during the season without being penalized for their QB being hurt games 1 and 2. Might cut down a little on transfers. Allows teams to take chances. Again, it's HS. The regular season is one part and then you go into the championship part of the season. All the other sports do it and it works just fine.

Don't have situations like has happened in our league where a team got into the playoffs with the same record as another team in the league that didn't get in but with one of the losses being to the team that didn't get in.

And the other sports are lame for letting everyone in. You should have to qualify just like football. Why do we need to see a team that got throttled all year get throttled one more time. Hey guys we went 1-21...but we are going to the playoffs!

 

[cincifbfan]

And the other sports are lame for letting everyone in. You should have to qualify just like football. Why do we need to see a team that got throttled all year get throttled one more time. Hey guys we went 1-21...but we are going to the playoffs!

Couldn't agree more. Football is the only sport where making the playoffs is a big deal. It's special! Let's keep it that way.

 

[L Hand]

Margin of victory doesn't matter, ever. A W is a W!

Well, if your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you want to rank which teams are best, margin of victory absolutely matters. Of course, if you don't care whether the best teams get in or not, then it really doesn't matter. But if you don't care whether the best teams get in or not, why not just pull the names out of a hat?

As for why the Harbins are "unfair" - the biggest issue with the Harbins (as I have said multiple times in this thread) is you get points for playing teams that won a lot of games (whether you win or not or whether you get stomped or not). You get punished for playing teams who do not win a lot of games (whether you lose to them, beat them by 1, or beat them by 100). I understand this may be over your head, but that is what makes the Harbins "unfair."

I am not in favor of a poll. I am not in favor of letting everyone in. And I cheer for a team that is generally helped by the "unfairness" of the Harbins and pretty much always gets in anyway.

But I am definitely for the most deserving teams getting in and the current system doesn't always do that. It does largely get things right - there aren't a ton of instances of huge obvious mistakes - but Winton Woods (and probably a lot more that I don't know about) was one of them.

 

[L Hand]

Uh oh. We have somebody Kramer-ing, or actually Karen-big. I think I do I see a Karen out there complaining about the computer system?!?!

Uhh no. Do you even know what a Karen is? The Karens are the tool boxes who say you can't include margin of victory because their poor son johnny may end up getting the score run up against him. I am saying the opposite. And if you say you can't include margin of victory because of "poor johnny" - you are the Karen.

 

[cincifbfan]

Well, if your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you want to rank which teams are best, margin of victory absolutely matters. Of course, if you don't care whether the best teams get in or not, then it really doesn't matter. But if you don't care whether the best teams get in or not, why not just pull the names out of a hat?

As for why the Harbins are "unfair" - the biggest issue with the Harbins (as I have said multiple times in this thread) is you get points for playing teams that won a lot of games (whether you win or not or whether you get stomped or not). You get punished for playing teams who do not win a lot of games (whether you lose to them, beat them by 1, or beat them by 100). I understand this may be over your head, but that is what makes the Harbins "unfair."

I am not in favor of a poll. I am not in favor of letting everyone in. And I cheer for a team that is generally helped by the "unfairness" of the Harbins and pretty much always gets in anyway.

But I am definitely for the most deserving teams getting in and the current system doesn't always do that. It does largely get things right - there aren't a ton of instances of huge obvious mistakes - but Winton Woods (and probably a lot more that I don't know about) was one of them.

OK, once again, margin of victory doesn't equate to being best. Maybe the team you crushed had an off week. Maybe injuries plagued a team. Margin of victory means squat. Whether you win by 1 or 40, a win is a win is a win. It doesn't matter. If you win a state championship by 1, does that mean your title means less? NO!

Margin of victory is one of the subjective ways people try to define who is best. Yes, I used the word subjective and used it properly. Wins are what matters, just win.

As far as WW goes, they made their own bed. That's on their Head Coach and their AD, not the system.

 

[Sykotyk]

Well, if your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you want to rank which teams are best, margin of victory absolutely matters. Of course, if you don't care whether the best teams get in or not, then it really doesn't matter. But if you don't care whether the best teams get in or not, why not just pull the names out of a hat?

As for why the Harbins are "unfair" - the biggest issue with the Harbins (as I have said multiple times in this thread) is you get points for playing teams that won a lot of games (whether you win or not or whether you get stomped or not). You get punished for playing teams who do not win a lot of games (whether you lose to them, beat them by 1, or beat them by 100). I understand this may be over your head, but that is what makes the Harbins "unfair."

I am not in favor of a poll. I am not in favor of letting everyone in. And I cheer for a team that is generally helped by the "unfairness" of the Harbins and pretty much always gets in anyway.

But I am definitely for the most deserving teams getting in and the current system doesn't always do that. It does largely get things right - there aren't a ton of instances of huge obvious mistakes - but Winton Woods (and probably a lot more that I don't know about) was one of them.

CORRECTION: you get a lot of points for BEATING teams that win a lot of games.

You lose to them you don't get jack.

 

[L Hand]

OK, once again, margin of victory doesn't equate to being best. Maybe the team you crushed had an off week. Maybe injuries plagued a team. Margin of victory means squat. Whether you win by 1 or 40, a win is a win is a win. It doesn't matter. If you win a state championship by 1, does that mean your title means less? NO!

Margin of victory is one of the subjective ways people try to define who is best. Yes, I used the word subjective and used it properly. Wins are what matters, just win.

As far as WW goes, they made their own bed. That's on their Head Coach and their AD, not the system.

Yeah, as I suspected, the guy who doesn't understand the difference between subjective and objective (and yes, you are using them wrong AGAIN), isn't possibly going to begin to understand computer modelling, much less the kind of advanced metrics that are actually being used in the college ranking systems today. Go back to whatever simple life you lead. Goodbye...

 

[L Hand]

CORRECTION: you get a lot of points for BEATING teams that win a lot of games.

You lose to them you don't get jack.

Correct - my mistake. But it is funny that your second level divisor is decided by all of your opponents (regardless of whether you win or lose).
So back to crazy Harbin math - your best bet is to win all the games you play (preferably against D1 schools), have your opponents win all of their games (regardless of the quality of competition THEY play (preferably against D1 schools)) BUT, if you lose a game to a team, you hope that team plays nobody other than you and you don't want the opponents you beat to play any game they aren't going to win (better for them to have a no contest).

 

[Just.here]

But I am definitely for the most deserving teams getting in and the current system doesn't always do that. It does largely get things right - there aren't a ton of instances of huge obvious mistakes - but Winton Woods (and probably a lot more that I don't know about) was one of them.

Winton Woods, Northwood, and Gibsonburg all would have made the playoffs last year in the (now) current Harbin ratings.
If you can’t finish in the top 12 of your district I don’t see how you feel you deserve a shot at playing for a state championship.

 

[K-1122]

OK, once again, margin of victory doesn't equate to being best. Maybe the team you crushed had an off week. Maybe injuries plagued a team. Margin of victory means squat. Whether you win by 1 or 40, a win is a win is a win. It doesn't matter. If you win a state championship by 1, does that mean your title means less? NO!

Margin of victory is one of the subjective ways people try to define who is best. Yes, I used the word subjective and used it properly. Wins are what matters, just win.

As far as WW goes, they made their own bed. That's on their Head Coach and their AD, not the system.

Agreed...prime example, The Buckeyes 59-0 stomping of the Badgers in the BIG champ game a few years back. I would think that most would not expect that same result if they played 10 times. Yes, there are some high school matchups that if played 10 times the result would be a similar whooping each time...but not all blowouts can be considered in that manner, so margin of victory is a bogus stat to consistently use.

 

[psycho_dad]

And the other sports are lame for letting everyone in. You should have to qualify just like football. Why do we need to see a team that got throttled all year get throttled one more time. Hey guys we went 1-21...but we are going to the playoffs!

Why is there a need to qualify? It's only HS football. It shouldn't come down to how well your AD can schedule or who will schedule you. It doesn't hurt a thing. If you are the best team, you should end up as the champion in the end regardless.

For a team to win a state Cross Country title, they will beat about 50 teams from District through to the state meet. Nothing carries over. Some teams will get multiple shots at taking out the eventual Champs. They have to face every single all-state athlete in their division at some point in the Championship run. How is that "lame"?

Why not let it all be decided on the field and not on a computer? Injuries. Poor scheduling. Poor officiating. Terrible start to a season. Match ups. Teams just getting better as the season goes on. I don't see how it hurts anything. It's not like teams would be bragging because they got into the playoffs.

 

[fridayfootball]

Harbin is much better

 

[cincifbfan]

Yeah, as I suspected, the guy who doesn't understand the difference between subjective and objective (and yes, you are using them wrong AGAIN), isn't possibly going to begin to understand computer modelling, much less the kind of advanced metrics that are actually being used in the college ranking systems today. Go back to whatever simple life you lead. Goodbye...

While I do live a simple life, I do indeed keep using those terms correctly. Computer models can do whatever you want them to do, including calculating subjective criteria like margin of victory.

 

[L Hand]

While I do live a simple life, I do indeed keep using those terms correctly. Computer models can do whatever you want them to do, including calculating subjective criteria like margin of victory.

Sorry - I can't have a logical argument with a person who doesn't understand the arguments that are being made.

 

[cincifbfan]

Sorry - I can't have a logical argument with a person who doesn't understand the arguments that are being made.

Just because it's a number doesn't mean it's objective. Sorry that I understand your flawed argument better than you do.

 

[L Hand]

Agreed...prime example, The Buckeyes 59-0 stomping of the Badgers in the BIG champ game a few years back. I would think that most would not expect that same result if they played 10 times. Yes, there are some high school matchups that if played 10 times the result would be a similar whooping each time...but not all blowouts can be considered in that manner, so margin of victory is a bogus stat to consistently use.

You don't understand statistics, much less advanced metrics - its ok - a lot of people don't. But that's what this is about (at least to me) - namely why replacing the Harbin system with a better one would do a better job at identifying the teams that most deserve to go to the playoffs.

All the other arguments being made (if you can't finish high enough, you don't deserve to go; stop whining if you are at the bottom of the rankings; the team that deserves to win the championship always gets in; yada, yada ...) miss the point and are boring.

This is a fact - the Harbin system, while being better than a poll, is a pretty poor system for ranking teams (don't believe me, ask any statistician, gambler or anyone else that understands advanced metrics). If we are going to use a mathematical formula to decide which teams make the playoffs (and we should), we should use one that does a better job of actually identifying the best teams.

 

[L Hand]

Just because it's a number doesn't mean it's objective. Sorry that I understand your flawed argument better than you do.

Stupid is as stupid does, son.

 

[KramericaIndustries]

OK, once again, margin of victory doesn't equate to being best. Maybe the team you crushed had an off week. Maybe injuries plagued a team. Margin of victory means squat. Whether you win by 1 or 40, a win is a win is a win. It doesn't matter. If you win a state championship by 1, does that mean your title means less? NO!

Margin of victory is one of the subjective ways people try to define who is best. Yes, I used the word subjective and used it properly. Wins are what matters, just win.

As far as WW goes, they made their own bed. That's on their Head Coach and their AD, not the system.

Wins are NOT the only thing that matters. If the teams were all playing similar schedules/teams like in the NFL, THEN wins matter. If you take 2 D2 schools and team A is beating D4 Goat Shepherds Memorial High by a TD and team B is losing a 24-23 game to St Eds, it takes a pretty incredible moron to argue that Team A is better than Team B, yet that's what the Harbin system does, and what all the defenders of it do by proxy.

WW did not make their own bed, and it's not on them. When 99% of the public knows/understands that they are arguably the best team in the region and 100% one of the top 2 teams in the region and they don't make the playoffs at all, the issue is with the playoff system.

 

[L Hand]

Wins are NOT the only thing that matters. If the teams were all playing similar schedules/teams like in the NFL, THEN wins matter.

Actually, if you talk to Sagarin (and gamblers), they will probably tell you that wins or losses don't matter that much, if it all. Sagarin's pure points rankings don't factor wins or losses in at all and they are the most accurate as a predictor for future games. Of course, someone is going to misunderstand or misquote me on this, so to be clear, I am only talking about how accurate a specific computer model is as to future results. I am not even advocating that the OHSAA incorporate a "pure points" style system. And yes, I believe wins vs. losses should matter in the regular season (and be the ONLY thing that matters in the post season).

We could actually have a good discussion of what "most deserving" means as far as who deserves to go to the playoffs and how much wins matter compared to the relative strength of two teams. Alas, I do not think that is an argument most on here are capable of having.

 

[K-1122]

You don't understand statistics, much less advanced metrics - its ok - a lot of people don't. But that's what this is about (at least to me) - namely why replacing the Harbin system with a better one would do a better job at identifying the teams that most deserve to go to the playoffs.

All the other arguments being made (if you can't finish high enough, you don't deserve to go; stop whining if you are at the bottom of the rankings; the team that deserves to win the championship always gets in; yada, yada ...) miss the point and are boring.

This is a fact - the Harbin system, while being better than a poll, is a pretty poor system for ranking teams (don't believe me, ask any statistician, gambler or anyone else that understands advanced metrics). If we are going to use a mathematical formula to decide which teams make the playoffs (and we should), we should use one that does a better job of actually identifying the best teams.

???I do not know how you got that out of a simple statement by me about margin of victory. And anyone that knows statistics would know that even my 10 matchups is a small sample, 30 would be a minimal sample size, and we know that ain't happening, so using one game's margin of victory is statistically not a number one should use in a formula. I did also mention though that actually sometimes that # is... because all could agree that after seeing SOME blowouts that there is a clear difference in the talent level between the two teams. Problem is, that this is not always the case in SOME other blowouts. NP VS S'VILLE for example....

 

[serpico]

I would like to see L Hand’s preferred model.

 

[cincifbfan]

Wins are NOT the only thing that matters. If the teams were all playing similar schedules/teams like in the NFL, THEN wins matter. If you take 2 D2 schools and team A is beating D4 Goat Shepherds Memorial High by a TD and team B is losing a 24-23 game to St Eds, it takes a pretty incredible moron to argue that Team A is better than Team B, yet that's what the Harbin system does, and what all the defenders of it do by proxy.

WW did not make their own bed, and it's not on them. When 99% of the public knows/understands that they are arguably the best team in the region and 100% one of the top 2 teams in the region and they don't make the playoffs at all, the issue is with the playoff system.

So explain to me how only scheduling 9 games is not WW's fault? You are seriously delirious.

Also, you can't award losing. By your logic, if someone goes 0-10, they should make the playoffs if they lose by 1 point to teams like St. Eds. That is not how playoffs should be decided.

 

[L Hand]

???I do not know how you got that out of a simple statement by me about margin of victory. And anyone that knows statistics would know that even my 10 matchups is a small sample, 30 would be a minimal sample size, and we know that ain't happening, so using one game's margin of victory is statistically not a number one should use in a formula. I did also mention though that actually sometimes that # is... because all could agree that after seeing SOME blowouts that there is a clear difference in the talent level between the two teams. Problem is, that this is not always the case in SOME other blowouts. NP VS S'VILLE for example....

Look, as I said, it's clear you really don't understand this. Everyone who understands this stuff knows that OSU beating Wisconsin on one day by 59 doesn't mean that OSU would beat Wisconsin EVERY day by 59 or that OSU is 59 points better than Wisconsin all the time. It doesn't change the fact that it is a metric, and a valuable one, as to the relative strength of OSU vs. Wisconsin.

I also agree that the more metrics you have (both in type and quantity) the better the accuracy of the model. But you are wrong about needing 30 results for any one team as a minimum. In fact its not even close to that depending on the amount of cross-play games you have.

Look there are people on here that understand this stuff better than I do - Vamps for one. But some of the statements people are making who really have no idea what is going on don't help ...

 

[psycho_dad]

L Hand.

So explain to me how only scheduling 9 games is not WW's fault? You are seriously delirious.

Also, you can't award losing. By your logic, if someone goes 0-10, they should make the playoffs if they lose by 1 point to teams like St. Eds. That is not how playoffs should be decided.

Why should your schedule have anything to do with making the playoffs or not? How do you know that a team that is 0-10 is not better than a team 10-0 if they never play each other and have no common opponents? It's become a strategy of who you play. What conference you are in. That's not how it should be.

 

[L Hand]

I would like to see L Hand’s preferred model.

Actually, I think Vamps system was pretty good. As a general rule, I would try to limit use of Divisions and I would have a won/lost component as well as a margin of victory component with diminishing returns starting at about 20 and ending any additional input at about 30.

 

[L Hand]

L Hand.

Why should your schedule have anything to do with making the playoffs or not? How do you know that a team that is 0-10 is not better than a team 10-0 if they never play each other and have no common opponents? It's become a strategy of who you play. What conference you are in. That's not how it should be.

Wait - what? On the one hand, you say that "schedule" shouldn't matter to make it or not. And yet you then say that you can't know whether an 0-10 team is better than a 10 - 0 team - isn't that exactly the situation where schedule does matter?

In any event, it really doesn't matter.

How can you tell whether an 0 -10 team is/might be better than a 10 - 0 team? Simple - you feed who those teams played and what the margin of victory in their games was into a computer model (preferably with a whole lot more information about who the opponents of those teams played and how they did) and then you can at least get some approximation as to which of those teams is better. Guess what - the more information you feed (i.e. number and types of metrics), depending on your methodology, generally the better approximation you will get.

The Harbins suffer from some flawed methodology on the schedule front (although not irrelevant - just not as accurate as it should be) and the lack of helpful information in the form of margin of victory.

 

[psycho_dad]

Wait - what? On the one hand, you say that "schedule" shouldn't matter to make it or not. And yet you then say that you can't know whether an 0-10 team is better than a 10 - 0 team - isn't that exactly the situation where schedule does matter?

In any event, it really doesn't matter.

How can you tell whether an 0 -10 team is/might be better than a 10 - 0 team? Simple - you feed who those teams played and what the margin of victory in their games was into a computer model (preferably with a whole lot more information about who the opponents of those teams played and how they did) and then you can at least get some approximation as to which of those teams is better. Guess what - the more information you feed (i.e. number and types of metrics), depending on your methodology, generally the better approximation you will get.

The Harbins suffer from some flawed methodology on the schedule front (although not irrelevant - just not as accurate as it should be) and the lack of helpful information in the form of margin of victory.

As it is done now, schedule matters a lot. If you have two teams that do not play each other and do not play common opponents, I don't care what you put into a computer, it is just a wild guess. Team A plays in a Conference that is really good and is all D2 Team B plays in a weak Conference against mostly D4 schools. 0-10 could be better than 10-0.

In our conference a few years back. Two teams played the same schedule minus 1 non conference game. One team beat the other head to head and both ended with the same record. The team that lost the head to head made the playoffs and the team that beat all the common opponents and also the head to head, did not make the playoffs. None of it made sense.

I just don't understand the need for a computer model at all when you just play a 2 game less regular season and have everyone start at the first level of the tournament and advance by your play. Why would that be any less of an accomplishment.

My starting the other post with L Hand was a mistake. I meant to have two points. One directed to you and one directed to another. I scrapped that and forgot to get rid of the L Hand.

 

[L Hand]

As it is done now, schedule matters a lot. If you have two teams that do not play each other and do not play common opponents, I don't care what you put into a computer, it is just a wild guess. Team A plays in a Conference that is really good and is all D2 Team B plays in a weak Conference against mostly D4 schools. 0-10 could be better than 10-0.

In our conference a few years back. Two teams played the same schedule minus 1 non conference game. One team beat the other head to head and both ended with the same record. The team that lost the head to head made the playoffs and the team that beat all the common opponents and also the head to head, did not make the playoffs. None of it made sense.

I just don't understand the need for a computer model at all when you just play a 2 game less regular season and have everyone start at the first level of the tournament and advance by your play. Why would that be any less of an accomplishment.

My starting the other post with L Hand was a mistake. I meant to have two points. One directed to you and one directed to another. I scrapped that and forgot to get rid of the L Hand.

No worries. I am against the all-in model because I think it takes away from the regular season - I think getting in should mean something. The Harbin system, as it is, does definitely include schedule strength. There have been many years where my teams close to .500 record is higher than other teams with 8-2 records. Now, I am not sure of any system that would (or should) put in an 0-10 team over a 10-0 team. But a better model than the Harbins would do a better job of sorting out who really is the better team (a fact that is actually unknowable).

 

[psycho_dad]

No worries. I am against the all-in model because I think it takes away from the regular season - I think getting in should mean something. The Harbin system, as it is, does definitely include schedule strength. There have been many years where my teams close to .500 record is higher than other teams with 8-2 records. Now, I am not sure of any system that would (or should) put in an 0-10 team over a 10-0 team. But a better model than the Harbins would do a better job of sorting out who really is the better team (a fact that is actually unknowable).

I would agree in College. I think College should just take Conference winners and put them in the playoffs. HS is a different story. Teams are punished if they have to work in younger players in the first half of the season. Our Conference used to have teams in 5 different divisions, so playing the regular season was a disadvantage for some of the teams. The all-in model allows teams to put emphasis on league games and allows for scheduling outside the comfort zone up or down depending on a teams needs. Once it's into the second round of the tournament, you have played your way in. I don't see it being a problem in any other sport. I don't see it taking away from anyone. Allows all the kids to keep working and improving the entire season and not be out of things week 3.

 

[L Hand]

I would agree in College. I think College should just take Conference winners and put them in the playoffs. HS is a different story. Teams are punished if they have to work in younger players in the first half of the season. Our Conference used to have teams in 5 different divisions, so playing the regular season was a disadvantage for some of the teams. The all-in model allows teams to put emphasis on league games and allows for scheduling outside the comfort zone up or down depending on a teams needs. Once it's into the second round of the tournament, you have played your way in. I don't see it being a problem in any other sport. I don't see it taking away from anyone. Allows all the kids to keep working and improving the entire season and not be out of things week 3.

I think those are valid points.

For me - I like the fact that the regular season means something and the playoffs are special. Further, I wouldn't like losing two games of regular season play and not sure what watching my team destroy some poor opponent in the first round means to the boys on the team getting blasted. However, I can see both sides. It is easy for me cheering for a team that always makes it in to be in favor of the status quo - its harder to think of how it affects others.