I don't believe it's your age that is the problem.
Last edited:
Martin RPI
- Thread starter Hback
- Start date
I'm not sure why you can't grasp this......seeding by coaches or seeding by RPI doesn't change the fact that coaches will place themselves in the spot that gives them the best chance to win. And you can't give yourself an easy path through seeding, you are one vote in a sectional of 18-35 coaches voting. Coaches may be sketchier up there and collude but I can't remember a team in SWOW being screwed in seeding by a group of coaches, maybe one salty coach every few years.
You can like the RPI because you want standardization, I get that, but to say it is needed because coaches try to plan their best path through the tournament is silly. I'm guessing you don't talk to as many coaches as you lead us to believe if you don't understand the strategy that goes in to picking where you go in a sectional after the seeding is done.
@BBcourt32 said "Unless you are a perennial powerhouse that's making deep runs to the final 4 consistently most teams goals are to get to or win a District and I can personally attest to 2-3 years that the path we selected made those goals possible.". He gets what I am saying, he picked the best path for his team to get to the districts and he would have done the same thing if the RPI was used those years to do the seeding
@SWOHHoops -100 percent correct- whether its coaches voting, RPI, Blind draw to get the seeds the critical part is still trying to place yourself in the best position to make the deepest run. That is the strategy part, for us location generally never mattered too much unless we get sent to one of the south locations that was a long commute etc but more so what initial matchup and also next round games give us the best path forward. In reference to the earlier comment about the game has changed, it has especially from the coaching perspective, one deep run or one bad loss can mean your job is dependent on it and not only that my role as coach is to give the kids the best possible chance at success. When I got into this 24 years ago the draw and tournament strategy was more simple, less thought went into but now especially with Hudl and all the film and analytics that we have access too, we look at teams that shoot certain 3pt and have in depth individual and team statistics that also play into our strategy and selection as well. Much different than years ago where we would have to drive 45 mins to meet someone and trade one grainy vhs film and hope it was a good film to see.
I grasp it much better than you think. The coaches placement is not being addressed with the talk of using the RPI for seeding. What is being addressed is the fact that some coaches will undervalue other teams for their own benefit. As an individual it is not much of a factor but when entire leagues that can be in the same district, or even coaching buddies work together for their own benefit, this is dishonest. I know you keep bragging about the honesty of SWO but talking with some coaches and ADs who are in the SW region, it has and does happen.
I'm not saying it is needed. I have only tried to explain the reasoning behind the idea of using it. A standard process that can be used across the state. Each coach will still pick their path on the bracket. Unless it is decided to go to the NCAA style of bracketing.
Every coach gets what you are saying. You obviously do not understand me as I have never stated the bracket placement is in the discission. Every coach can pick the best path for his own team. What they are discussing is removing the ability to affect any other teams placement. Once you are on the bracket it's like jj150 says, lace them up and get after it.
Last edited:
jj150
Active member
Ya, I am probably younger than you. But go on being you. A computer or a coaches seed meeting will both end up being manipulated. Example is almost every HS football coach has a computer guy figure out the regions and scenarios before anything is posted. Way back in 97 a team had it figured out to the point they needed a team to forfeit instead of playing. They got the team to forfeit (more computer points or calculator points back then) made the 8th or 4th (whatever was last seed in region) and won the state title. Just as I manipulated you and drew your ire by posting anything can be manipulated. Just play the game and see what happens
Last edited:
I am curious. How did a football coach get a team in his region to forfeit their game?
TriangleMan
Hates Particle Man
'Way back in 97' only 4 teams per region qualified for the football playoffs. So, BS on this.
8 teams per region started 'way back in 99'.
Which fairy tale do you want to perpetuate?
Last edited:
jj150
Active member
Well they were 4th then. it happened. Sorry but only bs is you and your 2 other screen names. Look it up one 1 team won a state title in 97 had a forfeit in game 6 or 7. Without it they are not in. Team that forfeited played last 2 or 3 games of year. Forfeited game was all based on team winning last 2 or 3 games after losing early. This was all based on in house computer projections. Without forfeit even if they won out they would not have got in, Why would I even make something like that up? Done with this bs. Research not google is your friend.
Last edited:
jj150
Active member
Here you go
“All of a sudden I get a call that they don’t want to play us,” explained Lingruen. “The second we knew they weren’t going to play us, we knew we were getting in (the playoffs if we won out). But we had some seniors that didn’t believe it.”
Spiess, who was a math teacher, was a wiz at tallying computer points and had LC’s playoff scenarios already figured out with the Tigers not playing Ottawa Hills.
“We already knew our divisor was nine and would get in playoffs if we didn’t play Ottawa Hills,” remarked Lingruen. “I told them (Ottawa Hills), I’d be as happy as all get out (not playing).”
Ohio’s prep football history would have been a lot different in 1997 had the OH-LC contest been played.
Me: If I am the head coach of Trotwood I really only care about my teams path and match-ups and how my team can have the best chance of winning
You: That is why we NEED the RPI
A coach caring about his own path, match-ups, best chance of winning is 1000% happening no matter how you seed. The coach on this thread, @BBcourt32, already confirmed that. I guess you and the coaches up there are convinced teams are getting screwed every year by coaches voting. Take a look at your district finals last year. Across all four divisions the district final involved top 4 seeds facing off in 11 of 13 finals, sounds like the coaches nailed in seeding what happened when they laced them up.
The discussion is the RPI is needed for seeding and not bracket placement. Two different actions.
You may want to check your facts, unless online information is wrong. In the NW out of the 13 districts in all four divisions, 3 ended with the top 4 seeded teams. In D1 they seed for two districts so they would never have seeds 1-4 in the same district. So the coaches seeding practices were accurate in 3 of the 13 attempts. The nice thing is that out of the 13 districts, the top seed did win 10 of them. So the cream does rise as you get further down the trail.
I said coaches only care about their path/best chance and you replied that is why the RPI is needed. You may have misinterpreted what I said.
Per NWDAB:
D1 Millbury - 1v3
D1 Toledo - 2v4
D2 Millbury - 1v3
D2 Ada - 2v6
D2 Ashland - 1v3
D3 Norwalk - 1v2
D3 Toledo - 1v4
D3 Lima - 1v2
D4 Willard - 1v3
D4 Defiance - 1v2
D4 Elida - 2v6
D4 Findlay - 1v2
D4 Wapak - 2v4
Read what you bolded above, I said you had top 4 seeds facing off, I didn't say 1v2 in all of them. You had top 4 seeds playing in the district final in 11 of the finals. Also, 9 out of 12 #1 seeds won the district. It completely destroys your premise, at least last year, that the seeding by coaches needs replaced bc of coaches politics getting in the way of seeding. Why the coaches approved it is a mystery, but they did.
Keep in mind last years D3 final four per the RPI included, after recent updates, the 5th (Africentric), 22nd (Lutheran East) and 31st (Taft) ranked teams in Ohio. If you showed people that they would think there were some amazing upsets in the tnmt but you would have to tell them those teams were the favorites, the ranking system was just that far off.
Since you said top 1-4 and using 4 teams, I was looking at the teams that played in District. All 4 of them. Doing a search for the top 2 teams in a District typically does not include 4 teams. If you use only the District Final game we should be looking at the 1-2 seeded team accuracy of voting. I doubt the RPI would have done any better.
I would also add that the placement the coaches put them selves in favored their paths to the District finals. Seeding can affect Sectional games more so than District.
We should assume the ranking system in Ohio will stay the same. You would have to do some explaining every year. On Feb 21 the D3 State Champ was ranked 9th in the state. None of the Final Four teams were #1 and one of them was not even in the top 10. So the ranking is not accurate but also has no affect on the results.
I would also add that the placement the coaches put them selves in favored their paths to the District finals. Seeding can affect Sectional games more so than District.
We should assume the ranking system in Ohio will stay the same. You would have to do some explaining every year. On Feb 21 the D3 State Champ was ranked 9th in the state. None of the Final Four teams were #1 and one of them was not even in the top 10. So the ranking is not accurate but also has no affect on the results.
The coach's #1 seed winning 9 of 12 district championships and only two seeds outside the top 4 getting to the district final tells me they did a great job seeding.
Not sure what the bold above means. Are you saying up there coaches can vote for their own team in seeding?
We agree the AP polls are garbage and shouldn't be, and aren't, used for anything but conversation. People do explain the AP poll every year by saying it is not accurate. Unfortunately that is the same thing to say about the RPI.
As I have said before, the majority of the coaches voting for the RPI are the ones that feel they get bumped down and are usually in the 4-10 range or even below if they are seeding a multi-district bracket. It's rarely difficult for coaches to pick the #1 seed.
Every coach in Ohio votes for other teams in a method to place his own team in the positions he wants or feels they deserve.
Again, silly! Most coaches I know down here want their teams to do well and go in the bracket that gives them the best chance, but they respect the tournament and each other too much to give you the 10 seed when you deserve the 4 just hoping that will help their team. Like I said above, each coach is one vote in a point system so you would have to have wide-spread collusion among coaches for this to materially impact seeding.
Every coach in Ohio wants their team to do well and go to a place in the bracket that gives them the best chance. If some coaches all over Ohio did not feel they were shorted by others in the vote, the discussion of the use of the RPI for seeding would have died at the directors meeting. IT was supported by directors all over Ohio to take it to the coaches for a vote.
You keep pointing out the difference between the 4 seed and the 10 seed. Coaches all over Ohio get upset when they get the 9th or 8th seed thinking they should be the 7th or 6th seed.
One other component that I think everyone isn't considering is that up here in NW the survey went out to all the Girls coaches in the district too and although the RPI system has never tracked that I'm sure it would be easy enough to add their records in to spit out those rankings/seeds. I can't think of any really bad draw scenarios on the girls side lately(maybe some but not aware) but in the past 2-3 years they had some bad voting on the all district stuff that was in the paper. The one girl from Toledo Christian that transferred in was D4 state player of the year but wasn't even voted poy in her league and also the van slotten girl from Toledo Notre Dame (play at IMG last year and was a Mcdonald All American) her junior year a league team voted her 13th best in the district, and think it cost her district poy but she was first team all state. Regardless, although the RPI doesn't solve player voting in any way my point is the girls side up here seems more chippy for some reason and I imagine all the Ad's and district officials are getting tired of dealing with this and complaints (from both boys and girls sides) and if it goes computer based its easy for them to say you want a better seed- win more games and we will schedule better games.
If coaches think they deserve the 6 seed and they get the 8 seed, and then whine about how they got screwed they are petty. Seeding being off by two or three spots from what a coach thinks is completely natural. The RPI is a solution looking for a problem, at least in SWOH, and I don't believe it has as much support state-wide as it does there since your coaches have voted and approved it and I can't find mention of it anywhere else in Ohio.
Screwing kids in voting for all-league/all-district is petty as well. Punishing kids because you don't like how they ended up at a school is awful. And going computer based for voting keeps administrators from having to do their job and address petty coaches who try to screw other teams/players out of what they deserve, whether it be seeding or recognition.
No one said anyone is whining. It's a feeling of being under valued. Some teams come in with very good records but some coaches know their strength of schedule is weaker or stronger than theirs. Some coaches value that while others feel winning is all the matters. Some coaches are loyal to friendships. Some coaches are loyal to league teams. Some coaches are former assistants to other coaches which can go either way. My career has taken me thru 3 of the 5 regions in the state. I have communicated with people from 4 of the 5 and it has support in every one. Not saying it will pass or be used, but their are coaches and ADs in all areas of the state who like the idea of an unbiased seeding system.
Semantics.....I didn't get what I think I deserve so change the system.
I wonder how the vote up there would have gone if you presented the D3 rankings to them before the vote. Any respectable HS coach, in light of that information, would have to say fix the flaws and then use it.
I like to be optimistic and think of it that if people feel there is injustice they do not want to see anyone else have to experience it. Plus the fact that 75% of the voting coaches supported the idea. So your semantics are not about a single "whiney" coach. HaHaHaHa
You seem to have the impression that the current system is perfect and someone wants to change to an imperfect system. Most would agree there is no perfect system. Football has found a consistent system that is unaffected by human feelings. I see this as basketball wanting to do the same. Nothing more.
My experience with following and reading about football, no personal experience, is that there have been teams left out that deserved to be in, so an example of feeling I deserve seed 8 and got 10. I don't recall a scenario like D3 RPI in basketball where Eitel was so far off of reality. Coaches seeding is definitely not perfect, but it is light years closer to actual than the D3 RPI.I like to be optimistic and think of it that if people feel there is injustice they do not want to see anyone else have to experience it. Plus the fact that 75% of the voting coaches supported the idea. So your semantics are not about a single "whiney" coach. HaHaHaHa
You seem to have the impression that the current system is perfect and someone wants to change to an imperfect system. Most would agree there is no perfect system. Football has found a consistent system that is unaffected by human feelings. I see this as basketball wanting to do the same. Nothing more.
Big difference too, again just 2nd hand knowledge, is many teams have perfected scheduling teams bad enough that I can win but good enough that they will win some games to get me 2nd level points. If basketball seeding becomes a formula that values wins, you will see teams scheduling easier which will be a detriment to the kids and us fans that want to watch good games all winter.
Can you agree two things are true, RPI provides a blanket system for seeding that takes out bias AND last year it was flawed and not a true ranking of the best teams in order?
You seem to forget in basketball nobody is left out so D3 basketball will work it out. Your scenario in football would be completely different had that same thing happened because of coaches voting. IT would have erupted.
I disagree that coaches will schedule easier teams. If they don't do it now they see the value in competition and those values will not change in the coach.
I agree it is unbiased and not a ranking system. There will never be a100% accurate ranking system for the state of Ohio. In D3 the #1 ranked team in the state did not make it to Columbus. But the #9 ranked team won it all. I guess we can agree that upsets do happen.
Nope, you couldn't do it
. The 40-something ranked team in the RPI won state. Using the AP poll being wrong to justify the RPI being horribly off is not working.If you believe coaches will screw each other in voting to get a higher seed how can you also say those same coaches will not schedule easy to get a higher seed? Seems very contradictory.
jj150
Active member
The rpi, if ever used, will get manipulated, (therefore be biased) possibly more than current system. Still don’t believe from my conversations that this change has much if any support. Keep throwing it out maybe it will stick
bingo, ding ding we have a winner….Nope, you couldn't do it
If you believe coaches will screw each other in voting to get a higher seed how can you also say those same coaches will not schedule easy to get a higher seed? Seems very contradictory.
What I was saying is nobody had the state winning team picked#1. Human or computer.Nope, you couldn't do it
If you believe coaches will screw each other in voting to get a higher seed how can you also say those same coaches will not schedule easy to get a higher seed? Seems very contradictory.
I think that way because one messes with another team. The schedule change messes with their own team.
Actually the coaches (humans) had Taft as the #1 seed in Cincy while the RPI would have had them 7th (now 4th after making adjustments). You made my point that the local coaches know better than "state-wide" media and or a computer.
Again, a coach gets one vote in a point system so no coach can impact seeding that much on their own. But scheduling awful teams and going 22-0 is a way to have a major impact on seeding if it is a formula.
So IF the SW would go to District champs by location Cincy would have two and Taft would have been one of the top two seeds in their district if the top 4 spread themselves between the two districts. You still have a stubborn spot that keeps forgetting the desire by the OHSAA to use a process that is the same for every member school.
Unless we have a lot more independent (no league) schools in Ohio then I am aware of, having total control of your schedule is not an options for many. And we both know that coaches mostly schedule non-league games for competition, rivalries and experience. Granted some coaches with schedule games for wins only, but I doubt we ever call many of them District Champs.
Ha...I have said many times that the RPI is a solution if all you are looking for is standardization, you have stubbornly resisted admitting the D3 RPI was garbageSo IF the SW would go to District champs by location Cincy would have two and Taft would have been one of the top two seeds in their district if the top 4 spread themselves between the two districts. You still have a stubborn spot that keeps forgetting the desire by the OHSAA to use a process that is the same for every member school.
Unless we have a lot more independent (no league) schools in Ohio then I am aware of, having total control of your schedule is not an options for many. And we both know that coaches mostly schedule non-league games for competition, rivalries and experience. Granted some coaches with schedule games for wins only, but I doubt we ever call many of them District Champs.
Teams probably average 10-12 non-conference games a season. Hopefully Taft would continue to schedule up like they did last year, but if all the sketchy coaches are colluding to manipulate seeding now, it only stands to reason they will manipulate the RPI through scheduling.