Scheduling / Harbin

cincyelder

Member
Hearing there are teams like the the 4 in the GCL South that are having a hard time scheduling to 10 games year in and year out. Often there are match-ups that should happen but because of the possible Harbin ramifications, they don't play or the schools opt to drop the series. Ive heard ADs specifically cite "we cant afford to risk that loss" OR "They are so bad we cant afford to play them. Also, teams are having to play multiple teams from out of state just to get to 10 games. Not to mention what happened to Winton Woods who only played 9 games this past season who was clearly better than the bottom couple teams that made it.

What if for Harbin, teams used their best 8 vs. all 10 games? Would the freedom of 2 "freebies" loosen things up or would teams then similarly game it. I suppose some teams may go 10-0 and possibly not make it because their 2 freebies didn't help them while a 7-3 or 6-4 made it.

Maybe there is no fix except "everyone makes it"
 

dhsdog06

Active member
Some kind of points for losses? Maybe a quarter or a half, just some incentive to schedule tough while still putting an increased emphasis on winning.
 

ghsknightsfan

Well-known member
this is an interesting idea. it could eliminate the problem of being stuck in a conference with one or two god awful teams. Greenon has this problem (Cedarville and Catholic Central). and for teams who always have a tough conference slate, it would give them some leniency for the OOC portion (the MAC). to clarify, this means your harbins are based on your best 8 games?
 

bkmk1

Well-known member
I personally think 2 things regarding this issue:
1. The math that goes into the Harbin is PATHETIC! (And I know many will disagree.). That's OK. But it is worthless. The formula without question needs to be re-thought out because it is garbage. Especially Level 2 points. I like the idea of computer points to qualify, but garbage in, garbage out.
2. I would love to see 2 regions in each division with 16 teams. Top 12 get in based on either the pathetic current Harbin or a tweaked Harbin formal. 4 would get in as an at large decided by a committee that can pick them based on who got left out of the computer 12, that they believe are better than others that got in or simply based on who they believe are the next best 4. That would give those teams that have those brutal schedules because teams run from them, a deserved shot at getting in. I, like others, hate when a team or teams get in and EVERYONE knows that there are teams that are not as good getting in ahead of them. And it happens a lot. And THAT makes no sense. Plus when you hear that a team is better off not playing a game than playing team "Y" and winning, that tells me a lot as well. That is a joke. The Harbin system is truly flawed.

FYI: this post is not to start an argument. I'm just expressing my opinion. I have no intention in getting into a back and forth disagreement over this. I will very much read other people's responses and opinions and will respect them, but will read and not respond at all. I know that it could get ugly. I get on yappi for fun and the passion of Ohio HS football, not to argue.
 

The Dock

Well-known member
Hearing there are teams like the the 4 in the GCL South that are having a hard time scheduling to 10 games year in and year out. Often there are match-ups that should happen but because of the possible Harbin ramifications, they don't play or the schools opt to drop the series. Ive heard ADs specifically cite "we cant afford to risk that loss" OR "They are so bad we cant afford to play them. Also, teams are having to play multiple teams from out of state just to get to 10 games. Not to mention what happened to Winton Woods who only played 9 games this past season who was clearly better than the bottom couple teams that made it.

What if for Harbin, teams used their best 8 vs. all 10 games? Would the freedom of 2 "freebies" loosen things up or would teams then similarly game it. I suppose some teams may go 10-0 and possibly not make it because their 2 freebies didn't help them while a 7-3 or 6-4 made it.

Maybe there is no fix except "everyone makes it"
This is along the lines of something I suggested during last season: set the L2 divisor to (n - 1) x Σ all games played by n - 1 opponents. So if you played ten games, it would be 9 x Σ games played by your opponents. ‘n - 1’ so as to drop the worst L2 gain. While I understand the current discussion is in the context of being “penalized for playing a tough schedule”, one concrete issue happening is the L2 average of many teams taking a hit because a league opponent of theirs goes 0-10. The Harbin system is designed to reward the scheduling of quality competition, if you were to win. That’s all fair and well, but when an 0-10 team you’re mandated to play can drop your team a few places in the regional top eight (or possibly sink you out of the playoffs!), it can generate some perverse motivations going forward.
 

HighSchoolFB45

Well-known member
I personally think 2 things regarding this issue:
1. The math that goes into the Harbin is PATHETIC! (And I know many will disagree.). That's OK. But it is worthless. The formula without question needs to be re-thought out because it is garbage. Especially Level 2 points. I like the idea of computer points to qualify, but garbage in, garbage out.
2. I would love to see 2 regions in each division with 16 teams. Top 12 get in based on either the pathetic current Harbin or a tweaked Harbin formal. 4 would get in as an at large decided by a committee that can pick them based on who got left out of the computer 12, that they believe are better than others that got in or simply based on who they believe are the next best 4. That would give those teams that have those brutal schedules because teams run from them, a deserved shot at getting in. I, like others, hate when a team or teams get in and EVERYONE knows that there are teams that are not as good getting in ahead of them. And it happens a lot. And THAT makes no sense. Plus when you hear that a team is better off not playing a game than playing team "Y" and winning, that tells me a lot as well. That is a joke. The Harbin system is truly flawed.

FYI: this post is not to start an argument. I'm just expressing my opinion. I have no intention in getting into a back and forth disagreement over this. I will very much read other people's responses and opinions and will respect them, but will read and not respond at all. I know that it could get ugly. I get on yappi for fun and the passion of Ohio HS football, not to argue.
Who would the committee consist of? Nobody can watch every game and know how good teams are like the college football committee. It’s a lot different for Ohio High School Football. Maybe it’s different for D1 schools, but no one is going to know exactly how Stuebenville, Mansfield Senior, Norwalk, Wapakoneta, Trotwood, and Mount Healthy are compared to each other. Or Kirtland, Ironton, Eastwood and CHCA. A lot of teams will get in based on just name or relationships between athletic directors/coaches and the committee.
 

ghsknightsfan

Well-known member
while i think a committee would be very interesting and fun i just think human bias will play a role. if someone is picking between Greenon and i don’t know.. West Liberty Salem, they could pick WLS as they are a program more known for being good at football. media attention will also play a big part in it. (this was not a shot at West Liberty-Salem, i have great respect for the tigers and am just making an example!)
 

Raider6309

Well-known member
Not putting together a damn committee to help six school out of 732. The six are Moeller, Lasalle, Xavier, Elder, Ignatius and Ed’s. Your methods of recruiting has given you this situation now deal with it. Play each other twice for all we care but don’t expect us to solve your schedule problems.
They will recruit an areas best athletes and wonder why they won’t play them
 

Cali_Eagle

Active member
I've posted the following or similar many times in the past over the years when this issue or similar comes up: The Harbin System only treats victories but doesn't acknowledge losses.. Lose to a 10-0 St Edward or to a 2-8 Lincoln-West and both losses are treated the same. A loss should be treated as the exact inverse or opposite of a victory.. First Level points should be DEDUCTED for each loss with Second Level points deducted for each game your opponent has lost. You would either gain or lose points depending the strength of your opposition and whether or not you won. (Rare Lightning or other reason tie games would be calculated as a win and a loss and net points would be given or deducted accordingly.)

Under this system losing to a 10-0 St Edward team would sting a little. Losing to a 2-8 team would be a disaster and cause a lot of damage to your net total Harbin score. It might possibly cause some AD's at larger schools to risk the big point bonanza against a "St. Edward" rather than reflexively flipping through the rolodex for a Senate League AD's phone number. (or whatever your local parallel situation in scheduling is.)
 

dhsdog06

Active member
I've posted the following or similar many times in the past over the years when this issue or similar comes up: The Harbin System only treats victories but doesn't acknowledge losses.. Lose to a 10-0 St Edward or to a 2-8 Lincoln-West and both losses are treated the same. A loss should be treated as the exact inverse or opposite of a victory.. First Level points should be DEDUCTED for each loss with Second Level points deducted for each game your opponent has lost. You would either gain or lose points depending the strength of your opposition and whether or not you won. (Rare Lightning or other reason tie games would be calculated as a win and a loss and net points would be given or deducted accordingly.)

Under this system losing to a 10-0 St Edward team would sting a little. Losing to a 2-8 team would be a disaster and cause a lot of damage to your net total Harbin score. It might possibly cause some AD's at larger schools to risk the big point bonanza against a "St. Edward" rather than reflexively flipping through the rolodex for a Senate League AD's phone number. (or whatever your local parallel situation in scheduling is.)
All fine, until somehow you lose points for a game you win. Think a team's L2 (if you win) should ALWAYS be at least 0.
 

HHW96

Active member
Here is what is happening down in my neck of the woods.... and I kind of dig it.

Bradenton Herald Article About Florida's New Playoff Qualification System

TL;DR: Add 35% of your win percentage, 35% of your opponents win percentage, and 30% of your opponent's opponents win percentage. Stack those up and take the top teams, with a straightforward tie break system

PRO: Lose a game to St Edward? Okay, you still get their SOS on your side for taking the game in the 2nd and 3rd tier of the calculations.
CON: Leagues that require nine league games are self-limiting. But I guess that is a choice by each school and conference how to set up.

I would probably tweak the model to 50/30/20 to put a little more emphasis on your team's win %. Though in FL's current iteration, "Best WIn" is a part of the tie breaker, so these is some consideration, just not enough IMO.

GO Wayne! #OnceAWarriorAlwaysAWarrior
Go Palmetto Tigers! (My new hometown team and state semi-finalist this past season!)
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
Here is what is happening down in my neck of the woods.... and I kind of dig it.

Bradenton Herald Article About Florida's New Playoff Qualification System

TL;DR: Add 35% of your win percentage, 35% of your opponents win percentage, and 30% of your opponent's opponents win percentage. Stack those up and take the top teams, with a straightforward tie break system

PRO: Lose a game to St Edward? Okay, you still get their SOS on your side for taking the game in the 2nd and 3rd tier of the calculations.
CON: Leagues that require nine league games are self-limiting. But I guess that is a choice by each school and conference how to set up.

I would probably tweak the model to 50/30/20 to put a little more emphasis on your team's win %. Though in FL's current iteration, "Best WIn" is a part of the tie breaker, so these is some consideration, just not enough IMO.

GO Wayne! #OnceAWarriorAlwaysAWarrior
Go Palmetto Tigers! (My new hometown team and state semi-finalist this past season!)
Maybe I am remembering wrong, but didn't the Harbin's used to do this formula with L3s? Maybe I'm going senile but I thought they did that for a while and then tweaked it to only give L2s.
 

Cali_Eagle

Active member
All fine, until somehow you lose points for a game you win. Think a team's L2 (if you win) should ALWAYS be at least 0.
I don't think you are grasping the idea quite correctly. If you win you get L1 points for the win and L2 points for each game your beaten opponent wins. If you LOSE you have L1 points deducted for the loss and L2 points deducted for each game the team that defeated you LOSES.

You cannot "lose points" for a game that you win. It's mathematically impossible.
As for losing games and thus losing points,, that doesn't matter either. The purpose of the Harbins or any other system is not to "score points" it's to rank the teams relative to each other, and finish in the top eight !!!

The scale or the values do not matter, all that matters is : what place you wind up in, relative to the other teams in the region. Why would
anyone care about losing points in a lost game? That's a good thing if you play a tough schedule, because EVERYONE is subject to the same penalities and you will get hurt less by playing and losing to "St Edward" or "Mentor" or "Colerain" or "St Xavier" (examples) then you will by losing to a cupcake. You will also gain more by defeating a strong team versus defeating said cupcake.

If you finish first or even 8th in a Region, who even cares what the final Harbin number/total you had was?
 
Last edited:

Cali_Eagle

Active member
Maybe I am remembering wrong, but didn't the Harbin's used to do this formula with L3s? Maybe I'm going senile but I thought they did that for a while and then tweaked it to only give L2s.
The Harbin system used to use L3's, but a flaw within the system allows a team to gain more L3's by losing to a bad team in a league situation than what they could gain on L1. The example that forced the change was 9-0-0 Warren Western Reserve facing 0-9-0 NEOL league foe Lorain Southview in 1972 or 1973. Southview was 0-4 in NEOL play and WWR was 4-0. When the Warren Tribune Chronicle ran the points they found that WWR was better served by losing to Southview Harbin points wise than they were winning. To their credit, they (WWR of course) went out and won easily 42-0 or 49-0 without forfeiting or using an ineligible player, etc. (Other NEOL members were Akron Hoban, Akron St. Vincent, Cuyahoga Falls and Barberton, for the curious.)
 
Last edited:

Rangerfan

Active member
Here is what is happening down in my neck of the woods.... and I kind of dig it.

Bradenton Herald Article About Florida's New Playoff Qualification System

TL;DR: Add 35% of your win percentage, 35% of your opponents win percentage, and 30% of your opponent's opponents win percentage. Stack those up and take the top teams, with a straightforward tie break system

PRO: Lose a game to St Edward? Okay, you still get their SOS on your side for taking the game in the 2nd and 3rd tier of the calculations.
CON: Leagues that require nine league games are self-limiting. But I guess that is a choice by each school and conference how to set up.

I would probably tweak the model to 50/30/20 to put a little more emphasis on your team's win %. Though in FL's current iteration, "Best WIn" is a part of the tie breaker, so these is some consideration, just not enough IMO.

GO Wayne! #OnceAWarriorAlwaysAWarrior
Go Palmetto Tigers! (My new hometown team and state semi-finalist this past season!)
In other words, this is the old RPI system that college basketball abandoned. The one they would say was nowhere near accurate after just the first 10 games of the season because it needed more data points before it would start to work properly.
 
.
Top