Rename this thread the best of the teams with the worst records and least harbin pts?
Best team likely not going to make the playoffs?
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
The region issue has 2 sides to it. Some regions are stacked with great teams and its unfair to other weaker regions. But the other issue is that some areas have a ton of bigger population schools for each division and artificially inflate harbin numbers. So if you just take top 32....yu get too many from bigger population areas.
Wasn't bait for you. Got no beef with Padua, I haven't ever watched them play. Point was Padua plays a top DIII schedule and by that dudes logic, Padua deserved a playoff berth due to the strength of their schedule and tight games against solid teams.
simkon
Well-known member
Padua does not play the type of schedule I was referencing, they do not play anywhere near that calliber of schedule. Padua played Ursuline, Lake Catholic, Walsh Jesuit, and Bishop Watterson the remainder of their schedule is garbage. I was in no way advocating for Padua being deserving of making the playoffs. Now if they also had Hoban, TCC, St. Ignatius, St. Edward, Archbishop Moeller, and St. Xavier on their schedule and played them all as competitively as anyone from D-III would have then I would advocate for them making the playoffs. But Padua does not play a schedule that is of the caliber I was referencing, but there actually have been teams to play schedules like that in the past and miss the playoffs despite being the best team in their division. On any given year there is not always a team in any given division with such a schedule.
simkon
Well-known member
St Johns is ranked 13th in their division and missed the playoffs. They lost to 8-2 Versailes, 10-0 Marion Local, 9-1 Coldwater, 8-2 Minster and their strength of schedule was 4th in their division.
Bishop Fenwick is ranked 28th in their division and 8th in their region and lost to 9-1 Mount Healthy, 10-0 Badin, 7-3 C-J, 7-3 Altar.
Chaney is ranked 25th in their division and 8th in their region and lost to Ursuline, Canfield, and Harding.
I think St. Johns has a legitimate case more so than the other 2.
raising4daughters
Well-known member
Those 5 opponents were certainly Padua's toughest but rest certainly are not garbage. If they are garbage, then how could Drew Pasteur rank Padua's schedule 5th toughest for all D3? Salem, Holy Name, and North Royalton underperformed to expectations but all were playoff teams in 2022 with Holy Name being Region 10 winner. NDCL is a solid and respectable program, and Sandusky beat us and is an R10 playoff contender.
Oh, and Brecksville earned a playoff berth in D2. Should Padua start scheduling IMG Academy and Mater Dei?
Last edited:
Got it, You're a Bishop Sycamore fan. No one in DIII is playing that schedule. Sillyness
raising4daughters
Well-known member
simkon
Well-known member
You jest but Mooney and Ursuline have played such a schedule in the past while being D-III, D-IV & D-V. And in one such year Mooney only won 3 games including defeating the eventual state champion in their division SV-SM by 40+ points. In some of these years Mooney was ranked nationally in the top 25 if I am not mistaken.
simkon
Well-known member
No I am citing everything very specifically, but no one seems to understand that I am talking about very specific circumstances that cannot be applied generally. That is the 2012 Mooney team is an example of what I described, this year's Padua teams is not, Mooney's schedule was ranked in the top ten of the state for ALL divisions, Padua Franciscan has a schedule that is only top 10 for D-III, these are two vastly different things. Being top 10 in D-III does not mean top 10 for all divisions. No one in D-III this year is top 10 for all divisions.Funny part is Simkon is disagreeing with both sides in other disagreements.
Bolts_Fan
Well-known member
You didn't change my mind... that was not a very persuasive argument.
St. Johns lost to 5-5 Anna and 4-6 New Bremen...
Fenwick lost to 5-5 McNicholas...
You can't say they lost to some great teams and that's why they should make it./ They also lost to some crap teams.
You pick your facts...the fact is, they weren't good enough.
simkon
Well-known member
Fortunately I could careless what you think, you are entitled to your opinion, but nothing says we have to see eye to eye on this. I am simply saying that these 3 teams were better than a significant number of teams that made the playoffs.
Calif_Eagle
Well-known member
IDK... I think playing tight games against good teams are still losses.*** And why should playing a tough schedule, in and of itself, qualify a team for the playoffs? It can't under the present Harbin system because you have to win at least 4 games in most divisions (D I excepted) with 16 quals per Region. But why should it at all?
I am from the school that says good to great teams show their good to greatness by winning games. The system also allows for the scheduling of Harbin Cows. It shouldn't but it does. So... if you want playoffs go shopping for opponents in Ohio's inner cities or look to States to the East and load up on urban Harbin Cows in Buffalo, Pittsburgh and points farther east. Then you can breeze in.
If you over schedule, that's on you. If no one local will play you, travel a bit or write a few guarantee checks.
With 16 qualifiers (
) anyone that deserves to be there, should be.*** I can see allowing for those types of things, tough schedule, close games vs. good teams, injuries etc. in your own PERSONAL ASSESSMENT of how good teams are and whether they should win an upcoming game or not. And maybe the system should have all those factors but injuries****
(IOW, results, SOS, and who, possibly even HOW you played in a loss) built into it. Drew Pasteur builds that kind of thing into HIS system. But, the system that really matters (or USED to), well... it doesn't.
**** No math-based rating system should grant any credence to injuries. Everyone should have a State Title if only they hadn't lost 9 games and missed the playoffs. Do we allow for graduation from last year's great team also? No. It depends on your current results, week by week. Whether everyone was playing or wasn't.
Last edited:
CatFoodFlambe
Active member
The only fair way to add a factor for "quality losses" would be to correlate the margin of loss (getting beat by a last minute 50-yard field goal isn't same as getting beat by 70 points). This opens a can of snakes in terms of a benefit in running up scores.
About the only way to moderate the incentive would be put a "fixed" margin of loss (say, a few points for a loss of less than 9 points). Even then, there will be just as much screaming and crying when (not if) when someone loses a game by more than the cutoff point on a last-minute "so what?" score and falls out of the playoffs as a result. Think your Week 10 archrival wouldn't just love to do exactly that?
About the only way to moderate the incentive would be put a "fixed" margin of loss (say, a few points for a loss of less than 9 points). Even then, there will be just as much screaming and crying when (not if) when someone loses a game by more than the cutoff point on a last-minute "so what?" score and falls out of the playoffs as a result. Think your Week 10 archrival wouldn't just love to do exactly that?
Calif_Eagle
Well-known member
Most good college rating systems put some kind of low cap in when they consider margin of victory or defeat at all. I think in a system that considers losses in some way (all should IMO) should definitely put strong emphasis on who you lost to.The only fair way to add a factor for "quality losses" would be to correlate the margin of loss (getting beat by a last minute 50-yard field goal isn't same as getting beat by 70 points). This opens a can of snakes in terms of a benefit in running up scores.
About the only way to moderate the incentive would be put a "fixed" margin of loss (say, a few points for a loss of less than 9 points). Even then, there will be just as much screaming and crying when (not if) when someone loses a game by more than the cutoff point on a last-minute "so what?" score and falls out of the playoffs as a result. Think your Week 10 archrival wouldn't just love to do exactly that?
In what I would do to the Harbin system, the WLT record of who you lost to would be as important as who you defeat. Losing to "Cleveland East" (now defunct Senate school) should not be the same as losing to a 10-0 Hoban (<- insert your favorite State Power here) team.
And I wouldn't factor in margin of victory at all. For the reason you just suggested. HS Football should be about sportsmanship, not rolling up a score to stick it to a rival, or some team or rival coach that you don't like.
TriangleMan
Hates Particle Man
From where are these rankings coming? Are these your personal rankings? Please cite your source.
Just a quick glance at Eitel/Calpreps/Pasteur:
St. Johns (4-6)
- Eitel: 20 (R26)
- Calpreps: 19 (D7)
- Pasteur: 8 (R26), 18 (D7), SOS 6
- Eitel: 18 (R16)
- Calpreps: 42 (D4)
- Pasteur: 9 (R16), 38 (D4), SOS 33
- Eitel: 19 (R9)
- Calpreps: 39 (D3)
- Pasteur: 10 (R9), 33 (D3), SOS 22
simkon
Well-known member
No not my personal rankings, they were Drew Pasteur's rankings as of when the original post was made, obtained from the cache of his website at that time. The rankings may have changed a bit after all the Saturday games were played, and after any Friday games that the results did not come in until late Friday night or Saturday. I didn't look too close, but how closely did the rankings line up with his most updated rankings?
scbuckeye99
Well-known member
It'll be interesting to see what role that sort of schedule plays going forward in the post season for them. It did get them a #2 spot which helps for the first two rounds.
aLefty
Active member
Yeah there is tons of teams that have no business in the playoffs this year (The School i graduated from included)
Calif_Eagle
Well-known member
Same with mine (Euclid). And they'll not only get whipped by Cleveland Heights, but 2 weeks ago when they played at Heights in the regular season, only players, cheerleaders and band and their family members were allowed in the stadium. Should make for a festive playoff atmosphere if that is repeated this week although the mausoleum atmosphere will at least be appropriate for one of the two "Cat" teams. Tigers and Panthers. The one w/o the black and gold stripes...
Last edited:
Dumb thread. Mooney knew they needed to win more than 3 games and they didn’t.
This is a joke. None of these teams are good. This whole thread has been entertaining though. Dumb, but entertaining. Sort of like two geeks getting in a calculator fight. If you didn’t make the top 16 it means a couple of teams crappier than you got in.
simkon
Well-known member
Regardless Mooney was still easily the best team in the state in their division despite missing the playoffs.
TriangleMan
Hates Particle Man
Is there a banner in Mooney's gym for this accomplishment? "We won 3, we were great but couldn't win any more than that."
simkon
Well-known member
No one else in their division would have won more than 1 game against their schedule (probably just 2 or 3 teams that would have managed this), and 99% of their division would have lost every game if they had to play Mooney's schedule. Mooney had a ridiculously difficult schedule and was ranked by the AP in the national top 25 around this time for several seasons. Mooney was playing the top teams in the state 3 divisions higher than them.
Here is a comparison to a simlar situation Glenville lost to Archbishop Hoban and Avon, which are only D-II and not even D-I like Mooney played (St. Edward, St. Ignatius, Archbishop Moeller, Mentor, Fitch, Harding, McKinley), yet no one is saying Glenville is garbage because they lost to Avon and Hoban and played a much easier schedule than Mooney.
Bolts_Fan
Well-known member
"In my Madden simulation, Mooney won the Super Bowl even though they missed the playoffs."
Easily the best team in the division was Lake Catholic who beat Mooney and didn't make the playoffs. Although NDCL beat Lake Catholic so maybe they're the best team in the state? How about the best in the state in division 3 that year was SVSM.........the team that actually won the state championship. Mooney sucked by the end of the year and whimpered home.