gbdriver80 wrote:No Penalty - At first glance, I thought I would come down on the other side of this but then after some thought realized the teams it hurts most are the teams that have a mis-seeded team in their bracket, not that particular team that left early. So rather than penalizing the team in question, we end up making higher seeded teams have to play a much better team in a slot they should be playing someone not as strong.
Get Lynned wrote:
There's no one from Lakewood that posts on this board (I don't believe...), but my understanding was a good chunk of their team was also participating in another school activity later that night.
Get Lynned wrote: Had Copley been at full strength last Saturday, someone would have been the odd man out. Maybe the state champion or state runner-up wouldn't have been had Copley, who was the #2 or #3 team based on Josh's statistical measures, been playing at full strength.
Tim the enchanter wrote:2. Regional Champs should be favored because you don't want to create a scenario where a regional champ is seeded lower than the team they beat because of the "stats".
Tim the enchanter wrote:You are likely correct as long as the lightning round is not included, but I still don't think it should be possible for a team to be seeded behind a team they beat in Regionals. Maybe an adjustment can be made for that scenario.
Tim the enchanter wrote:3. Final round stats should not be included because of uneven competition and more importantly, you don't want to create a situation where teams are "running up the score" on lesser teams with seeding in mind. I think there are numerous occasions on the regional level where teams can/do give lesser experienced players a chance to play in the final round to gain experience and not run up the score. I would hate to see that kind of sportsmanship disappear because points are needed for seeding.
trbenedict wrote:I do agree with Steven and Tim (and Joe) that a regional champion should always be seeded ahead of their region's runner-up, and if that were an option I would have voted for it...I just think that winning a regional should mean something a little extra other than "neat, you qualified, but still might get a worse seed than a team you beat on the buzzer."
trbenedict wrote:This may not be the right place to bring it up, and I'm sure the conversation has taken place before without me being around for it, but has there been any thought to being more intentional about seeding OAC Regionals, sort of like the NCAA basketball tournament? (That is, the NCAA tournament has "regions," but the tournament is still seeded as a whole field, and in the old days when cross-country travel was still an issue this was also taken into account for where to send the basketball teams). If one traditional OAC region is, statistically speaking, loaded, and another isn't, would the committee consider, say, sending a traditionally "North Coast" team to Northeast (regional sites ~1 hr apart), or a traditionally "West Central" team to Southwest (regional sites also ~1 hr apart)? We may not quite be there yet, but as the parity in the game gets better and better it's something to consider. Regarding travel, we already ask some Southeast teams to drive to Lancaster for their regional, and Lakewood (Cuyahoga) had put in three hours of travel to play (I know that they were at-large), so we're already asking teams to drive kind of far in some scenarios.
Tim the enchanter wrote:You are likely correct as long as the lightning round is not included, but I still don't think it should be possible for a team to be seeded behind a team they beat in Regionals. Maybe an adjustment can be made for that scenario.
Get Lynned wrote:PPB is used as a primary tiebreaker/afternoon placement criteria, and I like it for that fact: it doesn't matter so much what your buzzer does in runaway games, but instead what you do shooting uncontested three-pointers /metaphor.
BobKilner wrote:We have a rather unique setup when it comes to regionals --> states and qualifying and such, but does any other state that uses regional-type play use a seeding format for their state tournament (IL, VA, ??)
QBWiki wrote:The IHSA State Series uses a Regional-Sectional-State format, and in two classes (AA for large schools, A for smaller schools). Schools are assigned, geographically to one of eight sectionals in their class (usually in January). The coaches then meet (usually in mid-February) and seed the top 8 teams in the sectional. Afterwards, the IHSA will place each team in the sectional into one of four regional tournaments, with an effort made to separate the top 8 seeds (1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5), and arranging so that seeds only meet in the Regional finals. Other teams are placed in the single-elimination bracket at random. The Regional tournament is usually held after school on a Monday in early March.
The four regional winners meet at the sectional tournament the next Saturday. The sectional is a four-team round robin. If there is a tie between two teams, it is broken based on head-to-head results, with a three-way tie broken based on the total scores of the teams scored against the other tied teams.
The State Championship Tournament is held on the next Friday at the Peoria Civic Center (since 1997). The winners of the 8 sectionals in each class are randomly assigned to one of two pools of four teams. Each team plays the three other teams in their pool, with the winners of the two pools meeting for the state championship, and the runner-up in each of the pools playing a third place match. Ties in each pool are broken according to the same rulesin the sectional.
rmaupin wrote:Plus, what do we do about protests for all of the regional tournament matches? Right now, we only entertain protests if it could result in a change to the outcome of a specific match. Theoretically, a contentious issue for every match (in the team and alphabet rounds), could be something that would have to have a protest entertained every single time because we don't who will go to state in advance. This could theoretically slow down the regional tournaments even further.
rmaupin wrote:b. It also makes it easier if the two truly best teams in the state happen to be in the same region, to play in the state finals
rmaupin wrote:Could another possible alternative to having a detailed stat-driven seeding system be:
Once the 12 teams that have qualified for state have been determined, have an on-line vote in advance among the 12 coaches (plus perhaps OAC ExCom members) to seed those teams, with the caveat that no regional-runner up can be seeded higher than the champion in their region? It would alleviate any mistakes made by stats from regionals, and the voting coaches (and possibly OAC ExCom members) voting would have a pretty good idea of who is good and not-so-good state wide. Seems a lot less cumbersome than driving everything by just data. As a compromise for those that do want a lot of data as part of the process, we could vote to require Josh's data be tabulated and forwarded on to all voting state seeding members to help with the voting process.
Tim the enchanter wrote:You could avoid the "group of death" and keep Regional integrity by only seeding the regional winners and putting the 2nd place teams opposite the winners in the state bracket.
The Poll wrote:Alphabet +(Team Questions Pts.*2)Regional winners NOT favored in seeding, but are guaranteed a higher seed than their regional runner-up
rmaupin wrote:Of course, if you're talking about having a committee voting to seed (like NCAA Basketball) injuries (absences) of players are taken into account (ex. Kenyon Martin's broken leg affecting UC's seed in 2001)
gbdriver80 wrote:rmaupin wrote:Could another possible alternative to having a detailed stat-driven seeding system be:
Once the 12 teams that have qualified for state have been determined, have an on-line vote in advance among the 12 coaches (plus perhaps OAC ExCom members) to seed those teams, with the caveat that no regional-runner up can be seeded higher than the champion in their region? It would alleviate any mistakes made by stats from regionals, and the voting coaches (and possibly OAC ExCom members) voting would have a pretty good idea of who is good and not-so-good state wide. Seems a lot less cumbersome than driving everything by just data. As a compromise for those that do want a lot of data as part of the process, we could vote to require Josh's data be tabulated and forwarded on to all voting state seeding members to help with the voting process.
I don't want to say this would never work because in theory it should but I do see two major problems with it:
1) Some people are just uninformed and don't care enough to actually put enough thought into a ballot. Yes, even people who have a team qualified for State, etc. can some time fall into that category imo at least.
2) A lot of people can factor in their own agendas when voting. Ex. I don't want to play Team X so I am going to rank them here because that makes it more likely.
I don't have a vote but I could never get behind something that is not purely quantitative because it leads to too many possible problems. (I would like to in theory but I also don't want to be sued like we almost were long ago...)
Get Lynned wrote:Am I correct in assuming that...The Poll wrote:Alphabet +(Team Questions Pts.*2)Regional winners NOT favored in seeding, but are guaranteed a higher seed than their regional runner-up
also means that teams leaving early aren't assessed a (direct) penalty? I'm assuming this is the case, and that the teams that do leave early are only 'penalized' by being seeded behind the regional champion, right (as opposed to having their divisor be seven if they only played six games?)
I'm just trying to make sure that there is no penalty clause here.
Return to General Announcements
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests