I don't know, didn't even look

 

Seriously, I don't know the PF and PA that year compared to So Oldham and Conner.

 

Just seems like a fair way to do it when you take into account common opponents than use opponents that the other teams didn't even play to decide tie breakers.

 

Even though you are the self described BGP's most unbiased poster - I don't believe you. Issue was way too emotional for you.

I have one possible, however unlikely scenario.....Male beats St. X, Trinity beats Male and all three beat Manual. Those wins versus out of state teams would do Trinity some additional good. I recall a time when games versus out of state teams would not factor in tie-breaker system. Does anyone else remember this or am I mistaken? I was happy to read those do count and with Carmel, Imhotep, Cocoa, and Cathedral picking up victories, this schedule could save Trinity a three hour tour of western Kentucky in the first week of November! It's a long road to Halloween. Enjoy the ride.

 

If any team goes winless in the Super District it will be Trinity, their only chance at a win just passed with their loss to St. X.

If any team goes winless in the Super District it will be Trinity, their only chance at a win just passed with their loss to St. X.

 

Or Manual or Male

Even though you are the self described BGP's most unbiased poster - I don't believe you. Issue was way too emotional for you.

I just looked it up. If the tie breaker was my original suggestion the seeding would have finished this way in 2012

 

So Oldham 1st

Conner 2nd

Cooper 3rd

 

and I would have been fine with it because at least it gave all teams involved the same opponents and the outcome was up to them not someone else. That was for Points For.

 

Then when people began to complain about that and saying they would just run scores up (like they aren't anyway by a lot of teams) Then I said ok then with the Points For as 1st tie breaker and Points Against as 2nd Tie Breaker, I said ok we could switch them and do Points Against as 1st tie breaker and Points For as 2nd

 

If it was switched to Points against as 1st tie breaker it would have ended this way

 

Cooper 1st seed

So Oldham 2nd Seed

Conner 3rd Seed

 

So there you go. The first one I suggested would have had Cooper 3rd which isn't what you were expecting huh?

I just looked it up. If the tie breaker was my original suggestion the seeding would have finished this way in 2012

 

So Oldham 1st

Conner 2nd

Cooper 3rd

 

and I would have been fine with it because at least it gave all teams involved the same opponents and the outcome was up to them not someone else. That was for Points For.

 

Then when people began to complain about that and saying they would just run scores up (like they aren't anyway by a lot of teams) Then I said ok then with the Points For as 1st tie breaker and Points Against as 2nd Tie Breaker, I said ok we could switch them and do Points Against as 1st tie breaker and Points For as 2nd

 

If it was switched to Points against as 1st tie breaker it would have ended this way

 

Cooper 1st seed

So Oldham 2nd Seed

Conner 3rd Seed

 

So there you go. The first one I suggested would have had Cooper 3rd which isn't what you were expecting huh?

 

The way the system is now is honestly the most fair. It doesn't penalize teams who play a tougher schedule, and doesn't reward teams if they play a weak schedule. It rewards teams who do play a tougher schedule and gets wins against those other winning teams. Just like the year with Cooper, it was just very bad luck with how it worked out for them. Since Conner and South Oldham happened to have more wins against teams that also had a lot of wins. This system makes it to wear who you play does matter because you need to beat those teams that also have winning records. I would say the chances of a 9 and 1 team ended up as a third seed is very rare, but just so happened to have everything play out right that year for it to happen. At the end of the day it worked out well for Cooper being the three seed.

The way the system is now is honestly the most fair. It doesn't penalize teams who play a tougher schedule, and doesn't reward teams if they play a weak schedule. It rewards teams who do play a tougher schedule and gets wins against those other winning teams. Just like the year with Cooper, it was just very bad luck with how it worked out for them. Since Conner and South Oldham happened to have more wins against teams that also had a lot of wins. This system makes it to wear who you play does matter because you need to beat those teams that also have winning records. I would say the chances of a 9 and 1 team ended up as a third seed is very rare, but just so happened to have everything play out right that year for it to happen. At the end of the day it worked out well for Cooper being the three seed.

I don't think it would have mattered that year if Cooper was 1 or 3, they still would have made it to WKU imo. The only downside of it was because of no home games Cooper fans and team traveled over 1700 miles which was a lot of hours spent in cars lol.

I just looked it up. If the tie breaker was my original suggestion the seeding would have finished this way in 2012

 

So Oldham 1st

Conner 2nd

Cooper 3rd

 

and I would have been fine with it because at least it gave all teams involved the same opponents and the outcome was up to them not someone else. That was for Points For.

 

Then when people began to complain about that and saying they would just run scores up (like they aren't anyway by a lot of teams) Then I said ok then with the Points For as 1st tie breaker and Points Against as 2nd Tie Breaker, I said ok we could switch them and do Points Against as 1st tie breaker and Points For as 2nd

 

If it was switched to Points against as 1st tie breaker it would have ended this way

 

Cooper 1st seed

So Oldham 2nd Seed

Conner 3rd Seed

 

So there you go. The first one I suggested would have had Cooper 3rd which isn't what you were expecting huh?

 

:clap:

I just looked it up. If the tie breaker was my original suggestion the seeding would have finished this way in 2012

 

So Oldham 1st

Conner 2nd

Cooper 3rd

 

and I would have been fine with it

Come on man :lol2: We know you wouldn't have been.

Come on man :lol2: We know you wouldn't have been.

Sure I would have been.

 

My entire point this entire time and even back in 2012 was the tie breaker should be done with common opponents which is district games if you weren't taking overall record as a tie breaker.

 

I wouldn't have any problem

With it.

I do not like any tiebreak that involves points or point difference among district opponents. That lends itself to running up the score. Especially in the last district game when a team knows what score needs to be attained.

 

And God help the poor 5th place team that is getting waxed by three teams trying to make sure they are the 1 seed and not the 3 seed.

I do not like any tiebreak that involves points or point difference among district opponents. That lends itself to running up the score. Especially in the last district game when a team knows what score needs to be attained.

 

And God help the poor 5th place team that is getting waxed by three teams trying to make sure they are the 1 seed and not the 3 seed.

That is why my 2nd suggestion would be to start with points against. No running score up with that.

 

The reason I brought these suggestions up is because of one thing, and it is what truly irritated me in 2012 when a few people who of course only wants 2 teams per distric to make it to the playoffs said Cooper didn't deserve to be in because they were a 3 seed. They then said that if Cooper deserved to be in the playoffs then they should have beat the teams on their schedule. This after Cooper won more games than anyone else in their district yet they said Cooper didn't deserve to be in the playoffs. Yet it was alright for the other teams to lose more games, they deserved in but Cooper didn't because they were the 3 seed. Ignorant statements like that made me look at tiebreaker rules where it would actually be fair. Again fairest way if you refuse to use overall record as a tie breaker then at least use something that is fair as in how teams played against their own district teams. It makes the most sense seeing how non district games have nothing to do with seeding if there isn't a tie, so why should they matter if their is a tie?

Is there a way to make sure you don't end up in a 3 way tie?

Is there a way to make sure you don't end up in a 3 way tie?

No. Even if you use overall record you could actually have 3 teams with 9-1 record. For instance in a 5 team district, they all could go undefeated out of district play and then

team A beats team E, B and D but loses to team C

team B beats team C, D, and E but loses to A

team C beats team A, D and E but loses to B

Because as was pointed out' date=' that will help eliminate trying to purposely run up the score. Either way it's a much MUCH better system than the broken system KHSAA currently uses. When teams play different teams outside district there is no measuring stick at all. At least this way all the teams are compared against the same teams they played which would do a lot more to determining who the better teams was. There will always be some scenerios that you talked about in every tie breaker. For instance 2012 when Conner got the #2 seed over Cooper they got it because the last game of the season where they were still playing for a high seed and at the time playing for the #1 seed played a team Cov Cath who already had their playoff spot locked in and sat most of their starters. Conner goes on to win against backups and even though Cooper also won the last week and had a better overall record that knocked Cooper down to a #3 seed. and how is that any fairer than the scenario you talked about? When a team has to depend on factors out of it's control such as how many games did a teams opponent win during the season, well that isn't very fair because the team fighting for the top seed has no say in who their opponents play during the season.[/quote']

 

 

Pretty sure CCH played their starters.

 

Here's the broadcast. All of the players mentioned for CCH are starters.

 

http://ibn.ezstream.com/play/index.cfm?fuseaction=embstay&id=321E2DC20F&dsplvl=brd&org=nhsbn

Edited October 9, 201411 yr by Clyde

That is why my 2nd suggestion would be to start with points against. No running score up with that.

 

But teams would leave starters in when up 35-0 and 3 minutes left in the game.

 

And let's just pretend that Highlands, CovCath, Dixie, and Beechwood were a district this year......and that the last three lost to Highlands 42-7.

 

Now going into the Beechwood/ Covcath game if Beechwood wins they along with Dixie and CovCath all finish 1-2 in the district so we have to break the tie for 2nd, 3rd and 4th seed.

 

Using points against.....

 

Dixie gave up 42, 41, 21 so 104 total

 

CovCath gave up 42, 7, so 49 total with 1 game left

 

Beechwood gave up 42, 48 so 90 total with 1 game left.

 

So now CovCath has a 41 point advantage over Beechwood going into their game..........so if Beechwood wins they have to do it big time.... Lets say Beechwood is up 35-0 late......better step on the gas and make it 42-0 and get that home game.