Your right HHS DAD

 

It does look familiar

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?p=1506108#post1506108

Let me preface this with the fact that I like the "outside the box" thinking.

 

However, this idea is full of challenges.

 

A. Who decides who goes in each division? Winning % is a poor way of doing it.

 

B. What if a school suddenly turns into a power? Do they get moved up? Does someone then move down?

 

C. What if you're in an area where there aren't many schools close to you that are in your division?

change it every 4-8 years, maybe 6. Just an example.... Those are the divisions as of today(not literally). In 6 years take the winning percentages again. Only use division games and division winning percentages. Bottom 4 in division 1 will be moved down to division 2. Top 4 in division 2 moved up. Same thing with bottom and top of 2 and 3 and 3 and 4.

 

Sound like a decent idea? I don't think regions look like a real tough problem.

Your right HHS DAD

 

It does look familiar

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?p=1506108#post1506108

Dang! :irked: :lol:

Let me preface this with the fact that I like the "outside the box" thinking.

 

However, this idea is full of challenges.

 

A. Who decides who goes in each division? Winning % is a poor way of doing it.

Placement will be decided based not only on your schedule, but your opponents schedules also. In other words a losing record against strong teams could get higher priority than a winning record against weak teams.

 

B. What if a school suddenly turns into a power? Do they get moved up? Does someone then move down?

Yes, they move. I prefer a shorter lookback period than thoman does. 3 years at most, possibly only one.

 

C. What if you're in an area where there aren't many schools close to you that are in your division?

I think we're going to see that problem anyway with 6 classes. I would reduce it to 3 divisions. Then, its unlikely that you will have to travel far to find a school in your division.

Yes, they move. I prefer a shorter lookback period than thoman does. 3 years at most, possibly only one year.

 

One year is too short. Some coaches seem to think that teams will take it easy one year, get moved down then dominate for a state championship. Teams won't take it easy for 6 or 8 years. That would be a huge gamble. I say change it either 4,6, or 8 years.

 

Forget the strength of schedule thing. Just take it like it is. Maybe have the first run through a little shorter, two years maybe. Reallign by division win percentage and then reallign every 4,6, or 8.

One year is too short. Some coaches seem to think that teams will take it easy one year, get moved down then dominate for a state championship. Teams won't take it easy for 6 or 8 years. That would be a huge gamble. I say change it either 4,6, or 8 years.

 

Forget the strength of schedule thing. Just take it like it is. Maybe have the first run through a little shorter, two years maybe. Reallign by division win percentage and then reallign every 4,6, or 8.

What's so hard about strength of schedule? You throw it into the computer and it spits out . Why move a team up if they play the worst teams they can find each year? Also by delaying the change of division, you offer no incentive to the current athletes. They're stuck in the basement no matter how good they do.

Thomam, I also like your out of the box thinking. There are some kinks in this concept, though. One that immediately comes to mind is strength of schedule. All winning percentages are not equal, and some schools would undoubtedly jimmy the system to their advantage. Look at last year's Manual or St. X schedule, then look at other team's schedules from last year. Under your proposal, should Manual or St. X in the future duck the tough discretionary games they now seek out? For example, would it be to Manual's advantage to drop Trinity? Should X drop Highlands, Bowling Green, Trinity and Lex Catholic? These are all discretionary games. Year in and year out this strategy would boost Manual or St. X's winning percentage.

Thomam, I also like your out of the box thinking. There are some kinks in this concept, though. One that immediately comes to mind is strength of schedule. All winning percentages are not equal, and some schools would undoubtedly jimmy the system to their advantage. Look at last year's Manual or St. X schedule, then look at other team's schedules from last year. Under your proposal, should Manual or St. X in the future duck the tough discretionary games they now seek out? For example, would it be to Manual's advantage to drop Trinity? Should X drop Highlands, Bowling Green, Trinity and Lex Catholic? These are all discretionary games. Year in and year out this strategy would boost Manual or St. X's winning percentage.

 

With SOS that would also hurt Trinity as our district is pretty weak too.