Soup Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 http://indianamat.com/messageboard/index.php/topic,29515.0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 With that link posted by soup, through Jasper is 3A (plus the new Muncie Central combo school and EMD). Through Oak Hill is 2A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 Would it be more accurate to have separate multipliers for each level? It would for sure, especially at the 1A level. (I have a whole process mapped out for not using a multiplier and instead just adjusting the number of qualifiers you got to each level, based on minute details of difficulty at every level of every path.) But it would be even more accurate if we considered full-season results and all injuries and all 8th graders as well. There's always the question of where we stop making the process beyond the scope of people's understanding. This thread and others ends up seeming complicated, but we've got the system boiled down to (Underclassmen + Seniors) X Multiplier (through SS R1) - Lineup adjustment. If people care, they can track their own score. A lot of people writing to me are doing just that. In my personal opinion, having a transparent point system that people can generally understand is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 Now updated through semi-state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 When is the vote by the all powerful committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 The voting the first two years has been in early April. Because they come from different parts of the state, they do it alongside a normal IHSWCA meeting weekend. The March meeting has always been too soon for the initial invited teams to have made sure they can adjust their schedules to accept the invite. This means the voting has happened in April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornet Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Not that I think this makes a significant difference to the end result, but I believe that Rossville is being undervalued by the current 1A ranking.. This past season we lost by 1 match to Lewis Cass and Clinton Central (twice), we also beat Fountain Central and several "big" schools. To top it off our entire varsity lineup returns next year with the addition of some good freshman. I'm not sure if you have all of our information, but I feel like we should be ranked higher than the current scenario shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decbell1 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Not that I think this makes a significant difference to the end result, but I believe that Rossville is being undervalued by the current 1A ranking.. This past season we lost by 1 match to Lewis Cass and Clinton Central (twice), we also beat Fountain Central and several "big" schools. To top it off our entire varsity lineup returns next year with the addition of some good freshman. I'm not sure if you have all of our information, but I feel like we should be ranked higher than the current scenario shows. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlevito Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Just curious. I noticed that 1A schools had a total of 4 underclassmen make it to state. How many seniors were there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Not that I think this makes a significant difference to the end result, but I believe that Rossville is being undervalued by the current 1A ranking.. This past season we lost by 1 match to Lewis Cass and Clinton Central (twice), we also beat Fountain Central and several "big" schools. To top it off our entire varsity lineup returns next year with the addition of some good freshman. I'm not sure if you have all of our information, but I feel like we should be ranked higher than the current scenario shows. You may be right that you are slotted lower than how you will perform next year, but scores are based strictly on how you performed in the state series: You scored 0 points in 3 weight classes, you had only 6 guys place in the top 6 in an average-level sectional, and you advanced 0 out of a below-average regional. Teams above you did more than that while facing similar levels of difficulty or did about the same in much more difficult paths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 25, 2014 Author Share Posted February 25, 2014 Now updated through state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is there any way to post a run down of the number of underclassmen returning from the teams that clinched and are eligible, along with how they did in the in the IHSAA State Tournament Series? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANMAN Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Is there any way to post a run down of the number of underclassmen returning from the teams that clinched and are eligible, along with how they did in the in the IHSAA State Tournament Series? I know Union County had 1 senior, and FF'ed 106 all year. That leaves 12 returning starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Is there any way to post a run down of the number of underclassmen returning from the teams that clinched and are eligible, along with how they did in the in the IHSAA State Tournament Series? Since this wasn't answered, and I was interested, below are the stats for the underclassmen of the teams that have clinched and are eligible. [table] [/td] [td]Team Multiplier Under SectQ Sect5/6 RegQ SSQ TicketStateQSeniorsTotal 1Churubusco1.238142010513 2Union County1.1012331410113 3 Bremen 1.07 8 2 5 1 0 006 14 4 Tecumseh 1.14 11 4 3 2 2 0 0 2 13 5 West Central 0.97 9 1 1 5 1 0 1 4 13 6 Monrovia 1.21 10 4 2 2 2 0 0 1 11 7 Central Noble 1.11 8 2 1 4 1 0 0 3 11 8 Milan 1.10 9 3 3 1 1 1 0 3 12 9 Westview 1.11 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 4 12 10 Triton Central 1.14 7 2 3 0 1 1 0 4 11 11 Prarie Heights 1.11 11 5 2 2 2 0 0 3 14 12 Eastide 1.23 11 6 0 4 1 0 0 1 12 13 Fremont 1.11 6 1 2 2 1 0 0 5 11 14 Tell City 1.16 10 3 4 3 0 0 0 1 11 15 Adams Central 0.84 11 0 3 4 3 0 1 2 13 16 Seeger 0.97 10 2 4 4 0 0 0 4 14 17 Winchester 0.96 9 1 2 5 0 1 0 2 11 18 North White 0.97 8 0 4 4 0 0 0 6 14 19 South Putnam 1.10 6 1 3 1 1 0 0 5 11 20 South Adams 0.84 9 0 5 2 1 1 0 4 13 21 North Knox 1.08 8 4 3 1 0 0 0 4 12 [/table] My thoughts: The multiplier spread is too wide. The things that caught my eye right away: 1) Churubusco with 5 seniors and 1 underclassmen ticket rounder dominated the scoring (40+ point advantage over second place). 2) The other Carroll sectional team, Eastside, had 6 sectional non placers and 2 forfeits and finished 12th in scoring. 3) Triton Central (AUTO-QUALIFIER) only returns 7 underclassmen, the second least of any eligible team, 5 of which didn't make it out of sectional, AND they forfeited 3 classes. 4) Lastly, with 11 underclassmen returning, including 4 regional qualifiers, 3 semi state qualifiers, and a state qualifier, Adams Central finished 15th in scoring, and will have to be voted in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maligned Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 Since this wasn't answered, and I was interested, below are the stats for the underclassmen of the teams that have clinched and are eligible. [table] [/td] [td]Team Multiplier Under SectQ Sect5/6 RegQ SSQ TicketStateQSeniorsTotal 1Churubusco1.238142010513 2Union County1.1012331410113 3 Bremen 1.07 8 2 5 1 0 006 14 4 Tecumseh 1.14 11 4 3 2 2 0 0 2 13 5 West Central 0.97 9 1 1 5 1 0 1 4 13 6 Monrovia 1.21 10 4 2 2 2 0 0 1 11 7 Central Noble 1.11 8 2 1 4 1 0 0 3 11 8 Milan 1.10 9 3 3 1 1 1 0 3 12 9 Westview 1.11 8 2 2 4 0 0 0 4 12 10 Triton Central 1.14 7 2 3 0 1 1 0 4 11 11 Prarie Heights 1.11 11 5 2 2 2 0 0 3 14 12 Eastide 1.23 11 6 0 4 1 0 0 1 12 13 Fremont 1.11 6 1 2 2 1 0 0 5 11 14 Tell City 1.16 10 3 4 3 0 0 0 1 11 15 Adams Central 0.84 11 0 3 4 3 0 1 2 13 16 Seeger 0.97 10 2 4 4 0 0 0 4 14 17 Winchester 0.96 9 1 2 5 0 1 0 2 11 18 North White 0.97 8 0 4 4 0 0 0 6 14 19 South Putnam 1.10 6 1 3 1 1 0 0 5 11 20 South Adams 0.84 9 0 5 2 1 1 0 4 13 21 North Knox 1.08 8 4 3 1 0 0 0 4 12 [/table] My thoughts: The multiplier spread is too wide. The things that caught my eye right away: 1) Churubusco with 5 seniors and 1 underclassmen ticket rounder dominated the scoring (40+ point advantage over second place). 2) The other Carroll sectional team, Eastside, had 6 sectional non placers and 2 forfeits and finished 12th in scoring. 3) Triton Central (AUTO-QUALIFIER) only returns 7 underclassmen, the second least of any eligible team, 5 of which didn't make it out of sectional, AND they forfeited 3 classes. 4) Lastly, with 11 underclassmen returning, including 4 regional qualifiers, 3 semi state qualifiers, and a state qualifier, Adams Central finished 15th in scoring, and will have to be voted in. Thanks for putting that together. I knew it had been asked, but I hadn't had the block of time to put the data out like that. (You should have asked for my data sheets...that took you a while!) Whatever the case, as I've admitted on this thread and to several people with questions privately, we made changes to the 1A system in an effort to bring its accuracy better up to snuff. (it will never be 100% accurate because there's just too much roster turnover with small schools, but I feel we can keep getting better. ) I ran a number of tests before getting the adjustments approved, but I didn't discover the "blind spot" that exists with the adjustments I made. That blind spot is an undervaluing of teams with BOTH a low multiplier and a high number of underclassmen and (to a lesser degree) an overvaluing of teams with a "normal" number of underclassmen and a high multiplier. The result is this: Adams Central is scored too low and shouldn't have had to be voted in. I don't think there are any egregious errors with the teams in the top 10, but AC should definitely have bumped someone down and there should be a better shot for a couple teams from the vote-eligible group to get one of the last 2 spots. I've already been scrambling to fix the "hole" for next year by better penalizing for forfeits. The new numbers I'm running are producing similar top teams, but with a bit more intuitive ordering of those teams. This is part of why I said I don't think there are egregious errors with the list above. With that said, I would comment on the observations BOG190 made: In general: Even with multipliers capped at 0.9 and 1.1, the same top 10 would be there, with the exception of AC moving in. I believe the problem is more about not having a better combination of multiplier application and penalties for forfeits. 1. 'Busco's score is inflated some, but there's no system (old scoring, new scoring, no multipliers at all) that would not have Busco as an auto qualifier. That's partly due to the fact that seniors' performance is a huge part of predicting your program's strength and therefore your score for next year. Busco's seniors added considerable value to their score. 2. Eastside had 5 underclassmen get to regional or beyond (less than only 1 team on this list), and did it from one of the 3 most crowded sectionals in the state. They also have 11 underclassmen total. I'm not necessarily saying they'll be the 12th best in 1A next year, but they stack up fine. 3. TC had good success from their seniors (see the Busco point about seniors being predictive of program quality) and were in the 4th most crowded path of all these teams. Again, I don't know if they're going to be a top 10 team, but they're very comparable with other teams' resumes. 4. See my discussion points above. I agree fully that AC should have a higher score. But it's not a multiplier issue. Again, it's more about the fact that the lineup adjustment component coupled with the low multiplier made them the single most undervalued team. This shortcoming of the scoring that was changed for this year will be changed for next year to better benefit teams with full lineups. Thankfully, I'm guessing their resume will make them a pretty clear choice for the selection committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rookie78 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 "Teams eligible for those positions will be sent a standardized form in which to include information about JV or 8th grade talent and/or individuals returning from injury that will affect their quality for next season." Just out of curiosity what type of criteria will be looked at when considering JV and incoming 8th/9th grade talent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rookie78 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Maligned, I was looking thru the data you guys have gathered and it shosw Prairie Heights with 2 regional qualifiers. Unless I am misunderstanding the numbers, it is incorrect. Prairie Heights had 4 regional qualifiers (1 freshman and 3 sophomores) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Maligned, I was looking thru the data you guys have gathered and it shosw Prairie Heights with 2 regional qualifiers. Unless I am misunderstanding the numbers, it is incorrect. Prairie Heights had 4 regional qualifiers (1 freshman and 3 sophomores) The data I posted above isn't approved by maligned. I put that together at the request of someone else. Did PH have 2 regional qualifiers and 2 semi state qualifiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rookie78 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The data I posted above isn't approved by maligned. I put that together at the request of someone else. Did PH have 2 regional qualifiers and 2 semi state qualifiers? Yes.....4 total kids at regional, 2 of which moved on to semi-state. Also, are seniors not counted as #s for sectional 5th/6th or as sectional qualifiers if they didn't advance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bog190 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Yes.....4 total kids at regional, 2 of which moved on to semi-state. Also, are seniors not counted as #s for sectional 5th/6th or as sectional qualifiers if they didn't advance? The above shows 2 regional qualifiers and 2 semi state qualifiers. I only separated the underclassmen, the seniors are just totaled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pski Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Bog If you are looking just at underclassman then Milan had 2 RegQ and 2 SSQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts