|
Post by runandbunt on Mar 29, 2019 12:53:46 GMT -6
Anybody have an opinion on LHSAA standardizing district schedules. Some play each other once while other twice or even three times. Seems it can really distort the PR if playing vs. weak district schedule 2 or even 3 times each.
|
|
|
Post by blake2448 on Mar 29, 2019 16:13:10 GMT -6
I like how 3 3 a does it they play a home and home on Tues and Thursdays of the same week. That way a team with 1 good arm cant work the schedule to where the ace pitches every district game.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Apr 4, 2019 4:44:45 GMT -6
I don't know what the hell 8-5A is doing having us play some teams twice and others once... And it's not divided between the four actual baseball teams in district (Chalmette, Ehret, EJ, and Higgins) and the other four schools (GK, WJ, Bonnabel, and LW). Those are the groups who should have played each other twice
|
|
|
Post by whodats on Apr 4, 2019 6:44:32 GMT -6
I think it depends on the number of teams in each district as to how many times each team plays each other. I do believe that each district team should play each other at a minimum of twice each year though.
|
|
|
Post by cjr3888 on Apr 4, 2019 8:36:53 GMT -6
We play most teams in district back to back. Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday are the days the games are played. This way nobody can save their one ace pitcher for the same team. When we play Jeanerette, Franklin, & West St Mary its normally a double header to get the games out the way.
|
|
|
Post by wshs on Apr 4, 2019 8:52:36 GMT -6
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the teams in the district decide how they want to schedule the district games? Last year we played each team 3 games, one on Tuesday and a double header on Thursday. This year we are only playing two each, one on Tuesday and one on Thursday. I like the fact that we are only doing two games against the really weak teams, but would have preferred a three game series against the only team that really competes in our district.
|
|
|
Post by blake2448 on Apr 4, 2019 9:04:38 GMT -6
Yes, i think the coaches during the district meeting set how many times they will play each other.
|
|
|
Post by Strike3 on Apr 4, 2019 10:33:31 GMT -6
I think playing a district team 3 times is too much. I wouldnt want my schedule filled with that many mandatory games. 2 times in the same week seems to be the best option.
|
|
|
Post by blake2448 on Apr 4, 2019 11:11:04 GMT -6
Some districts it works for, but there are some districts like 2-3A where the only games where only 2 of the 6 play a schedule other than the district games. It is hard on their power point rankngs to play games like that, and it would be even worse if they played twice.
|
|
|
Post by wshs on Apr 4, 2019 11:34:50 GMT -6
It all averages out in my opinion. Every district has weaker teams in it, but at the end of the day you are guaranteed at least 20 power points plus the number of wins they have for defeating them. That amount of points will almost always be more or equal to taking a loss from a quality team. You want power points to increase, have a tough non district schedule and win more of them than you lose.
|
|
|
Post by blake2448 on Apr 4, 2019 12:31:01 GMT -6
Yeah, I would imagine the two schools that play full schedules are outvoted by the schools that only field a team for district games.
|
|
|
Post by whodats on Apr 4, 2019 13:02:08 GMT -6
If your team plays in a weak district then they should schedule tougher non-district teams if worried about power rankings. The thing about weak districts that bothers me the most is that you can have a district champion that isn't even in the top 32 and they bump a team out of the playoffs that actually played better competition. In my opinion, a district championship should be about bragging rights only and not guarantee you a playoff spot. There is too much disparity between districts to do it that way. If we are going to use a power ranking system, then it should be the top 32 teams that make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by wshs on Apr 4, 2019 13:13:44 GMT -6
Yes I'm sure those four teams decide the schedule for that district and I understand what you mean about it affecting the two teams with full schedules power points. That being said, Sterlington plays one of the toughest schedules in the state. Having four games with an automatic 20+ power points is really not that significant to their overall power point rankings.
|
|
|
Post by blake2448 on Apr 4, 2019 13:16:31 GMT -6
yes i agree but having 8 or 12 might be detrimental if they went to the model some of the other districts have. Sterlington already plays 30+ games for the year, and their non district is impressive.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Apr 4, 2019 21:28:53 GMT -6
If your team plays in a weak district then they should schedule tougher non-district teams if worried about power rankings. The thing about weak districts that bothers me the most is that you can have a district champion that isn't even in the top 32 and they bump a team out of the playoffs that actually played better competition. In my opinion, a district championship should be about bragging rights only and not guarantee you a playoff spot. There is too much disparity between districts to do it that way. If we are going to use a power ranking system, then it should be the top 32 teams that make the playoffs. are the playoffs really missing much by having a weaker district champion as opposed to whoever is #32? ?? seems like the district champion, as the champion of something, would deserve to be in the playoffs more.
|
|
|
Post by wshs on Apr 5, 2019 7:14:30 GMT -6
I agree. The schools don't determine who is in their district. Regardless of how weak the district is, the champion should make the playoffs over a #32 seed. Now... these teams that squeak into the playoffs and forfeit the first round game because they don't care enough to play should be punished in some way in my opinion. If they don't want to play, they should let it be known in time for a team that does want to play to fill in.
|
|
|
Post by whodats on Apr 5, 2019 9:11:17 GMT -6
If your team plays in a weak district then they should schedule tougher non-district teams if worried about power rankings. The thing about weak districts that bothers me the most is that you can have a district champion that isn't even in the top 32 and they bump a team out of the playoffs that actually played better competition. In my opinion, a district championship should be about bragging rights only and not guarantee you a playoff spot. There is too much disparity between districts to do it that way. If we are going to use a power ranking system, then it should be the top 32 teams that make the playoffs. are the playoffs really missing much by having a weaker district champion as opposed to whoever is #32? ?? seems like the district champion, as the champion of something, would deserve to be in the playoffs more. My point isn't how much the playoffs are missing or gaining by having a district champion from a weak district. It's about putting the most deserving teams into the playoffs who earned it. Just because a team wins a district championship from a weak district, doesn't make them a good team. That is why teams have non-district schedules. If a team is in a weak district, then they should schedule better teams in their non-district games. That way if they compete and win some non-district games then their power ranking should be high enough to make the top 32 if they take care of business in their weak district. I thought the point of the playoffs was to allow the best teams to play it out on the field. I thought the power rankings were supposed to give a measuring stick as to how good a team is. If a district champion can't make it into the top 32 then I don't believe that team has earned the right to play in the playoffs over a team that has played a tougher schedule and has done better because the power rankings have them ranked as one of the best 32 teams in their respective class.
|
|
|
Post by blake2448 on Apr 5, 2019 11:04:58 GMT -6
Then what is the point of having districts. By that reasoning we should just do away with districts and let the top 32 make it.Before power points I remember years ago a district champion in a 2 team district made the playoffs in boys basketball i think with 2 wins on the year. The district runners up were also guaranteed a spot then in the bracket and they finished winless. I agree the power points should determine wild card teams, but the district champions have always been guaranteed a spot regardless of the perceived strength of a district.
|
|
|
Post by whodats on Apr 5, 2019 12:15:04 GMT -6
Then what is the point of having districts. By that reasoning we should just do away with districts and let the top 32 make it.Before power points I remember years ago a district champion in a 2 team district made the playoffs in boys basketball i think with 2 wins on the year. The district runners up were also guaranteed a spot then in the bracket and they finished winless. I agree the power points should determine wild card teams, but the district champions have always been guaranteed a spot regardless of the perceived strength of a district. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with districts. Like I said earlier, I think they should be more for bragging rights than determining playoffs. The example that you give with a 2 team district winning 2 games and the runners up being winless and both making the playoffs is a great example of not putting the best teams in the playoffs. In your example, I would think that there were at least two teams that were much better than the two that made the playoffs because they get to call themselves "District Champions" or "Runners Up." Personally, I wouldn't feel a sense of accomplishment had my team won two games and got to call myself a district champion. Champions and two wins in a season doesn't even belong in the same sentence. Those two teams that were more deserving were left out of the playoffs and I just don't see how that is right when the goal should be to put the best competition in the playoffs.
When it comes to perceived strength of district, it's not a perception. It's reality. There are teams that play in weak districts and know that there districts are weak. The right thing to do would be to schedule tougher competition in the non-district part of the season to balance out there entire season. However, some districts will purposely not schedule tougher competition because they know that they will get at least one team in the playoffs due to someone having to win the district. It could possibly be two teams in the case of Co-District champions which makes it even that much worse!
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Apr 5, 2019 12:51:18 GMT -6
Then what is the point of having districts. By that reasoning we should just do away with districts and let the top 32 make it.Before power points I remember years ago a district champion in a 2 team district made the playoffs in boys basketball i think with 2 wins on the year. The district runners up were also guaranteed a spot then in the bracket and they finished winless. I agree the power points should determine wild card teams, but the district champions have always been guaranteed a spot regardless of the perceived strength of a district. I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with districts. Like I said earlier, I think they should be more for bragging rights than determining playoffs. The example that you give with a 2 team district winning 2 games and the runners up being winless and both making the playoffs is a great example of not putting the best teams in the playoffs. In your example, I would think that there were at least two teams that were much better than the two that made the playoffs because they get to call themselves "District Champions" or "Runners Up." Personally, I wouldn't feel a sense of accomplishment had my team won two games and got to call myself a district champion. Champions and two wins in a season doesn't even belong in the same sentence. Those two teams that were more deserving were left out of the playoffs and I just don't see how that is right when the goal should be to put the best competition in the playoffs.
When it comes to perceived strength of district, it's not a perception. It's reality. There are teams that play in weak districts and know that there districts are weak. The right thing to do would be to schedule tougher competition in the non-district part of the season to balance out there entire season. However, some districts will purposely not schedule tougher competition because they know that they will get at least one team in the playoffs due to someone having to win the district. It could possibly be two teams in the case of Co-District champions which makes it even that much worse!
let's remember that you're trying to replace one team that will get run ruled with a different team that will get run ruled...
|
|
|
Post by whodats on Apr 5, 2019 13:27:53 GMT -6
I wouldn't be opposed to doing away with districts. Like I said earlier, I think they should be more for bragging rights than determining playoffs. The example that you give with a 2 team district winning 2 games and the runners up being winless and both making the playoffs is a great example of not putting the best teams in the playoffs. In your example, I would think that there were at least two teams that were much better than the two that made the playoffs because they get to call themselves "District Champions" or "Runners Up." Personally, I wouldn't feel a sense of accomplishment had my team won two games and got to call myself a district champion. Champions and two wins in a season doesn't even belong in the same sentence. Those two teams that were more deserving were left out of the playoffs and I just don't see how that is right when the goal should be to put the best competition in the playoffs.
When it comes to perceived strength of district, it's not a perception. It's reality. There are teams that play in weak districts and know that there districts are weak. The right thing to do would be to schedule tougher competition in the non-district part of the season to balance out there entire season. However, some districts will purposely not schedule tougher competition because they know that they will get at least one team in the playoffs due to someone having to win the district. It could possibly be two teams in the case of Co-District champions which makes it even that much worse!
let's remember that you're trying to replace one team that will get run ruled with a different team that will get run ruled... Likely but not a given. At least it would be the more deserving team that gets the shot because they earned the right to be there. The first round is going to be all about pitching matchups anyway since it's one and done. A good pitcher can always give his team a chance. I don't agree with the first round being one and done either simply because a bad team can have one good pitcher. Baseball was made to be played in a series. I believe all playoff rounds should be best 2 out of 3.
|
|