Richlands final record predictions?

[cityofRaven 2,444]

Some of y'all must have had a sub .500 man steal your girlfriend away from you. 

[BigWinners 1,643]

10 hours ago, UVAObserver said:

I never said they were "horrible".  I said that they aren't worthy of a playoff spot in a legitimate system.

I'm not sure there are eight better Region D AA teams. 

 

Union, Graham, VHS, Marion, RV, Marion, Battle, then who? Giles/Glenvar are Region C IIRC. 

[TTownTigers 82]

1 hour ago, BigWinners said:

I'm not sure there are eight better Region D AA teams. 

 

Union, Graham, VHS, Marion, RV, Marion, Battle, then who? Giles/Glenvar are Region C IIRC. 

Gate City is.  I think we should be undefeated right now. (tic)

 

[swva_havok_fan 1,261]

20 hours ago, stu_bean said:

If that was the case right now you would say that Tazewell is a better team than Richlands.

On the flip side I remember several years back in Kentucky, don't remember which schools.  All teams in the division made the playoffs and had a 10-0 team versus a 0-10 team in round 1.  0-10 knocked them out and got demolished the next week.  I'm not against a .500 team making it but you should have at least that.

Jenkins makes the playoffs every year by default because there are only so many 1A teams in their region/district whatever.  And we all know how bad Jenkins is.

18 hours ago, jarhead24219 said:

The VHSL cares only about $$$$$$ more teams =more money, but they had to pay out major$$$$ for travel, hence the new /old format, = less travel but more revenue. Now with that said I have no problem with teams getting a second chance if they go 500% or better , but if they cant go 5-5 at least they should stay at home and get ready for bb season. The regions where there are not 8 teams with winning records you give the top seed(s) a bye, this way you reward teams with 500% but keep out the teams that have loosing records, and the VHSL makes money so they can hold their meetings in a warm weather climate in the winter

So, I will use 1A Region B as an example.  There are only 6 teams to begin with.  Most likely, only 2 of those are going to be at or above .500 by season's end.  All 6 are going to get in the playoffs, which includes a Cumberland team which very well could go 0-10.  Riverheads and William Campbell will already be getting 1 bye as it is with the short field in their region.  So, what is the solution, since only 2 teams are going to be .500 at the end of the season?  Do we let only Riverheads and William Campbell in and give them 2 byes straight to the region championship game?  Perhaps, but I believe both of those schools would not want the second bye.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But I think they would want to stay in game shape, have a tune up game, whatever, before playing each other.

[jarhead24219 440]

23 minutes ago, swva_havok_fan said:

Jenkins makes the playoffs every year by default because there are only so many 1A teams in their region/district whatever.  And we all know how bad Jenkins is.

So, I will use 1A Region B as an example.  There are only 6 teams to begin with.  Most likely, only 2 of those are going to be at or above .500 by season's end.  All 6 are going to get in the playoffs, which includes a Cumberland team which very well could go 0-10.  Riverheads and William Campbell will already be getting 1 bye as it is with the short field in their region.  So, what is the solution, since only 2 teams are going to be .500 at the end of the season?  Do we let only Riverheads and William Campbell in and give them 2 byes straight to the region championship game?  Perhaps, but I believe both of those schools would not want the second bye.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But I think they would want to stay in game shape, have a tune up game, whatever, before playing each other.

MIGHT AS WELL GIVE THEM A BYE, besides RIVERHEADS should be AA based on numbers, would you want to fight and beat up someone who was half your size and gets knocked out with the first punch. Point is dont reward sub par teams by letting them into what should be a reward for hard work .

[TwhscoachT 162]

33 minutes ago, swva_havok_fan said:

Jenkins makes the playoffs every year by default because there are only so many 1A teams in their region/district whatever.  And we all know how bad Jenkins is.

So, I will use 1A Region B as an example.  There are only 6 teams to begin with.  Most likely, only 2 of those are going to be at or above .500 by season's end.  All 6 are going to get in the playoffs, which includes a Cumberland team which very well could go 0-10.  Riverheads and William Campbell will already be getting 1 bye as it is with the short field in their region.  So, what is the solution, since only 2 teams are going to be .500 at the end of the season?  Do we let only Riverheads and William Campbell in and give them 2 byes straight to the region championship game?  Perhaps, but I believe both of those schools would not want the second bye.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But I think they would want to stay in game shape, have a tune up game, whatever, before playing each other.

If you are trying to come up with a catch all format, then the only way to do that is to "catch 'em all."  With that said, we are speaking in terms of Region D and its governing body as to how to handle the playoff system in SWVA. 

Region B 1a would probably benefit from every team qualifying every year based on your assessment. As their schedules are filled with 2a,3a,4a teams. 

Even in our area, If galax were to play a tradition 2a schedule much like Union would, they would be a SUBpar team based on record. (Ridgeview, Central, Lee, Abingdon, Gate City, Richlands, etc.)  Its a crap shoot and as BFresearcher said the emphasis on schedule at the 1a level is invalid due to the diversity. 2a might be a different story, but using the extreme bias that 1a is to justify a playoff system is questionable at the least. 

[sup_rbeast 296]

18 hours ago, TTownTigers said:

In summary, if you have 4 districts in whatever setting you wish to call it (region A, region 3, region 4 etc) allow 2 more teams than there are districts to enter the playoffs, so by the example here......6 teams enter the playoffs IF you have automatic district winners as getting in.  Again, I don't like the idea.  The power point system doesn't lie much, and it exposes strength of schedule.  A 5-5 team that is solid (Appalachia state title winner back in the day) will still get into the playoffs by a good power point system because the power point system recognizes the strength of schedule a team like Appalachia back in the day played.  The power point system would realize the 5 losses weren't to cupcakes, etc.  Therefore, you don't need an automatic district winner to get in ....only my opinion.

 

There are a few districts where the champ doesn't have a high rating...that's why I think there should be an automatic bid for each champ, but seeded by rating.  The '89 Appy team is a good example.  They didn't have a high rating because they had quite a few injuries that year and lost to some very mediocre teams and barely made the cut of 4 for the playoffs.  I agree, though...a field of 6 per region with automatic berths for district champs is the most inclusive way to go without watering down the achievement of getting in to begin with.

[sup_rbeast 296]

1 hour ago, swva_havok_fan said:

So, I will use 1A Region B as an example.  There are only 6 teams to begin with.  Most likely, only 2 of those are going to be at or above .500 by season's end.  All 6 are going to get in the playoffs, which includes a Cumberland team which very well could go 0-10.  Riverheads and William Campbell will already be getting 1 bye as it is with the short field in their region.  So, what is the solution, since only 2 teams are going to be .500 at the end of the season?  Do we let only Riverheads and William Campbell in and give them 2 byes straight to the region championship game?  Perhaps, but I believe both of those schools would not want the second bye.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But I think they would want to stay in game shape, have a tune up game, whatever, before playing each other.

From the get go, regions should be redrawn to where each one has roughly the same amount of teams...that's the starting place for any realignment or change IMO.

[swva_havok_fan 1,261]

12 minutes ago, sup_rbeast said:

From the get go, regions should be redrawn to where each one has roughly the same amount of teams...that's the starting place for any realignment or change IMO.

I can agree with this.  1B has 6 teams. 1A has 16 teams.  I'm not very knowledgeable on where many of the 1A or even 1B schools are, but you would've thought they could have slipped in some of the more western 1A teams into 1B to make it more even.  Something even more strange to me is that, at least from Bristol, I think you can be at Altavista (1B) faster than you can be Covington or Bath County (1C).

[BearViking 2]

On 10/2/2017 at 10:37 PM, SWVAgridiron said:

I said this same thing in an earlier post on one of the forums. If you take Union, Glenvar, Graham, and even Appo. Each of those teams would have 2-3 losses with playing the same schedule as Richlands.

Not sure if many people are realizing Union has wins against a 6A Tennessee School and a 5A Kentucky School. Yes richlands has had a tough schedule but I don’t believe we are understanding how good this union team is.

[swva_havok_fan 1,261]

Just now, BearViking said:

Not sure if many people are realizing Union has wins against a 6A Tennessee School and a 5A Kentucky School. Yes richlands has had a tough schedule but I don’t believe we are understanding how good this union team is.

Not trying to understate the argument as Union did win both games and they're both good wins, but Morristown West only classifies as a 4A in Virginia and Letcher only classifies as a 3A in Virginia. 

[BearViking 2]

4 minutes ago, swva_havok_fan said:

Not trying to understate the argument as Union did win both games and they're both good wins, but Morristown West only classifies as a 4A in Virginia and Letcher only classifies as a 3A in Virginia. 

True I’m not trying to say anything bad about richlands. Very tough schedule probably the toughest 2a schedule in the state. I just don’t think you can write off any easy easy wins against this union team

[RichlandsAlum 678]

What if the VHSL adopted and enforced a classification and scheduling model based strictly on district membership which would serve as the basis for postseason play?  In fact, postseason eligibility could be based exclusively on performance within district play (although some ratings system would continue to track the value of non-district competition as well to address potential tiebreaker situations).

Within each classification, establish a requirement that all districts contain an equitable number of members (either 6 or 7).  Then group them into four regions containing an equitable number of districts within each.  Establish a policy in which a team's first three or four games of the season are specifically dedicated to non-district play, then require everyone to play within their district thereafter (with the possibility of an additional non-district game at the end for teams in a 6 team district).    If everyone is under the same specific scheduling requirements, that would make non-district scheduling a bit easier in terms of simple logistics.  Keep a "bye" week in place between the end of the regular season and the beginning of regional playoffs for district "tiebreaker" games when that type of situation occurs (and in the event of three-way ties, participants in the district tiebreaker could be the two teams with the highest overall competition ratings).  Then have district champions play each other at the regional level with the four regional champions advancing to the state semifinals.

Wouldn't necessarily address the issue of teams with 4 losses (or 5, in some cases) making the playoffs, but there wouldn't seem to be as much controversy associated with methodology either.

Other down side is that this would require more than a little administrative work to implement and track.  But well-written policies would reduce the need for grunt work.

Just some very random thoughts.

[jarhead24219 440]

schedules are made 2 years at a time,RICHLANDS has a brutal schedule , but if those programs were down(like LETCHER COUNTY V UNION)it would be called a cake walk. COACHES like MANCE ,TURNER,ADAMS, and others try to get the most bang for the buck.I see UNION going to TN more and KY less to get games and power points.The days when a team has easy games "like the old cumberland district" is over if you want a higher seat come playoff time.This years RICHLANDS SCHEDULE may be brutal , but in two years against the same teams it may seem easy when and if those programs slide(who would have thought 5 years ago GATE CITY would be a easy game)

[swva_havok_fan 1,261]

4 minutes ago, jarhead24219 said:

schedules are made 2 years at a time,RICHLANDS has a brutal schedule , but if those programs were down(like LETCHER COUNTY V UNION)it would be called a cake walk. COACHES like MANCE ,TURNER,ADAMS, and others try to get the most bang for the buck.I see UNION going to TN more and KY less to get games and power points.The days when a team has easy games "like the old cumberland district" is over if you want a higher seat come playoff time.This years RICHLANDS SCHEDULE may be brutal , but in two years against the same teams it may seem easy when and if those programs slide(who would have thought 5 years ago GATE CITY would be a easy game)

Very likely, but I would pay to see a Union vs. Belfry or Union vs. Johnson County (KY or TN for that matter) game.  Or even Paintsville, if Paintsville is still as good as they were the last couple of years.

[jarhead24219 440]

8 minutes ago, RichlandsAlum said:

What if the VHSL adopted and enforced a classification and scheduling model based strictly on district membership which would serve as the basis for postseason play?  In fact, postseason eligibility could be based exclusively on performance within district play (although some ratings system would continue to track the value of non-district competition as well to address potential tiebreaker situations).

Within each classification, establish a requirement that all districts contain an equitable number of members (either 6 or 7).  Then group them into four regions containing an equitable number of districts within each.  Establish a policy in which a team's first three or four games of the season are specifically dedicated to non-district play, then require everyone to play within their district thereafter (with the possibility of an additional non-district game at the end for teams in a 6 team district).    If everyone is under the same specific scheduling requirements, that would make non-district scheduling a bit easier in terms of simple logistics.  Keep a "bye" week in place between the end of the regular season and the beginning of regional playoffs for district "tiebreaker" games when that type of situation occurs (and in the event of three-way ties, participants in the district tiebreaker could be the two teams with the highest overall competition ratings).  Then have district champions play each other at the regional level with the four regional champions advancing to the state semifinals.

Wouldn't necessarily address the issue of teams with 4 losses (or 5, in some cases) making the playoffs, but there wouldn't seem to be as much controversy associated with methodology either.

Other down side is that this would require more than a little administrative work to implement and track.  But well-written policies would reduce the need for grunt work.

Just some very random thoughts.

RichlandsAlum , the VHSL could use you, but again your thoughts make to much sense for them to ever use those ideals. We must realize that the real power in the VHSL lies elsewhere beside southwest va, the playoff sites as well as the different classifications are based on their regional needs

[jarhead24219 440]

3 minutes ago, swva_havok_fan said:

Very likely, but I would pay to see a Union vs. Belfry or Union vs. Johnson County (KY or TN for that matter) game.  Or even Paintsville, if Paintsville is still as good as they were the last couple of years.

I see BETSY in our future as well as the new SULLIVAN COUNTY HS in 2019

[Suit Up 82]

19 minutes ago, RichlandsAlum said:

What if the VHSL adopted and enforced a classification and scheduling model based strictly on district membership which would serve as the basis for postseason play?  In fact, postseason eligibility could be based exclusively on performance within district play (although some ratings system would continue to track the value of non-district competition as well to address potential tiebreaker situations).

Within each classification, establish a requirement that all districts contain an equitable number of members (either 6 or 7).  Then group them into four regions containing an equitable number of districts within each.  Establish a policy in which a team's first three or four games of the season are specifically dedicated to non-district play, then require everyone to play within their district thereafter (with the possibility of an additional non-district game at the end for teams in a 6 team district).    If everyone is under the same specific scheduling requirements, that would make non-district scheduling a bit easier in terms of simple logistics.  Keep a "bye" week in place between the end of the regular season and the beginning of regional playoffs for district "tiebreaker" games when that type of situation occurs (and in the event of three-way ties, participants in the district tiebreaker could be the two teams with the highest overall competition ratings).  Then have district champions play each other at the regional level with the four regional champions advancing to the state semifinals.

Wouldn't necessarily address the issue of teams with 4 losses (or 5, in some cases) making the playoffs, but there wouldn't seem to be as much controversy associated with methodology either.

Other down side is that this would require more than a little administrative work to implement and track.  But well-written policies would reduce the need for grunt work.

Just some very random thoughts.

Another issue is that you may end up with a couple of those districts with just one or two good teams and then others that have 3-4 perennial “powerhouses”. Then you have superior teams left out of the playoffs due to being in a reputable district compared to others in a “weak” district who get in because they are lucky enough to not have to play a tough district schedule.

[SWVAgridiron 1,469]

45 minutes ago, BearViking said:

Not sure if many people are realizing Union has wins against a 6A Tennessee School and a 5A Kentucky School. Yes richlands has had a tough schedule but I don’t believe we are understanding how good this union team is.

I know that Union is a solid program and without a doubt I believe they are #1 in SWVA, but im still putting Blacksburg and Byrd 2 tds better than Union. Union would definitely put up a fight, but size and speed would make the difference in the 2nd half.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

1 minute ago, Suit Up said:

Another issue is that you may end up with a couple of those districts with just one or two good teams and then others that have 3-4 perennial “powerhouses”. Then you have superior teams left out of the playoffs due to being in a reputable district compared to others in a “weak” district who get in because they are lucky enough to not have to play a tough district schedule.

True, but I'm taking a somewhat Darwinian approach here.  Only the strong survive.   If you're unbeaten and untied, there's no argument.  Anything less than that invites speculation.  And the evidence of relatively weak districts on a geographic basis is also apparent -- and begins to play itself out at the regional level.  It's one thing to be relatively "superior" or to be the champion of a "weak" district.  It's another to demonstrate that you are absolutely the best team in a region and deserve to advance to play at the state level -- which should logically be a fundamental element of any playoff system, IMO.

This kind of approach seemed to work out well in basketball  (until the VHSL actually meddled with it and started rewarding a significant number of also-rans with advancement).

[sup_rbeast 296]

32 minutes ago, RichlandsAlum said:

What if the VHSL adopted and enforced a classification and scheduling model based strictly on district membership which would serve as the basis for postseason play?  In fact, postseason eligibility could be based exclusively on performance within district play (although some ratings system would continue to track the value of non-district competition as well to address potential tiebreaker situations).

Within each classification, establish a requirement that all districts contain an equitable number of members (either 6 or 7).  Then group them into four regions containing an equitable number of districts within each.  Establish a policy in which a team's first three or four games of the season are specifically dedicated to non-district play, then require everyone to play within their district thereafter (with the possibility of an additional non-district game at the end for teams in a 6 team district).    If everyone is under the same specific scheduling requirements, that would make non-district scheduling a bit easier in terms of simple logistics.  Keep a "bye" week in place between the end of the regular season and the beginning of regional playoffs for district "tiebreaker" games when that type of situation occurs (and in the event of three-way ties, participants in the district tiebreaker could be the two teams with the highest overall competition ratings).  Then have district champions play each other at the regional level with the four regional champions advancing to the state semifinals.

Wouldn't necessarily address the issue of teams with 4 losses (or 5, in some cases) making the playoffs, but there wouldn't seem to be as much controversy associated with methodology either.

Other down side is that this would require more than a little administrative work to implement and track.  But well-written policies would reduce the need for grunt work.

Just some very random thoughts.

I think that would be more of a headache than what it's worth.  Only reason I say to give a district champ an automatic berth is because that, in itself, guarantees a chance for a playoff berth to nearly every team (as long as you are in a district, you have a chance).  Outside of that, districts really only serve as little more than scheduling security.

[RichlandsAlum 678]

17 minutes ago, sup_rbeast said:

I think that would be more of a headache than what it's worth.  Only reason I say to give a district champ an automatic berth is because that, in itself, guarantees a chance for a playoff berth to nearly every team (as long as you are in a district, you have a chance).  Outside of that, districts really only serve as little more than scheduling security.

Actually, for most of the era post 1970 districts functioned as the baseline for the entire competitive structure used to ultimately produce a state champion.  That was a pretty efficient system, albeit brutally so.  Some of its obvious shortcomings were an inability to address ties within districts and its relatively punitive effect upon one loss (or one tie) teams within relatively competitive geographic areas.  But it left very little room for argument about the relative quality of the champions who emerged at each level -- unlike today.

To boil it down to basics....you win your district, you advance to regional playoffs.  You win your region, you advance to state.  Nothing complicated at all.  

[sup_rbeast 296]

1 hour ago, RichlandsAlum said:

Actually, for most of the era post 1970 districts functioned as the baseline for the entire competitive structure used to ultimately produce a state champion.  That was a pretty efficient system, albeit brutally so.  Some of its obvious shortcomings were an inability to address ties within districts and its relatively punitive effect upon one loss (or one tie) teams within relatively competitive geographic areas.  But it left very little room for argument about the relative quality of the champions who emerged at each level -- unlike today.

To boil it down to basics....you win your district, you advance to regional playoffs.  You win your region, you advance to state.  Nothing complicated at all.  

I like the idea...personally, I wouldn't care if it was district champions and that's all.  Winning the district should be every team's first goal and a prerequisite for everything that follows.  Allowing for 6 with 2 byes was my attempt to placate those who seem to want everyone in.

[honestjohn 90]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 10:54 AM, TwhscoachT said:

Tell that to Blacksburg.

Nostalgia really is a stupid argument. That system was extremely flawed and excluded teams from actually proving themselves in the playoffs against common competition that could adapt. 

Basically you want an easy road for a powerhouse team, while everyone else suffers, seem "valid." Just say it, because how the Old system was actually watered down the playoffs and had 0 honor to them. 

I value the new state championships more than any other, it proves you survived the gauntlet and that you had depth developed to actually win.  

 

 

Edit: I do not trust our officials enough to make regular season game hold that much weight on a teams future. 

Atleast in the playoff games you get the seasoned officials who "might" have a clue as to what they are doing. 

Are you trying to say that we have some bad officials in Southwest VA. If you are, you might expect to get the hammer. That is a no no.

[TwhscoachT 162]

7 minutes ago, honestjohn said:

Are you trying to say that we have some bad officials in Southwest VA. If you are, you might expect to get the hammer. That is a no no.

I do not know the exact system that the Appalachian Official Association uses to select officials for playoff games; but logical speaking, I would assume they would want the best of the best to participate in the playoffs. With the same knowledge and logic used in this thread, if you are not the best, then you are not deserving.