Please someone knows the DIAA and history better than me please correct any of these assertions as incorrect.
1) Last year (2017) only one playoff team made the field having played less than 18 games.
2) The team having played only 17 games last year seemingly benefited by that less than full slate schedule ... receiving the overall 2 seed. (In spite of having played less than everyone else in the field)
3) This year the same team will likely be one of few teams in State vying for a title that did not play the full 18 game schedule. As they have only played 14 games when every other team in State (vying for tournament entry) has played at least 16 with most currently sitting at 17. (Statistically this would bare out to NOT be a coincidence to again be in this situation.)
4) Playing a full schedule is almost certainly a disadvantage if another team can take the average results from the games they WANT to play. Playing less than a full slate avoids the 3 games in a week, reality most teams face. It makes it easier to start the most games with best pitchers on a limited pitching staff. If a team can avoid playing games against known lesser teams, which for most teams in a conference are mandatory, they can avoid the power / matrix killing forced no bonus point games.
5) A coach has the power to schedule games that are more likely or less likely to be cancelled or effected by weather. Late season games against out of state opponents seem to be known to be more likely to be subject to cancelation.
6) People are by their nature motivated by consequences. If scheduling in a manner that creates a greater likelihood of cancelation, benefits rather than punishes a team ... it would seem likley to continue.
I wish the rest of the State’s teams playing in larger conferences had power of to seemingly manipulate (if they choose to) the schedule in this matter. (Or that teams that make decisions that leave them likely to play less games were not rewarded for doing so.) Really I wish teams could play more than 18 rather than less. And really I wish if a team happens to be one of the best in the State we didn’t go back to back regular seasons where we didn’t get to see them play as many in state games as possible. If others & DIAA agree with any of these wishes it would seem they need to enforce a consequence for not getting games in. Having played only 14 to this point seems like something should not happen again.
1) Last year (2017) only one playoff team made the field having played less than 18 games.
2) The team having played only 17 games last year seemingly benefited by that less than full slate schedule ... receiving the overall 2 seed. (In spite of having played less than everyone else in the field)
3) This year the same team will likely be one of few teams in State vying for a title that did not play the full 18 game schedule. As they have only played 14 games when every other team in State (vying for tournament entry) has played at least 16 with most currently sitting at 17. (Statistically this would bare out to NOT be a coincidence to again be in this situation.)
4) Playing a full schedule is almost certainly a disadvantage if another team can take the average results from the games they WANT to play. Playing less than a full slate avoids the 3 games in a week, reality most teams face. It makes it easier to start the most games with best pitchers on a limited pitching staff. If a team can avoid playing games against known lesser teams, which for most teams in a conference are mandatory, they can avoid the power / matrix killing forced no bonus point games.
5) A coach has the power to schedule games that are more likely or less likely to be cancelled or effected by weather. Late season games against out of state opponents seem to be known to be more likely to be subject to cancelation.
6) People are by their nature motivated by consequences. If scheduling in a manner that creates a greater likelihood of cancelation, benefits rather than punishes a team ... it would seem likley to continue.
I wish the rest of the State’s teams playing in larger conferences had power of to seemingly manipulate (if they choose to) the schedule in this matter. (Or that teams that make decisions that leave them likely to play less games were not rewarded for doing so.) Really I wish teams could play more than 18 rather than less. And really I wish if a team happens to be one of the best in the State we didn’t go back to back regular seasons where we didn’t get to see them play as many in state games as possible. If others & DIAA agree with any of these wishes it would seem they need to enforce a consequence for not getting games in. Having played only 14 to this point seems like something should not happen again.
