Forum Comments

Chad Carsten's Sectional Proposal
In Sectional Proposals
Kevin Frehner
Nov 08, 2019
@rtmarks65 there are lots of things going on here. I am a spreadsheet/list guy, so I will list some thoughts... 1) Regarding ranked teams that would make it, 62% of the teams that would have qualified under this proposal were ranked teams. There are lots of good teams that would get an opportunity that they wouldn't normally have. That list is in Chad's proposal. 2) From the beginning, Chad has been completely honest about the weaknesses of this plan. I have talked with Chad extensively and helped him collect data to come up with the 29% plan. He is very aware that the 3rd place team in some sectionals have a better chance at meeting this standard than the 3rd place team in a more competitive sectional. 3) The way this is better than our current system is that it gives 3rd place teams a chance they currently don't have. It is as simple as that. My team has been in a loaded sectional each of the five years, with 3-5 ranked teams each year. I know full well that my chances of meeting that 29% is not very good with that many good teams. I know that other "weaker" sectionals will have a better chance at meeting this criteria than we would. However, at least we have that chance with this plan. That is better than what we currently have. Not perfect, but better. 4) As I have said many times, there are lots of ideas out there that are good. Sectional seeding is one great idea. I have officially proposed a four division plan twice that has not moved forward. This 29% proposal is the latest idea that has gotten some traction. Again, it is an idea that does not pretend to solve all the problems. It simply attempts to better our situation by meeting an objective measure at the sectional and giving an opportunity that doesn't currently exist. I think that is better. 5) In the end, our association has to decide if the status quo is the best we can do. If we would like change, we have to get behind something. Do we do that idea by idea and try to make incremental changes? Do we go in feet first with a comprehensive plan that includes a number of ideas and makes a major shift in qualifying procedures? Do we just stay the course we are currently on? I don't have an answer to those questions for our association, but I am firmly in the group that the status quo can be improved, even if we cannot find a perfect solution.

Kevin Frehner

More actions