[Iam4thecats]

I'm tired of posting facts and having Patriot tell me I disagree with him when its just the facts because I can read. I'm sorry the mean old facts are hurting your feelings. I'm out for today. Enjoy.

[RAMDAD50]

Effectively, the RPI ratings are going to reward “punching down” i.e. a better 1A team scheduling a higher class weaker team they know they have a better chance of beating, it order to increase their RPI rating, and therefore increase their likelihood of home field advantage in the playoffs due to said RPI ratings influencing their seeding. This is the way I’m understanding Patriot’s argument. Am I correct, Patriot? If so, I absolutely agree with you. If the RPI is not going to influence who gets into the playoffs, it’s one thing. But when it influences the location of games being played, then there is the whole matter of expenses to the schools involved, unfairly rewarding schools who have artificially inflated their rating to get the gate, and increasing travel costs, inconveniences such as logistics, and so forth, then it becomes a really bad thing.

Yes but what are the chances the schools that do this even make it to the third or fourth round ?

[Hatz]

Yes but what are the chances the schools that do this even make it to the third or fourth round ?

This has been my point all along.

If you are playing Mediocre High who has rigged their schedule for wins and high RPI, and I am rooting for Tough as Nails High I wouldn't mind going there.

Mediocre High may not have played a single, higher level team, until the 3rd Round and face Tough as Nails as their first REAL TEST.

Congrats Mediocre High, you just won the Runner-up 3rd Round trophy on your home field.

:Thumbs:

[Patriot1]

This has been my point all along.

If you are playing Mediocre High who has rigged their schedule for wins and high RPI, and I am rooting for Tough as Nails High I wouldn't mind going there.

Mediocre High may not have played a single, higher level team, until the 3rd Round and face Tough as Nails as their first REAL TEST.

Congrats Mediocre High, you just won the Runner-up 3rd Round trophy on your home field.

:Thumbs:

I agree with this, like I said before to me the worst part of this is the in district play. Now it’s not in all districts, a good example is Somerset and LCA. One gets knocked out in the second round and I have seen it with Danville in that district they had 3 of the better teams in 2A. This RPI stuff is only for home field advantage so you just have to beat who is in front of you that night. In saying that I still am not in favor of the system they have come up with.

[Jackson Purchase]

Read the post above yours. I am tryin g to deal in facts. AS of today X will be on the road for round 3 and 4. That is fact. X isn't the reason for the announcement. Do better.

They were gonna be on the road for round 1 without the change. 😆

[Patriot1]

They were gonna be on the road for round 1 without the change. 😆

You are wasting your time Jackson Purchase, he only speaks facts that I can’t comprehend and I can’t read because of my lack of intelligence. Now I not going to disagree with the last one to much but I can read.

[Bossdaddy 4115]

I can’t even know how you think that’s better. So what your saying play weak higher rank schools to get higher RPI #s so your team gets a better chance for home field advantage. It was awful before and only the KHSAA can make it worse.

Reread my post never said better, I said the margin from 1a- 6a should have a greater marginal difference. In my first post I gave examples of how it won’t work. Also the lol was sarcastic towards them making it right. Like I said it will be interesting how this unveils.

[Patriot1]

Reread my post never said better, I said the margin from 1a- 6a should have a greater marginal difference. In my first post I gave examples of how it won’t work. Also the lol was sarcastic towards them making it right. Like I said it will be interesting how this unveils.

Sorry Bossdaddy, your right I apologize to you

[Real Badman]

Change was made for St. X

False statement