2025 Minnesota High School Football Thread

[Some guy]

It is good as far as rating formulas go. None of them are 100% accurate but if you just go look at the results of the playoffs over the last several years it's pretty accurate. Now the issue is 6A is a whole different thing and the way things work with relief section...ect kinda skews things. This is why in my examples I used AAAA-A as I think for most of the rest of the classes it's actually pretty good.

So if you don't like it for 6A, I understand that but it's not a bad formula to assist in seeding. Nobody should use any formula as the only criteria for seeding but I think it's a good piece of data to put teams in order then debate with other data to see if teams positions should be adjusted from there. You should also look at head to head and margins of victory and loss vs common opponents. However, when starting the seeding process if you order them by QRF it gives you a starting point.

I know for soccer they typically do use QRF and it works pretty well but it's not the only factor. Like teams close in QRF they usually will dig deeper into win margin and common opponents. But if there's a big gap they don't. It has come out pretty fair that way for soccer. This past season my daughter's team ended up getting a lower seed than than their QRF. They lost to the other team earlier in the year but had a higher QRF and same record but our team played a much tougher schedule. But the QRF was only like 5 points difference so the HtH overrode the 5 point difference. That seemed fair enough to me.

QRF is a bad metric to use on its own.
People will continue to use it anyways

One of the benefits of everybody makes it model is that it gets played out anyways.

 

[mcrow47]

QRF is a bad metric to use on its own.
People will continue to use it anyways

One of the benefits of everybody makes it model is that it gets played out anyways.

Every metric is bad to use on it's own. There's no one data point that can be used on it's own and be accurate. And almost nobody is using QRF alone as seeding criteria. Just like wins alone isn't perfect. Or points differential isn't perfect. Or strength of schedule isn't perfect. But these are all things that are considered.

Like I said, I think the best use would be to use QRF to get your initial seeding. Then let coaches make cases for changes to the seedings. But for 6A where all the teams are tossed into one bracket that probably doesn't work as well. And then you have the relief section thing. 6A is kinda it's own weird thing. But I think it works for the other classes.

 

[Some guy]

Every metric is bad to use on it's own. There's no one data point that can be used on it's own and be accurate. And almost nobody is using QRF alone as seeding criteria.

This is just wrong. About half of football sections straight up seed by QRF

Just like wins alone isn't perfect. Or points differential isn't perfect. Or strength of schedule isn't perfect. But these are all things that are considered.

Like I said, I think the best use would be to use QRF to get your initial seeding. Then let coaches make cases for changes to the seedings. But for 6A where all the teams are tossed into one bracket that probably doesn't work as well. And then you have the relief section thing. 6A is kinda it's own weird thing. But I think it works for the other classes.