Author Archives: Patrick

It’s pretty easy to figure out which players are among Wyoming’s top returners this year.

Take a look at last year’s all-conference, all-state and Super 25 listings, and just remove the seniors.

Or (shameless plug alert) read the upcoming annual Wyoming high school football preview magazine, which I wrote again this year with previews on every team in the state and will be out in mid- to late August.

Rarely, if ever, do typical season previews and postseason recognition lists indicate the number of the player’s jersey. However, that’s the most common way for fans to figure out who’s who on the field.

So what if we put together a team of returning players and chose the best players based on the number of their jerseys — choosing only one player per number?

Let’s do this for Wyoming high school football’s 2019 returners.

I’m certainly not the first to do this. The specific inspiration for this post, though, came from one of my former students, Sam Herder, who’s doing something similar for players at the FCS level of college football for HeroSports.

The problem with taking something that’s normally reserved for the NFL or college teams and applying it to Wyoming high schools is that, um… how to put it politely?… not every number has a bunch of good players from which to choose.

One of the things that became readily apparent during the production of this list was that Wyoming high schools rarely use numbers in the 90s. In fact, using last year’s final stats as my starting point, I couldn’t find a single returning player in the entire state at any level who wore number 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97 or 98 last year.

Similarly, I couldn’t find a returner who wore 46 or 59, either. A few numbers had only one returner in the state (and, no, I won’t tell you which ones, because I don’t want to embarrass anyone who’s listed below). On the flipside, some numbers — like 1, 2, 5 and 12, among others — were overloaded with talented players who would have easily made this list if they had worn a less-common number.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that any of these returning players will wear the same number this year that they did last year. And there’s a chance that the players listed here may not go out, or may have moved or transferred since the end of last season.

The list here is subjective; it’s my opinion, and I made it for fun. Hopefully, you have fun with it too… and I’m more than happy if you disagree with me. 🙂

Anyway, here’s Wyoming’s top returning high school football players for 2019 by jersey number:

Number	Name	School
1	Mason Hamilton	Thunder Basin
2	Dax Yeradi	Wright
3	Kirby Castagno	Jackson
4	Chance Aumiller	Cheyenne East
5	Garrett Coon	Sheridan
6	Peter Goettler	Jackson
7	Hunter Hays	Cody
8	Rowen Ruby	Buffalo
9	Andrew Johnson	Cheyenne Central
10	A.J. Yeaman	Douglas
11	Dawson Macleary	Cheyenne Central
12	Quinn McCafferty	Big Horn
13	Graedyn Buell	Cheyenne East
14	Todd Paisley	Wheatland
15	Kaden Raza	Big Piney
16	Seth Hymas	Rock Springs
17	Riggen Myers	Snake River
18	Tristan Blatt	Cody
19	Kimball Madsen	Mountain View
20	Devon Mercado	Worland
21	R.J. Cazier	Star Valley
22	A.J. McCool	Jackson
23	Favor Okere	Rock Springs
24	Jhett Letellier	Hulett
25	Wyatt Duncan	Snake River
26	Jeydon Cox	Jackson
27	Hunter Kramer	Gillette
28	Jaxon Pikula	Thunder Basin
29	Emory Yoosook	Kelly Walsh
30	Rowdy Pfeil	Moorcroft
31	Austin Sansoucie	Midwest
32	David Castillo	Star Valley
33	Dante Wallace	Natrona
34	Hyrum Hatch	Buffalo
35	Caden Werbelow	Riverton
36	Josiah Divers	St. Stephens
37	McCaffrey Billings	Big Horn
38	Eli Dickey	Thermopolis
39	Carson Olsen	Powell
40	Drake Lamp	Lusk
41	James Stone	Lusk
42	Damien Molzahn	Lusk
43	Bryson Davis	Evanston
44	Logan Cole	Thermopolis
45	Jeremy Hartt	Guernsey-Sunrise
46	No returners identified
47	Bryston Jennings*	Glenrock
48	Luke Mullinax	Big Horn
49	Nick Talich	Cody
50	Hunter Gross	Mountain View
51	Anthony Graves	Buffalo
52	Gavin Thomas	Kelly Walsh
53	Cody Pinkerton	Douglas
54	Hansen Bradshaw	Lyman
55	Nathan Swanston	Buffalo
56	Keith Connor	Cody
57	Riley Shaffer	Thermopolis
58	Parker Merritt	Star Valley
59	No returners identified
60	Nate Barnes	Cokeville
61	Brandon Mortenson*	Rock Springs
62	Brendan Miller*	Kemmerer
63	Colter Collver*	Wind River
64	Mitch Miller	Burns
65	Remington Ferree	Thermopolis
66	Garrett King	Cokeville
67	Edel Diaz-Jaime	Douglas
68	Tyler Schaub	Torrington
69	Parker Schlater	Moorcroft
70	Kie Foster	Rawlins
71	Zane Taylor	Riverton
72	Cam Thomas	Big Piney
73	Jasper Caldera	Lusk
74	Jeff Williams	Cody
75	Corbin Harris	Torrington
76	Hunter Meeks	Mountain View
77	Hunter Pope	Buffalo
78	Jacob Knobloch	Tongue River
79	Reid Foster	Douglas
80	Brady Storebo	Cheyenne Central
81	Zion Graham	Kelly Walsh
82	Tyler Moyes	Cokeville
83	Tyson Christiansen	Rocky Mountain
84	Chase Merrell	Star Valley
85	Kaden Redding	Meeteetse
86	Jaret Taylor	Cheyenne East
87	Johnathon True	Natrona
88	Mason Masteller	Thunder Basin
89	Kaden Gautenbein	Riverton
90	Hunter Bailey	Hulett
91	No returners identified
92	No returners identified
93	Garrett Oswald	Cheyenne East
94	No returners identified
95	No returners identified
96	No returners identified
97	No returners identified
98	No returners identified
99	Rhiley Grubbs*	Torrington

*-Jennings wore both 47 and 64 last year; Mortenson wore both 61 and 63 last year; Miller wore both 62 and 77 last year; Collver wore both 63 and 40 last year; Grubbs wore both 55 and 99 last year.

If you have suggestions for folks I should have put in each spot, leave a comment, or consider hitting me up on Twitter or Facebook.

–patrick

To break three-way ties in conference play in 2019, the Wyoming High School Activities Association will use a new step in its tiebreaking procedures, one that incorporates scoring differential in games against the tied teams.

On paper, it’s a small change, one that’s deep down in the WHSAA’s tiebreaking procedures, just a step ahead of flipping a coin.

However, if we retroactively apply the new tiebreaking procedures to past three-way ties, some interesting results emerge.

+++

PREVIOUS PROCEDURES

Before we dive into that, it’s important to understand that the top two elements of Wyoming’s high school football tiebreaking procedures have remained unchanged for more than a decade.

Since 2009, when power ratings were fully eliminated from playoff seeding, the first two steps of the three-way tiebreaking procedure have been (1) head-to-head results of the tied teams, and (2) records of the tied teams against the highest-ranking non-tied team.

After that, though, the tiebreaking procedures have seen multiple iterations — including the new one to be introduced in 2019.

• In 2010, after the first two steps, tiebreaker steps included (3) overall record; (4) highest winning percentage in road conference games; (5) triangular playoff; (6) coin flip.
• From 2011-15, steps after the first two were simplified to include just these: (3) triangular playoff; (4) coin flip (skip 3 if qualifying isn’t involved).
• From 2016-18, triangulars were eliminated, and the third step was the only step after the first two: (3) coin flip.

In 2019, though, after years of stripping away options, the WHSAA is adding one to its procedures. Starting this season, the third step will be point differential among the tied teams in games between those teams (capped at 12 points per game). After that, the coin flip is the last option.

Although other states have used a similar tiebreaker, Wyoming has never used point differential as a tiebreaker for conference standings.

But what if the Equality State had decided to do this a decade ago?

What if we applied the tiebreaking rules to be used this year to break three-way ties in past seasons? Would the results be any different? Would different teams qualify for the playoffs?

That’s what we’re about to explore here.

+++

THREE-WAY TIES, EXPLORED

Since 2009, Wyoming high school football has had 29 three-way conference ties that affected seeding or playoff qualifying.

Of those 29 ties, the new tiebreaker rules come into play in 24 cases — the other five were broken by one of the first two tiebreaker criteria, either the head-to-head tiebreaker or the record vs. higher teams in the conference tiebreaker.

However, in 17 of the remaining 24 cases, the playoff seedings would have been different with a point differential tiebreaker than whatever the previous tiebreaker created. And in six *and maybe seven* cases, the teams that would have qualified for the playoffs under the new tiebreaker rules were different from those who actually did qualify under old tiebreaker rules.

Let’s break down each one of these seven ties, looking at who would qualify for the playoffs with the new tiebreaking system and comparing it to who qualified under the systems in place at the time:

2018 1A 11-man East
Who would have qualified: Lusk
Who actually qualified: Wright
The most recent of the ties that would be settled differently happened last year, where Wright, Lusk and Tongue River tied for the final playoff spot out of the 1A 11-man East Conference. Last year, Wright won a coin flip to earn that last spot; if the exact same tie happened this year, Lusk would qualify for the playoffs with scoring differentials of Lusk +5, Wright +1 and Tongue River -6.

2014 1A 11-man West
Who would have qualified: Burlington
Who actually qualified: Riverside
In this case, Riverside, Burlington and Wind River all tied for the fourth and final playoff spot out of the West. In 2014, they played a triangular playoff for that spot, with Riverside topping Wind River after Burlington withdrew from the triangular altogether. Using a score differential system for the final spot, though, Burlington would have actually earned the last spot (Burlington +8, Riverside 0, Wind River -8).

2013 1A 11-man West
Who would have qualified: Shoshoni
Who actually qualified: Riverside
This season, Burlington, Riverside and Shoshoni all tied for the final two postseason spots. In real life, Burlington earned the third seed by winning a triangular playoff, and Riverside earned the fourth seed after that by virtue of a head-to-head regular-season win. Using a scoring differential, though, would have given Shoshoni the third spot, Burlington the fourth spot and Riverside a spot on the sidelines (Shoshoni +6, Burlington 0, Riverside -6).

2011 2A West
Who would have qualified: Greybull
Who actually qualified: Kemmerer
Thermopolis, Kemmerer and Greybull tied for the final two spots, and in a triangular playoff, Thermopolis emerged with the No. 3 seed and Kemmerer the No. 4 seed. With a scoring differential tiebreaker, though, Greybull would have been third, Thermopolis fourth and Kemmerer out (Greybull +5, Thermopolis 0, Kemmerer -5).

2011 1A 11-man East
Who would have qualified: Pine Bluffs
Who actually qualified: Lingle
This is perhaps the most famous failure of a tiebreaking system to actually break a tie. Lingle, Pine Bluffs and Sundance tied for the final two seeds from the East. After none of the tiebreakers worked, the teams staged a triangular playoff. After the triangular playoff, though, the teams were still tied. So they flipped coins in the parking lot, and Sundance finished third, Lingle fourth and Pine Bluffs out. However, using a scoring differential system, Pine Bluffs would have been third, Sundance fourth and Lingle out (Pine Bluffs +9, Sundance -3, Lingle -6). (By the way, after the 2011 season, the WHSAA added an overtime system to triangular tiebreaker playoffs in case this ever happened again. It didn’t.)

2010 2A East
Who would have qualified: Wright
Who actually qualified: Newcastle
In this case, Newcastle, Burns and Wright tied for two playoff spots out of the East. Newcastle finished third, Burns fourth and Wright out by virtue of a tiebreaker system that was in its last year — one where the “team with the highest winning percentage of away league games” is the highest seed. In this case, Newcastle’s 2-1 road league record beat Burns’ 2-2 and Wright’s 2-2 to earn the third seed, and Burns’ head-to-head victory over Wright got them the fourth seed. In a score differential system, though, Burns would have finished in the third seed, Wright the fourth seed and Newcastle out (Burns +3, Wright 0, Newcastle -3).

BONUS: 2009 1A 11-man West
Who would have qualified: ???
Who actually qualified: Rocky Mountain and Riverside
In 2009, Rocky Mountain, Riverside and Burlington finished tied for the final two playoff seeds. At the time, one of the tiebreakers was overall record. Burlington’s 4-4 was worse than Rocky’s and Riverside’s duplicate 5-3 marks, bumping them out of the playoffs, and Rocky’s victory against Riverside decided who got the third seed and who got the fourth. However, in a scoring differential system, it’s impossible to know how qualifying would go — the scoring differential for all three teams was 0, as each game between these three programs was decided by more than 12 points. In a case like this, were it to happen again in 2019, the spots would be decided by a coin flip.

+++

In 11 other cases, new tiebreaking procedures in place for 2019 would have generated different seeding than what we saw using old tiebreakers. These changes often affected who was at home and who was on the road for the first round of the playoffs and matchups in the first round. Those ties included:

2018 1A 11-man West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Wind River 2, Rocky Mountain 3, Shoshoni 4
How seeds actually went: Shoshoni 2, Rocky Mountain 3, Wind River 4

2017 3A East
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Rawlins 2, Buffalo 3, Douglas 4
How seeds actually went: Buffalo 2, Douglas 3, Rawlins 4

2017 1A six-man West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Burlington 1, Snake River 2, Farson 3
How seeds actually went: Farson 1, Burlington 2, Snake River 3

2016 3A West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Star Valley 1, Green River 2, Powell 3
How seeds actually went: Powell 1, Star Valley 2, Green River 3

2016 1A 11-man West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Rocky Mountain 1, Cokeville 2, Shoshoni 3
How seeds actually went: Shoshoni 1, Rocky Mountain 2, Cokeville 3

2016 1A six-man West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Burlington 2, Snake River 3, Meeteetse 4
How seeds actually went: Meeteetse 2, Snake River 3, Burlington 4

2015 1A 11-man West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Rocky Mountain 2, Riverside 3, Cokeville 4
How seeds actually went: Cokeville 2, Rocky Mountain 3, Riverside 4

2014 4A
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Sheridan 2, Cheyenne East 3, Gillette 4
How seeds actually went: Cheyenne East 2, Gillette 3, Sheridan 4

2010 2A West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Greybull 1, Lovell 2, Lyman 3
How seeds actually went: Lovell 1, Greybull 2, Lyman 3

2010 1A six-man
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Kaycee 2, Ten Sleep 3, Hanna 4
How seeds actually went: Hanna 2, Ten Sleep 3, Kaycee 4

2009 3A West
How seeds would be under new tiebreaker: Worland 1, Star Valley 2, Cody 3
How seeds actually went: Cody 1, Worland 2, Star Valley 3

+++

Six three-way ties unaffected by the new tiebreaking procedures include:

2017 1A six-man East: Hanna, Midwest, Guernsey. Goes to coin flip, even with new tiebreaker.
2016 3A East: Lander, Rawlins, Buffalo. Lander won the coin flip in real life and would have won on scoring differential.
2015 4A: Kelly Walsh, Evanston, Laramie. Goes to coin flip, even with new tiebreaker.
2015 3A East: Buffalo, Douglas, Riverton. Goes to coin flip, even with new tiebreaker.
2015 2A East: Wheatland, Glenrock, Big Horn. Goes to coin flip, even with new tiebreaker.
2010 2A West: Big Piney, Mountain View, Pinedale. Big Piney won the overall record tiebreaker in real life and would have won on scoring differential.

And three-way ties that wouldn’t even reach the scoring differential tiebreaker, whether tied in the past or tied in 2019, are:

2018 4A: Cheyenne Central, Kelly Walsh, Rock Springs. Rock Springs beat both head-to-head.
2016 4A: Natrona, Laramie, Cheyenne East. Natrona beat both head-to-head.
2013 1A six-man East: Hulett, Kaycee, Saratoga. Hulett beat the highest-ranking non-tied team.
2011 4A: Cheyenne Central, Cheyenne East, Evanston. East beat both head-to-head.
2010 4A: Gillette, Evanston, Sheridan. Sheridan beat the highest-ranking non-tied team.

+++

The WHSAA also includes language in its handbook about breaking a four-way tie. A four-way tie break would not include scoring differential. However, the WHSAA handbook does not have any language about breaking a five-way tie, or breaking a tie involving more than five teams.

A four-way, five-way or more-way tie in football conference standings has never happened in Wyoming. Yet.

–patrick