ADVERTISEMENT

What did we learn this season!?!?!?!

In every other team sport coaches seed teams in their sectional not the entire state. Coaches can be familiar with the level of teams in their area buy can’t be d or Ted to be knowledgeable about every team in the state in their class. Seeding 32 teams in 5a for example from all over the state is hardly comparable to seeding an 18-team sectional in which all teams are near each other and coaches are familiar with the skill level in any given year of other nearby programs.
But of course you know that. Please be better.
Fair point. 32 teams instead of 18 is a big difference. I do bet that they could do a better job than the current system. 9-0 and 8-1 teams would not be as over seeded and some 6-3/7-2 would not be under seeded. MC and LA compared to Whitney Young, Glenbard East and a few others wouldn’t happen.

Teams who knocked out MC in the playoffs

This!

It’s laughable to think that Batavia didn’t prepare enough or play in a tough enough conference. (The common response to the debate is prepare better/play tougher schedule)

At the end of the day, talent wins. What was the difference when BR beat MC a few times in row a few years ago? Talent.

Why did Hun beat MC this year? Talent.

The talent is typically a little more spread out throughout BR/MC/RITA as to where it’s more fair for public schools but no one’s had a chance vs MC for three years now.

No reason they shouldn’t be in 8A.
Realistically, MC ducked 8A to spread the titles out with Loyola. Smart move in principle but cowardly.

Q of the Week: So what's the fix?

Another idea
The Multiplier Tier System or MTS for short

Base multiplier:
In this system all non-boundaried schools would start off with a smaller base multiplier of 1.5. As a school sees success, the multiplier increases. I personally like the idea of raising the multiplier by 0.05 per playoff win but this number can be discussed. A team that wins a state title would have their multiplier increase by a minimum of 0.25 for the next cycle. A team that wins two titles back to back would have their title increased by 0.50 for the next cycle, this would put their multiplier at 2.0 after back to back title wins.

Multiplier increase/decrease:
If a team with a 2.0 multiplier fails to win a quarterfinal game in a 2 year cycle, said team can petition to have their multiplier LOWERED but not removed. I personally like the idea of lowering the multiplier by up to 0.25 per two year cycle but that number is also up for discussion.

Multiplier waivers:
A team that has been at the base multiplier of 1.5 for 4 years can petition to waive their multiplier completely.

Disclaimer: I am not and do not claim to be an expert on this matter but I’ve followed IHSA football for several years. All numbers in regard to the base multiplier and how much a multiplier should increase/decrease are up for discussion as well as the requirements to petition for a waiver. My goal is to find a system that is fair to ALL schools across ALL classes.

Discuss it. Critique it. Laugh at it. Whatever it takes to find a solution.

Have a blessed day.

Q of the Week: So what's the fix?

First thing is get rid of two year enrollment window.

Next thing is 1-32 seeding.

Waiver should be tweaked to be harder to obtain and it shouldn’t have to do with not making the playoffs. A team like ICCP shouldn’t play 2A for the next two years just because they didn’t make the playoffs one out of the last two years with that schedule.

Get rid of success factor or give it to everyone, although if everyone gets it, I’d consider modifying the terms.

Somebody’s big mad in Antioch…and it’s only Friday

After spending his morning blasting Althoff, I asked Coach Brad Dixon what vile things a chain gang member at CPC said to get ejected from a high school football game last fall?

@coachbdixon has blocked you​

You can view public posts from @coachbdixon, but you are blocked from engaging with them. You also cannot follow or message @coachbdixon.
What did he say?
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT