A Proposal for High School Football Playoffs

[Alexander32]

It has previously been suggested there should be three primary objectives of any playoff system. They are:
1) Provide a reasonable opportunity for IHSA member schools to participate in the playoffs.
2) Create a process that is transparent and relatively simple to understand and administer.
3) Promote some semblance of competitive balance within each class.
While most contributors to this message board have given the IHSA a good grade for the first two objectives, the third objective has received mixed reviews. The following proposal is intended to improve the competitive balance within the various classes, while at the same time have no negative impact on the first two objectives.

The criteria for creating the following brackets has been developed, but I will not lead with that. I will lead with the proposed 8A, 7A, 6A and 5A brackets that resulted from the new criteria. The reason for doing this is that the ultimate success of the new system will be determined by whether or not people intuitively believe competitive balance has been improved. Toward that end, I want your first impression to be the brackets themselves and not the criteria behind them. There will be time enough later for you to review the criteria and judge whether or not you think they are fair and objective. I personally think they are fair and objective.

I also ask that you evaluate the results realistically. If perfection is the standard, it will fail. Hopefully the proper question to be asked is, does the new system significantly improve competitive balance? Once again, I personally think it does. For example, the outcome of using the new criteria is that 13 teams were removed from the 2023 8A bracket. Those teams were either dropped down to 7A or were removed from the playoffs entirely. The 13 teams that replaced them were on average 16.35 points better than the removed teams (based on Massey ratings**). By replacing some teams with other teams that were better, the difference between the best teams in 8A and the worst teams in 8A has been compressed. This process has improved the competitive balance in the 8A classification.

**Note: Massey ratings were in no way used as part of the new criteria. They were used in this narrative solely as one piece of objective evidence demonstrating that competitive balance has been improved.

Here is the newly proposed 8A bracket for 2023:

Seed
1 - Loyola (9-0)
32 - Lake Park (4-5)

16 - Belleville East (7-2)
17 - Stevenson (7-2)

8 - Maine South (8-1)
25 - Jacobs (6-3)

9 - Hersey (9-0)
24 - Lyons Township (6-3)

4 - Edwardsville (8-1)
29 - Glenbrook South (4-5)

13 - Huntley (8-1)
20 - Lockport (5-4)

5 - Barrington (9-0)
28 - Benet (4-5)

12 - Glenbard West (7-2)
21 - Palatine (6-3)

11 - Prospect (7-2)
22 - Sandburg (6-3)

6 - Normal (9-0)
27 - Homewood-Flossmoor (5-4)

14 - Downers Grove North (7-2)
19 - Brother Rice (5-4)

3 - Mt. Carmel (8-1)
30 - O'Fallon (4-5)

10 - Warren (7-2)
23 - Downers Grove South (6-3)

7 - York (8-1)
26 - Marist (4-5)

15 - Hoffman Estates (6-3)
18 - St. Ignatius (6-3)

2 - Lincoln-Way East (9-0)
31 - Mundelein (4-5)

Questions and comments will be welcome, but it may be useful to wait until after the 7A, 6A and 5A brackets are released; as well as after the new playoff criteria are released. I need to do a little snow shoveling first, but the other information will be posted today.

 

[Alexander32]

Here is the proposed 7A bracket for 2023:

Seed
1 - Batavia (8-1)
32 - Reavis (4-5)

16 - St. Rita (5-4)
17 - Neuqua Valley (6-3)

8 - Joliet West (8-1)
25 - Nazareth (4-5)

9 - Willowbrook (7-2)
24 - Addison Trail (6-3)


4 - Quincy (9-0)
29 - Rockford Auburn (5-4)

13 - Naperville Central (7-2)
20 - Naperville North (6-3)

5 - South Elgin (8-1)
28 - Wheaton-Warrenville South (5-4)

12 - Wheaton North (6-3)
21 - Blue Island Eisenhower (6-3)



11 - Lincoln-Way West (7-2)
22 - Buffalo Grove (6-3)

6 - Glenbard East (8-1)
27 - Fenwick (4-5)

14 - Young (7-2)
19 - Kenwood (6-3)

3 - Rockton Hononegah (9-0)
30 - Argo (5-4)


10 - St. Charles North (6-3)
23 - Machesney Park Harlem (6-3)

7 - Lincoln-Way Central (8-1)
26 - Libertyville (5-4)

15 - Minooka (7-2)
18 - Bradley-Bourbonnais (6-3)

2 - Lake Zurich (8-1)
31 - Pekin (4-5)

Although I've used a 1-32 seeding system, including for classes 6A and 5A, it can be seen that matchups between teams from the same conference continue to happen. In the bracket above Willowbrook plays Addison Trail, Naperville Central plays Naperville North, and Young plays Kenwood. If the IHSA members were so inclined, this could easily be prevented by stipulating teams from the same conference would not play each other in the first round. I don't know if that is desired or not.

The 6A bracket will be coming.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Well, have to say I'm eager to see the methodology here, including seeding 🤔

 

[Alexander32]

Here is the proposed 6A bracket for 2023:

Seed
1 - Prairie Ridge (9-0)
32 - Rockford East (4-5)

16 - Geneva (7-2)
17 - Thornton Fractional North (7-2)

8 - IC Catholic (7-2)
25 - Bloomington (5-4)

9 - Lincoln Park (8-1)
24 - Centennial (6-3)


4 - Maine West (9-0)
29 - Bremen (5-4)

13 - Belvidere North (7-2)
20 - Kaneland (6-3)

5 - Peoria (7-2)
28 - Danville (5-4)

12 - Crete-Monee (6-3)
21 - Lemont (5-4)



11 - Chatham Glenwood (6-3)
22 - Yorkville (6-3)

6 - Richards (7-2)
27 - Crystal Lake Central (5-4)

14 - Normal West (7-2)
19 - Providence (5-4)

3 - Washington (8-1)
30 - Hinsdale South (4-5)


10 - Cary-Grove (7-2)
23 - Lake Forest (5-4)

7 - East St. Louis (7-2)
26 - Simeon (5-4)

15 - Dunlap (6-3)
18 - Riverside-Brookfield (7-2)

2 - Kankakee (9-0)
31 - Burlington Central (4-5)


The 5A bracket will be posted shortly.

 

[Alexander32]

Here is the 5A bracket:

Seed
1 - Morris (9-0)
32 - DePaul (4-5)

16 - Joliet Catholic (6-3)
17 - Wauconda (7-2)

8 - St. Francis (7-2)
25 - St. Laurence (6-3)

9 - Carmel (8-1)
24 - Highland Park (6-3)


4 - Rockford Boylan (8-1)
29 - LaSalle-Peru (4-5)

13 - Hillcrest (6-3)
20 - Evergreen Park (6-3)

5 - Highland (8-1)
28 - Tinley Park (5-4)

12 - Rochelle (7-2)
21 - Decatur MacArthur (6-3)



11 - Sacred Heart - Griffin (6-3)
22 - Troy Triad (6-3)

6 - Antioch (9-0)
27 - St. Viator (5-4)

14 - Chicago Lake View (7-2)
19 - Carbondale (7-2)

3 - Sycamore (8-1)
30 - Jacksonville (4-5)


10 - Mahomet-Seymour (7-2)
23 - Geneseo (6-3)

7 - Morgan Park (8-1)
26 - Sterling (4-5)

15 - Metamora (7-2)
18 - Chicago Mather (7-2)

2 - Morton (8-1)
31 - Marian Catholic (4-5)

 

[Snetsrak61]

Interesting to see both some publics and privates get pushed up, though obvious privates are being pushed up more aggressively.

I'll comment on Naz only... In this scenario I'd guess they exit in 7A quarters. Not a bad season still for a 4-5 school. But very curious how not only do they bump up a few classes from their natural class, but also seed wise all the way to 25, with some 5-4 naturally larger schools seeded lower. Though in this case 25 with a potential quarters matchup against Batavia is preferable to say a 32 seed and a round 1 matchup against them. Obviously oddities of imperfect seeding always open up these kind of lucky or unlucky draws, but since seeding obviously isn't following record first, I'm again very curious to see the methodology...

6A feels like a optimal place to me in a non SF world (in prior years they did end up there naturally along with some other 2023 5A schools like Prairie Ridge who I see is back to 6A under this method... So again, very curious to see how the sausage was made here...

Edit to add - very interesting JCA is "left behind" in 5A here too. Looks like they'd probably have won this class.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Noticing actual 6A title game is now a round 2 matchup 😕. Wonder if PR gets through the other half of that bracket to face the winner of a crazy Rd 2 matchup. Just funny how seeding oddities (either current or proposed) could play such a butterfly effect.

 

[Alexander32]

If one wants the Illinois high school football playoffs to be more competitive, better teams need to be included. That is, add some teams that are better than some of the teams currently included in the playoffs. If it is undesirable to expand the number of teams, this necessarily means some teams need to be dropped. The challenge is to do this in a fair and objective manner, with full transparency, and also to preserve a substantial number of playoff spots for teams from weaker conferences. The following set of selection and seeding criteria tries to do all that.

* All current IHSA procedures that are not specifically changed by the following amendments will remain in place.

* All teams with at least seven (7) regular season wins will be included in the playoffs; unless their conference prohibits it or the school itself chooses not to participate.

* All conference champions, (excluding conferences with less than six teams and conferences with more than eleven teams), will be included in the playoffs regardless of record. Current rules will determine the conference champion (and therefore automatic qualifier) in the case of ties. Teams from conferences with less than six teams and more than eleven teams will be treated like independents.

* Independents must have seven or more regular season wins to participate in the playoffs, unless they have played in a semifinal game at least once (in the aggregate) over the last five playoffs or have played two such teams during the current season (in which case they can participate with fewer than seven wins in accordance with current rules).

* All teams playing in a conference (with 6 to 11 members) where at least one conference member has played in at least one semifinal game over the last five playoffs will be eligible to play in the playoffs subject to currently existing selection rules.

* Teams playing in a conference where no conference member has played in a semifinal game over the last five playoffs must have seven regular season wins to participate in the playoffs, (except they can also qualify under the rules for independents).

* Private schools that have played in at least one semifinal game over the last five playoffs will have their student enrollment multiplied by 1.65 for the purpose of determining which class they will initially be assigned to.

* Private schools will be subject to the following success factor: X - 2 = Y
Where X is the number of semifinal games the school has played in over the last five playoffs, then Y will be the number of class levels the team will be moved up. As a current example, Nazareth Academy played in four semifinal games over the five playoffs immediately preceding 2023, and therefore its 2023 team will be moved up two class levels from its initial assignment (from 5A to 7A).

* Public schools will be subject to the following success factor: A - 2 = B
Where A is the number of state championships the school has won over the last five playoffs, then B will be the number of class levels the team will be moved up. As a current example, Lena-Winslow won four championships over the five playoffs immediately preceding 2023, and therefore its 2023 team will be moved up two class levels from its initial assignment (from 1A to 3A).

* Any team qualifying for the playoffs from a conference (6 to 11 members) without a semifinal appearance in the last five playoffs will be moved down one class level from its initial class assignment.

* For seeding purposes only, a modified regular-season win total will be used. All teams that have qualified for the playoffs and have played in at least one semifinal game (in the aggregate) during the preceding five playoffs will have one win added to their actual regular-season win total. Other than this small modification, seeding will be done according to the current existing IHSA procedures. This modified win total is not to be used for determining which teams make the playoffs.

***************************************************************************************************************

Explanation

As can be seen, a heavy emphasis has been placed on semifinal appearances over the preceding five playoffs. This has been done for two reasons. First, when determining (systematically) whether or not a team should be moved to a different class level, whether it be due to the multiplier, the success factor, or playing in a weak conference, I believe the emphasis should be on measuring program strength and not whether an individual team is good. If we simply start moving all the good teams to higher class levels, then the playoffs at the lower levels become consolation playoffs. That is not desirable. We should want each class level to be a legitimate playoff between teams of more or less the same program strength. Furthermore, program strength more often than not determines how good the team actually is. Quincy and Hononegah had outstanding seasons relative to their respective program strengths, but their 9-0 records simply do not reflect the same level of ability as the 9-0 record of Lincoln-Way East. They deserve to compete at the 7A level rather than move up to 8A because their program strengths are at a 7A level. Mt. Carmel's program strength, on the other hand, is at an 8A level. Mt. Carmel is certainly one of the top five programs in the state.

A second reason for emphasizing semifinal appearances over the preceding five playoffs is simply because it is a very effective measure. There is a strong correlation between such appearances and having success in a current year's playoff. Sports handicapping is a hobby of mine and I have done a considerable number of studies regarding this particular relationship. The consistent outcome is that close to 85% of state football champions in any given year were also semifinalists at least once in the preceding five years. As just one example I looked at a sample of 50 teams. These were the 19 8A champions from 2003 through 2022, the 19 7A champions from 2003 through 2022, and the 12 6A champions from 2010 through 2022. [I was looking to create a sample of 50 outcomes and don't like to go back more than 20 years because the value of statistics depreciates with time. Also, of course, there were no playoffs in 2020.] The result was that 42 of these 50 champions (84%) had been a semifinalist at least once during the preceding five playoffs. This is a strong correlation. Reducing the time period being measured to two years, as the IHSA currently does, reduces the correlation to about 70%.

Consistently applying the criteria set forth above to all eight classes would have resulted in 29 teams being removed from the playoffs entirely. Those teams went a combined 2-27 in the first round. The two teams that won their first-round game lost in the second round by 35 points and 24 points. Of the 27 teams that lost in the first round, 11 of them lost by 40 or more points. Only three of them lost by fewer than 10 points. It is my contention that removing these teams from the playoffs, along with the new success factor, and dropping teams from weak conferences down a class level, would have made the playoffs more competitive. This would have been done while still making sure there was room to include every team in the state with a record of 7-2 or better.

Any questions or comments will be welcome.

 

[stl705]

Alexander - what was your reasoning for Success Factor / Public, with the variable A being State Championships instead of say Championship Appearances as a specific example?

You had Semi’s for privates which I buy, and I buy the reasoning for higher level to move publics under your proposal, but instead of Final’s Appearance, you chose Finals Winner. Curious the thoughts into that.

 

[Alexander32]

Alexander - what was your reasoning for Success Factor / Public, with the variable A being State Championships instead of say Championship Appearances as a specific example?

You had Semi’s for privates which I buy, and I buy the reasoning for higher level to move publics under your proposal, but instead of Final’s Appearance, you chose Finals Winner. Curious the thoughts into that.

Thanks for the question.

There currently is no success factor for public schools so I thought to move in that direction I should take the smallest step possible. Ideally I would be comfortable applying the same success factor to public schools that I have proposed for the private schools. However, starting from a circumstance where there is no success factor for public schools and with those very same public schools comprising a very large majority of the IHSA membership, I didn't think it was realistic to expect them to vote for a proposal beyond what I've introduced. In truth, it may even be difficult to get them to vote for my modest proposal.

Your question is a good one... thanks again.


P.S. In thinking more about your question, perhaps I'm wrong to think most public high schools would have a similar position on the matter. For every Rochester or Byron there are more than a dozen other public high schools that haven't participated in the playoffs for years. Maybe those schools would be willing to vote for a stronger success factor for the public schools. If you are suggesting championship game appearances would be a better criterion, a compromise position so to speak, I am certainly not going to say you are wrong.

 

[cornerrat]

Thanks for the question.

There currently is no success factor for public schools so I thought to move in that direction I should take the smallest step possible. Ideally I would be comfortable applying the same success factor to public schools that I have proposed for the private schools. However, starting from a circumstance where there is no success factor for public schools and with those very same public schools comprising a very large majority of the IHSA membership, I didn't think it was realistic to expect them to vote for a proposal beyond what I've introduced. In truth, it may even be difficult to get them to vote for my modest proposal.

Your question is a good one... thanks again.

All.... No success factor for the publics even though the privates are already multiplied. It wasn't enough that a very small group of Catholic schools even multiplied continued to "flourish." The current application of the SF by the Ihsa is discriminatory. A second foot on the neck in an attempt to limit Catholic football success.

I see you have put in quite a bit of time and thought on all of this .... impressive. But the SF formula's you present need to be the same or eliminate them completely. My two cents worth.

Ihsa membership as you have mentioned will not vote for anything which remotely might make their path more difficult to win even one game much less a championship. Nothing is going to change until membership forces the Ihsa into a separation vote. When that happens is anyone's guess because it has been and will always be about the revenue stream. Ratsy

 

[ramblinman]

Agree with Ratsy.

Additionally, the proposed ruling on schools playing an independent schedule needing at least 7 wins to qualify seems punitive to me. How can you justify 4-5 schools in the playoffs but not 6-3?

 

[Alexander32]

Agree with Ratsy.

Additionally, the proposed ruling on schools playing an independent schedule needing at least 7 wins to qualify seems punitive to me. How can you justify 4-5 schools in the playoffs but not 6-3?

Thank you for the comment.

The justification for having a 4-5 team in the playoffs, such as Marist, but not a 6-3 team, such as Lane, is twofold. The first justification is strength of schedule, the second is football playing ability. If a person wants to reduce the number of blowouts in the playoffs, it seems reasonable that the selection criteria should in some manner include a realistic evaluation of schedule strength and team strength.

The proposal outlined above included two exceptions to the requirement that independents needed a 7-2 record or better to participate in the playoffs. The first exception was if the team itself had played in at least one semifinal game in any of the five previous playoffs. The second exception was if the team played at least two teams during the regular season that had played in at least one semifinal game in any of the five previous playoffs. If either one of those two exceptions is met, then the 7-2 record restriction does not apply. The team can then qualify under the currently existing IHSA rules.

Marist played in three semifinal games over the course of the five previous playoffs (preceding 2023). Even if they hadn't, they played seven teams during the regular season that had played in at least one semifinal game during those five years (actually six years because there was no playoff in 2020). Marist easily qualified for an exception to the 7-2 requirement.

Lane did not play in any semifinal games during the preceding five playoffs. None of the teams on Lane's regular season schedule played even a single semifinal game during that same time period. Therefore, Lane did not qualify for an exception to the 7-2 requirement. If we are unwilling to recognize that Marist's schedule was much, much more difficult than Lane's, or that Marist was a much better football team than Lane, then we have no chance of reducing the number of blowouts in the playoffs. Lane went on to lose in the first round of the playoffs by a score of 55 to 6 to South Elgin. Marist was not allowed to compete in the playoffs.

I should point out one final thing in case the circumstance causes any confusion. Although neither Marist nor Lane is an independent, according to the proposal submitted above they both are to be treated like independents. That is due to the size of their respective conferences. Marist's is too small and current IHSA rules do not recognize the conference champion as an automatic qualifier. Current IHSA rules treat every team in Marist's conference like an independent. Lane's conference is too large, which allows them to avoid playing many of the better teams in the conference such as Morgan Park and Kenwood.

Thanks again for your comment. It is a good discussion to have.

 

[stonedlizard]

@Alexander32 - interesting stuff! Having been down this road before I can appreciate the time and effort you put in behind the scenes to get to this thread. I will be giving this a more detailed review, expect some questions and some challenges to the proposal .

That said, well done and looking forward to unpacking this further!

 

[Alexander32]

The remaining brackets for the smaller schools will be submitted intermittently over the next few weeks. The 4A bracket is listed below.

Seed
1 - Rochester (9-0)
32 - Manteno (4-5)

16 - Lindblom (7-2)
17 - Normal University (7-2)

8 - Dixon (8-1)
25 - Prairie Central (5-4)

9 - Coal City (7-2)
24 - Paris (5-4)


4 - Greenville (9-0)
29 - Taylorville (5-4)

13 - Montini (6-3)
20 - Harrisburg (6-3)

5 - Richmond-Burton (7-2)
28 - Peoria Notre Dame (5-4)

12 - Carterville (7-2)
21 - Phillips (5-4)



11 - Mt. Zion (7-2)
22 - Quincy Notre Dame (4-5)

6 - Kewanee (8-1)
27 - Bishop McNamara (4-5)

14 - Charleston (7-2)
19 - Sandwich (6-3)

3 - Payton (9-0)
30 - Lincoln (5-4)


10 - Wheaton Academy (8-1)
23 - Benton (5-4)

7 - Glenbard South (8-1)
26 - Plano (5-4)

15 - Noble/UIC (7-2)
18 - Effingham (5-4)

2 - Murphysboro (8-1)
31 - Marengo (4-5)


Although Montini might have given Rochester a good game, Rochester would certainly be the favorite to win a state title from this bracket. One of the positive aspects of this newly proposed approach, though, is that it is somewhat self-correcting. This is due to the fact that a success factor has been introduced for public schools. If Rochester were to run off a string of five consecutive state championships like they did from 2010 through 2014, which is utter dominance, they would be classified in the 7A bracket the following year. I think it would be a valuable experience for them to be challenged that way. What do all of you think?

Of course, five consecutive titles would be increasingly unlikely under this proposal. After a third consecutive title they would be classified in 5A, and after a fourth they would be classified in 6A.

 

[rocketnation]

If anyone needs a cure for insomnia, I had a lengthy post back in 2020 that looked at all the 4A Rocket championship teams and tried to predict how well they would have fared in those years had they played in either 5A or 6A.

I thought then that several of the teams could have made deep playoff runs in 5A but that only one could have in 6A. I think the 2021 game against Loyola showed that playing in 7A or 8A would be a bridge too far for Rochester.

 

[epicbret]

Equal or no success factor, otherwise cool premise.

 

[Alexander32]

The proposed 3A bracket follows:

Seed
1 - Byron (9-0)
32 - New Berlin (4-5)

16 - Carlinville (6-3)
17 - Stanford Olympia (7-2)

8 - Williamsville (7-2)
25 - Oregon (5-4)

9 - Sullivan (8-1)
24 - Fairfield (5-4)


4 - Wilmington (8-1)
29 - Paxton (5-4)

13 - Durand-Pecatonica (7-2)
20 - Monticello (5-4)

5 - DuQuoin (9-0)
28 - Auburn (5-4)

12 - Nashville (6-3)
21 - Clinton (6-3)



11 - Breese Central (7-2)
22 - Peotone (6-3)

6 - Mt. Carmel (8-1)
27 - Stillman Valley (5-4)

14 - St. Joseph-Ogden (7-2)
19 - Poplar Grove (6-3)

3 - Princeton (8-1)
30 - Woodstock Marian Central Catholic (4-5)


10 - Tolono Unity (7-2)
23 - Eureka (5-4)

7 - Chicago Dyett (8-1)
26 - Piasa Southwestern (5-4)

15 - Chicago Vocational (7-2)
18 - Litchfield (6-3)

2 - Lena-Winslow (9-0)
31 - Genoa-Kingston (4-5)

 

[Alexander32]

Here is the proposed 2A bracket for 2023:

Seed
1 - Maroa-Forsyth (9-0)
32 - McLeansboro Hamilton County (4-5)

16 - Carmi White County (7-2)
17 - Lawrenceville (7-2)

8 - Johnston City (8-1)
25 - Breese Mater Dei (6-3)

9 - Sterling Newman Catholic (7-2)
24 - Mendon Unity (6-3)


4 - Shelbyville (8-1)
29 - Chicago Christian (5-4)

13 - Belleville Althoff (8-1)
20 - Pana (6-3)

5 - Bloomington Central Catholic (9-0)
28 - Rockford Lutheran (5-4)

12 - Athens (7-2)
21 - Vandalia (6-3)



11 - Chicago Johnson (8-1)
22 - Toledo Cumberland (6-3)

6 - Sesser-Valier (9-0)
27 - Minonk Fieldcrest (4-5)

14 - Gibson City (6-3)
19 - Tuscola (5-4)

3 - Arthur (9-0)
30 - Chicago Hansberry (5-4)


10 - Chicago North Lawndale (8-1)
23 - El Paso - Gridley (6-3)

7 - Roxana (9-0)
26 - Deer Creek - Mackinaw (5-4)

15 - Oneida (7-2)
18 - Fulton (6-3)

2 - Downs Tri-Valley (9-0)
31 - Manlius Bureau Valley (4-5)

 

[forlouann]

Thank you

 

[Alexander32]

Last but not least, the proposed 1A bracket for 2023 is provided below.

The private high schools are in bold type to draw attention to the fact that plenty of private schools are not multiplied and do not have the success factor applied to them under the newly proposed standards. Those schools are assigned to a class purely by their base student enrollment.

It should also be mentioned that at the end of the 2023 regular season there were 17 eight-man football teams in the state with a record of 4-5 or better. That is not a sufficient number to fill out a 32-team bracket. Therefore, I would recommend they still not be included in the regular IHSA playoffs. If and when there are consistently 32 eight-man teams with at least a 4-5 record at the end of the regular season, they could be included in the regular playoffs and the eleven-man field could be limited to seven classes.

Seed
1 - Camp Point Central (9-0)
32 - Arcola (4-5)

16 - Knoxville (7-2)
17 - Bismarck-Henning (7-2)

8 - Farmington (8-1)
25 - Villa Grove (6-3)

9 - Momence (8-1)
24 - Carrollton (5-4)


4 - Greenfield-Northwestern (9-0)
29 - Moweaqua Central A&M (4-5)

13 - LeRoy (8-1)
20 - Red Bud (7-2)

5 - Toulon Stark County (9-0)
28 - Nokomis (5-4)

12 - Taylor Ridge Rockridge (8-1)
21 - Heyworth (7-2)



11 - Morrison (8-1)
22 - Hardin-Calhoun (6-3)

6 - Hope Academy (8-1)
27 - Argenta-Oreana (4-5)

14 - Casey-Westfield (8-1)
19 - Ottawa Marquette (7-2)

3 - Seneca (9-0)
30 - Stockton (4-5)


10 - Westville (8-1)
23 - Winchester - West Central (6-3)

7 - Forreston (7-2)
26 - Princeville (5-4)

15 - Aurora Christian (7-2)
18 - Catlin Salt Fork (7-2)

2 - Kewanee Wethersfield - Annawan (8-1)
31 - Jacksonville Routt (4-5)


The End.......... except, of course, if you choose to post a question or comment. They are always welcome.