I'm not implying anything, not the least of which being that the system I'm talking about is perfect.
Pretentious? Moi?
Back by popular demand: my annual playoff mismatch rant
- Thread starter ramblinman
- Start date
I'm not implying anything, not the least of which being that the system I'm talking about is perfect.
Pretentious? Moi?
I'll give you guys this.Joliet West had a great year.8-1 & hosted playoff game but got destroyed.Many ppl soured on them.Yet go back to the old days no seeding.Say Taft at Plainfield North round 1.Then say Joliet West played at Lane Tech.Joliet West & Plainfield North both win.North loses at West in round 2 then West loses in the quarters.Ok so they finish 10-2 & people probably have a totally different perspective on them
Joliet West played a horrible schedule. Yes, they beat Yorkville, who beat Minooka, but overall their conference is pretty bad. Imagine if they scheduled a cupcake instead of Morris and went 9-0. They would probably be the worst 9-0 ever.
I'm still confused on the need for this rant in the first place. Blowouts happen at every level, playoffs and regular season alike. We see them in the championship games. Hell, we see them in the pros at the SUPER BOWL! It happens in the NCAA tournament every year. You let teams in from every corner of the state to determine who's the best. Right now, CPS is on it's behind and the CCL is stacked, but make the rules to let everyone have a chance and let them play it out. It's just the way the sport works.
Just let the kids play and enjoy high school football while they can. As a parent, I've been on both sides of that blowout and it is what it is. I love both seasons and I love that it's made men of my boys. I can still remember winning it all as a player and losing in the first round. I'm glad to have both experiences and I don't blame the system for either instance. Now, letting teams with losing records in....that's a different conversation.....
Just let the kids play and enjoy high school football while they can. As a parent, I've been on both sides of that blowout and it is what it is. I love both seasons and I love that it's made men of my boys. I can still remember winning it all as a player and losing in the first round. I'm glad to have both experiences and I don't blame the system for either instance. Now, letting teams with losing records in....that's a different conversation.....
Yes, they do happen.
My stance is that the playoffs should be as competitive as possible. If that could happen with making some changes as to how playoff qualifiers are classified, then I feel that is something worth exploring. That does not mean that blowouts won't still happen.
I feel that there are too many blowouts in the playoffs. I realize they cant be eliminated, but that does not mean we shouldn't try to reduce them if we think there are too many. The question I keep asking each year, and that nobody ever answers, is how many blowouts are too many? If what we experience now is not enough for people to say "enough already," what would be? What's our collective pain tolerance for this?
If you're good with things as they are now, fine. What wouldn't you be good with? Perhaps you don't have an "enough already" pain tolerance?
Lastly, there's discussion about allowing all teams into the playoffs. If there are currently 70-0 playoff games with 9-0 vs 4-5 teams, what would it be like Iike with playoff games between 9-0 and 0-9 teams?
You could always look across the border at Indiana. They have 6 classes and allow everyone in the playoffs, then random draw the first round sectional pairings. No ranking or seeding necessary. Then, instead of first round blowouts, you could get the number one vs the number three ranked teams in the first round. Both 6A and 5A had this happen last week. Alleviates some of the blowout problem in the first round. Of course, it also means you won't necessarily have the best teams facing off in the semifinals and finals.
Well, my point is that your stance that takes away memories of hundreds of kids. And I can answer your question, you just won't like the answer. There is no number of blowouts that are too many.
If you think that making every game competitive is the goal of high school sports, I think you need to look outside your personal experiences. The majority of players in this state are in programs that ebb and flow from good and bad years and that's part of the experience. I don't want to make this a public/private conversation, but alot of public schools in the mid to smaller divisions have that experience. High school football should build our kids into adults who can thrive, and sometimes getting your behind handed to you is part of life. We, on this board, need to remember what we're actually talking about and leave these discussions for the higher levels of college and the pros.
Besides, who is it that you feel is "in pain"? I watched my son get manhandled last year and I love that he grew from it and worked harder this year. I watched a CPS team get throttled this year too. Take away the playoffs for that 5-4 CPS team and what were they fighting for all year?
The great programs will get their due on Thanksgiving weekend, but just cutting out any group because we only want the best from the first round is elitist.
Payton may have something to say about that! They came into the playoffs 9-0 and lost 50-0 to a 4-5 team.
Opinions will vary and that is okay, but I will answer the question you pose in your third paragraph with my own personal view on the matter. There is no number of blowouts that is too many for me. I am willing to let the first two rounds of the playoffs weed out 75% of the teams, many of which are less competitive, and then I consider the playoffs to begin in earnest with the quarterfinals. There are some interesting games in the first two rounds, but beginning with the quarterfinals most of the games are interesting. I try to remember the playoffs do not primarily exist for my benefit as a fan, but, instead, they primarily exist for the enjoyment of the players and for their positive development as human beings.
I am not in favor of allowing all teams into the playoffs each year. Limiting participation to 32 teams per class level gives each team a goal to pursue throughout the season. Admittedly, the goal is more easily achieved by some teams than others, but it is still a goal for many teams that gives them something to look forward to. Within the 32-team per class level constraint, there are (in my mind) three objectives that should be pursued by the IHSA. They are, in order of importance, the following:
1) Create a process for determining eligibility and for seeding that is transparent and relatively simple to understand and administer.
2) Provide a reasonable opportunity for all IHSA members to participate in the playoffs.
3) Promote some semblance of competitive balance within each class.
You will note I am not totally opposed to some small movement in the direction of competitive balance, but it is the least important of the three objectives to me and the process would need to be objective and, in some sense, fair.
Hopefully, two things have been accomplished by this post. First, you can no longer claim that nobody ever answers your question of "how many blowouts are too many?" Second, although I will never claim my views should take precedence over your views in this matter, the push back you have received by a number of other posters might suggest you will have a hard time persuading others to your point of view. [Or at least a sufficient number of people to give you hope that significant changes may take place.]
Two notes on the Indiana model:
- How bad would it suck to have the meaning zapped from the regular season like that? Unless I am misunderstanding some machination of how Indiana works, there's zero advantage to going 9-0 vs 8-2 etc etc.
- Illinois has WAY more football-playing high schools than Indiana. Having everyone get into the playoffs with 8 classes means extending them a full round and giving byes or adding play-in games.
You're not wrong, although it pains me to agree as someone who wishes Payton could take the next step back to where they were in 2019 (i.e. competitive with marginal suburban programs/lower catholic programs).
There is a cusp of physicality that Payton, as a magnet school, seemingly can't break through - the same dynamic is true for schools like Whitney Young, Lane, etc. relative to their class. Payton always has solid schemes/execution/fundamentals and a handful of tough kids and great athletes (i.e. Charlie Newton last year who's now playing LB at Columbia), but when you're significantly undersized up front and lack depth, the game can really roll on you like it did vs Sterling when you play teams with some size who can really beat you at the line. (Sterling has some great athletes it appears, they beat Payton in all phases, but size was a big component).
Saw this happen in person last year vs DePaul. Payton was making plays all over and got up by two touchdowns at the half. Through the third quarter, you just saw that depth and size imbalance rear it's ugly head and DePaul stormed back.
/EndRant!!
This is excellent. If @ramblinman changed his rant to annual 2nd round or quarterfinal blowout rant, then it would have more traction.
College hoops has steadily gotten more parity over the years, but the NCAA tournament is still designed to create mismatches in the first round. Any seeded tournament bracket with 16 or especially 32 teams would do the same and is, in fact, kind of designed to do so.
Sure they are more interesting, but still plenty of lopsided scores. The last 8 years, in all classes combined, it's about 51% of the quarterfinal/semi's/finals finished with 3-score (or more) difference.
I have a soft spot for Illini 8 & Sica Teams.On one hand they had a nice season.They beat teams that used to beat them.On the other hand well you are spot on.Imagine if CCL schools hadn't closed & you had a conference with SFDS,Mendel,Christ The King,Weber,St.Joe's & Hales. Then you had another conference with Leo,Seton Academy,Walther Lutheran,St.Gregory,Luther North & Luther South.No disrespect to any of these schools i loved them all & miss the ones closed & no football.Say 4 of the 6 in each conference make the playoffs.What do you think would happen? We both know the answer.
Ppl blame seeding or lack of in the lower classes. Is it right a 8-1 or 9-0 team who has played a cookie cutter schedule get a much higher seed than a 4-5 team who played a monster schedule & was very competitive in their losses? Indiana has been mentioned.Blind draw.I recall one year the draw just so happened that 9-0 vs 8-1 & 9-0 vs 8-1 & below 1-8 vs 0-9 & 1-8 vs 2-7. 11-0 vs 2-9 in round 3 ouch
Payton is consistently a 8-1/9-0 team. Highly ranked in state, and generally crushed in the first round of the IHSA playoffs. Payton also plays in the conference not eligible for the CPL playoffs for some reason. The thing I've never understood is why they never get promoted to the top conference in the CPL system of promotion and relegation. How does 9-0 never get moved up? I'm guessing there must be some way to petition to not get promoted in the system?
To be clear, they don't "never get promoted to the top conference" - this is literally the first season with a single red conference eligible for the city playoffs. They have always played in the top "tier" of CPS and been eligible for CPL playoffs until this season, when CPS went from several smaller top conferences to one combined top conference.
Last season (2022) there were 4 red ("top") conferences that were eligible for city playoffs - Payton played in the Red West and missed the CPS playoffs because they went to the second round of the state playoffs (lost to Morgan Park).
For many many years before that, the Illini was the "top" level made up of smaller conferences, with the Redbird being the premier conference. Payton was in the Illini Prairie state/Illini Heartland and went to the city playoffs all the time.
In 2021 the first round of city playoffs was held in week 9, Payton lost to Phillips.
2020 - Covid year
2019 - CPS strike I think cancelled the CPL playoffs
2018 - not sure why they missed the CPL playoffs this year, they went undefeated and beat Kenwood week 9 (obviously a different Kenwood, but fun to say)
2017 - Lost to Hubbard in the CPS playoffs after getting knocked out of state by Glenbard South 49-31.
2016 - Lost to Simeon in R1 of CPS playoffs
etc. etc. etc. - sorry for going down memory lane as I'm sure all of the conference alignment stuff is old news to you.
All of this to say - this new combined red conference is a new thing this season. I totally agree - I'm not sure why they weren't included or what/who made the selections. If they don't get bumped up next year, something is fishy. I would rather go 4-5 and play meaningful games all season and test the team than 9-0 and out.
18, 19 both had city playoffs. When they eliminated the Redbird and Heartland, they went to different Illini conferences that were only eligible for the city playoffs. I know Payton wasn't in those conferences. A couple of years back, the lower level conference champions were included in the city playoffs, getting hammered in the process. Maybe @Coach Percy could shed some light on this one.
Last edited:
Payton has routinely asked to held out the top conference. The year Clark moved up, it was Payton that was supposed to go. The year before it was Young that went up instead of them. We will see if they move up next year. Curie and Hubbard should be the teams to drop and Payton, Johnson, and NLCP are the next to move up
I just have a distaste (although loving relationship) with my Minooka peeps. They routinely dismiss Wilmington's accomplishments because they are a small school. They don't realize their conference is pretty much hot garbage. At least I admit ICE is pretty crumby as of late.
What are you reference when you say Clark "moved up?" When they moved up to the Illini in 2017, or their inclusion in the Red this year? If you're saying Payton asked not to join the Red this year, I'll take your word for it and that's too bad. But prior to this year there was not promotion or relegation among the various Red/Illini conferences. For example, until this year Phillips and Simeon have not played in the same conference going back years and years - which one is asking to "stay down?" Neither to my knowledge - the conferences weren't hierarchal by design.
The Redbird has always been the best, but there was never explicit promotion and relegation between them. I have no idea what logic the brainiacs at CPL HQ use to design these conferences, but until this year it was a mess.
Actually Clark moved up from Heartland to the Land of Lincoln 2yrs ago......even though both were Illini conferences the Redbird conference and Lincoln conference were the top 2 conferences in CPS at that time. The top 4 teams in each of those conferences made the city championship plus the top 2 in the other four Illini conferences. The top 8 seeds would be the teams in the top 2 conferences. Payton refused to move up to the Lincoln for years.
The Conferences were aligned with Illini at the top. Regardless of the names, they were the top tier. The top 8-10 ( I can't remember) in the Illini conferences were in the CPL Playoffs, and were also IHSA playoff eligible. The second tier were the Chicago conferences. These conferences were not eligible for the city playoffs. The conference champions were only eligible for the IHSA playoffs, and promotion to the Illini conference level. The third tier was the Inner-City conferences. These conferences were not state playoff eligible, and the champions were only eligible for promotion to the Chicago conferences. There has always been promotion and relegation in the CPL regardless of the individual division names. Regardless of the names, or the terminology, the conferences were 100% hierarchal by design. It's like this in every sport.
10-15 years ago, the HC at Taft was known for beating up on Chicago Conference competition and then petitioning to not be promoted to the Illini conferences. It was big news all over the NW side.
What do you mean refused? Arent they assigned to a conference? How does one "refuse" where they are placed?
They "petitioned" to CPS and then they give it to the second place team
You clearly don't understand the power that selective enrollment CPS schools wield over the CPS.
Yes, exactly. The conferences were hierarchal between inter-city -> Chicago - > Illini. There was not promotion and relegation between various conferences of the same tier. You did not get "promoted" from one top tier conference to another.
Lol how you gonna tell me what happened when I was the one in the meetings? When they were clearly a divide in spoils (city playoff spots 8 for the top 2 and 8 for the remaining 4). Interesting concept!?
Huh? Clark has never played in the Land of Lincoln.
2022: Clark Co-Op was in Red North
2021: Clark was in the Illini-Prairie State (w/ Payton)
2020: Illini Heartland w/ Payton
2019: Illini Prairie State w/ Payton
Lol, your buddies in a room discussing who should be in what conference is not the same as promotion and relegation. The SEC west being better than the SEC east does not mean teams get "moved up" to it. Again, Simeon and Phillips have never been in the same conference until this year. If one of these Red/Illini conferences was truly the top of a promotable pyramid, that would not be the case.
I am 100% many schools (Taft example above, plenty of inter-city teams in the past, Phillips?) have made requests regarding conference assignment. If it's done to dodge competition I think it's a shame - I want the best to play the best, and hopefully this new system does just that with a single red conference. But the CPS (shockingly) has never had a public framework for how they reshuffle between conferences of the same tier.
A Lil inside info......the coaches committee puts together the framework of the conferences and the CPS approves it......for years those 2 schools have intentionally kept themselves away from each other.....for reasons only those two schools can answer. If you look at the make-up of the conference Phillips was in, it was mostly always North and West schools with the caveat of them saying that they are splitting the city in half at 39th street (Curie and Solorio were the only exception).
I think this is a semantical argument. As far as the CPL was concerned, Illini was Illini as far as the top two Illini were concerned. Yes, the Redbird had the majority of the best teams, but the top two Illini and the other two Illini were all IHSA playoff eligible. The promotion/relegation was between Illini-Chicago-Inner CIty. They changed everything in 2017ish? and made more teams playoff eligible, putting more teams in the Illini... Of course CPL doesn't make anything public. They have no clue.
Before Jaton, the coaches committee basically had automony. The coaches committee leadership basically ran CPS football. Once Jaton came in, he tried to implement changes but he was in over his head and then they brought in Rosengard who ruffled the feathers of alot of old heads and was met with resistance. But as stated before, certain selective enrollment schools wield a lot of power downtown. So they can make a call to get certain things done that other schools couldn't imagine.
Ha! Are you kidding? 3 pages of CPL anything is awesome. Bring on page 4!!
Ghost we are are saying the same exact thing. I'm in complete agreement.
From 2013 to 2019, the winner of each Illini conference (28 champions) only changed to another Illini conference 4 times. The consistency of those conferences was impressive - you didn't have teams winning and getting moved, which is the core of my point earlier.
Of course when they decided to promote all the Chicago conferences 2018, then redo everything by geography in 2022, and now the new format in '23... we have the clusterf*ck that we have today. Somebody needs to put on paper how the damn thing works now.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What Were the Top QB Classes in IHSA Football?
- Latest: rocketnation
-
-
-
