Hey A4fan
Not trying to pick a fight just want to know your opinion. What if the best 4 teams are in the same current bracket. Example in 8A. LWE, LA and MS? Does seeding 1-32 fix this? Just asking because I don’t know.
Higher seeds should get the home game.
- Thread starter gobucsgo
- Start date
Not trying to pick a fight just want to know your opinion. What if the best 4 teams are in the same current bracket. Example in 8A. LWE, LA and MS? Does seeding 1-32 fix this? Just asking because I don’t know.
Actually did not know that. So no fixing this scenario?
Not sure what needs to be fixed. There are top teams on both ends of the bracket. If you use computer rankings such as Calpreps they have Lyons at #3 and York #4. Don't follow 8A much so not sure how accurate their rankings are.
It sounds like your experience with seeding is limited to ihsa playoffs if that is your response. The discussion of poor draws and unfair seeding happens every year in the ncaat. Illinois vs Loyola a few years ago. Wichita st vs UK a few years before that. Saying that marist deserved a better draw simply means, as a top 4 team in 8a, they should have faced the #1 team in the semi's, not 2nd rd.
you keep bringing up the outcome of the games which is irrelevant to the discussion of accurately seeding teams. Seeding is based on your resume up to the point of seeding, not predicting who will win a given matchup.
Every year the NCAA gets seeding wrong and that's the type of system you want to go to? Also, using the tourney as a comparison to high school football is comparing apples to potatoes.
If they were seeded how you want how do you know Marist even makes the semis? You're making the assumption that the higher seed wins every game.
Who do you have ranking these teams in your system?
I think the issue is people are assuming their subjective assessments of teams is objective and correct.
How did you decide Marist was top 4? It also sounds like you're assuming Loyola was top 4, how did you determine that?
It's not solely my subjective opinion at all. Calpreps has LA and Marist as top 4 teams in 8a.
The bigger question for those that are disagreeing, and which keeps going unanswered, who believes there are 11 8a teams better than LA? Who believes there are 16 teams better than MC?
For the millionth time man, the seeding has nothing to do with who will win the game. Or who is favored to advance. It's about the resume of wins you have accumulated throughout the season. Its objective is to reward teams for a good reg season. It's not a predictor of future success in the post season. It sounds like you believe since a 15seed beat a 2, the seeding was wrong. But really, it means you don't have an understanding of what seeding teams means.
No one thinks there are 11 teams better than Loyola which is why no one is surprised they're still playing. For the millionth time stop focusing on the number in front of the team. With the current system if you want a higher ranking, win more games.
You have yet to provide another way of seeding the teams. Is your suggestion to just use Calpreps?
Here we go again with you fixated on results of the games when that has literally ZERO to do with seeding. It's not even a consideration when seeding teams yet you feel like it's some sort of validation of your point. The fact you keep going back to that sort of proves you really don't understand the objective of seeding teams.
I have given multiple suggestions for a different seeding system. AP polls for top 4 or 8, then current system for the rest, composite rankings from massey/calpreps/maxpreps to determine seeds. Any combination of those would be better. There is no system outside of the current one that would be worse at correctly seeding teams.
You seem to favor objectivity over accuracy. I don't care how objective or transparent a formula is if it doesn't produce accurate results.
None of those rankings know anything about Illinois high school football. Calpreps currently has 7 CPS schools in the top 32 for 5A and the AP is beyond useless and often times has teams in incorrect classes.
The system in place now rewards regular season success just as you are suggesting, you just don't like the way it went for one team so you think the entire system needs to be redone.
Calpreps hasn't seen a single team play. Furthermore back when I used to look at calpreps I would find a number of inaccurate scores reported and sometimes even the wrong results--which would then get fed into their algorithm resulting in garbage out. Garbage in garbage out. But on top of all that the computer is the same thing as a human opinion, the biases are just cooked into the algorithm.
I do value objectivity over subjectivity when it comes to seeding. The NFL does as well. Why do you think the NFL doesn't use Calpreps to seed the playoffs?
I have never suggested using those computers models for anything beyond 8.
Its also much more than just one team. Loyola, Mt. Carmel, Fenwick, Brother Rice, Montini. WY, Lincoln Park. That's 7off the top of my head plus the 7 opponents they are matched up against.
Well, that's a very silly question. The NFL has 32 teams and the talent is dispersed much more evenly throughout its 32 teams as opposed to hs football. Making it easier to accurately judge teams based solely on record. But, I feel like that answer was too obvious for you to not already know that.
So use one system to rank the teams you like and then a different system for everyone else? Got it.
Im rereading my post and i keep missing the part where i said that. The deflection is telling though.
I like the idea of giving the higher seeded teams the ability to defer their home game in round 1. I’m sure the top-seeded teams would always exercise this option to almost guarantee a home semi-final game.
I totally agree. That’s the best answer I have heard when discussing why a higher seed should have home field. I like this concept it gives the higher seed the option. If they choose to play at home with the first round or two well they can’t complain about having to travel in the later rounds. Based on this it’s assumed that the higher seed only has a certain number of games they can host. This would need to be clarified but I like your idea tigerforflyers.
It doesn't matter the level. The NFL doesn't care who's better, they are rewarding teams for their regular season which is what the IHSA does. Except the NFL is actually even more so against your idea or accuracy in that they'll even seed a division winner of a bad division over a team with a vastly superior record. That's because they are rewarding the team for winning their division. Did anyone really think the Bills were better than the Chefs 👨🍳?
The less teams in the NFL means that the computer will be more accurate and less faulty information included in the algorithm. The reason the NFL doesn't do calpreps is because its flat out a bad idea. Does the NCAA still use a computer?
Essentially this is all a solution looking for a problem.
Last edited:
You ignored the most important part of my post, which was the parity that exists in the NFL compared to hs football.
If the winner of the best division in the NFL plays the winner of the weakest division, the game will still be very competitive. And its because of that which makes there system of rewarding reg season success a much more accurate representation of who the best teams are compared to the IHSA model.
Even more reason to use calpreps. In a game of minor differences where home field gives +3 it should be more essential to seed the teams by who's better to ensure the best teams make it to the conference championships.
But you're getting closer. Parity exists in HS football too. Sure you look at Loyola and say they're the best based on your eye test, but their record says otherwise and so does their opponent's this week. Neither one with their losses had an argument coming in of being the best.
Just so you know, MaxPreps uses the CalPreps ratings/rankings. So, if you use the MaxPreps rankings, then you are actually using the CalPreps rankings.
The above fact is easy to verify. One can go to the CalPreps website and write down the top ten teams and their ratings, and then go to the MaxPreps website and compare the two. They are identical.
I have not read all 4 pages of this discussion but I will say this!
The format will not change with home team being the higher seed. The IHSA does not care who makes the quarterfinals and semifinals. Their only concern is crowning a state champion. If you cannot win on the road in the state of Illinois you will not be a State Champion!
The format will not change with home team being the higher seed. The IHSA does not care who makes the quarterfinals and semifinals. Their only concern is crowning a state champion. If you cannot win on the road in the state of Illinois you will not be a State Champion!
You have written: "Also, using CalPreps, they have 7 CPS teams in the top 32 in 5A. Does that make sense?"
Yes, it makes sense. You were apparently looking at the CalPreps rankings of the 32 teams that qualified for the 5A bracket. If 7 CPS teams qualified for the playoffs (in the 5A bracket), then CalPreps will rank those 7 teams.
For example, if you had looked at CalPrep's state-wide rankings you would have found Providence Catholic ranked 58th. You would have found Westinghouse ranked 257th. And yet, when you looked at the CalPreps playoff rankings for the 5A classification you found Westinghouse in the top 32 whereas Providence was not in the top 32. Why was that the case? For no other reason than the fact that Westinghouse qualified for the 5A playoffs and Providence did not. In the rankings you were looking at, CalPreps was only ranking the 32 teams that had qualified for the 5A playoffs.
You may note that the 7 Chicago Public League teams you referred to, were the 7 worst ranked teams out of the 32 teams shown in the rankings.
It makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
The parity that exists in HS football is not close to what it is in the NFL. Thats not even debatable and no one should ever try and make that argument.
I am not using, or even suggesting, my eye test can say any one team is the best. Thats why I suggested using some combination of composite computer rankings, polls etc. Even if that would just be for the top 4 or 8 to ensure those matchup dont occur before the semi or quarterfinal rounds. With the goal being prioritizing accuracy of the seedings vs simply transparency of an imprecise system.
You are assuming the goal should be "prioritizing accuracy of the seedings". It also seems you are measuring accuracy in terms of determining which teams are the best. However, there are trade-offs in life.
While accuracy and excellence are commendable goals, so are objectivity and transparency; particularly when administering a program that should promote fairness. What if rather than prioritizing those teams that are better, the seeding system is meant to reward those teams that had better regular seasons in relation to their peers. I have no doubt that Wheaton-Warrenville South (a 5-4 team that finished in fourth place in the DuKane Conference) is a better team than Whitney Young (a 9-0 team that finished in first place in its conference). But I do have doubts that Wheaton should have been given a better seed than Young in the 7A playoffs. Young had a remarkable season relative to their peers, and giving them a 1 seed allowed them the opportunity to win a first-round playoff game. Wheaton-Warrenville South had an average regular season in comparison to their peers. If teams are allowed into the playoffs based on the relative success of their regular seasons, is it not consistent to then also seed them on the same basis?
There is also some value to having excellent games in each round of the playoffs, as the current system allows, rather than saving all the best games for the last two weeks of the playoffs.
With all that having been said, I am rather partial to the pursuit of excellence and then rewarding that excellence. Clearly CalPreps or Massey or several other systems would do a better job of measuring excellence/ability than the current system of seeding. An objectively designed (and transparent) study would quickly prove that to be the case.
I personally find the trade-offs in this discussion to be quite balanced, and consequently am comfortable with any of the seeding methods that have been discussed in this thread. If pressed, I would fall back on the principle that frequently the best solution is one that melds the best of the competing alternatives. As has been offered by others in this thread already, I would seed the top eight teams based on a computer rating (after having studied the various computer systems for accuracy). The remaining 24 teams would be seeded using the current method.
The main point of this message, though, is to suggest no agreement will be found in this thread (though it is fun to discuss). The reason for that is the fact that there are trade-offs, and each of us will evaluate those trade-offs differently and subjectively. Under those circumstances the best course is to have a vote, and that is what the IHSA (a member driven organization) is designed to do. So far, that process has resulted in the system we currently have. If, at some future point in time, enough members become dissatisfied with the current system, they will vote it out and a new system will be implemented.
Great post. My question is, why do people want to fix a system that isn't broke? I have yet to see a proposal submitted to the IHSA to change the way playoffs are seeded. So the schools don't seem to have issues with it. Just because a handful of fans are upset because a team ran into a better team in an earlier round then they wanted them to doesn't mean the system needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
We have people here suggesting computers, committees, and hybrid systems used to rank the top 4 or 8 teams one way and the existing system to rank the rest. Why make things more convoluted when there is no promise it's a better system.
Illinois is a top heavy state in terms of talented teams so regardless of how the teams are seeded the same 3-5 teams per class will end up in the finals.
My argument would shift between the size of the visitor stands as well as what programs pay the fee to get around us having to pay for the NHFS subscription…
The IHSA should just ask Philip Rivers to make the brackets each year. With 10 kids, he must be great at seeding!
If you use power rankings to seed the playoffs you'd have to change to qualifications too. Just a guess but I'm willing to bet that some schools that just missed the playoffs would be "power ranked" above some of this years qualifiers on any decent system. You can't say record gets you in but then it doesn't matter and now we're seeding on power ranking without running into deeper issues.
What I suggested had nothing to do with changing how teams qualify for the playoffs so I am unsure how any deeper issue would arise. 5 wins get you. Once in, you are seeded accordingly. Its no different than the ncaa tournament where you have automatic qualifiers and then teams are seeded appropriately based on the strength of the wins they had during the reg season.
Please stop citing the tourney. The two are not remotely the same. You have automatic qualifiers, conference champs in this instance, and then at large teams are chosen based on a multitude of criteria. So who are your at large teams for high school football? 5 win teams? Is it based on power rankings or just wins?
The formula to get into the NCAA tourney and seeding them are relatively the same(SOS, good wins vs. bad losses, computer rankings, etc.). You're talking about two different systems to qualify for the playoffs in football and then another entirely to seed them once in the playoffs.
If you go that route teams like Provi get screwed; sorry you didn't have 5 wins so you don't get in, but if you had made it in then using our power ranking system you likely would have been a top 20 team in your class.
The first sentence of my post, which you quoted, was what I suggested makes no mention of changing how playoff teams qualify. Then you proceed to go on a tangent about how I propose to modify the qualification process.
Ihsa has automatic qualifiers, just like ncaat. They both have "at large" teams. So you are wrong in that regard. It is not remotely unique to have a system to qualify for a tournament, then a separate, or additinal system to seed them. The ncaat in both baseball and bball is a great example of that.
Your provi example is beyond silly. No one with a losing record got screwed by being left out of the playoffs. Additionally, as stated before, any "power ranking" would be for the top 4 or 8 teams. Not 20. Are you even attempting to read or comprehend what I'm saying? Because you are constantly bringing up scenarios ive explicitly said I'm not even attempting to change or address.
why are you suggesting teams be seeded accordingly? competitive matchups? high caliber teams not meeting in early rounds? the best teams having the best chance to make it to the later rounds (since the #2 team deserves to not get knocked out by the #1 team in round 2 for example)? i am saying it's an issue because if you change how teams are seeded based on perceived strength, you should change to qualifying teams based on that same rating.
per calpreps, one of the most commonly suggested methods to use for power ranking, glenbard west is 38th, saint ignatius 43rd, hinsdale central 46th, providence 53rd, lockport 58th, LZ 59th, HF 72nd, IC 75th, CoM 77th, to name a few who didn't make the field of 256, but power rankings put above 100-200 playoff qualifiers.
If you think MC and DGN should be seeded #1 and #2 in 7a since they are ranked as such via power rankings, isn't #53 ranked providence deserving on making the 6a playoffs over #381 ranked kennedy and #414 ranked Senn? Isn't #77 ranked CoM deserving of making the 5a playoffs over current qualifiers #404 Goode and #409 Prosser?
so teams with a lower record aren't getting screwed by getting lower seeds either. it's also beyond ridiculous to suggest seeding a small portion of the teams differently than the rest just because you like it, so everyone is kind of ignoring that portion of your suggestion, because it's such a terrible idea. at least suggesting the entire playoffs be power ranked is a reasonable suggestion, though easier said than done.
But is your last sentence really that difficult? Take the 256, divide into your 8 classes and then power rank each class? We've had people on here re-rank certain classes based on massey/calpreps for comparison...just saying.
Similar threads
