Maybe we could take the top 256 teams per calpreps, 1-32 is 8A, 33-64 is 7A, etc. 🤔 you may be onto something
Higher seeds should get the home game.
- Thread starter gobucsgo
- Start date
Oh, I thought about that. I would enjoy seeing how that looked.Maybe we could take the top 256 teams per calpreps, 1-32 is 8A, 33-64 is 7A, etc. 🤔 you may be onto something
the "easier said than done" is getting everyone to agree to power rank the playoffs, finding a power ranking method that people can agree on, and appeasing either A) the teams that are power ranked above playoff qualifiers but didn't qualify based on record, or B) teams and conferences that are no longer qualifying for the playoffs based on record for objectively better teams with lower records and harder schedules that are power ranked higher.
some depth of thought here would have made it obvious to you that "easier said than down" wasn't referring to "sort by column x" on a spread sheet, just saying.
Sorry, I must have been focused on you not capitalizing the first word in each sentence. See, I can be snarky as well.
I am not saying the 256 qualifiers come from "power rankings". I am saying seeding each class by "power rankings".
But ya we know getting those points agreed upon isn't an easy task and not something we can control. We are discussing what we would do on a message board. We know the changes would come from a members vote.
Last edited:
I think sometimes we need to just do the awful ideas so that everyone can see exactly how awful it is. But at the same time it will also clarify some things we argue about. Now that The Beloved will not be in the playoffs for the foreseeable future, it is the time to experiment.
1 | loyola |
32 | palatine |
16 | geneva |
17 | maine south |
8 | jc |
25 | montini |
9 | batavia |
24 | quincy |
4 | dgn |
29 | lww |
13 | york |
20 | normal |
5 | esl |
28 | nn |
12 | naz |
21 | kankakee |
2 | lwe |
31 | warren |
15 | libertyville |
18 | stevenson |
7 | marist |
26 | prospect |
10 | fenwick |
23 | fremd |
3 | mc |
30 | scn |
14 | nc |
19 | normal |
6 | lt |
27 | rochelle |
11 | brother rice |
22 | sycamore |
this would be 8a per calpreps as of today, so the rankings are different than what they were at the end of week 9 considering playoff wins and losses, but i can't say i'd want to see sycamore or rochelle put in these situations. using this approach for to create classes would make it very difficult for a small to mid sized public school having a great year to ever win a state championship again. instead of running into wsf and naz in the quarters sycamore and rochelle get brother rice and lyons in round 1
Last edited:
Interesting to see. I wasn't suggesting it as some solution but just thought it would be interesting to see how it would look.
I have been saying this for years. It would put a cool twist on things.
Maybe we are all sickos, but it is amazing to me how many people do not know how the host team is determined. This isn't Wilmington's first time in the playoffs either. But between watching the game Saturday night and watching the Bears on Sunday, I heard "you can't host 3 playoff games in a row" at least 5 times. I stopped explaining by Sunday.
7a would include smalls schools byron, wilmington, althoff, dixon, and large schools lwc, ignatius, oswego, sandburg, wws, edwardsville. while there are some epic matchups there i don't know how many people want to see one of those small schools have a playoff run end in round 1 or 2 because they have to play one large schools.
I was trying to find that week 9 too. It definitely would have included more than Sycamore and Rochelle. I'm all for it.
I think you missed someone that has won 6A 3 of the last 5 years.
I am not even sure how this is a legit question, esp since I have answered that multiple time. 1. The bracket should be setup to where top 8 teams wouldnt meet until the qrts, top 4 semis, top 2 championship. Thats a standard format when setting up any seeded tournament. Why is that controversial if I suggest that for ihsa playoffs? There is no reason that you have to have the same qualification and seeding parameters. Are you not aware that ncaa has a qualification process for teams AND and separate process for how to seed them? Professional tennis has a qualification process to enter tournaments AND a different process for how they are seeded.
Interesting, so you dont like the fact that a team like Kennedy got in the playoffs over a team like Providence (team that had a losing record mind you), but are fine with Kennedy being seeded in the playoffs higher than a team like Chatham Glenwood, Bloomington and Washington? That is literally the exact reason I even suggested modifying the seeding system for the playoffs!! You are making my point for me.
I also realize how weird some of the computer rankings can get the further down you go. Which is why I suggested doing it for the top 4 or 8. I have no idea why you guys keep referencing rankings in the hundreds when trying to disprove my point.
Uh what?? If you have a worse record and subsequently get a worse seeding, thats not getting screwed. That just what happens.
Its not just because I like it. Its to actually set up the bracket accurately and fairly. What damage would be done if, after all 32 8a teams qualified for the IHSA playoffs under the current system, to then seed the top 8 teams based on additional metrics? I am not even opposed to seeding all 32 using "power rankings" but people seemed to have an issue with their accuracy beyond 12 or so.
I’m surprised there is so much support for the current seeding process. Yes it’s objective. Yes it’s transparent. And yes it had Whitney Young as the #1 seed in 7A. Any system that has a #1 seed like that would seem ripe for tweaking.
5 pages for something @stonedlizard solved years ago!
Is it incomprehensible that Whitney Young could ever be the legit #1? Is Morgan Park a legit #1? Was Mohamet Seymour a legit #3?
The thing everybody is missing is that Massey is legitimately far more accurate than any other possible arbiter of seeding. Like it or not these algorithms, while they have their flaws, will always be the most accurate. And they will only improve with time. So, yeah the Massey or calpreps (Massey is superior) would be the best way of seeding 1-32.
Its not a question of if they can EVER be a legit #1. It's are they #1 this year. Does it not give you a little bit of pause when no other ranking/rating system has them as the #1 team in 7a, besides the ihsa system?
An IHSA system that has worked for years that no school complains about enough to submit a proposal for a change, just a small pocket of fans who get upset when their team loses a round before they feel they should have.
I couldn't care less about who complains about it, or who loses any specific game. Its about accuracy and fairness regardless of the individual outcomes of the games. I would be making this same argument had this been brought up the night the bracket was released and games had yet to be played. My view on this is completely unbiased.
No, it's completely biased based on the fact you only care about the top 4-8 teams.
I think it's fairly accurate being that the top teams are playing for the title more times than not in most classes regardless what seed they started as. I really don't care who who you feel deserves the easier path to the quarters or semis. You want to get that far, beat the team in front of you.
Humbled and appreciative of the recognition that this has already been solved
…now if only it could be implemented
I am convinced you either cant, or dont care to read. Its pointless going back and forth with you whether its the former, or the latter.
So sorry, it's hard to keep up. Only the top 4 or maybe 8, all 32 is fine. Do it like the ncaa tourney, or even the way the take entries and seed tennis tournaments, oh and college baseball was a great comparison too. Tough to keep up with all the convoluted systems you're in favor of.
Oh Oh, College Baseball? Make football a double elimination tournament. And HS Baseball too. O-O
I'm in!
Way to miss the point. All of those were examples of tournaments that use a qualification and seeding process that you claim doesn't exist and/or can't work. It was a very basic comp. But apparently too confusing for you.
Im not sure either of you have ever heard of them before, but I came across this last night. Oddly, they come together and rank teams, seed them 1-4, then pick another 8 teams to fill out their bracket. And they use 3 (THREE!!!) different parameters to do all three. Crazy right. And I thought I was the only one who had this wild idea to use such a format. Maybe I could ask the CFP to compensate me for stealing my idea?
they're power ranking the entire top 25 and therefore the entire playoff field of 12, what do you mean "pick another 8 teams"? this is not comparable to power ranking the top 4 then adding 8 based on a different criteria.
Personally I want to see that 9-0 top ranked public school with 400 kids that somehow snuck into the computer's top 10 against the 8-1 school with 3000 students with the 14 point loss to LWE.
That's the game I want to see with the calpreps classes and seeding.
how about you ramb, which games would you look forward to?
Sigh. You were so close. The top 12 seeds didnt come from the top 12 "power ranked" teams. Several teams seeds and "power rankings" are different. Only 2 of the top 4 seeds (automatic bids) came from the top 4 "power ranked" teams. Georgia is "power ranked" #12 but isn't in the CFP field of 12 teams. How would that happen if they didnt seed and rank teams based on different criteria? I really didnt think I needed to explain it out that far.
I give you these perfect fast break alley-oops and you pull back and hold onto the ball and run the clock down.
This is a metaphor of our basketball teams
Your point is about as sharp as a ping pong ball. If no one here gets your point just maybe your not making one.
Wow, really? Where to begin. The same criteria is used to rank the top 25 teams. Thst right there refutes any point you are trying to make.
Georgia is out and the top 4 are shuffled because one of the stipulations for the playoffs is that the top 5 ranked conference leaders get in, and the top 4 of those receive a bye so Boise St. jumps them being a conference leader, not due to some other formula for ranking them. There's not one formula to rank the top 25 and then another for the top 12, they get shuffled due to conference leaders, that's it, no different formula.
Apply this Logic to the IHSA playoffs and both Loyola and Marist would have lower rankings because each division of the CCL/ESCC doesn't have enough teams for the IHSA to crown a conference champion so there would be a number of conference champs seeded ahead of them using this method.
Besides why would you cite this method as it doesn't ensure the best teams meet in the quarters or later?
The CFP committee only SEEDS 12 teams for a spot to play in the playoffs..
Rankings and seedings are not synonymous. Stop using them interchangeably. Its going to be very hard for you to understand any of what im saying if you don't know the difference between those two words. There is 100% a difference in how they RANK the top 12 and how they SEED the top 12. Both rankings and seeding play a role in the playoff bracket.
Sure. But isnt that essentially what happens now to a degree when the conf champ goes 9-0 in an inferior conf and gets a higher seed because they have a better record than a 2nd place team from a much tougher conf? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TRYING TO PREVENT! Its like you understand my point but you are doing everything you can not to admit it.
I have also never advocated for IHSA conf champs to receive priority seeding.
It absolutely does. #1 seed cant match up with #2 seed until the championship game. Isnt that what you want?
Similar threads
