Higher seeds should get the home game.

[Alexander32]

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?

jha618's point is valid. While the committee may rank the top 25 teams, the playoff bracket does not get seeded in strict accordance with the rankings. The top four seeds will always be the champions of the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Big Twelve Conferences. That is true regardless of where those four champions are ranked. That is why Miami, which is ranked 9th, is seeded 4th for the playoff (as things presently stand).

jha618 is also correct to provide the NCAA basketball tournament as an example that supports his case. An organization can, and many do, use different criteria for qualifying teams for a playoff/tournament, and then seeding teams for the tournament. Roughly 25% of the participants in the NCAA basketball tournament each year would not qualify for the tournament based on power rankings, or based on a committee's vote evaluating team strength. They qualify only because they are a conference champion. They then get seeded by the tournament committee.

The World Cup soccer tournament is an example of a tournament that only seeds the top eight teams. The remaining 24 national teams are assigned to the eight groups randomly. So, yes, some people think that too is a reasonable way to run a tournament.

You, "4Afan", have your preferences regarding the structure of the Illinois high school football playoffs. Many people agree with you. Some others do not. There is at least some merit to both points of view. You would be more influential in presenting your case if others could trust that, at times, you might agree there is some logic to points they are making. This is especially true when they provide ample evidence supporting those points.

 

[Cross Bones]

@jhi get it, i do. You think the assumed best team should have the easiest path to the championship. And I agree we generally have a good idea of who the best teams are. My issue is when you give those alleged best teams the easiest path even when their record has some blemishes on it it then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, not making it because they're better, instead making it because they had an easy path. One their regular season didn't deserve.

Furthermore if the computer seedings don't go chalk then they were wrong in the first place. The chances of them going chalk are next to none. I do prefer the seedings not being based on the alleged best team, but rather the best records and then best playoff points. Perhaps we could tweak the playoff points to only include the teams you beat (this would change all the non 9-0 seedings).

The luck of the draw is one of the good things about the playoffs and my squad never gets the luck of the draw whether 9-0 or 5-4 yeah it sucks going home earlier than expected but eventually you gotta beat the good teams if you're good.

 

[jha618]

@jhi get it, i do. You think the assumed best team should have the easiest path to the championship. And I agree we generally have a good idea of who the best teams are. My issue is when you give those alleged best teams the easiest path even when their record has some blemishes on it it then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, not making it because they're better, instead making it because they had an easy path. One their regular season didn't deserve.

Furthermore if the computer seedings don't go chalk then they were wrong in the first place. The chances of them going chalk are next to none. I do prefer the seedings not being based on the alleged best team, but rather the best records and then best playoff points. Perhaps we could tweak the playoff points to only include the teams you beat (this would change all the non 9-0 seedings).

The luck of the draw is one of the good things about the playoffs and my squad never gets the luck of the draw whether 9-0 or 5-4 yeah it sucks going home earlier than expected but eventually you gotta beat the good teams if you're good.

When seeding, its generally not a reflection of who is the presumed best team. Or who will win a given matchup. Its more about who put together the best resume (Sos, quality wins, fewest bad losses, etc) up until the point of seeding. Yes, upsets happen and we see the "bracket busters" all the time in the NCAAT, but I don't think we should assume the committees got it wrong in that instance. Ie, i dont think the committee got it wrong just because FDU beat Purdue, or Loyola upsets Illinois.

I think with most large format tournaments, and what he NCAAT makes a concerted effort to address is that fact that you may have two teams with identical records, but their respective seeding in the NCAAT accounts for the fact that 25 wins in the B10 is alot different than 25 wins in the SoCon.

 

[4Afan]

The CFP committee only SEEDS 12 teams for a spot to play in the playoffs..

Per the CFP website.

"The committee will rank 25 teams. The five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams will be in the playoff."

Yes, they only SEED 12 teams only because there are only 12 teams in the playoffs, but they use the same criteria to RANK all 25 teams, not a separate set of data points for the top 12 and another set of data points for the remaining 13 teams.

Here is the source. Please read and let me know where the committee uses a different criteria when SEEDING 1-12 versus RANKING the top 25. The only difference is putting the conference champs ahead of the rest, but the criteria doesn't change.

CFP Selection Committee Protocol

CFP Selection Committee Protocol

collegefootballplayoff.com

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.

Yes, it is essentially what happens now, so why are you using a tournament that does something similar in terms of seeding as an example?!

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.

Correct, there is a difference when ranking vs. seeding the top 12, but the only difference is that the top 4 RANKED conference champs get the top 4 SEEDS and the 5th RANKED conference champ gets into the playoffs regardless of their rank. The criteria used to determine their RANK does not change to determine their SEED. It's only based on whether they win their conference.

Doing what you imply would be like using KenPom as the exclusive source to select the NCAA tournament teams and then the committee would exclusively determine the teams seeding once in the tourney and that's not what happens. The committee uses the same criteria when determining if the 4th ranked A10 team should get into the tournament over the 4th ranked SoCon team as they do to determine whether that team is worthy of a 10 seed or a 12 seed.

 

[Alexander32]

Per the CFP website.

"The committee will rank 25 teams. The five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams will be in the playoff."

Yes, they only SEED 12 teams only because there are only 12 teams in the playoffs, but they use the same criteria to RANK all 25 teams, not a separate set of data points for the top 12 and another set of data points for the remaining 13 teams.

Here is the source. Please read and let me know where the committee uses a different criteria when SEEDING 1-12 versus RANKING the top 25. The only difference is putting the conference champs ahead of the rest, but the criteria doesn't change.

CFP Selection Committee Protocol

CFP Selection Committee Protocol

collegefootballplayoff.com

Yes, it is essentially what happens now, so why are you using a tournament that does something similar in terms of seeding as an example?!


Correct, there is a difference when ranking vs. seeding the top 12, but the only difference is that the top 4 RANKED conference champs get the top 4 SEEDS and the 5th RANKED conference champ gets into the playoffs regardless of their rank. The criteria used to determine their RANK does not change to determine their SEED. It's only based on whether they win their conference.

Doing what you imply would be like using KenPom as the exclusive source to select the NCAA tournament teams and then the committee would exclusively determine the teams seeding once in the tourney and that's not what happens. The committee uses the same criteria when determining if the 4th ranked A10 team should get into the tournament over the 4th ranked SoCon team as they do to determine whether that team is worthy of a 10 seed or a 12 seed.

"The only difference is putting the conference champs ahead of the rest, but the criteria doesn't change."

That sentence, which you wrote, demonstrates there is a difference between the criteria used for ranking the teams and the criteria used for seeding the teams.

If two different sets of criteria were not used for the two tasks, then the 12 teams in the playoff would always be the top 12 ranked teams, and they would always be seeded in the exact same order they were ranked.

Why is it so hard for you to concede that point? Conceding that point does not mean your whole argument becomes invalid. The different playoff structures exist because different people, and different groups of people (organizations), value the trade-offs that are involved differently. That is a matter of personal preference. It doesn't universally make one playoff structure right, and all others wrong.

Not acknowledging when another person has made a perfectly logical point merely diminishes your credibility, because others begin believing you are not a reasonable person.

As one small point in his overall argument, jha618 was trying to demonstrate that some organizations do in fact sometimes use different criteria for seeding teams than the criteria they used for selecting teams for a playoff. That fact seems to be indisputable, and yet you continue to dispute it.

 

[4Afan]

"The only difference is putting the conference champs ahead of the rest, but the criteria doesn't change."

That sentence, which you wrote, demonstrates there is a difference between the criteria used for ranking the teams and the criteria used for seeding the teams.

If two different sets of criteria were not used for the two tasks, then the 12 teams in the playoff would always be the top 12 ranked teams, and they would always be seeded in the exact same order they were ranked.

Why is it so hard for you to concede that point? Conceding that point does not mean your whole argument becomes invalid. The different playoff structures exist because different people, and different groups of people (organizations), value the trade-offs that are involved differently. That is a matter of personal preference. It doesn't universally make one playoff structure right, and all others wrong.

Not acknowledging when another person has made a perfectly logical point merely diminishes your credibility, because others begin believing you are not a reasonable person.

As one small point in his overall argument, jha618 was trying to demonstrate that some organizations do in fact sometimes use different criteria for seeding teams than the criteria they used for selecting teams for a playoff. That fact seems to be indisputable, and yet you continue to dispute it.

*SIGH* Since it doesn't appear you looked into the CFP link I'll just copy and paste.

PRINCIPLES​

The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:

• Strength of schedule,
• Head-to-head competition,
• Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
• Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

VOTING PROCESS​

The voting process generally will include seven rounds of ballots through which the committee members first will select a small pool of teams to be evaluated, then will rank those teams, with the teams being placed in the rankings in groups of three for three rounds, then four for the other four rounds. Individual committee members’ rankings will be compiled into a composite ranking for each round. Each committee member will independently evaluate an immense amount of information during the process. This evaluation will lead to individual qualitative and quantitative opinions that will inform each member’s votes.

NUMBER OF TEAMS TO BE RANKED​

The committee will rank 25 teams. The five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams will be in the playoff.

Please point out where the top 4 teams are seeded using a separate criteria. Them being seeded in the top 4 is based on being a conference champ. I don't consider that a different set of criteria to be seeded 1-4, I think of it more as a qualifier (to be top 4 you must be one of the top 4 ranked conference champs). They don't determine the top 12 best based on computer rankings and then bring in the committee to determine and seed the top 4.

 

[Alexander32]

*SIGH* Since it doesn't appear you looked into the CFP link I'll just copy and paste.

PRINCIPLES​

The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:

• Strength of schedule,
• Head-to-head competition,
• Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
• Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.

VOTING PROCESS​

The voting process generally will include seven rounds of ballots through which the committee members first will select a small pool of teams to be evaluated, then will rank those teams, with the teams being placed in the rankings in groups of three for three rounds, then four for the other four rounds. Individual committee members’ rankings will be compiled into a composite ranking for each round. Each committee member will independently evaluate an immense amount of information during the process. This evaluation will lead to individual qualitative and quantitative opinions that will inform each member’s votes.

NUMBER OF TEAMS TO BE RANKED​

The committee will rank 25 teams. The five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams will be in the playoff.

Please point out where the top 4 teams are seeded using a separate criteria. Them being seeded in the top 4 is based on being a conference champ. I don't consider that a different set of criteria to be seeded 1-4, I think of it more as a qualifier (to be top 4 you must be one of the top 4 ranked conference champs). They don't determine the top 12 best based on computer rankings and then bring in the committee to determine and seed the top 4.

Does the fifth highest-ranked conference champion automatically receive the #5 seed? No. Then apparently that team is being judged based on a different set of criteria (for seeding purposes) than that used to seed the first four highest-ranked conference champions (and the criteria used to select those five teams in the first place). That team, like the first four, was selected automatically for the playoff by virtue of being a conference champion. It was seeded on the basis of the committee's rankings like the at-large teams.

The NCAA basketball tournament is a better example of this type of process. There are roughly 32 automatic qualifiers that participate in the tournament by virtue of being conference champions. They are selected (receive their bids) before any at-large teams. However, all 68 teams in the tournament are seeded on the basis of the committee's collective judgment. The committee, however, has no jurisdiction over whether or not the automatic qualifiers will participate. At least in part, teams are selected for the tournament, and are seeded for the tournament, based on different criteria.

Originally, as I recall (without rereading all six pages of this thread), you suggested teams should be selected for the IHSA football playoffs and seeded within those playoffs based on the same criteria. That is what is currently done for the most part. There is some merit to that thinking. It is consistent. If the criteria are good enough for selecting teams, then logic would suggest the same criteria are also good enough for seeding those teams. So far so good.

Again, as I recall, jha618 suggested at some point that although he was okay with teams being selected under the current system, he thought it more fair that teams be seeded using criteria that included a more accurate measure of strength-of-schedule (SoS). After all, the IHSA seemed to think SoS should be a factor by using the rudimentary system of adding up opponents wins. If SoS should be a factor, couldn't the seeding process be made better by using a better measure of SoS? There is some merit to that thinking. [He also would not use strength-of-schedule merely as a tie-breaker for identical win-loss records.]

It was at this point that you [although I must admit your arguments seemed to go in different directions at different times] seemed to indicate no rational person would use a different set of criteria for seeding purposes than those used for selecting teams for playoff participation. When jha618 provided examples of when different criteria were used for the two different tasks, you seemed to reject the examples and disputed that they adequately represented his point. His point being, I think, that there were presumably rational people in this world that thought two different sets of criteria made sense.

I am merely expressing my belief that jha618 proved that particular point.

While I will extend the courtesy of reading any response you may choose to make, I have to admit I'm getting tired of the topic and therefore will not be contributing anything further to this thread.

 

[jha618]

Does the fifth highest-ranked conference champion automatically receive the #5 seed? No. Then apparently that team is being judged based on a different set of criteria (for seeding purposes) than that used to seed the first four highest-ranked conference champions (and the criteria used to select those five teams in the first place). That team, like the first four, was selected automatically for the playoff by virtue of being a conference champion. It was seeded on the basis of the committee's rankings like the at-large teams.

The NCAA basketball tournament is a better example of this type of process. There are roughly 32 automatic qualifiers that participate in the tournament by virtue of being conference champions. They are selected (receive their bids) before any at-large teams. However, all 68 teams in the tournament are seeded on the basis of the committee's collective judgment. The committee, however, has no jurisdiction over whether or not the automatic qualifiers will participate. At least in part, teams are selected for the tournament, and are seeded for the tournament, based on different criteria.

Originally, as I recall (without rereading all six pages of this thread), you suggested teams should be selected for the IHSA football playoffs and seeded within those playoffs based on the same criteria. That is what is currently done for the most part. There is some merit to that thinking. It is consistent. If the criteria are good enough for selecting teams, then logic would suggest the same criteria are also good enough for seeding those teams. So far so good.

Again, as I recall, jha618 suggested at some point that although he was okay with teams being selected under the current system, he thought it more fair that teams be seeded using criteria that included a more accurate measure of strength-of-schedule (SoS). After all, the IHSA seemed to think SoS should be a factor by using the rudimentary system of adding up opponents wins. If SoS should be a factor, couldn't the seeding process be made better by using a better measure of SoS? There is some merit to that thinking. [He also would not use strength-of-schedule merely as a tie-breaker for identical win-loss records.]

It was at this point that you [although I must admit your arguments seemed to go in different directions at different times] seemed to indicate no rational person would use a different set of criteria for seeding purposes than those used for selecting teams for playoff participation. When jha618 provided examples of when different criteria were used for the two different tasks, you seemed to reject the examples and disputed that they adequately represented his point. His point being, I think, that there were presumably rational people in this world that thought two different sets of criteria made sense.

I am merely expressing my belief that jha618 proved that particular point.

While I will extend the courtesy of reading any response you may choose to make, I have to admit I'm getting tired of the topic and therefore will not be contributing anything further to this thread.

I appreciate your post. You summed up my point very well in that different qualification and seeding criteria is not a novel idea. @4Afan has actually acknowledged that at varying points in this discussion. And you are probably right by saying it's for me to bow out this discussion. I don't know how many other examples I can give.

 

[TheZoo33]

Over the last 4 years, Byron has had to travel to IC catholic. 2 years in a row. And then the next 2 years, Montini.

They were the lower seed once. I just think there should be a better way. Just like everyone said that today shouldn’t happen today. And that it should have been a finals or semis. Is there a better way to seed these teams? We all know Montini isn’t a 9th seed.

Until the IHSA stops allowing CPS schools in when they help each other by forfeiting games to pad win totals, and they lose 98% of their playoff games every year, we can’t possibly expect any changes. Seeding is tough, geography makes it difficult for sure.

 

[caravan8]

The top four seeds will always be the champions of the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and Big Twelve Conferences. That is true regardless of where those four champions are ranked.

I thought that if the highest ranked Group of 5 Champion was ranked ahead of a Power 4 Champion then they would get a top 4 seed and a first round bye. For instance, if Boise State were to finish ranked 9th and the ACC Champ were 10th, Boise State would get the #4 seed and a bye. I could be wrong though.

 

[PowerI66]

I thought that if the highest ranked Group of 5 Champion was ranked ahead of a Power 4 Champion then they would get a top 4 seed and a first round bye. For instance, if Boise State were to finish ranked 9th and the ACC Champ were 10th, Boise State would get the #4 seed and a bye. I could be wrong though.

PAIRINGS​

1. The four highest-ranked conference champions will be seeded 1, 2, 3 and 4 and will receive byes in the first round. The remaining eight teams, including the fifth conference champion, will be seeded 5 through 12 based on their final ranking. If the fifth conference champion is not ranked among the top 12 teams, it will be seeded at No. 12.