There is a new proposal out to change the by-law to 8 regular season games and expanding playoff to 512 teams.
Here is a link to the complete IHSA Football Playoff proposal
Here is a link to the complete IHSA Football Playoff proposal
IHSA Propsoes New Football Playoff Expansion
- Thread starter SiuCubFan8
- Start date
Aren't there enough 62 - 0 games, already?
What would be the cut off? Four wins or three? St. Joe's and Bishop McNamara get in and not Brother Rice? Doesn't seem fair. Strength of schedule has to come into play.
I think this is a bad idea.
At this point what difference does it make? I hear some schools have a hard time scheduling non-conf games, so this is like moving one of them to the end of the year and you don't get to pick who it is.
The more I think about it the less I hate it. Conferences would stop jump g all over the place. I think there were roughly 545 foot all schools this year so essentially everyone but the 0-8 or 1-7 teams get in. Only about 30 teams get left out, or 4 per class.
I assume playoff classification would be decided before season. Danger there is that a lot of schools end up forfeiting season. So what if a class of 72 ends up with 15 teams unable to play, then one class only has 57 teams and another might have the full 64.
I do like knowing playoff classes before season starts though. Of course they could keep the exact same system as now and take top 512 teams and then configure 64 team classes.
My knee jerk reaction was to not like the idea. But I would like to see an end if the chase to 5 wins and teams scheduling just for that purpose. So I wouldn't hate it necessarily.
I assume playoff classification would be decided before season. Danger there is that a lot of schools end up forfeiting season. So what if a class of 72 ends up with 15 teams unable to play, then one class only has 57 teams and another might have the full 64.
I do like knowing playoff classes before season starts though. Of course they could keep the exact same system as now and take top 512 teams and then configure 64 team classes.
My knee jerk reaction was to not like the idea. But I would like to see an end if the chase to 5 wins and teams scheduling just for that purpose. So I wouldn't hate it necessarily.
You are relying on a lot of unstable CPS teams to make this work with an 8 game schedule. Keep the 9 game and give the better seeds byes in round one. Start season a week earlier and drop the summer contact period a week
I'd prefer going back to the 6-3 standard versus letting all but 30 teams in the state into the playoffs (great analysis JCH).
I do like that it avoids cupcake-scheduling to chase 5 wins, but I think the challenges/issues are for the worse. With only 8 regular season games it does re-shape the dynamics of conferences in terms of which conferences now have a clean 8 game round-robin schedule with no need for non-conf, which now have have a set of teams not playing each season, & would reduce the need for non-conf by 1 game for any conferences not filling their full 9 game schedule in-conference now.
Mostly I just don't like this because I think it subtracts a normal week 9 game with normal travel and replaces it with a guranteed 50+ blowout for at least half the state potentially with significant travel. Any of the 8-0 vs 0-8, 7-1 vs 1-7, 6-2 vs 2-6 matchups we are likely to see huge spreads with the normal "upsets" from drastically different SoS teams. The 5-3 vs 3-5 and 4-4 matchups we get even matchups by-in-large... however in theory under today's system, those going into week 9 at 5-3 & 4-4 are playing "must win" games week 9 anyway - doesn't mean they are necessarily competitive with matchups, but seems silly the only playoff matchups with equivalent competition are already playing meaningful games week 9 under current system.
I do like that it avoids cupcake-scheduling to chase 5 wins, but I think the challenges/issues are for the worse. With only 8 regular season games it does re-shape the dynamics of conferences in terms of which conferences now have a clean 8 game round-robin schedule with no need for non-conf, which now have have a set of teams not playing each season, & would reduce the need for non-conf by 1 game for any conferences not filling their full 9 game schedule in-conference now.
Mostly I just don't like this because I think it subtracts a normal week 9 game with normal travel and replaces it with a guranteed 50+ blowout for at least half the state potentially with significant travel. Any of the 8-0 vs 0-8, 7-1 vs 1-7, 6-2 vs 2-6 matchups we are likely to see huge spreads with the normal "upsets" from drastically different SoS teams. The 5-3 vs 3-5 and 4-4 matchups we get even matchups by-in-large... however in theory under today's system, those going into week 9 at 5-3 & 4-4 are playing "must win" games week 9 anyway - doesn't mean they are necessarily competitive with matchups, but seems silly the only playoff matchups with equivalent competition are already playing meaningful games week 9 under current system.
let everybody in.Still play 9 games but start the season same as Indiana
There has and will be further discussion on this. I believe the legislative committee meets next week.
It is thought that due to declining numbers of teams participating, that this proposal will fail.
A new proposal of 48 team brackets may stand a better chance of passing next year. 8 game regular season for all. 32 first round games feeding into a team which receives a bye in week 1. Teams that do not make the playoffs will be allowed to play each other in week 9.
It is thought that due to declining numbers of teams participating, that this proposal will fail.
A new proposal of 48 team brackets may stand a better chance of passing next year. 8 game regular season for all. 32 first round games feeding into a team which receives a bye in week 1. Teams that do not make the playoffs will be allowed to play each other in week 9.
Bad idea. It turns the regular season games into all pre season games meaning nothing.
I would rather go back to 6 classes with less teams.
I would be in favor of all the teams not making the playoffs having their own separate bracket challenge.
I would rather go back to 6 classes with less teams.
I would be in favor of all the teams not making the playoffs having their own separate bracket challenge.
I am not for or against the proposal but I don't get this logic. Other sports do it, it doesn't seem to turn baseball/basketball/volleyball games I have seen into preseason games.
I liked your comment cuz I tend to agree but upon further thought there are a few circumstances where this could occur.... for instance a 4-5 Aurora Christian type team in the CCL could potentially win a 2-3A title. But those would be exceptions rather than the rule.
What needs to happen but won't because people not wanting to lose traditional rivalries in conferences between teams of different sizes is moving to districts like Texas and Iowa (sure there are a lot more, just happen to know about those). Pre-determine the class of the schools at beginning of season and group like size teams regionally. If there are 16 districts in 6a in the state then the top two from each district advance... I would even advocate for adding one round to playoffs and take 64 teams thus top 4 from each district or double number to 32 districts and take top 2. This way teams are qualifying or not qualifying against teams of their size and not getting in by playing smaller teams or losing out on playoffs by losing to bigger teams. But that means conferences (primarily private ones like the CCL and ESCC) would lose traditional match ups. But you can't have it all... have to decide what's more important.... but do not shorten the regular season! If you want to take all teams which I hate, at least keep regular 9 game schedule and end the season one weekend later.
Last edited:
See no reason for the change, the top 4 seeds in 8a & 7a won by the following amounts 44/45/44/21 & 21/42/36/14. Increased amount of teams means more blowouts as such. Everyone doesn't need a trophy win your 5 or 6 games and earn your way in.
It means not only can players take a play or two off, now they can take 9 games off and lose nothing because they still make the playoffs.
Never thought about it like that, but yeah, the playoffs and at least one more game in your life is a HUGE carrot.
It all started and revolves around the whole scheduling issue.
FYI we've been talking about this proposal over on the Nation side for what 2-3 months now at least? Miss a little miss a lot
Anyways...the scheduling issue and conferences splitting apart is a state wide issue...it effects all levels and all sizes and locations. My fear is that we've yet to see any other proposal/idea outside of this one that addresses scheduling.
I definitely do not like this at all....yet like others have mentioned until we see/hear/read a better idea...I can tell you that the several administrators I've talked to about this are all in favor of this proposal.
The saddest part of all? No longer can the adults sit in a room and agree on anything anymore so when the system doesn't work you need to make a change.
FYI we've been talking about this proposal over on the Nation side for what 2-3 months now at least? Miss a little miss a lot
Anyways...the scheduling issue and conferences splitting apart is a state wide issue...it effects all levels and all sizes and locations. My fear is that we've yet to see any other proposal/idea outside of this one that addresses scheduling.
I definitely do not like this at all....yet like others have mentioned until we see/hear/read a better idea...I can tell you that the several administrators I've talked to about this are all in favor of this proposal.
The saddest part of all? No longer can the adults sit in a room and agree on anything anymore so when the system doesn't work you need to make a change.
The ever more common conference shuffling and upheaval is not good for high school football. This solves that problem and ensures some long term stability in the football landscape. Don't think of it as a system that rewards mediocrity, you have to consider it as a survival tactic. Reduction in participants is causing less and less parity among current conferences. Programs and coaches are racing to five wins, some by means of immense travel. Let Illinois teams settle it on Illinois fields. There will be 3-5 teams that knock off 8-0 teams and they deserve that chance for playing a quality and sometimes grueling schedule.
The IHSA has over 30 different sports they run tournaments in. Have you analyzed all of them? Care to share some details?
It all started and revolves around the whole scheduling issue.
FYI we've been talking about this proposal over on the Nation side for what 2-3 months now at least? Miss a little miss a lot
Anyways...the scheduling issue and conferences splitting apart is a state wide issue...it effects all levels and all sizes and locations. My fear is that we've yet to see any other proposal/idea outside of this one that addresses scheduling.
I definitely do not like this at all....yet like others have mentioned until we see/hear/read a better idea...I can tell you that the several administrators I've talked to about this are all in favor of this proposal.
The saddest part of all? No longer can the adults sit in a room and agree on anything anymore so when the system doesn't work you need to make a change.
The district system is the answer... I know it's tradition in Illinois but having 7a team qualify for the playoffs by playing 5,6,8a teams in conference makes no sense... you should be playing 7a teams all year to make or not make the 7a playoffs. Then there is no scheduling issue because you have to play who you have to play as determined by the state districting. And depending on number/size of districts in state you may have crossover games with neighboring districts to fill out schedule (i.e. - D1 plays D2, D3 plays D4, etc. or if numbers work out and you have 10 team districts then it's not necessary for crossovers. Yes some districts will be tougher than others and someone may get in from district 8 that sucks compared to a team from district 4 that didn't get in but such is life and it already happens now in the current system.
If a state like Texas can live without the tradition of conferences I think Illinois can.... and most states re-district every two years and there is some shifting of teams as schools enrollments increase or decrease enough to move classes. Many traditional rivalries will still occur and new ones will be created... bite the bullet and stop acting like everyone gets in is the only possible solution... fact is that's the lazy solution for the IHSA as they don't have to do the administrative work of districting every 2 years.
Last edited:
Going to districts based on size and geography is the best way to solve this problem. The rivalry issue is only a problem if one of the rival schools either gains or loses significant enrollment. If that happens, there isn't much of a rivalry anyway. In fact, this would help create new rivalries across all sports.
The models for doing this exist in a number of states, so it's not like the IHSA has to reinvent the wheel. If schools want to play out of district, allow them to play a week 0 game every other year and don't count it toward playoff points.
Problem with districts is that it kills natural rivalries.. when a mock system was created, the Kankakee area teams were split up.. some lumped into the suburbs, others going southwest.. if I remember correctly, Herscher and Coal City were grouped with teams on the other side of Peoria and Bloomington, while not playing Peotone,Manteno..
I addressed this issue in my post... pick your poison.... can't have it all.... you want some rivalry game and everybody in playoffs or something that solves the problem of scheduling and race to 5 wins? Can't have it all....
Districts are not the answer for Illinois.
Maybe it works in Texas, where you have a population spread over a huge area and need to control for travel and transportation. But in Illinois, the population is centered around Chicago and travel isn't prohibitive. In fact, we just made a major step forward with 1-32 seeding in 7a and 8a.
And what that did was expose the flawed seeding.
Most other sports in the IHSA have broken free of the strict boundaries for regional and sectional play, allowing for overlap and spreading out the talent.
Currently we have a numbers problem in the sport: fewer individuals and fewer teams. Any change should be that to encourage more participation - of both individuals and teams.
Maybe it works in Texas, where you have a population spread over a huge area and need to control for travel and transportation. But in Illinois, the population is centered around Chicago and travel isn't prohibitive. In fact, we just made a major step forward with 1-32 seeding in 7a and 8a.
And what that did was expose the flawed seeding.
Most other sports in the IHSA have broken free of the strict boundaries for regional and sectional play, allowing for overlap and spreading out the talent.
Currently we have a numbers problem in the sport: fewer individuals and fewer teams. Any change should be that to encourage more participation - of both individuals and teams.
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about.... districts are like conferences, only for regular season (has nothing to do with playoffs) and it groups teams of equal class size that are geographically close into a "conference" but they are called 5a district 1, 5a district 2, etc. Big difference is you are only playing schools in your class to qualify for your classes playoff. Playoff pairings is different and can be done just as is now except you would reward district finishing place for seeding.
I just used Texas as my example, a crap-ton of states (won't say majority, cuz I don't know exact number of states) use district system.
NBJR: I understand the argument for IHSA-imposed conferences (districts), I just think it better if ADs were able to settle them.
Districts - especially 5A - would be a mess.
With 8 games, it still allows teams from conferences to schedule non-cons. Big conferences could split into divisions, or not, schedule by proximity or strength, realign whenever, whenever their memberships chooses. No need to go through a process. Mostly, it helps to preserve conferences and programs, and should help in participation.
Districts - especially 5A - would be a mess.
With 8 games, it still allows teams from conferences to schedule non-cons. Big conferences could split into divisions, or not, schedule by proximity or strength, realign whenever, whenever their memberships chooses. No need to go through a process. Mostly, it helps to preserve conferences and programs, and should help in participation.
