Conferences over disricts is going to preserve participation and programs? I didn't even want to reply and cause some ridiculous ongoing debate about what you just said but that's ridiculous and I had to respond that I thought so.
IHSA Propsoes New Football Playoff Expansion
- Thread starter SiuCubFan8
- Start date
Conferences over disricts is going to preserve participation and programs? I didn't even want to reply and cause some ridiculous ongoing debate about what you just said but that's ridiculous and I had to respond that I thought so.
One more thought I just had that should be exciting and cause awesome rivalries! When you leave conferences and use districts your districts will be intermingled groupings which will have publics and privates together! Aka a district with Loyola and new trier in an 8a district or glenbard west and fenwick in a 7a district and so on... talk about rivalries being formed!
As it is now you almost never see public vs private games except playoffs...
I know but it sounds like that is going to be the alternative you are stuck with if you don't want district because of losing some conference rival. My point was this is better than all in even if it has some consequences you don't love.
I think going to Districts based on enrollment is the best idea. I think it evens the playing field for most teams and will encourage more participation. Just think about how "fair" it is that Leo plays Loyola, or an 8a school that has mostly 6a and 7a schools on their schedule and does not play another 8a size school until the playoffs.
You will also minimize the possibility of the scenario of:
School A beats School B by 40 during the regular season but School B makes the playoffs instead of School A because they play a much weaker schedule against much smaller schools than School A. What message does that send to School A?
I know travel will be effected but I haven't heard of any school having to forfeit because they couldn't get transportation to the game. Just saying.
As far as rivalries go, I think many will remain the same and some new ones will be created. With all the conference changes that are occurring, and the issues that come up with non-conf. game scheduling, it really makes more sense.
You will also minimize the possibility of the scenario of:
School A beats School B by 40 during the regular season but School B makes the playoffs instead of School A because they play a much weaker schedule against much smaller schools than School A. What message does that send to School A?
I know travel will be effected but I haven't heard of any school having to forfeit because they couldn't get transportation to the game. Just saying.
As far as rivalries go, I think many will remain the same and some new ones will be created. With all the conference changes that are occurring, and the issues that come up with non-conf. game scheduling, it really makes more sense.
Unfortunately, too many ADs are settling them via conference hopping and having 8A schools like GBS scheduling 4A schools like Urban Prep Englewood for non-con games.
Districts would settle that crap once and for all.
I am against expanding the playoffs to a 64 team format, primarily because of the additional blowouts it will create if seeding is done as it is now. It's bad enough now when 9-0 and 8-1 teams face 5-4 and 6-3 teams. I shudder to think what the first round will be like when 9-0 teams play 1-8 teams, 8-1 teams play 2-7 teams, 7-2 teams play 3-6 teams, etc... But wait, it gets worse. With 5-4 teams playing each other in the first round in a 512-team field, that then sets up second round blowouts of 6-4 teams playing highly seeded first round winners.
Last edited:
Football participation is on a pronounced downward trend. More and more schools are either dropping football, going co-op with other schools, or going to 8 man.
We could very well see a situation whereby the IHSA goes to a playoff field of 512 next year, and a few years after that there will be fewer than 512 football playing schools. That will force the IHSA to either institute first round byes, reduce the number of classes, or return to a 264-team field.
Rather than a 512 playoff field, how about looking at six classes with a 64-team field in each class? With six classes, that would result in 384 playoff qualifiers. That's more qualifiers than we have now with 32-team fields in eight classes, but fewer than a 512-team playoff field. I don't like it, but I like it better than what is being proposed. The sign of a good compromise is when nobody is happy.
We could very well see a situation whereby the IHSA goes to a playoff field of 512 next year, and a few years after that there will be fewer than 512 football playing schools. That will force the IHSA to either institute first round byes, reduce the number of classes, or return to a 264-team field.
Rather than a 512 playoff field, how about looking at six classes with a 64-team field in each class? With six classes, that would result in 384 playoff qualifiers. That's more qualifiers than we have now with 32-team fields in eight classes, but fewer than a 512-team playoff field. I don't like it, but I like it better than what is being proposed. The sign of a good compromise is when nobody is happy.
Last edited:
If we have fewer teams participating now and in the near future, why stick with eight classes?
Exactly, my thoughts on this. Everyone getting in is terrible. The district idea is even worse. What will they do with the multiplier? Can you petition up? Can a team that has terrible years petition down?
You have so many bad games in the first rounds now its ridiculous. Expanding to let everyone in brings in all the CPS crap which does no one any good and allows for teams that are limping to the finish line in hopes of ending their seasons reason to play for.
Most importantly, it completely devalues the regular season. I get that other sports allow every school in, but football is the only sport where there is one game a week. The uniqueness of it forces the change in playoff format.
I find it somewhat silly that the schools that proposed this all didn't make the playoffs and usually are not among powerhouse contenders. The Bobby Brady "Everyone gets a trophy" format is sill, self-serving and embarrassing.
Most importantly, it completely devalues the regular season. I get that other sports allow every school in, but football is the only sport where there is one game a week. The uniqueness of it forces the change in playoff format.
I find it somewhat silly that the schools that proposed this all didn't make the playoffs and usually are not among powerhouse contenders. The Bobby Brady "Everyone gets a trophy" format is sill, self-serving and embarrassing.
MC's 2019 Schedule Released:
But don't worry, SR might be back on the schedule in four years.
- vs. Gary Eastside College Prep and Leadership Academy (Gately, 7pm)
- vs. Urban Prep Bronzeville (Mandrake, Noon)
- vs. Schurz (Hanson, 4pm)*
- vs. Hubbard (Eckersall, 11am)*
- vs. Kelly (Rockne, 6pm)*
- vs. Lincoln Park (Winnemac, 9am)*
- vs. Juarez (Gately 7pm)*
- vs. Hyde Park (Carey, 3pm)*
- vs. CICS-Longwood (Stagg, Noon)*
But don't worry, SR might be back on the schedule in four years.
I agree, if you look at Iowa they play districts and still have non district games. This is a good way to encourage playing tougher non district opponents to help seeding, since the only record that matters for qualifying is the district record. I have a case study I am conducting right now to show how it would work, only problem I have ran into is there were an odd amount of teams that would be eligible to play in 1a thru 8a
The whole point of district vs everyone makes the playoffs vs the way it is now should be to improve the overall product of high school football in Illinois. There is no point to change just to change.
I have two examples I will use for discussion:
1. Since I follow the SWSC the most I will use Thornridge and Thornwood to start. Both teams are bottom dwellers in the SWSC. Both have "improved" their programs as of late by scheduling CPS teams and lower quality Indiana teams in their non con schedules. This has allowed them to increase their win totals (from 0 - 9 or 1 - 8 to between 3 - 6 and 5 - 4). Thornwood even made the playoffs last year. They still get blown out in conference play but I would assume the athletes playing football feel better with the higher win totals. I don't imagine they worried about a 7A/5A championship - they just want to compete on any given Friday with some success.
If you go to a larger playoff pool:
- Do more kids come out to play at these schools because they are guaranteed to make the playoffs?
- Do they get better coaches for the same reason?
- Do they schedule better knowing they will make the playoffs anyway or do they still schedule CPS teams to improve their given playoff status?
If you go to districting:
- Do more kids come out assuming a more competitive schedule since the HF's and LWE's will no longer be on their schedule
- Do they get better coaches for the same reason?
- Thornridge would have more nearby schools close to their level of competition in 5A but Thornwood would not in 7A (districting does Thornwood no favors).
These are the types of programs that you need to look at and answer the above questions. These are the programs, along with CPS programs, that are more likely to disappear. The Main South's and Loyola's will survive no matter what you decide to do.
Example two comes with districting (and is an outlier example I know):
What happens with 8A and teams from the Southwestern Conference
(Edwardsville, O Fallon and Belleville East)
Based on geographics and size - do they get put in a conference with HF, LWE, Bloom, Joliet West and Joliet Central?
- The (2) Joliet teams just left the SWSC to get out of playing against HF/LWE
- most importantly, how about travel in this district. You could have three games a week with approximately 5 - 6 hours of travel each way. No Friday night games - Saturday afternoon only if you don't want to pay for overnight stay for the teams. Do schools like Bloom have the extra finances available for these extra travel expenses? The IHSA won't supplement them because of their changes. Do the Joliet and Bloom teams keep football programs if this is their only option? Who wants 10 hours of travel to play a two hour game (possibly get blown out) at least 3 weeks of the season (plus playoffs) because they are forced to by districting. If they choose to on their own, that is by choice not regulation.
The Rockford, Peoria, Normal teams may have the same issues in the higher classes. Nothing can be perfect but the teams in Chicago and close suburbs certainly have an advantage with districting.
I don't know what is best but a lot to consider before something is done. Don't just change to change.
-
I have two examples I will use for discussion:
1. Since I follow the SWSC the most I will use Thornridge and Thornwood to start. Both teams are bottom dwellers in the SWSC. Both have "improved" their programs as of late by scheduling CPS teams and lower quality Indiana teams in their non con schedules. This has allowed them to increase their win totals (from 0 - 9 or 1 - 8 to between 3 - 6 and 5 - 4). Thornwood even made the playoffs last year. They still get blown out in conference play but I would assume the athletes playing football feel better with the higher win totals. I don't imagine they worried about a 7A/5A championship - they just want to compete on any given Friday with some success.
If you go to a larger playoff pool:
- Do more kids come out to play at these schools because they are guaranteed to make the playoffs?
- Do they get better coaches for the same reason?
- Do they schedule better knowing they will make the playoffs anyway or do they still schedule CPS teams to improve their given playoff status?
If you go to districting:
- Do more kids come out assuming a more competitive schedule since the HF's and LWE's will no longer be on their schedule
- Do they get better coaches for the same reason?
- Thornridge would have more nearby schools close to their level of competition in 5A but Thornwood would not in 7A (districting does Thornwood no favors).
These are the types of programs that you need to look at and answer the above questions. These are the programs, along with CPS programs, that are more likely to disappear. The Main South's and Loyola's will survive no matter what you decide to do.
Example two comes with districting (and is an outlier example I know):
What happens with 8A and teams from the Southwestern Conference
(Edwardsville, O Fallon and Belleville East)
Based on geographics and size - do they get put in a conference with HF, LWE, Bloom, Joliet West and Joliet Central?
- The (2) Joliet teams just left the SWSC to get out of playing against HF/LWE
- most importantly, how about travel in this district. You could have three games a week with approximately 5 - 6 hours of travel each way. No Friday night games - Saturday afternoon only if you don't want to pay for overnight stay for the teams. Do schools like Bloom have the extra finances available for these extra travel expenses? The IHSA won't supplement them because of their changes. Do the Joliet and Bloom teams keep football programs if this is their only option? Who wants 10 hours of travel to play a two hour game (possibly get blown out) at least 3 weeks of the season (plus playoffs) because they are forced to by districting. If they choose to on their own, that is by choice not regulation.
The Rockford, Peoria, Normal teams may have the same issues in the higher classes. Nothing can be perfect but the teams in Chicago and close suburbs certainly have an advantage with districting.
I don't know what is best but a lot to consider before something is done. Don't just change to change.
-
Great point. A district model in Football only would be very difficult for the 7A and 8A teams outside of major metro areas. Specifically the teams you mentioned in your post. Would they take Saint Louis teams into account? Probably can’t outside of the state.
On the other end - where do you draw the district line in heavily concentrated areas? For an example - there are more than nine 8A teams within 10 miles of each other in the Western Burbs.
* Oswego
* Oswego East
* Bolingbrook
* Plainfield North
* East Aurora
* West Aurora
* Metea
* Waubonsie
* Neuqua
* Naperville North
* Naperville Central.
Carving out districts is tough both in the less populated areas and also in the heavily populated areas. In the example above Metea could be in a different district than Waubonsie and they are frikkin 4 miles from each other. Same with NV and WV - only 4 or 5 miles apart.
No to districts, no to lettin 600 schools into the playoffs, no to football. Its all hoops from here out.
Everybody likes to talk about the effect on the big schools. Districts would have a more interesting effect on some smaller schools. Let use the Kankakee area as a decent region of variety, 15 very different schools.
Current Kankakee area football schools (approx. enrollment):
Bradley 7A 2100
Kankakee 5A 1200
Manteno 4A 650 I-8
Coal City 4A 630 I-8
Herscher 4A 590 I-8
Bishop McNamara 3A mult. 530
Peotone 3A 530 I-8
Reed Custer 3A 500 I-8
Wilmington 3A 480 I-8
Dwight 3A 300 coop GSW 180
Watseka 3A 300 coop St. Anne 200
Momence 2A 350
Clifton Central 2A 330
Iroquois West 2A 280
Milford 1A 130 coop Cissna Park 100
Bradley's 7A issues are very different than Milford's 1A issues. Bradley does not have to worry about conference opponents closing, or consolidating, or coop issues. Milford consolidated with Sheldon not too long ago, and has been cooping with CP for a few years. But they remain a 1A school. Their conference, and some others between Champaign & Danville area, has many schools cooping or planning to do so shortly (whether due to dropping enrollment or player interest depends). 1A schools present a bigger danger than Chicago Public Schools with forfeits or dropping the program affecting the total number of football playing schools.
Sangamon Valley Conference...no longer near the Sangamon Valley...lol. Watseka, IW, Central & Momence have been in and out of conferences together for a long time. Those 4 are geographically logical, and relatively similar enrollments. Paxton has been with them forever...but the PBL consolidation years ago makes PBL a solid 3A team. The departure of Tolono Unity/St.JoeOgden/Monticello/Champaign St. Thomas left PBL as the sole stand-alone 3A school in the conference. Left searching for members, Dwight comes along and abandons the I-8 because of its small/shrinking enrollment. Yet Dwight's long-standing coop with Gardner for football/track/wrestling/cross country leaves them smack in the middle of the I-8 small's enrollment; ten years ago they were almost 600 kids in the coop. And they still can't make the playoffs... And next year Seneca abandons the I-8 for the SVC in football...dropping enrollment is their excuse, going from the smallest I-8 to the second largest non-coop SVC program...
Mixed in the middle of the SVC is the River Valley Conference - the non-football hosting schools in the Kankakee area which Manteno/Herscher/ Peotone left because of football, and Central/Momence/Watseka were members on and off. Gardner coops with Dwight. Watseka has tried coops with a number of SVC members - St. Anne currently, previously with Donovan. Donovan cooped with Tri-Point a few years ago, but Tri-Point has dropped football. Grant Park tried coops with Manteno and Momence in the past. Beecher has 350+ kids, so it has no realistic hope of a coop...nobody wants to jump two classes for the playoffs (which was a problem when Manteno & Peotone cooped in the early 90's).
The I-8 is dissolving after Seneca's departure...the 6 Kankakee area schools seem destined to stay together. Wilmington has a border with the other 5 in the core...incredibly logical geographical conference core. But Lisle seems determined to come along...But if you go districts, there are 3 3A schools and 3 4A schools who would prefer to stay together rather than be put with who knows who or where...
Which brings us to the confounding problem...McNamara. The KVC disbanded in the late 80's and the public schools organized the RVC in order to get rid of Mac...Districts force Mac on the public schools...which might bring Mac to whatever replaces the I-8 in all sports (okay, maybe not...). Mac also has longstanding rivalries with Kankakee & Bradley. The Catholic league has helped Mac to be better than the neighboring 3A & 4A schools in some ways, but the improvement (academically & athletically) of the I-8 schools has cut into Mac's allure. From a fan's perspective, Mac/Herscher is one of the biggest rivalries in the state...Mac/Manteno have never played in football, but would be a huge game...
Kankakee is the edge school...5A...next 5A south brings them to what, the Big 12 Champaign/Danville/Bloomington Normal...The Southland is a nice fit for them with the Rich Township schools...Crete historically fits & geographically fits, but has about 400 more kids than them...a sixth is a problem...Streator???
And Bradley's issues start with a football district which could include the East St. Louis area schools....Not geographically viable.
Forcing shrinking schools who consolidate or coop into football districts with former conference members they left might leave a real bad taste in many mouths...But realistically, a 10 member 3a/4a conference district could be the core 6, plus Mac, Dwight, Watseka & Seneca...a likely disaster...or PBL...or Prairie Central & Pontiac...
Are we completely icky yet...
Current Kankakee area football schools (approx. enrollment):
Bradley 7A 2100
Kankakee 5A 1200
Manteno 4A 650 I-8
Coal City 4A 630 I-8
Herscher 4A 590 I-8
Bishop McNamara 3A mult. 530
Peotone 3A 530 I-8
Reed Custer 3A 500 I-8
Wilmington 3A 480 I-8
Dwight 3A 300 coop GSW 180
Watseka 3A 300 coop St. Anne 200
Momence 2A 350
Clifton Central 2A 330
Iroquois West 2A 280
Milford 1A 130 coop Cissna Park 100
Bradley's 7A issues are very different than Milford's 1A issues. Bradley does not have to worry about conference opponents closing, or consolidating, or coop issues. Milford consolidated with Sheldon not too long ago, and has been cooping with CP for a few years. But they remain a 1A school. Their conference, and some others between Champaign & Danville area, has many schools cooping or planning to do so shortly (whether due to dropping enrollment or player interest depends). 1A schools present a bigger danger than Chicago Public Schools with forfeits or dropping the program affecting the total number of football playing schools.
Sangamon Valley Conference...no longer near the Sangamon Valley...lol. Watseka, IW, Central & Momence have been in and out of conferences together for a long time. Those 4 are geographically logical, and relatively similar enrollments. Paxton has been with them forever...but the PBL consolidation years ago makes PBL a solid 3A team. The departure of Tolono Unity/St.JoeOgden/Monticello/Champaign St. Thomas left PBL as the sole stand-alone 3A school in the conference. Left searching for members, Dwight comes along and abandons the I-8 because of its small/shrinking enrollment. Yet Dwight's long-standing coop with Gardner for football/track/wrestling/cross country leaves them smack in the middle of the I-8 small's enrollment; ten years ago they were almost 600 kids in the coop. And they still can't make the playoffs... And next year Seneca abandons the I-8 for the SVC in football...dropping enrollment is their excuse, going from the smallest I-8 to the second largest non-coop SVC program...
Mixed in the middle of the SVC is the River Valley Conference - the non-football hosting schools in the Kankakee area which Manteno/Herscher/ Peotone left because of football, and Central/Momence/Watseka were members on and off. Gardner coops with Dwight. Watseka has tried coops with a number of SVC members - St. Anne currently, previously with Donovan. Donovan cooped with Tri-Point a few years ago, but Tri-Point has dropped football. Grant Park tried coops with Manteno and Momence in the past. Beecher has 350+ kids, so it has no realistic hope of a coop...nobody wants to jump two classes for the playoffs (which was a problem when Manteno & Peotone cooped in the early 90's).
The I-8 is dissolving after Seneca's departure...the 6 Kankakee area schools seem destined to stay together. Wilmington has a border with the other 5 in the core...incredibly logical geographical conference core. But Lisle seems determined to come along...But if you go districts, there are 3 3A schools and 3 4A schools who would prefer to stay together rather than be put with who knows who or where...
Which brings us to the confounding problem...McNamara. The KVC disbanded in the late 80's and the public schools organized the RVC in order to get rid of Mac...Districts force Mac on the public schools...which might bring Mac to whatever replaces the I-8 in all sports (okay, maybe not...). Mac also has longstanding rivalries with Kankakee & Bradley. The Catholic league has helped Mac to be better than the neighboring 3A & 4A schools in some ways, but the improvement (academically & athletically) of the I-8 schools has cut into Mac's allure. From a fan's perspective, Mac/Herscher is one of the biggest rivalries in the state...Mac/Manteno have never played in football, but would be a huge game...
Kankakee is the edge school...5A...next 5A south brings them to what, the Big 12 Champaign/Danville/Bloomington Normal...The Southland is a nice fit for them with the Rich Township schools...Crete historically fits & geographically fits, but has about 400 more kids than them...a sixth is a problem...Streator???
And Bradley's issues start with a football district which could include the East St. Louis area schools....Not geographically viable.
Forcing shrinking schools who consolidate or coop into football districts with former conference members they left might leave a real bad taste in many mouths...But realistically, a 10 member 3a/4a conference district could be the core 6, plus Mac, Dwight, Watseka & Seneca...a likely disaster...or PBL...or Prairie Central & Pontiac...
Are we completely icky yet...
~~~ 8A ONLY ~~~
Upper Bracket
#64 Joliet Central (0-9) at #1 Lincoln-Way East (9-0)
#33 Glenbrook South (5-4) at #32 Oak Park (5-4)
#49 Lockport (2-7) at #16 Plainfield North (7-2)
#48 Brother Rice (2-7) at #17 Oswego East (7-2)
#57 Conant (1-8) at #8 Glenbard West (8-1)
#40 McHenry (4-5) at #25 Naperville North (6-3)
#56 York (1-8) at #9 Oswego (8-1)
#41 Stagg (4-5) at #24 Palatine (6-3)
#61 Morton (1-8) at #4 Homewood-Flossmoor (8-1)
#36 Leyden (5-4) at #29 Evanston (6-3)
#52 Proviso West (2-7) at #13 Naperville Central (7-2)
#45 Glenbard East (3-6) at #20 Curie (7-2)
#60 Dundee-Crown (1-8) at #5 Maine South (8-1)
#37 Waubonsie Valley (4-5) at #28 New Trier (6-3)
#53 Elgin (2-7) at #12 Bolingbrook (7-2)
#44 Sandburg (3-6) at #21 West Aurora (7-2)
Lower Bracket
#63 Waukegan (0-9) at #2 Barrington (9-0)
#34 Joliet West (5-4) at #31 Glenbard North (5-4)
#50 Bartlett (2-7) at #15 Minooka (7-2)
#47 O'Fallon (3-6) at #18 St. Charles East (7-2)
#58 Metea Valley (1-8) at #7 Huntley (8-1)
#39 Zion-Benton (4-5) at #26 Bloom (6-3)
#55 Niles West (1-8) at #10 South Elgin (8-1)
#42 Downers Grove South (4-5) at #23 Stevenson (6-3)
#62 East Aurora (1-8) at #3 Marist (9-0)
#35 Neuqua Valley at #30 Lake Park (5-4)
#51 Belleville East (2-7) at #14 Lyons (7-2)
#46 Taft (3-6) at #19 Notre Dame (7-2)
#59 Plainfield East (1-8) at #6 Loyola (8-1)
#38 Plainfield South (4-5) at #27 Edwardsville (6-3)
#54 Fremd (1-8) at #11 Hinsdale Central (7-2)
#43 Lane Tech (4-5) at #22 Warren (6-3)
Upper Bracket
#64 Joliet Central (0-9) at #1 Lincoln-Way East (9-0)
#33 Glenbrook South (5-4) at #32 Oak Park (5-4)
#49 Lockport (2-7) at #16 Plainfield North (7-2)
#48 Brother Rice (2-7) at #17 Oswego East (7-2)
#57 Conant (1-8) at #8 Glenbard West (8-1)
#40 McHenry (4-5) at #25 Naperville North (6-3)
#56 York (1-8) at #9 Oswego (8-1)
#41 Stagg (4-5) at #24 Palatine (6-3)
#61 Morton (1-8) at #4 Homewood-Flossmoor (8-1)
#36 Leyden (5-4) at #29 Evanston (6-3)
#52 Proviso West (2-7) at #13 Naperville Central (7-2)
#45 Glenbard East (3-6) at #20 Curie (7-2)
#60 Dundee-Crown (1-8) at #5 Maine South (8-1)
#37 Waubonsie Valley (4-5) at #28 New Trier (6-3)
#53 Elgin (2-7) at #12 Bolingbrook (7-2)
#44 Sandburg (3-6) at #21 West Aurora (7-2)
Lower Bracket
#63 Waukegan (0-9) at #2 Barrington (9-0)
#34 Joliet West (5-4) at #31 Glenbard North (5-4)
#50 Bartlett (2-7) at #15 Minooka (7-2)
#47 O'Fallon (3-6) at #18 St. Charles East (7-2)
#58 Metea Valley (1-8) at #7 Huntley (8-1)
#39 Zion-Benton (4-5) at #26 Bloom (6-3)
#55 Niles West (1-8) at #10 South Elgin (8-1)
#42 Downers Grove South (4-5) at #23 Stevenson (6-3)
#62 East Aurora (1-8) at #3 Marist (9-0)
#35 Neuqua Valley at #30 Lake Park (5-4)
#51 Belleville East (2-7) at #14 Lyons (7-2)
#46 Taft (3-6) at #19 Notre Dame (7-2)
#59 Plainfield East (1-8) at #6 Loyola (8-1)
#38 Plainfield South (4-5) at #27 Edwardsville (6-3)
#54 Fremd (1-8) at #11 Hinsdale Central (7-2)
#43 Lane Tech (4-5) at #22 Warren (6-3)
Isn't the underlying problem with conference still present when you have districts? Schools that are going 4-5 under the current system because they play in tough leagues that are generally geographic based are just going to go 4-5 in a district that is a lot better than other districts....I don't think that solves the underlying problem which is a wide variation in schedule strength due to geography being a big driver in determining schedules.
Possible solution: Each league qualifies a certain number of schools for the playoffs. That number is determined by a formula based on playoff results.
Possible solution: Each league qualifies a certain number of schools for the playoffs. That number is determined by a formula based on playoff results.
DISTRICTS! That solves the conference jumping. Iowa and Minnesota don’t seem to have an issue with it.
Also, increasing participation by letting everyone into the playoffs doesn't make the kids want to play football anymore than if they didn't make the playoffs. They know that they aren't very good and nobody wants to play on bad teams. I have seen this in all sports. Plenty of examples in basketball where kids stopped going out for basketball because they were on not very good teams and that might win one game in regionals. So I think the point of letting everyone in to create more participation is a faulty argument.
In the district system you wouldn't get in based on number of wins you would get in based on finish place in district... i.e. Top 2 or 3 or 4.... depending on number of districts. If you keep 32 team brackets and had 16 districts top 2 from each get in regardless of record...
Having the teams play inter-district, 1-2, 2-1 makes sense. It eliminates the issues of teams with horrific records playing top seeds. It also eliminates the traditional seeding 1-32 which would drive some people crazy. The other thing that no one addresses is extending the season for a game or two. Why is nine the magical number of games? There are plenty of other states that play more than nine regular season games. While the overlap with winter sports with teams involved in the playoffs is an issue. It is only a consistent issue at a few schools. Bottom line is, no new system will please everyone.
Ha! Good one. Under the last "District" proposal, the Mustangs and the Caravan would play every year, but I get your point.
New Jersey has an interesting system. I don't like how many different titles they offer with groups (based on enrollment size) and sections (based on geography), but I do think their qualification, classification and seeding system is intriguing.
First of all, NJ playoffs are opt in. You have to declare your intent to participate by the end of October.
NJ schools are given 6 power ratings points for a win and 3 for a tie. Then, they are given additional points for the enrollment sizes of the opponents they defeated. The larger the school (and the private schools are multiplied), the more points that are given. For instance, borrowing IHSA verbiage, a school might get 8 pts for beating an 8A sized school, 7 pts for 7A, etc. Schools also earn points for each win (3 pts) or tie (1.5 pts) of their defeated opponents. Schools even get points for losing. When you lose to an opponent, you get a point for every win that opponent notched against other schools.
To qualify for the playoffs, NJ teams are selected based solely on their total power ratings points from a team’s best 7 of their 8 completed games. At least 70% of a team’s entire schedule must be played against other NJ schools. The 8 highest ranked schools participate in the playoffs in each Group in each Section. Seeding is based on the number of points.
Don't get caught up in the verbiage or the numbers. All this could be easily adapted to Illinois.
Here's a link to their rules:
http://www.njsiaa.org/sites/default/files/document/2017 Football Regulations.pdf
Last edited:
Please for the love of everything I hold sacred about the game of high school football...do not let more teams into the playoffs. Enough participation awards already.
I can understand the desire for better seeding, but more teams is not the answer.
If you want to do something like this, base seeds on the previous years sophomore and varsity records and then seed preseason. The whole season is you rplayoff bracket. Establish a looser bracket so all teams get X amount of games or something.
I can understand the desire for better seeding, but more teams is not the answer.
If you want to do something like this, base seeds on the previous years sophomore and varsity records and then seed preseason. The whole season is you rplayoff bracket. Establish a looser bracket so all teams get X amount of games or something.
I say let's dump the June & July 7v7 circuit, let the kids practice and start the real season a few weeks earlier in the dog days of mid August. Couple good things out of this:
1. Season starts earlier for Edgyland!
2. No more thread arguments about the prowess of the 7v7 teams and how they going to take IL by storm in the regular season!
3. Can play more than 9 games without winter issues
4. can more easily adjust the playoff system
