Just kind of curious as to what everyone thinks about the whole lower seed getting the home game if they haven't played at home yet rule. I personally think it's ludicrous to give an advantage to a team that didn't earn it, but want to hear everyone's thoughts. Only argument I can see is that some teams play much tougher schedules, but I think that is more of an argument for a different seeding method than for the home game trade off.
Playoff Home/Away Game Discussion
- Thread starter bmlaken
- Start date
Fair point, makes sense from a competitive perspective to allow the higher seed to have it all the way through.
I think you answered your own question. There are plenty of 9-0, 8-1, 7-2 teams that would never beat 5-4 or 6-3 teams from specific conferences. With that said, do you really earn to play at home if you are a 9-0 team that has played nobody all year but cause you are 9-0 you get a home game. I completely understand the whole process. Schedules are not the same across the board. If they seeded by true strength of schedule then I can understand getting home games all the way through. Which means some teams that are 5-4, 6-3 might be a top seed based on strength of schedule.
I dont like it. But I think its also there to share some of the burden of travel expenses as equally as possible.
I like the way the state does this... Not that I like the state but ya get my point.
It’s not perfect, but I’m fine with it.
There doesn’t seem to be a viable alternative besides just letting the better seed host throughout, but since the seeds aren’t necessarily representative of team strength, the current method works and seems fair.
There doesn’t seem to be a viable alternative besides just letting the better seed host throughout, but since the seeds aren’t necessarily representative of team strength, the current method works and seems fair.
What the state needs to do is seed all classes 1-32 and fix the Private/Public debate one way or another.
1-32 and higher seed gets home game.
I’d get greedy and say computer rankings for seeds but I don’t see that happening.
I’d get greedy and say computer rankings for seeds but I don’t see that happening.
Id say computer rankings or polls for the top 5-8 seeds. Then the current system for seeding everyone else.
In 7a for example, its really unfair for Fenwick (who is a top 5 team in the 6a rankings) to be matched up against BR (who is #8 in 7a) in the 1st rd.
Harlem, who went 7-2, gets matched up with the #1 team in 7a in the first round
IDC about travel expenses! It's the playoffs for cripes sake! The higher seed should always get the home game. And 1-32 across the board is a no brainer. Look no further than 3A North.
My idea has always been to defer your home field game if you choose too. A number 1 seed might need that home game more in the second round than the first round running clock game.
I think it is great for the first 2 rounds. Starting in the Quarters the highest seeded team should host
I think no matter what the higher seed should host in the semi finals or go to a neutral site for semis.
You answered your own question. What would Whitney Young's record be, say if they played possible second-round opponent Bradley-Bourbonnais' schedule? Is there anyone on this site that thinks Sullivan, who is 9-0, would have made the playoffs playing the same schedule as their opening round opponent? Me neither.
A lot can be fixed with the playoff system, but it is what it is. There's no perfect system for home/road games.
Unless you haven't hosted a game, it should be higher seed. Once you have hosted even once, then the higher seed gets to host. I also believe seeds should be 1-32 based on calpreps but I want things done right.
Why?
It should always be the higher seed.
Step 1 - get 1-32 in all classes
Step 2 - 1-32 based on computers rankings.
Step 3 - we will keep dreaming of that
SOme school could use the money that is made from hosting a playoff game....
Hosting a playoff game is special and as many schools as possible should get to experience it once, even if they are the lower seed.
I always thought all the money goes to IHSA. They only let schools keep a few crumbs.
I'll give the meathead response, be the higher seed then. This isn't t-ball.
I get that and everyone is entitled to think how they want. I see hosting once as a compromise to how it is done now. I understand some think if you want to host then win.
Travel expenses decrease with each round. There are fewer teams playing and those whom are, have the higher motivation to make the trip. 1 or two buses making a 500 mile round trip, as East St. Louis must in their round 2 thru 5 matchups- half of which are home, is not impacting that community with its 37% poverty rate. We need to put the travel expense issue to bed once and for all.
I do think most of the gate goes to IHSA. Concessions will make a couple more crumbs.
There are more teams that have to travel in the playoffs than ESL. And there are certainly more athletic departments who are less thrilled about football expenses than ESL.
Travel expenses are more than just a bus ride. You also have to find hotels for kids as well as feed them, which is something I brought up when discussing Loyola v Belleville East scheduling.
Unless you plan on footing the bill for some of it, travel expenses is a factor that certainly wont be ignored by alot of these schools.
Give the lower seed a home game, for example 2023 MC could have played at a Sandlot and still ran the table for state. Most seasoned programs don’t care about traveling. I get excited when a program like ESL comes to the Chicagoland area, Not to mention (They travel well)
I understand what some are try to say. It just doesn’t feel right to give a team a reward for having a worse record.
What if the worse record is from a much tougher schedule though?
I like it the way it is. Fun experiencing new towns and stadiums.
80 percent goes to the state and 20 percent goes to the host school.
Based on that logic we should just give everyone a state championship trophy as well. So as many schools as possible can experience it. Come on man.
But wouldn't the lower ranked team had to have beaten a higher ranked team in order to advance?
Let's look at an real, very hypothetical example.
Sterling #13 beats WSF # 4 played in Wheaton, and if #5 PR beats Goode, Sterling hosts. You could say that Sterling haven beaten the #4 seed, takes that seed, so you have the new #4 hosting the #5.
Interesting way to look at it, but that's just not how it's done for any sport in the collegiate or pro level. But I can see the line of thinking. I think my big problem with it really is in the quarters and definitely semis. Just think the higher seed should definitely host those, but it is what it is this thread brought up good points
If the seeding was truly accurate for the strength of the team, instead of just based on wins and loses, I would be inclined to sy the higher seed should have home games thru the whole playoffs, but ...
Yeah agree 100% on this. I think the fix is the IHSA doing something to fix that. I think they do something similar in basketball and baseball. I don't think it's based solely off record
Basketball and baseball have regionals and each regional is seeded based on coaches vote.
I don’t think that would work in a statewide football bracket. Yeah everybody might agree on the top seed, maybe the top 2 or 3, but it’s just too much for coaches to try and rank 31 other teams that aren’t set until right before the tournament starts.
Regionals are set months before they begin. Way fewer teams and more time to scout.
Outside of the current method, they could use calpreps/massey power ratings to seed the teams, or perhaps some formula that combines the current system and the computers.
Admittedly not the most informed on the other sports process but I think the sectionals are seeded at least in basketball. Which is ~16 teams. I think the wins and playoff points are fine to get the teams into the playoffs and into classes, and then maybe they vote/seed within the classes. Idk just a thought but I definitely understand your point that it might not be as realistic for football
Totally agree. It is a weird, quirky, and unique system, but I really like the basic randomness to decide who hosts, as schedules are so different that seeding means little anyway.
Getting to see new venues, especially for a big time Saturday semifinal is a great part of the experience.
Would really like to see a revamp of seeding philosophy before any consideration of rewarding home field to the "better" seed.
Would love to see the current system used to determine the 256 qualifiers and 32 per class. But then go to a computer algorithm the IHSA contracts with to determine the order of the 32 seeds.
And even then, I prefer the alternating of hosting sites just for the enjoyment of seeing a big game somewhere new.
I think larger classes may be seeded at the sectional level and smaller classes at the regional level.
At any rate, both baseball and hoops have more time and more matchups/data to use with regards to seeding at that level and many/most of the teams in a sectional tournament have head to head results to compare also.
Similar threads
