Post your thoughts here on the New Proposed IHSA Football playoffs
- Thread starter EdgyTim
- Start date
3 wins and in should be a no no, I would prefer 4 wins if anything and bring in SOME 3-5 teams to fill the field. We'd atleast get the most battled tested 3-5s out there according to playoff points. 1-32 in 5A and 6A needs to be included in proposal.
IHSA focus after week 8 should be on those who made the playoff, not scheduling games for non contenders. they would have so many CPS games to schedule (who also would need a venue). Let teams schedule their own games and allow week 10 to be a possibility for play to allow extra time to do this. teams that lose that 6th game needs to be on the phone ASAP
IHSA focus after week 8 should be on those who made the playoff, not scheduling games for non contenders. they would have so many CPS games to schedule (who also would need a venue). Let teams schedule their own games and allow week 10 to be a possibility for play to allow extra time to do this. teams that lose that 6th game needs to be on the phone ASAP
I guess I’m failing to see what wrong with our current system. It’s far from perfect I guess but short of having every team make the playoffs I don’t see expanding it being a good thing. You’re going to get horrifically bad first round matchups of 3 or 4 win teams playing an unbeaten team.
I just don’t see the benefits of changing it.
I just don’t see the benefits of changing it.
This is light years better than the district system, though not perfect. I don't think we can expect perfect at this point. This proposal seems to not punish teams who play a really tough schedule. I can get behind it.
I would agree with Newt. However, there is a definite change coming with districts and I think that is real bad for football in general.
This new proposal is not great, but way better than districts.
I would still like to see a 9-game schedule. 48 teams in the playoffs, which begin week 10. Seed 1-32, 5A through 8A.Top 16 teams get a bye.
You can get your 9 games by starting a week earlier. Nearly everyone, except CPS is in school by then anyway.
This new proposal is not great, but way better than districts.
I would still like to see a 9-game schedule. 48 teams in the playoffs, which begin week 10. Seed 1-32, 5A through 8A.Top 16 teams get a bye.
You can get your 9 games by starting a week earlier. Nearly everyone, except CPS is in school by then anyway.
I agree the status quo is better than any change.
however, it comes down to status quo is not an option so it is this vs districts. This is way better than districts so we should all pray for it to pass.
should allow for great non conference matchups week 1 too.
however, it comes down to status quo is not an option so it is this vs districts. This is way better than districts so we should all pray for it to pass.
should allow for great non conference matchups week 1 too.
8 week schedule.
Let all 512 teams in
1 extra week of playoffs.
This works for every other sport.
Oh yeah!!!! More crap to sift through.... let’s prolong this for another two years and ruin a few more football seasons for kids. My only vote is for a fair and balanced system that goes in place NEXT YEAR. So the KIDS that have suffered from lopsided conferences and conference jumpers can get at least one season of balance to play some ball. IHSA enough is enough. Balance to system That might help solve the “transfer” issue a little bit
Strongly disagree that districts will be “balanced.” 5a and 6a and even some of 7a will have absolutely terrible regular seasons that will lead to a lot of poor teams folding up shop rather than play against blue bloods a few times a year.
Current system is good.
You want to make it better. Go back to 6 classes where 6-3 teams or better make the playoffs.
Whatever the system, the playoffs don't really start until there are 32 teams left in the bracket.
Games previous to this are just scrimmage playoff games.
You want to make it better. Go back to 6 classes where 6-3 teams or better make the playoffs.
Whatever the system, the playoffs don't really start until there are 32 teams left in the bracket.
Games previous to this are just scrimmage playoff games.
Last edited:
Schools will like it because they will be able to slash stipends by 1/11.
Expanded playoffs is better than districts.
I don't like the bye week. 512 in the playoffs is better than a bye week.
8 game regular season? That said, is losing that 5th home game every other year a potential financial issue for some school districts? Maybe CPS and some small schools lose money on a game, but I'm guessing one decent gate at a 7A school pays for cross country. 9 games and all in the playoffs is even better...
Most union coachig contracts are based on first day of practice through last week of regular season. Some districts give extra money for playoff runs, others do not. You would now have lower level staffs who have kids for one less week. School admins do not like giving money away and as contracts come up they will cut stipends.
I agree with you both. I can’t stand the thought of a sub 500 team making the playoffs. Why reward a team for being a loser? It’s the new way I guess.
I don’t like it. Earn your place, a losing record isn’t earning anything.
Ok I am done with my rant please proceed.
I have seen those contracts with extra money for extra weeks. The suburban district I teach in has a set rate with no bonus for playoff success. I would venture the vast majority of downstate districts, which comprise most of the state, don’t dish out extra cash for playoff advancement.
But even in the relatively well off districts that pay extra for playoff success, I think the contract would still read as week 9 being the conclusion of the contractually mandated season and anything beyond being bonus. After all, if everyone is playing week 9 anyway, there wouldn’t be any extra consideration given for an extended season.
Last edited:
I like this new proposal. It reduces the pressure on coaches and athletic directors to make the playoffs (by making it easier), and consequently reduces the likelihood schools will move from one conference to another in an effort to make the playoffs more frequently. It (probably) reduces the number of games played each season by the state champion (and runner-up) from 14 to 13, which reduces the wear-and-tear on young athletes' bodies. It will probably reduce, (but at the very least will not increase), the number of lopsided games in the first round of the playoffs. [Seed 17 vs. seed 48 should be no more lopsided than seed 1 vs. seed 32.] There will be one additional week of playoff football compared to the current system, which will be that much more fun for the fans. It reduces, by one, the number of games needed to be scheduled by the athletic directors each year, thereby reducing the number of out-of-state games needed to be scheduled (and thus reducing travel). This is a good proposal.
1. I like some of your thought process but not sure I like the over-all idea of this proposal.
2. JCA (for example) was a #14 seed in 2018 (#28 seed if 5A was 1-32 seeding) and would have started out against the #46 seed.
3. If 2018 was an 8 game season with this proposal JCA would have been 4-4 and might have been a 40th seed to start the tournament or lower.
4. IDK if this could work very well.
Just my thoughts.
The biggest reason behind proposed change is to stabilize conferences and scheduling. Expanded playoff qualification accomplishes this. However, the the 48-qualifiers and the resulting week 9 situation should not be accepted. The bye is too extreme (this is not the college or pro level) and the arrangement of a Game 9 too cumbersome in many ways. Just make the move to 8-game regular season with 512 teams qualifying. Although Round 1 games get "worse," such is the least of all the negatives in the status quo or new proposal. Don't nibble at the edges of the problem ... go big or go home.
Everyone is worried about a lopsided week one matchup in the playoffs.......... sounds like a normal weekly game in the interstate 8.
52-7 final
49-0 final
28-0 six minutes into the first .......
Yep we’re use to it. If the current system stays in place we won’t have a team in about 2 or 3 years and if trends like that keep going. We can just wait a few more years and everyone will make the postseason because we only have 256 teams in the state.
52-7 final
49-0 final
28-0 six minutes into the first .......
Yep we’re use to it. If the current system stays in place we won’t have a team in about 2 or 3 years and if trends like that keep going. We can just wait a few more years and everyone will make the postseason because we only have 256 teams in the state.
I think adding a 10th game and keeping the playoffs, as they are now, is a better idea than letting more into the playoffs. You could start the season a week earlier. If you play 8 games and if you don't make the playoffs, scheduling an extra game would be difficult logistically, I think.
There are not going to 512 teams much longer, if there even is now. 8 man is growing at a fast rate.
Last edited:
Agree with woody. Makes more sense to me to just go to an 8-game schedule and expand the playoffs to 512.
It's the simplest and easiest solution. Give the top teams a bye in the first round, let the rest of them play. For the life of me, I can't see why letting more teams play at least one more week is a bad thing, especially since we are so worried about football participation. This is high school, not the NFL. Maybe a 3-6 team will make a little run once in a while. Seems like that would be exciting and good for high school football. The cream always rises to the top anyway.
I think the proposal would definitely allow for much more flexibility. Even since the proposal came out, I've talked to a couple local head coaches who are intrigued by the proposal because they would be more willing to schedule a marquee game if it doesn't put the playoffs at risk. Look at the current CCL/ESCC schedule. Marist is probably going to miss the playoffs because of the toughness of the conference but should they be? Who doesn't love seeing George Mason squeak their way into the NCAA Tournament and maybe get that first round upset. These are kids having another opportunity to play football games. For the schools that don't care about it, they'll take their week 9 loss and move onto basketball season. With the new format, the goal could be getting that week 9 bye, giving your guys a chance to heal up, and make a run in November.
The current system isn't perfect but sounds like everyone agrees it's better than the districts route. I also don't understand the hesitation with teams knowing they'll get a bye? Why are byes only allowed in Pros or College? It's giving teams a chance to heal up if they've earned it by their regular season. God forbid an AD has to pick up a phone to schedule a game, which most head coaches are doing anyways. Now teams won't be terrified of playing any talent to get to the 5th win. Does anybody win when BR beats up on Perspectives? Or all those years (insert CPS team) gets bullied by MC? Those games become less important. It's not a perfect proposal and doesn't solve a ton of the current issues, but it allows for some intriguing possibilities and means MC and SR won't spend the next couple years playing Argo, Oak Lawn, Juarez, Lincoln Park, Proviso East and whatever other teams were in the potential district schedule.
The current system isn't perfect but sounds like everyone agrees it's better than the districts route. I also don't understand the hesitation with teams knowing they'll get a bye? Why are byes only allowed in Pros or College? It's giving teams a chance to heal up if they've earned it by their regular season. God forbid an AD has to pick up a phone to schedule a game, which most head coaches are doing anyways. Now teams won't be terrified of playing any talent to get to the 5th win. Does anybody win when BR beats up on Perspectives? Or all those years (insert CPS team) gets bullied by MC? Those games become less important. It's not a perfect proposal and doesn't solve a ton of the current issues, but it allows for some intriguing possibilities and means MC and SR won't spend the next couple years playing Argo, Oak Lawn, Juarez, Lincoln Park, Proviso East and whatever other teams were in the potential district schedule.
Why does everyone want to jump on board shortening the season to 8 games plus playoffs... I would never support any proposal, no matter how good the other components, that shortens the season by a game. If you want to allow all teams in fine.... but it is still 9 games plus the extra playoff game. Start a week earlier or play a week later.... I don’t care which.
I really don't like 3-win (and possibly 2-win) teams playing 7-1 or 6-2 teams in round one.
I thought it was very interesting that this proposal has so many sponsors. While impressive, it's a wasted effort in my opinion.
There are very few schools smaller than 7A among those sponsors. And that's why I think this proposal doesn't have much chance in passing a vote of all football playing schools. The small and medium sized schools, if they vote in a block, can approve or disapprove anything they want in this association. If they think that this is big school initiative, then they could vote against it for no other reason than that.
I thought it was very interesting that this proposal has so many sponsors. While impressive, it's a wasted effort in my opinion.
There are very few schools smaller than 7A among those sponsors. And that's why I think this proposal doesn't have much chance in passing a vote of all football playing schools. The small and medium sized schools, if they vote in a block, can approve or disapprove anything they want in this association. If they think that this is big school initiative, then they could vote against it for no other reason than that.
Last edited:
I agree with you both. I can’t stand the thought of a sub 500 team making the playoffs. Why reward a team for being a loser? It’s the new way I guess.
I don’t like it. Earn your place, a losing record isn’t earning anything.
Ok I am done with my rant please proceed.
Teams and individuals with losing records make it into the playoff system pretty much every other IHSA sport. They just get weeded out through Regionals and Sectionals. Really no downside here. Week 9 is just the first round and meaningful for all teams and not just the 4-4 teams.
Because if you read it correctly, every team will play 9 games, either 8 with a playoff game coming or 9 and you're done. If teams are in that bad of shape that they don't want the week 9 game then that falls on the shoulders of the school and HC/AD. Why do people assume adding a week before or after the season makes things easier? CPS isn't even in school when the season begins now let alone giving them two game weeks prior to school even starting. And adding a week 10 only hurts kids who play multiple sports and pushes championships past Thanksgiving weekend. Nobody is threatening taking a game away unless the school that goes 1-7 says no which is probably for a reason anyways.
Does it really matter if a team with a losing record gets in? Give a team a shot to make a run. You could make the argument that very talented 4-5 teams and CPS-striking schools would like the flexibility. Maybe even that dreaded NC schedule every seems to rag on wouldn't cost kids a chance to make a playoff run because they weren't afraid of scheduling.
That's a separate issue. An 8-game regular season with 512 playoff qualifiers would help alleviate (I said help alleviate not eliminate) the problem of schools jumping from one conference to another. IMO, that's the main issue the IHSA needs to address. More teams would make the playoffs, so scheduling should be easier in theory as well. It would also allow schools to keep their freedom of choice as it relates to conference affiliation and not have the IHSA dictate the regular season schedule. I suspect the IHSA has never wanted to oversee districts and is silently encouraging member schools to present alternate proposals.
The first thing you have to understand is that the scheduling issue has nothing to do with making the playoffs. That is the excuse that everyone uses simply because it hard to argue. Right now you have schools that just don't want to play other schools. As a fan this pill is hard to swallow however this is the reality. There are some schools that would like to go 9-0 and lose in the first round of the playoffs every year versus going 5-4 with a nice playoff run. School spirit is based more on regular season for kids and the community. Playoffs are for the true fans that really love the sport. For everyone else, it's basketball time.
Out of the 500 or so teams that participate every year, only about 30-40 have a realistic chance of winning a state championship. That leaves about 450 schools that want the easiest regular season schedule they can find.
I hear ya. And you are a fan of a school who has trouble finding games. I do think the "drive for five" does influence scheduling more than you are alleging, though.
Similar threads
