Potential 6 class playoff system

[lkhammer57]

So, I know that there is no perfect system, but it would be great to see some more competitive state games and have more worthy champions. I think we have seen some great playoff football matchups in 7a and 8a in recent history (not that other classes haven't had some good matchups), but I have always felt that the middle classes (4a-6a) could use some more competition because there have been some lack luster playoff fields and champions in some of those classes. I think it is easily understood considering the amount of dynasties we have seen at those classes. With that being said I think limiting the amount of teams into the playoffs would allow more of these state contenders to run into each other in the playoffs or at the state championship. With that being said, lets take a look at my playoff guidelines:

We are going from 256 playoff teams to 192 playoff teams

Conference Champs received an Automatic Qualifier

Since I believe the weak tested CPS schools water down the competition and make for a boring opening round blowout, I decided I would only allow 8 CPS teams in. It is my understanding that there are 8 conferences that are able to qualify for the IHSA playoffs, so I decided to take the 8 conference champs. I know that might not be well liked by the CPS but there are way too many CPS schools with great records who get smoked in the first round for me

Since we are going down to 192 playoff teams, that means it is pretty much impossible to make the playoffs as a 5-4 team without winning a conference championship. This draft would then show that only one 5-4 team made the field and that is because they won their conference. I understand that there have been multiple 5-4 teams that have gone on a run and won a state championship, but when thinking deeper do we want a team in that potentially had a losing conference record (even though I do feel bad for 5-4 teams that schedule tough non cons and play in a competitive conference). Also, with a reduced field, that means that 6-3 teams are not 100% in the playoffs. In this system only 4 non CPS 6-3 teams did not qualify for the playoffs, and they all had 33 opponents wins and less than 15 defeated opponents wins (which makes me feel better about leaving them out)

These classes are all 1-32 seeding, this is more just laziness on my part because determining south and north teams would be tougher and more work especially with the small classes that I am not very familiar with.

I think that should be it with guidelines, sorry if my seeding is a little off, but I believe it should be pretty close to how the IHSA seeds their teams. Also I apologize for any typos.

Would love to see what your thoughts are! Click the link to a google doc and once you are there, look at the tabs to see all 192 qualifiers and then each class has its own tab. If you scroll to the right on each class tab you will see the potential bracket with these guidelines.

 

[NNFAN]

So, I know that there is no perfect system, but it would be great to see some more competitive state games and have more worthy champions. I think we have seen some great playoff football matchups in 7a and 8a in recent history (not that other classes haven't had some good matchups), but I have always felt that the middle classes (4a-6a) could use some more competition because there have been some lack luster playoff fields and champions in some of those classes. I think it is easily understood considering the amount of dynasties we have seen at those classes. With that being said I think limiting the amount of teams into the playoffs would allow more of these state contenders to run into each other in the playoffs or at the state championship. With that being said, lets take a look at my playoff guidelines:

We are going from 256 playoff teams to 192 playoff teams

Conference Champs received an Automatic Qualifier

Since I believe the weak tested CPS schools water down the competition and make for a boring opening round blowout, I decided I would only allow 8 CPS teams in. It is my understanding that there are 8 conferences that are able to qualify for the IHSA playoffs, so I decided to take the 8 conference champs. I know that might not be well liked by the CPS but there are way too many CPS schools with great records who get smoked in the first round for me

Since we are going down to 192 playoff teams, that means it is pretty much impossible to make the playoffs as a 5-4 team without winning a conference championship. This draft would then show that only one 5-4 team made the field and that is because they won their conference. I understand that there have been multiple 5-4 teams that have gone on a run and won a state championship, but when thinking deeper do we want a team in that potentially had a losing conference record (even though I do feel bad for 5-4 teams that schedule tough non cons and play in a competitive conference). Also, with a reduced field, that means that 6-3 teams are not 100% in the playoffs. In this system only 4 non CPS 6-3 teams did not qualify for the playoffs, and they all had 33 opponents wins and less than 15 defeated opponents wins (which makes me feel better about leaving them out)

These classes are all 1-32 seeding, this is more just laziness on my part because determining south and north teams would be tougher and more work especially with the small classes that I am not very familiar with.

I think that should be it with guidelines, sorry if my seeding is a little off, but I believe it should be pretty close to how the IHSA seeds their teams. Also I apologize for any typos.

Would love to see what your thoughts are! Click the link to a google doc and once you are there, look at the tabs to see all 192 qualifiers and then each class has its own tab. If you scroll to the right on each class tab you will see the potential bracket with these guidelines.

View embedded media

Ikhammer57... nice post and great work. Unfortunately we are more likely to go to 10 classes before we return to six. Most posters here agree that six classes is plenty, some think 5 is ideal. Most here prefer 1-32 seeding. The IHSA wanted to grow the participation level (increasing revenue) and there are lots of schools that support an easier path (5-4 record vs. 6-3) to be playoff eligible. It's all about the $$$... the IHSA believes playoff attendance (revenues) would drop with 1-32 (fewer local matchups-smaller crowds). Other states (Pennsylvania) are doing the same thing.

 

[lkhammer57]

Wow, 10 classes would be ridiculous! Thanks for that insight, but man that would sad to see, like you said, most people agree that there are too many classes now. Makes sense though, unfortunately money talks.

 

[EdgyTim]

Look for an everyone gets in playoff proposal I say in September and look for it to pass. Not sure when it would take effect my guess would be for the 2018-2019 season.

 

[MR. "T"]

I like the idea of everybody getting in! The conference jumping and looking for weaker non con games so that you would qualify would disappear. You cut the regular season to 8 games and I think you could just about do an every school participates tourney! If e have less than 512 teams then some teams get first round buys. If we have more than 512 then we would have to play games in the middle of the week. which I believe they use to do.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

I like the idea of everybody getting in! The conference jumping and looking for weaker non con games so that you would qualify would disappear. You cut the regular season to 8 games and I think you could just about do an every school participates tourney! If e have less than 512 teams then some teams get first round buys. If we have more than 512 then we would have to play games in the middle of the week. which I believe they use to do.

A lot of the conference jumping already happened ect. Maybe if this proposal was 5-10 years ago.

 

[Voodoo Tatum 21]

I just cant get my mind around 0-8 and 1-7 and 2-6 teams making the playoffs,.. BUT that hasent stopped the 3-25 baseball and basketball teams from making the playoffs to lose in round 1 so..... well.... I guess FB will be no different?

 

[Cross Bones]

No need to pick on the CPS. I can think of some none CPS conferences with weak playoff performances. Where do we draw the line and why?

Also, the 5-4 teams in has allowed schools to be more adventurous in their scheduling. Think about Providence's schedules, Montini's schedule, some past WWS and GBW schedules etc. The 5-4's have been a net plus for overall football. We're getting championship type games in weeks 1-3.

That said, I appreciate the effort. How about we keep the 256 and combine 7A with 8A with all open enrollment schools who would be at least 5A under the old rules into that top class.

 

[EdgyTim]

So, I know that there is no perfect system, but it would be great to see some more competitive state games and have more worthy champions. I think we have seen some great playoff football matchups in 7a and 8a in recent history (not that other classes haven't had some good matchups), but I have always felt that the middle classes (4a-6a) could use some more competition because there have been some lack luster playoff fields and champions in some of those classes. I think it is easily understood considering the amount of dynasties we have seen at those classes. With that being said I think limiting the amount of teams into the playoffs would allow more of these state contenders to run into each other in the playoffs or at the state championship. With that being said, lets take a look at my playoff guidelines:

We are going from 256 playoff teams to 192 playoff teams

Conference Champs received an Automatic Qualifier

Since I believe the weak tested CPS schools water down the competition and make for a boring opening round blowout, I decided I would only allow 8 CPS teams in. It is my understanding that there are 8 conferences that are able to qualify for the IHSA playoffs, so I decided to take the 8 conference champs. I know that might not be well liked by the CPS but there are way too many CPS schools with great records who get smoked in the first round for me

Since we are going down to 192 playoff teams, that means it is pretty much impossible to make the playoffs as a 5-4 team without winning a conference championship. This draft would then show that only one 5-4 team made the field and that is because they won their conference. I understand that there have been multiple 5-4 teams that have gone on a run and won a state championship, but when thinking deeper do we want a team in that potentially had a losing conference record (even though I do feel bad for 5-4 teams that schedule tough non cons and play in a competitive conference). Also, with a reduced field, that means that 6-3 teams are not 100% in the playoffs. In this system only 4 non CPS 6-3 teams did not qualify for the playoffs, and they all had 33 opponents wins and less than 15 defeated opponents wins (which makes me feel better about leaving them out)

These classes are all 1-32 seeding, this is more just laziness on my part because determining south and north teams would be tougher and more work especially with the small classes that I am not very familiar with.

I think that should be it with guidelines, sorry if my seeding is a little off, but I believe it should be pretty close to how the IHSA seeds their teams. Also I apologize for any typos.

Would love to see what your thoughts are! Click the link to a google doc and once you are there, look at the tabs to see all 192 qualifiers and then each class has its own tab. If you scroll to the right on each class tab you will see the potential bracket with these guidelines.

View embedded media

Also GREAT work here.....

 

[jwarigaku]

NNFan,

You are spot on with PA moving to 6 classes last year was met with some severe words of critique from the WPIAL and District 3 memberships. It was a move/vote forced on the PIAA by teams complaining about not making the playoffs and/or the unfair advantages some 4A teams had over others. In going to 6 divisions most of the teams that were complaining were left on the outside looking in because of the new rules for qualifying put in place. There have been some discussions already in certain districts about going back to the old 4A system. All said there is very little issues in PA with League jumping, i think this is because in most cases the leagues have 2-4 divisions and the members are adjusted up or down over the years dependent on enrollment and success.

Ikhammer57... nice post and great work. Unfortunately we are more likely to go to 10 classes before we return to six. Most posters here agree that six classes is plenty, some think 5 is ideal. Most here prefer 1-32 seeding. The IHSA wanted to grow the participation level (increasing revenue) and there are lots of schools that support an easier path (5-4 record vs. 6-3) to be playoff eligible. It's all about the $$$... the IHSA believes playoff attendance (revenues) would drop with 1-32 (fewer local matchups-smaller crowds). Other states (Pennsylvania) are doing the same thing.

 

[stonedlizard]

No need to pick on the CPS. I can think of some none CPS conferences with weak playoff performances. Where do we draw the line and why?

Also, the 5-4 teams in has allowed schools to be more adventurous in their scheduling. Think about Providence's schedules, Montini's schedule, some past WWS and GBW schedules etc. The 5-4's have been a net plus for overall football. We're getting championship type games in weeks 1-3.

That said, I appreciate the effort. How about we keep the 256 and combine 7A with 8A with all open enrollment schools who would be at least 5A under the old rules into that top class.

Wait, Bones - isn't this what we went back and forth on all last year?

Thought you said it would never work?

 

[lkhammer57]

Bones you have a good point about where we draw the line and why, but it has to get to many people that there are a great deal of CPS schools who have no business being in the playoffs just because they only played other weak CPS schools. Don't get me wrong I think it is a controversial idea of mine, as I even do have connections to some CPS schools, but ultimately it would be nice to see some tougher first round matchups.

Mr. T I also just have a tough time letting everyone in, both of us typically see things the same way, but it just seems like a waste of a regular season to me because it ultimately won't matter that much and we shouldn't allow a team that is undeserving to potentially hurt the chances of a team who is a real contender for a championship. That's why we see in small school college sports that they don't let everyone into the conference tournaments because they want only the best and most deserving champion to represent them in the NCAA championships. Another idea I have is if somehow the IHSA could take over regular season scheduling so that no team can give themselves an easy road to make the playoffs. I just hate to see the regular season lose any more importance than it has already lost.

Off the top of my head I think the IHSA quick facts aid that we had 575 teams participate last year. 575 teams makes 71.875 in each class, so (just round it to 72 for math purposes) that means we have 72 teams in each class and then break them up in 8 conferences or districts (whatever you want to call it) and allow each team for one non con and 8 "conference" games and then the top 4 teams from each conference makes the playoffs (based on conference record). That fills the playoff field of 32 and then the non con game would then only benefit teams looking for a better seed in the playoffs or to be a tiebreaker for teams that are on the edge of making it and using opponents victories, or another way to reward teams for playing a tougher team. Ultimately, the record that matters most is that record you have in your conference or district and then it will create more fun rivalry games between close communities, and then the non con game can only help teams if they play good opponents, I think that could result in a regular season that's really fun, makes the regular season feel like the playoffs, and then keep 256 teams qualifying for 8 classes.

Ultimately I would hate to see all teams make the playoffs cause it just doesn't seem right to me, so, if that's the other option, I would rather have what we already have now. Either way, I hate seeing teams jump conferences just to make the playoffs because they play less quality teams or play a weak non conference schedule (as we see occurring now), and I think it could work out if we had a governing body that would control regular season scheduling (like in professional sports) to make sure teams aren't able to set up some cupcakes to allow them to qualify for the playoffs.

 

[Cross Bones]

Wait, Bones - isn't this what we went back and forth on all last year?

Thought you said it would never work?

It wouldn't work. It's just kicking the can some more until the road ends. I was trying to think of a method which would also put IC and Phillips into 6A but didn't spend too much time on it.

That plan does a lot to avoid the inevitable. What really is the purpose of combining 7 and 8A? My purpose for it was because I was putting all those open enrollment into the largest class and I didn't want the largest class to be all OE with a smattering of large publics. Had to increase the pool.

 

[UlbKA91]

It wouldn't work. It's just kicking the can some more until the road ends. I was trying to think of a method which would also put IC and Phillips into 6A but didn't spend too much time on it.

That plan does a lot to avoid the inevitable. What really is the purpose of combining 7 and 8A? My purpose for it was because I was putting all those open enrollment into the largest class and I didn't want the largest class to be all OE with a smattering of large publics. Had to increase the pool.

Good point, a lot of public 8A is polyglot schools with little if any recent gridiron success which would result in some quasi-bye first round matchups without the infusion of some public 7A.