(Somewhat) annual first round playoff blowout rant
- Thread starter ramblinman
- Start date
Why, they have them in the NFL as well as in almost every other IHSA playoff format? Extra week to get healthy.
You are placed in a division before the season starts based on enrollment (with some adjustments for playing up or down like Illinois). Total playoff points are called and top 32 teams get in.
Teams are placed into districts geographically and then seeded 1-8. Higher seed has home field for all rounds until semis. Semis and finals at neutral sites.
Something to remember is that Michigan is much more geographically dispersed than Illinois so the early quadrants prevent a lot of travel, especially in lower divisions to northern michigan/upper peninsula.
Ill work on it. Should have something by end of week. Will need to make some assumptions and all data isn't out there but what I can put together should be directionally right.
I will assume we don't adopt Michigan's geographic quadrants since all teams are relatively close together.
Just looking at it at a high level, I can tell you brother rice, Marist and both Plainfield teams will be seeded much higher. Hampshire will likely be out.
The point of a bracketed system is to get the blowouts and mismatches out of the way as early as possible. There is no avoiding that.
The only way to really minimize it is to come up with some screwy system that the mid majors do for basketball where they give the top seeds a bye through several rounds and let the lower seeds play into the semis against the top 2.
but that is designed to help them get their best team into the dance and not have a fluke mediocre team get their only auto bid in March.
So that might help get the seeding more accurate, but it isn't really going to to do much for blowouts. In fact, it might make the first round even worse, because you'll have more accurate 1 vs 32, 2 vs 31, etc. The exception being that a 4-5 #32 might be a better team than the current 5-4 #32.
Be interesting to see how often Michigan gets strange years where the preselected 60 teams in a certain division just really suck, or the opposite where they are really good. Statistics probably balance that out though.
In every playoff system there will be blow outs. Look at the NCAA in basketball and the Football playoff there are numerous blowouts every year. We even have blow outs in the state finals in just about every sport.
Some thoughts:
1. Remove CPS from IHSA playoffs unless a school asks to be included.
2. No form of contracting the playoffs will ever happen. It will be 256 teams and may even increase. Maybe have a play in to get in for the lowest 8 seeds to play the top 4 seeds in each class.
3. Enrollment is the only equitable way to create classes that doesn't involve people making a decision. A committee would never work because there are very few people who know how good teams are in other regions are and you will get bias, especially from north of I80.
4. Playoff points could use some improving, such as adding points for playing schools in a higher class but not the old football enrollment method.
5. Seed 1-32 for all classes or at least eliminate the N/S split and reseed after 2nd round
6. Higher seed is the host for quarters and semis.
Some thoughts:
1. Remove CPS from IHSA playoffs unless a school asks to be included.
2. No form of contracting the playoffs will ever happen. It will be 256 teams and may even increase. Maybe have a play in to get in for the lowest 8 seeds to play the top 4 seeds in each class.
3. Enrollment is the only equitable way to create classes that doesn't involve people making a decision. A committee would never work because there are very few people who know how good teams are in other regions are and you will get bias, especially from north of I80.
4. Playoff points could use some improving, such as adding points for playing schools in a higher class but not the old football enrollment method.
5. Seed 1-32 for all classes or at least eliminate the N/S split and reseed after 2nd round
6. Higher seed is the host for quarters and semis.
Last edited:
Regarding your first idea about CPS. I get it, but there's no way you just remove the third-largest school system in the country out of the IHSA, even with the stipulation that they can ask to be included.
And to your fifth point, if you get rid of N/S split, then you can possibly get a bunch more of those O'Fallon to Glenbrook South-like trips in the first round. In the quarters or semis, maybe, but for the first round? eh
1. Remove CPS from IHSA playoffs unless a school asks to be included.
They had in place for a few years with the ineligible Chicago divisions, but the winners of those conferences (many times Taft, iirc) felt shortchanged in that the Chicago Conf champs were not eligible for prep bowl playoffs either.
If the above suggestion were adopted, I could see a class carved out for CPS, the Southland, Provisos, now-soccer schools and perennial dogs like Maine East, Stagg etc, which maybe counterbalanced by 2 private-only classes
They had in place for a few years with the ineligible Chicago divisions, but the winners of those conferences (many times Taft, iirc) felt shortchanged in that the Chicago Conf champs were not eligible for prep bowl playoffs either.
If the above suggestion were adopted, I could see a class carved out for CPS, the Southland, Provisos, now-soccer schools and perennial dogs like Maine East, Stagg etc, which maybe counterbalanced by 2 private-only classes
The original poster said he wanted more parity to limit the number of blowouts. Removing CPS would eliminate several blowouts. I'm not in favor of eliminating CPS but some changes could be made in terms of how they qualify.
Gotcha. Just seems like would be awfully unfair and akin to cutting off your leg when your dr tells you to lose weight.
And, tbh, i don't know why anyone would seek more parity in the playoffs. Seems counterintuitive
I suppose it makes sense that there are different points of view on the matter. Different stakeholders often want different things. Fans generally want competitive games. Conversely, participants (players and coaches) generally want a chance to participate. If the state moves to a system that is likely to generate more competitive first-round games, there will be numerous programs with fewer resources that will likely never have a chance to make the playoffs.
I like the current system. It is transparent and relatively simple. If a move is made to have a selection committee choose the teams and seed the brackets, transparency is lost. We will then have the committee chairman being interviewed after the selections are revealed (during the selection show as with the NCAA basketball tournament) and providing lame reasons why team A was selected over team B. It will most certainly not be transparent since few people will be allowed to view the discussions and votes that take place in the committee room. Similarly, there is little transparency in moving to a computer rating system. They will not divulge the proprietary software and formulas they use to evaluate teams.
As things currently stand, I know exactly why one team got into the playoffs and another team didn't. I can calculate the numbers myself if I choose to do so. There are plenty of running clocks used during the regular season, so extending that feature of high school football one more week into the first round of the playoffs doesn't overly concern me. By the second round most of the games are pretty competitive and by the quarterfinals the best teams in each class are generally battling it out. It is true that sometimes you have games in round two that perhaps should be a semifinal game (such as Batavia vs. Mt. Carmel this year), but it provides some round-two excitement for the fans and, because of the transparency, I know exactly why the teams were seeded the way they were.
When it comes to games being competitive, I am more concerned with the semifinal and final rounds; and that is why I continue to support the use of a multiplier for schools without defined boundaries and would support the use of a success factor for both private and public schools.
With all this having been said, I don't suppose there is a right or wrong answer to the matter. This seems to be a matter of personal preference.
I like the current system. It is transparent and relatively simple. If a move is made to have a selection committee choose the teams and seed the brackets, transparency is lost. We will then have the committee chairman being interviewed after the selections are revealed (during the selection show as with the NCAA basketball tournament) and providing lame reasons why team A was selected over team B. It will most certainly not be transparent since few people will be allowed to view the discussions and votes that take place in the committee room. Similarly, there is little transparency in moving to a computer rating system. They will not divulge the proprietary software and formulas they use to evaluate teams.
As things currently stand, I know exactly why one team got into the playoffs and another team didn't. I can calculate the numbers myself if I choose to do so. There are plenty of running clocks used during the regular season, so extending that feature of high school football one more week into the first round of the playoffs doesn't overly concern me. By the second round most of the games are pretty competitive and by the quarterfinals the best teams in each class are generally battling it out. It is true that sometimes you have games in round two that perhaps should be a semifinal game (such as Batavia vs. Mt. Carmel this year), but it provides some round-two excitement for the fans and, because of the transparency, I know exactly why the teams were seeded the way they were.
When it comes to games being competitive, I am more concerned with the semifinal and final rounds; and that is why I continue to support the use of a multiplier for schools without defined boundaries and would support the use of a success factor for both private and public schools.
With all this having been said, I don't suppose there is a right or wrong answer to the matter. This seems to be a matter of personal preference.
Ah, once again, the (almost) annual trip to the Funny Farm. Once again, I’ll accept the horror of some round 1 blowouts as long as the games gradually build up towards the final.
It is virtually impossible to have a bracket in which every single game is compelling unless the bracket is extremely small.
It could only be accomplished by having more classes, not less.
Loyola would be the 1 seed in Class 24A.
It is virtually impossible to have a bracket in which every single game is compelling unless the bracket is extremely small.
It could only be accomplished by having more classes, not less.
Loyola would be the 1 seed in Class 24A.
It's interesting to me how a desire for more competitive playoff games than we have now gets turned into a desire for every single game to be compelling.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. In response to your points...
1. Easier said than done. It could only happen if it were voluntary.
2. I definitely do not want to increase from 256. I'm okay with play in games.
3. That is not necessarily true. There are formulae in place that other state athletic associations are currently using. I would like to see us explore an objective classification system that is enrollment influenced and not enrollment based.
4. Agreed.
5. Okay, but that's just tinkering and not going far enough as a stand alone measure,
6. I like that, but still more tinkering.
I was curious so I looked back to when there were only 6 classes. Looking back at 1999, 1998 & 1997 and how many opening round games were decided by more than 30 points.
1999: 29 (15%)
1998: 20 (10%)
1997: 22 (11%)
I was then more curious so I looked back to when there were 5 classes. Looking back at 1979, 1978 & 1977 and how many opening round games were decided by more than 30 points. (Note only 16 teams per class.)
1979: 4 (5%)
1978: 4 (5%)
1977: 4 (5%)
1999: 29 (15%)
1998: 20 (10%)
1997: 22 (11%)
I was then more curious so I looked back to when there were 5 classes. Looking back at 1979, 1978 & 1977 and how many opening round games were decided by more than 30 points. (Note only 16 teams per class.)
1979: 4 (5%)
1978: 4 (5%)
1977: 4 (5%)
Why not limit (notice I did not say eliminate) those blowouts and mismatches by doing a better job of evening out the competitive level in each class. The main reason why we have those blowouts and mismatches is because we classify by enrollment and that is not a good enough competitive determinant.
I'm okay with play in games, but why do you say that is that the only way to minimize blowouts and mismatches?
What more proof do you need than your own alma mater to convince you that enrollment alone is not a good enough competitive determinant? This year, there's no denying that JCA would be competitive in 8A. They would even stand a good chance of winning it. However, they had to petition up from 3A to 4A in the current system only because the current system is enrollment based. Why is the onus on the schools to petition to play up? Why is such a flawed classification system sacrosanct? I don't get it.
I'm not suggesting that JCA should be as high as 8A this year or every year. I am saying that an effective classification system that is enrollment influenced, instead of enrollment based, would likely have JCA playing in a more competitive class for JCA than 3A. Maybe even more than just one class up.
Exactly.
I wrote the following here exactly four years ago today:
"If you look at the 1974 playoffs, there were five classes of 16 teams each, creating 80 playoff qualifiers. That results in 40 first round playoff games. Of those 40, FOUR were decided by margins of 30 pts or more. That's 10% of the 1974 first round games, compared with 41% of the first round games in both 2016 and 2017 being decided by margins of 30 pts or more."
Out of curiosity: how many total high schools did the state have in 1974, and how many today in 2021?
So what is the purpose then?
In the playoff system that we have now, we create 8 champions from groupings of similarly sized schools. Why not strive to create 8 champions from groupings of similarly competitive schools? Your reluctance to consider the concept is baffling.
Last edited:
I don't necessarily disagree with your logic, but the logistics of it are going to be a problem. Also wasn't the success factor, and multipliers trying to do what you are suggesting, maybe not as successfully as you want.
BTW, look at the opening round or two of the D3 playoffs, lots of blowouts, there are really only 4-5 teams capable of competing for the championship, and the spread is pretty wide between the NC, Whitewater, Mt Union and Mary Hardin Baylor and everyone else.
Do you like playoff blowouts in the first round? Your answer can either be yes or no,
If it is yes, then it is no wonder why you don't want to change the current system. You have what you like. Congratulations.
If your answer is no, then if 44% of first round playoff games being decided by margins of 30 points or more is not enough for you to want a better system, what percentage would it have to be to get you to consider that better system? Would 50% be too much? 75%? What is your pain threshold for the frequency of blowouts? Mine is a lot less than 44%
Im not reluctant to consider it. You just haven't offered anything to consider other than saying you don't like the current system. Which is fine, all things can be improved, but how do you propose we do that? How do you plan on accurately determining how "competitive" a team is. Or, how do you suppose a committee of people who almost certainly won't be able to watch 256 teams in the state compete, accurately determine group 32 teams by competitiveness?
Also, if your goal is produce maximum competition and true champions, how competitive or interesting would that 1a or 2a game be of teams that you have already predetermined are amongst the worst 32 teams to make the playoffs. Can you even call them a champion if you have already told them they are worse than the other 3a-8a schools that are competing?
If the logistics are problematic, then we have to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze. Imagine all the achievements that we wouldn't have achieved if they never got off the ground because they were too hard.
Yes, the success factor and multipliers tried to address some of what I'm talking about. The creation of the multiplier, done in the name of "evening the playing field," was more a way to move up a certain type of school rather than specific extraordinarily competitive schools. I find it rather ironic that a couple of posters in this thread who were likely supportive of the multiplier are now saying things like why would we want to even out the playing field in the playoffs.
I have long said I want a system that is enrollment influenced and not enrollment based. People more talented than me like King MJ and Stoned Lizard have identified or come up with systems that do exactly that.
I never said anything about a committee. Never.
I also never said my goal is to produce "maximum competition." I simply pointed out that the current system has too many competitive mismatches within the classes. There is too wide of a competitive gulf between top tier and bottom tier teams in each playoff classification.
All I want is for the classes to be more competitive than they are now. They don't have to be perfect. They don't have to eliminate blowouts.
Its not that i like or dislike them. Its that I understand the nature of large format tournaments where teams are seeded based on what they accomplished in the regular season. Like I said before, if we adopt a new system and reduce the number of blowouts to 22%, eventually you will lament the fact we have too many blowouts in the first rd compared to later rounds. It inevitable, and an excersise in futility.
I don’t disagree that there are intriguing options to explore. It obviously would take some very outside the box thinking. Given the inconsistency of the membership to make a decision on districts, I don’t see an outside the box idea like this getting any widespread traction.
besides the obvious difficulty of determining metrics to place teams, a big negative would definitely be the massive difference in placement of whether you are determined to be the #32 8A team or the #1 7A team. If the best 32 are all in 8A, that likely means the difference between a 30 point opening round loss and a potential state championship in the next level down.
enrollment isn’t perfect but at least it is tangible. Schools would just complain about the whimsical nature of whether they were to be walked off the plank in 6A or anointed the favorite in 5A and the only difference being some computer or ranking system that is hard to tangibly define.
Last weekend, MI Class 8 bracket had 37% of its playoff games finish with a margin of 30+ pts. 4 of those games were decided by 40+ pts. There Class 1 bracket had 50% of its games decided by 30pts or more with 3 being more than 40. Doesn't seem like that system provides a substantial difference in blowouts either
I understand seeded tournaments as well. I also understand how IHSA schools qualify for the playoffs and then how they get classified into those eight different tournaments based solely on their size. The enrollment based grouping is the culprit here far more than #1 playing #16 or #32.
It's interesting how you know what I will lament. If I told you I would not lament your hypothetical situation, would you say I am wrong or I am lying?
Last edited:
The only issue I see is that a majority of the schools in Illinois are looking to be competitive. They are looking to win in the most comfortable fashion. If you create an open class for competitive balance, most of the schools would chose not to participate. The method I thought was solid was classification based on the enrollment of the schools you compete with during the season. This would help eliminate the petition process.
The hypothetical "you" wasnt meant to be specific to you. Just a general statement that at some point we will consider 20pt 1st rd games blowouts.
The only way to accomplish the goal of significantly reducing the number of 1st rd blowout games is by 1) reducing the number of teams who qualify or 2) predetermine that, for example, "8a" is the group of our 32 best teams and "1a" is the group of our 32 worse teams. Imo #1 would be a disservice to the spirit of hs football, and #2 would obviously eliminate any interest in the lower classification games.
Except there would still be blowouts. BR vs LZ, blowout. SR vs Eisenhower, blowout
Its the first year they have implemented the system you said you wanted to adopt. If they haven't shown it can actually achieve the goal you are after, why advocate for it now?
In some classes, they actually had more first rd blowouts than ihsa.
When speaking of an open division, obviously this year, the 2 programs that come to mind are ESL and JCA. I wonder if either one would have chosen to go open based on the strengths of their teams.
ESL would absolutely join the open division. The problem is other teams wont join them. They all have their reasons. Facing the best competition is just not a priority in this state.
