Why Play Round 1?

[gg2224]

Summary Stats for last night's first round games:

Average margin of victory (Overall): 27 points

Average margain of victory (11-player): 26 points

Games decided by a touchdown or less: 15 of 96 (16%)

Average winning team score: 42

Average losing team score: 15

Number of games decided by 3 or more touchdowns: 62 (65%)

Number of games decided by 4 or more touchdowns: 46 (48%)

Number of games decided by 5 or more touchdowns: 31 (32%)

_____________________

My observations:

I think it's ridiculous for the IAHSAA to expose 50% of state qualifing players to additional risk of injury just to play a "feel-good" game they will win by four or more touchdowns. I understand that more teams get to play under the current system and the extra dollars continue to roll in, but it is disingenous to pretend those "benefits" don't come with a cost.

There is no justification to expand the current football calendar even further into the summer and winter sports months to accomodate a system that produces these kind of first round matchups and results.
.

 

[privateer13]

$$$$

 

[Vroom_C14]

 

[tm33_08]

I'd be interested to see the numbers if we ignored the 1 vs. 4 games. I think if they cut the field to 24, the first round games would be justifiable and much more competitive. But the 1 seeds typically destroy the 4 seeds.

 

[gg2224]

1 v 4 games (All classes / 11 player only)

Average margin of victory: 32 / 31
Average score for winning team: 47 / 45
Average score for losing team: 15 / 14

2 v 3 games (All classes / 11 player only)

Average margin of victory: 22 / 20
Average score for winning team: 37 / 35
Average score for losing team: 15 / 15
___________

You're right, it's not suprising to see the 1's dominate the 4's (with the excpetion of the ~3, 4-seeds that won), but even the 2 v 3 matchups average about a 3 touchdown margin of victory.
This post was edited on 10/30 12:55 PM by gg2224

 

[stucco]

In all classes combined, the 4 seeds went 3-45 with an average margin of victory of 31.42 points (as you said above.)

The 3 seeds went 14-34 with an average margin of victory of only 12 points.

Last year the 4 seeds went 1-39 (4A didn't seed yet) and the margin of victory of 30.575 points and the 3 seeds went 14-26 with an average margin of victory of 9 points.

This post was edited on 10/30 1:25 PM by stucco

 

[gg2224]

Thanks good info Stucco - thanks for crunching last year's numbers as well.

 

[ddagwood]

Why not play it? People risk injury getting out of bed in the morning. Using the reasoning of injury, then we might as well just tell every team that didn't win their districts to stay home.... we don't want to risk hurting the #1 teams. Heck, maybe we should not play the regular season games either.... they might get hurt there too. This is football. People get hurt in practice. Every other team sport in Iowa high school gets a chance to play post season(basketball and volleyball). Football is the only team sport where only select teams get to move on. So, only three #4 seeds beat #1 seeds. Go tell those 3 teams that they had no business playing in their game! I think it's great that more teams get to play post season football and wish all teams got to play.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I think they mean "undue risk" which is different than every day risk.

Yeah, we shouldn't have any laws either. Just let everyone run amuck.

 

[WyattEarp1]

I bet the #4 sees that won and exposed weak district champions are glad they played it

 

[Pinehawk]

I agree it's not necessary. It's crazy that teams that finish .500 or worse and lose by 50 points then stick around after the game to receive their State Playoff Qualifier banner. The standards are too low.

 

[final drive]

Its all about the money ! They did the same thing with wrestling,used to be quite "an honor" back in the day when only 8 guys qualified.Some of the guys now have losing records just like some of the football teams do.It certainly isn't the best of the best anymore.

 

[smallcenter]

The reason we have to play this extra round is because 5 years ago the same fans were complaining that teams in a three way tie for first we missing the playoffs and that wasn't "fair". So the association, trying to appease fans (while also seeing the $$$$ to be made off of an additional 8 games per class) decided to expand. This is what happens. I said it would happen 5 years ago, and it has proven to be true.

 

[maxstabs13]

Yes. It is about the money.

However, it gives seniors 1 more chance to play and if a certain area happens to be loaded with good teams. Only 2 teams made the playoffs back in 2006. We finished runner up and of course were handed Solon the first year they made noise in the playoffs.

Between our district and Solon's district we have between 6-7 teams ranked for multiple weeks during the year.
In our district the preseason rankings had North Fayette(2), Osage(3), Waterloo Columbus(5), and CPU(8 or 9).

The way the season went... North Fayette, Osage, Solon were 2-4 most of the year in the rankings. Beckman was 6 or 7 most of the year. Waterloo Columbus and CPU dropped out and LaPorte City Union and Sumner Fredericksburg jumped in. Monticello came into the rankings at some point also.

The teams were 9-0 North Fayette, 7-2 Osage, 8-1 Solon, 7-2 Beckman, 6-3 Sumner Fred, 8-1 Monticello. Then LPC, Waterloo Columbus, and CPU were all 4-5 from D4. 7-2 Osage missed on head to head to Sumner Fred. 8-1 Monticello missed on point differential to Dyersville Beckman.

So in Final Regular Season rankings 6 Top 10 teams in 2 districts. Only 4 made playoffs. If they were to match up with the present day system we could have seen D4 teams get someone from D2, D3, and D5. Clarion Goldfield was 5-4 in #2 in D2 and Osage would have romped them as a #3. North Fayette would get D3 #4 Iowa Falls more than likely. Sumner Fred likely gets #3 D5 Monticello. CPU would likely get #1 D5 Solon and get romped.

The point here is with the new system we do get a solid majority of blowouts, but one a season such as the one mentioned above we will see more high quality teams deeper into the playoffs. I still don't plan on attending any games until the Quarterfinals, so it isn't getting more from the general football watchers like myself.

 

[maxstabs13]

You must also realize they can't really feel good about 8-1 or 7-2 teams missing the playoffs, which will happen routinely in a 16 team playoff. They would rather expand the extra round of games and see some lousy teams get in than see some teams that 100% deserve a playoff shot to miss.

This is why I think we will see the College football playoff expand to 8 teams eventually.

 

[ghost80]

Max has a point with 8 teams and the college playoffs.

I really don't care how many teams get into the playoffs but they should ditch the banners to everyone and only give them to the final 8 who are the ones who really made it to state. That would be consistent with the other team sports plus it would restore some of the earned prestige of "making it to state" in football.

IDK about you but I'm not impressed in the least walking into a school and seeing a bunch of State Football banners (which is becoming a common sight). The only thing that tells me is that their football program probably isn't in the bottom 1/3 of those in the state. What is the point in bragging about that?




This post was edited on 10/31 6:52 AM by ghost80

 

[oonfoofoo]

Originally posted by final drive:
Its all about the money ! They did the same thing with wrestling,used to be quite "an honor" back in the day when only 8 guys qualified.Some of the guys now have losing records just like some of the football teams do.It certainly isn't the best of the best anymore.

Definitely about the money..however, as with wrestling especially, why reward teams / kids that start out great and then sputter at the end. Although it doesn't happen often teams and kids should be rewarded for getting better as the season goes on. This isn't like college where body of work is brought into it and how well you are doing at the end of the season. So it's a chance to get kids / teams in that may have not done as well in the beginning of the season.

 

[Superbee922]

Originally posted by Vroom_C14:

I think they mean "undue risk" which is different than every day risk.

Yeah, we shouldn't have any laws either. Just let everyone run amuck.

Great analogy. Really profound.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Originally posted by Superbee922:

Originally posted by Vroom_C14:

I think they mean "undue risk" which is different than every day risk.

Yeah, we shouldn't have any laws either. Just let everyone run amuck.

Great analogy. Really profound.

I coud expand on it - but don't have the time to write something lengthy. Would rather just get to it.

 

[gg2224]

Let me clarify…


While I absolutely question the legitimacy of the IAHSAA putting players at risk in order to play what amounts to a set of participation ribbon games for the 4s*, my biggest beef is the IAHSAA considering proposals to expand the football season into the existing summer and winter sports calendars in order to accommodate a demonstrable round of non-competitive first round games.


Football already has a post season that lasts over 3 weeks and an overall season that extends past 100 days. To continue to crunch basketball and wrestling in the winter and baseball in the summer for the sole purpose of accommodating an out of balance football playoff structure does a disservice to athletes who specialize\participate in those other sports.


Football has a reasonable calendar. If they need more rest in the post season between games, as IAHSAA leadership has suggested, than they need to cut regular season games or reduce the number of playoff participants.

*As for the handful of games where a 4 is competitive against or beats a 1, I think the data shows those rare cases are more the result of IAHSAA's district assignments and/or a flawed first round pairing strategy than a representation of vast "underdog" victory.
Edited for formating and grammar
This post was edited on 11/1 5:38 PM by gg2224

 

[smallcenter]

max, there are a lot more crappy teams making it into the playoffs than there would have been legit teams missing.


To the guy that said that banners shouldn't be handed out in the first round...agreed, and so did the state. However, after the first year (where the first round was called the substate round, not the first round) people complained that they "made the expanded playoffs" but didn't get anything for it.

Truthfully, the state has done most of the things that the people on here have suggested...but people have never been happy, regardless of what the state does. There are unintended consequences with every decision.

 

[tdemoss]

Football is a shorter season than the winter sports you are concerned with crowding for time. Looking at our 3A football schedule this year, there are 83 days from the first game to the championship game. Our basketball schedule last year had 109 days from season opening jamboree (103 days from the first game) to the championship game. Even factoring two weeks for Christmas break, the basketball season is longer. Perhaps it should be shortened to accommodate football? After all, the long basketball schedule must do a disservice to the football specialists somehow.

My experience has been that the baseball/basketball "specialists" quite often don't play football and if they do, they spend much more time working on those sports during the offseason than they do their football. Perhaps that is also a disservice to the football specialists?

Baseball is a considerably shorter season than the other major sports because it lacks the physical nature of the others, allowing athletes to play doubleheaders and to play games on consecutive nights if need be.