2016 Playoff Qualifiers
- Thread starter smallcenter
- Start date
Class 2A
District 1 – Boyden-Hull Rock Valley (8-1), Central Lyon (8-1)
District 2 – Crestwood (7-2), New Hampton (8-1)
District 3 – Dike-New Hartford (7-2), Roland-Story (7-2)
District 4 – North Fayette Valley (9-0), Union (8-1)
District 5 – Mount Vernon (7-2), Williamsburg (8-1).
District 6 – PCM (8-1), Central Lee (7-2), Centerville (5-4)
District 7 – Carroll Kuemper (8-1), South Central Calhoun (7-2), Southeast Valley (6-3)
District 1 – Boyden-Hull Rock Valley (8-1), Central Lyon (8-1)
District 2 – Crestwood (7-2), New Hampton (8-1)
District 3 – Dike-New Hartford (7-2), Roland-Story (7-2)
District 4 – North Fayette Valley (9-0), Union (8-1)
District 5 – Mount Vernon (7-2), Williamsburg (8-1).
District 6 – PCM (8-1), Central Lee (7-2), Centerville (5-4)
District 7 – Carroll Kuemper (8-1), South Central Calhoun (7-2), Southeast Valley (6-3)
I do like the smaller field vs. years past, but from a 2A perspective Waukon's absence doesn't feel right.
Waukon, 6-3, with all losses to Top 10 teams.
Centerville, 5-4, and Southeast Valley, 6-3, make it in over Waukon for the at large.
You could argue at large (#3 seeds) don't have a strong shot at the title and as the playoffs progress everything will work out, which is valid. I'm not it's worth looking at the at large selection criteria, or expanding the field and giving the district winners a first round bye.
Waukon, 6-3, with all losses to Top 10 teams.
Centerville, 5-4, and Southeast Valley, 6-3, make it in over Waukon for the at large.
You could argue at large (#3 seeds) don't have a strong shot at the title and as the playoffs progress everything will work out, which is valid. I'm not it's worth looking at the at large selection criteria, or expanding the field and giving the district winners a first round bye.
If you add a full set of third place teams then you've defeated the purpose of the current reduction in teams...to extend rest time between games. If you add the 3rd place teams you'll be back to Wednesday night games, followed by Monday games. There isn't enough time to fit it all in. I realize there are good teams that don't make it, but there is no perfect system.
Agree. I don't think it's worth expanding the field for a "#3 seed" - while it is individually good for that school to get a playoff experience, it very likely would not influence the ultimate dome team participants. The only other realistic option would be to look at the at-large criteria, but to your point there will always be gaps/differences of opinion. Not all districts are equal, but neither are non-district match-ups. Outside of looking at BCMoore (which has it's own opportunities), I'm not sure what you could change with that criteria.
Within the parameters of this year's playoff rules, Centerville "qualified" as an at large team, I won't argue that. I will throw out some numbers as evidence that maybe the criteria should be re-examined next go-round.
There are 56 teams in 2-A. Using bcmoore rankings, and comparing Centerville and Waukon in conference play:
Centerville:
Wins over teams ranked 46, 48, 49, 53, 55
Losses to 5 and 29
Waukon:
Wins over 15, 22, 42, 44, 54
Losses to 2 and 3
Centerville played one game against the top 25 2-A teams in the state, and lost 56-0. Waukon played five top 25 teams, going 2-3.
Given that a higher point differential is what made Centerville a playoff team over Waukon, it might be interesting to look at the caliber of teams that the "average point differential" was compiled against (the bcmoore rankings above already does that in one fashion):
Waukon's five district wins were against teams that had a combined non-district record of 5-5.
Centerville's five district wins were against teams that had a combined non-district record of 1-9. The one win was Davis County's seven point win over 0-9 Fort Madison.
Not that it has any bearing on playoff criteria, but I would also note that Centerville played down in class for both non-district games, and lost to both 1-A teams. Centerville has a 5-4 record playing the 51st hardest schedule, whereas Waukon went 6-3 playing the 19th hardest schedule.
Centerville had the good fortune of being in a district with five of the bottom eleven teams in the state, and has those five wins on their resume for the year. I'm not trashing Centerville, as they played the schedule given to them (I am not from Waukon. Most of this post is just me enjoying looking at stats and, in this case, finding anomalies/outliers). Just wondering if the IAHSAA could foresee using some human element when determining at-large teams. (Yeah right, I know...... just saying.)
There are 56 teams in 2-A. Using bcmoore rankings, and comparing Centerville and Waukon in conference play:
Centerville:
Wins over teams ranked 46, 48, 49, 53, 55
Losses to 5 and 29
Waukon:
Wins over 15, 22, 42, 44, 54
Losses to 2 and 3
Centerville played one game against the top 25 2-A teams in the state, and lost 56-0. Waukon played five top 25 teams, going 2-3.
Given that a higher point differential is what made Centerville a playoff team over Waukon, it might be interesting to look at the caliber of teams that the "average point differential" was compiled against (the bcmoore rankings above already does that in one fashion):
Waukon's five district wins were against teams that had a combined non-district record of 5-5.
Centerville's five district wins were against teams that had a combined non-district record of 1-9. The one win was Davis County's seven point win over 0-9 Fort Madison.
Not that it has any bearing on playoff criteria, but I would also note that Centerville played down in class for both non-district games, and lost to both 1-A teams. Centerville has a 5-4 record playing the 51st hardest schedule, whereas Waukon went 6-3 playing the 19th hardest schedule.
Centerville had the good fortune of being in a district with five of the bottom eleven teams in the state, and has those five wins on their resume for the year. I'm not trashing Centerville, as they played the schedule given to them (I am not from Waukon. Most of this post is just me enjoying looking at stats and, in this case, finding anomalies/outliers). Just wondering if the IAHSAA could foresee using some human element when determining at-large teams. (Yeah right, I know...... just saying.)
Last edited:
While in 2A this year, the wild cards look pretty weak, having the wild cards is a nice "safety valve". The purpose of the wild cards is to protect teams that finish 6-1 in a 3 way round robin at the top.
So while this year the wild cards got lucky to get in, in some future year, we will be happy that 3 teams that finish 6-1 will all get their shot.
So while this year the wild cards got lucky to get in, in some future year, we will be happy that 3 teams that finish 6-1 will all get their shot.
Dont know much about Centerville but SE Valley Lost to 3 playoff teams. 1st loss was at Garrigan in class A by 13 pts. Iknow alot of people will say Should not lose to a class A team Being from 2A but I think alot of 2A teams would also lose to them! 2nd loss was at home to SCC by 2 in fanal 2 minutes of game."they made there 2pt attempt on and we didnt,very even game could have gone either way". 3rd loss to Dist champ D-7 Kuemper by 11. SE valley had 4 TO ingame to 0. That is part of game but Kuemper got 17 pts off TO. I am not complaining just pointing out that i think SE valley is worthy.'i do think waukon should be in also'!
I agree that Waukon is the better team and should be in. Be careful what you wish for in hoping for a 'human element' in determining at-large teams. This could open up a pandora's box that will bring all kinds of conspiracy theories in to play.
The IHSAA is not about to get into the business of having any more human element involved than they have to. Human elements allow for too much controversy, and the IHSAA would rather avoid that. Truthfully, I'm not criticizing that stance. I get it. The playoffs are supposed to be about the athletes, not about the debate. There's enough of that before and after the outcomes of the games themselves.
I love the BCMoore rankings. That said, I would be shocked if the state decided to use a single ranking especially a computer ranking, to determine who should receive an at large bid. The country basically went ballistic over the BCS because of it's dependance on computers and arbitrary numbers, rather than human thought. ALSO, and more importantly, the 17 point differential limit is in place to prevent giving coaches with "relaxed morals about scoring" from having an excuse to put up 90 points against a cupcake. Putting the BCMoore ranking as a determining factor would completely nullify that because his ranking doesn't allow for this, and would likely skew the data.
At the end of the day the whole reason for the at-large bids was to have a way to alleviate the issue of 6-1 district teams missing the playoffs. In most case, two at-large bids is enough to make sure that doesn't happen. If those aren't used up, then someone gets lucky, and the current set up 1. makes it easy to determine for the state and for followers frantically trying to predict matchups at midnight on Friday and 2. limits the amount of complaining about the at-large to the process, rather than conspiracy.
I love the BCMoore rankings. That said, I would be shocked if the state decided to use a single ranking especially a computer ranking, to determine who should receive an at large bid. The country basically went ballistic over the BCS because of it's dependance on computers and arbitrary numbers, rather than human thought. ALSO, and more importantly, the 17 point differential limit is in place to prevent giving coaches with "relaxed morals about scoring" from having an excuse to put up 90 points against a cupcake. Putting the BCMoore ranking as a determining factor would completely nullify that because his ranking doesn't allow for this, and would likely skew the data.
At the end of the day the whole reason for the at-large bids was to have a way to alleviate the issue of 6-1 district teams missing the playoffs. In most case, two at-large bids is enough to make sure that doesn't happen. If those aren't used up, then someone gets lucky, and the current set up 1. makes it easy to determine for the state and for followers frantically trying to predict matchups at midnight on Friday and 2. limits the amount of complaining about the at-large to the process, rather than conspiracy.
I don't understand why a team is penalized points in a loss. A loss for a team should be zero. A win by a team is plus points up to what ever scoring cap they want to set. Just my opinion...
Why not simply have week 9 be the first round of the playoffs for the top 4 teams in each district. Seeding done against sister district 1v4 2v3. If your not in the top 4 you still play a sister district team in week 9 to ensure everyone gets 9 games in. Drop 1 non district game so all teams in each district still play one another before week 9.
After week one of "playoffs" then seeding can be done around sister districts. This way good 3rd and even 4th place teams get a chance like they used to. It also can have the current playoff schedule not getting games too close together.
After week one of "playoffs" then seeding can be done around sister districts. This way good 3rd and even 4th place teams get a chance like they used to. It also can have the current playoff schedule not getting games too close together.
Good god, anything but sister districts again. Nothing like pigeon holing top teams into having first round match ups.
I don't see anything wrong with sister districts. District champs should have no problem with 4th place teams. They can vary the sister districts every couple years anyway. Teams are "pigeon holed" into playing the same teams in districts year after year.
Pairing 32 teams by sister district requires an even number of districts. The coaches don't want a non-district game coming in the middle of the district slate, so you would need an even number of teams in each of the eight districts. The only way I see that working is making 4A-3A-2A 48 teams each and having 64 teams in 1A-A-8M.
I would like to see Week 1 feature a lot of cross-class local games, then the small schools go into district play Weeks 2-8. The big schools would have the second and third weeks for more non-district play. For the non-qualifiers in Week 9, the Association could get creative and go cross-class where feasible to avoid teams playing twice and reducing travel.
IMHO 4A doesn't need 48 teams either but thats another topic entirely. You have Valley with 2100+ in 3 classes and the smaller 4A schools with just over 700. Hard to compete.
Yes they would need to change to 8 districts or some combination of 32 teams in the playoffs in week 9. Then week 10 still has 16 teams like now.
For example district 1 and 2 are sister districts. On the 9th week of the season (first round of playoffs) the top 4 teams pair off 1v4 and 2v3. 8v5 and 6v7 can play week 9 but its not a post season game and they still get 9 games. Week 10 first round of current playoffs you end up with the same number of teams that the state can then bracket by quality of team and distance or whatever they do now.
In 2A this year ended with 2 5-2 and 7 4-3 teams not making the playoffs even with the at large bids. I don't like that because some districts are likely to be much weaker overall than the others so the points system is somewhat flawed. I would just like to see more teams get a chance at post season play. School size and so many other factors can play into it. I really don't think the old system and simply adding time or moving the season up a bit would have been a problem.
There is always going to be a better way and there are always going to be complaints. I feel the way they are doing it now is a step in the right direction. Yes there are a couple of potential qtr final games that are questionable. But, there are always going to be matchup issues, especially when quality teams are closer geographically.
