ADVERTISEMENT

New Playoff Format?

I

IAHSAAFan4

Oct 26, 2013
13
0
1
I think most of us can agree that we want to get rid of some of the
"non-deserving" teams from the playoffs. However, the IAHSAA will
probably never go back to a 16-team format. I have created a new format,
just to look at. It could definitely be modified, and I'd love to hear
some other people's input on this issue. Here's how this work.

Seeds 1&2 go to the two district champs, who gets the one seed will have the higher BC Moore Ranking
Seeds 3&4 go to the two district runner-ups, who gets the three seed will have the higher BC Moore Ranking
Seeds
5-8 will be like a "Wildcard" format. the next four teams with the
highest BC Moore Ranking from the two districts will make the playoffs.
Highest ranking = 5 seed, lowest ranking = 8 seed. I have created some
"Modified" brakets for 3a, A, and 8-man to start some discussions

** indicates that this team is not in the current play-off formula.

District 1&2

1.) West Lyon (9-0)
8.) Woodbury Central (2-7)**

4.) AGWSR (9-1)
5.) Lawton- Bronson (6-3)

3.) Hinton (7-2)
6.) Hawardon, West Sioux (4-5)

2.) Bishop-Garrigan, Algona (7-2)
7.) Newman-Catholic, Mason City (4-5)

District 7&8

1.) Avoca AHST (9-0)
8.) Sloan Westwood (6-3)

4.) Madrid (7-2)
5.) Logan-Magnolia (5-4)**

3.) East Mills (7-2)
6.) Woodward-Granger (6-3)

2.) Audubon (7-2)
7.) Griswold (4-5)**

District 3&4

1.) Wapsie Valley (9-0)
8.) Belle Plaine (4-5)

4.) Grundy Center (6-3)
5.) Starmont (5-4)

3.) Turkey Valley (6-3)
6.) Postville (4-5)

2.) Gladbrook-Reinbeck (7-2)
7.) North Butler (3-6)**

District 5&6

1.) Brooklyn BGM (9-0)
8.) Pleasantville (4-5)**

4.) Lone Tree (6-3)
5.) Lynville-Sulley (5-4)

3.) Pekin (7-2)
6.) Montezuma (6-3)

2.) Lisbon (7-2)
7.) WACO (5-4)
 
Not to be rude but absolutely dumb..... You can not use bcmoore for something like this. Yes I like to read his rankings but do not agree with them. It's a computer so it can not play in all factors, there is a reason the bcs died in college football... If they change the format again they should take the top 3 in each district and the champ in each district get a bye first round. Leave it all the same. Yes people are crying about to many games in so short of time but we have been doing it thAT way for a long time! Do not mess with that please iahsaa if you read this.
 
Biggest problem I see is teams are going to be running up the score when the thing that determines seeds only factors in a score. I just don't think that is what we want. I also feel like most scenarios this is just going to change the 4 seed on who gets in, which typically does not effect the whole playoff picture. In my opinion, you can't trump head to head because of any kind of rankings when determining playoff slots. I don't believe the best team always wins, but you have to respect the outcome of a game.
 
You're system is very flawed. I laugh thinking that a 2-7 Woodbury Central team would get in and a Prairie Valley 6-3 team who tied for the district championship wouldn't. BCMoore's rankings aren't true reflections on who the best teams are at the end of October.
 
I wouldn't get too worked up Warrrior Sr. Notice this is just his 2nd post? I'm guessing one of 3 things is at play.

1. This is just a joke on his part and he is trying to stir the pot. He might even think Moore's ratings are as big of a joke as the rest of us when it comes to thinking they can even be mentioned in a thread including the words playoff rankings but he is just bored and is looking for a rise.

2. He now has plenty of time on his hands since he was an IT guy who worked on Obama's Health Plan website and got booted to the curb last week. Maybe he is trying to drum up a job working for Moore.

3. He is a Woodbury Central homer.


Whichever it is his plan is not even worth a serious comment.






This post was edited on 10/27 8:28 AM by ghost80
 
I like the idea of the wildcard but you couldn't use a computer ranking for this
 
My view is you do not go 4 deep each district. You go 3. District champs get a bye in the first round. The others play the seeding and teams of a sister district just like it is now. District champs host their opener in the next round with games being seeded and district champs on opposite sides of this mini-bracket.

You get one less team with sub playoff worthy records and you reward the district champs for rip their regular season success.

Less games. Less gate. So this will never happen.
 
P Nation,

I don't mind the wildcard idea either but it would be very hard to find a way to fairly administer it. While the 13 point rule is fair within a district when everyone plays the same teams within the district it failed miserably when Boone tried to use it before to determine wildcards.

When you don't play the same teams the harder schedule would not only potentially impact your win-loss based on how hard of a schedule you played, your points would also be skewed. A team who played a top 10 team and beat them by 7 would actually be penalized and receive less merit than the who school beat a winless opponent by 50 (or any number over 13) and may have even lost if they played that top 10 team.
 
bc moores rankings used to seed the state playoffs? I just laughed so hard that I may have peed a little.
as a real quick example heres why its a bad idea. Newman lost 3 games in district play, against the very same teams that PV only lost 1 game against. newman is in and pv is out in your thinking. that also shows how absurd and ridiculous bc moores rankings are.
This post was edited on 10/27 7:38 PM by spook78
 
This is my thought, too. But it won't happen, I'm sure. The association loves to talk about how much they work with the kids' best interests at heart, but it's all about the money. That's why they'd rather stay on schedule the old playoff schedule (playing the finals somewhere between the 15th and 22nd of November, depending on how the calendar works out) and cram an extra round in on a Wednesday, than to simply make the playoffs a week longer and play all the games on Friday until they get to the Dome. They don't care about the fact that four days for recovery/prep is an absolute joke; they just want that extra game.
 
Four dAys of rest is not a joke Haha. Did u play? Yes its a challenge but we have been doing it for what probably 30 years now? That is fine. If you have a good coaching staff no worries they know how to work n rest the players for the playoff run.
 
Whether its 2 teams, 3 teams, 4 teams or everyone going to the playoffs, I'd institute a 5 win minimum to be eligible for the playoffs. 4-5? 3-6? 2-7? You stay home.

Under today's 4 teams set up if there were a team which was a 4 seed and 4-5 they would be ineligible and then the next highest seed with 5 wins from that district would be eligible. If there isn't a 4th team then their position would be left open and the team which would have faced them receives a bye.

Losing teams don't play in college football championships nor do they in bowl games. Losing teams also do not play in the NCAA tournament. Since high school football has chosen to not include everyone in the playoffs and make it for the best teams they need to raise the bar a little.

I realize a team could have a winning district record and still stay home because of nondistrict losses but since they will face a non district opponent in at least the first round of the playoffs...I have no problem pulling in the non- district records for this.

This post was edited on 10/28 6:40 AM by ghost80
 
Originally posted by GOPANTHERS23:
Four dAys of rest is not a joke Haha. Did u play? Yes its a challenge but we have been doing it for what probably 30 years now? That is fine. If you have a good coaching staff no worries they know how to work n rest the players for the playoff run.
Click to expand...
Were you ever a two-way starter at WV to know the toll?
 
If we aren't cutting back to 3 teams per district then I don't understand the topic. What fifth place team really deserves to get in there? I can see an argument back when just the top two go and there was a third team from a tough district that could make some noise in the playoffs but what 5th place team this year fits that bill?

Maybe we should compile all the major rankings and merge them with Bcmoore's then play one game for the championship from the top two teams. We can then get games for the rest of the teams with some corporate sponsorship like the John Deere bowl, Welmark bowl and play them in exciting cities like Des Moines, Sioux city, and others. That way we have a true champion and everyone gets to end their season with excitement. Boone gets a lot of money that way from sponsors, even those undeserving teams get to keep playing an dont get their feelings hurt. The championship game is really only going to get played by the top two teams anyways, well maybe we can have a play-in game since we have only three teams with a legitimate shot.
And we can call it the Boone Championship System. What do you think?
 
Originally posted by ghost80:
Whether its 2 teams, 3 teams, 4 teams or everyone going to the playoffs, I'd institute a 5 win minimum to be eligible for the playoffs. 4-5? 3-6? 2-7? You stay home.

Under today's 4 teams set up if there were a team which was a 4 seed and 4-5 they would be ineligible and then the next highest seed with 5 wins from that district would be eligible. If there isn't a 4th team then their position would be left open and the team which would have faced them receives a bye.

Losing teams don't play in college football championships nor do they in bowl games. Losing teams also do not play in the NCAA tournament. Since high school football has chosen to not include everyone in the playoffs and make it for the best teams they need to raise the bar a little.

I realize a team could have a winning district record and still stay home because of nondistrict losses but since they will face a non district opponent in at least the first round of the playoffs...I have no problem pulling in the non- district records for this.

This post was edited on 10/28 6:40 AM by ghost80
Click to expand...
Losing teams may not have played in bowl games or the NCAA Tournament, but that doesn't mean the possibility is there. Conference tournament winners could potentially have losing records, and there are so many bowls now that there has been concern that non-bowl eligible teams would have to be taken just to fill all of them. 70 teams play in bowl games each year, well over half of all FBS teams.

Losing teams don't make it to those particular postseason systems, but that's only because they haven't yet. It's definitely possible.
 
Woodbury central gets in but Akron stays home even though Akron beat them? This system makes less sense than a poopy flavored lollipop. Well unless your from that pile of a school that is Woodbury central with their alcoholic ad/coach and their PUSSYcat mascot.
 
NoJustice, I was, and I loved every bit of turning around and playing sooner. It eliminates the ones who cant handle it, I'll put it that way.

This post was edited on 10/28 6:12 PM by bigBONYtony
 
I think it is a situation easily avoided where kids will get home at 1 or 2 in the morning on a school night -- and should be.
 
In a lot of cases, high school kids are still up that late without a game or not.

I'm just saying, a kid that goes out and wins a playoff game, has a million more worries than what time he's getting to bed. Also, I think kids enjoy more games, they don't get to play their whole lives, its just another game.

I don't necessarily like the larger format, but hell, it keeps more kids playing and gives a lot of kids one more go at playing the game they've spent the same amount of time on.
 
Originally posted by bigBONYtony:

In a lot of cases, high school kids are still up that late without a game or not.

I'm just saying, a kid that goes out and wins a playoff game, has a million more worries than what time he's getting to bed. Also, I think kids enjoy more games, they don't get to play their whole lives, its just another game.

I don't necessarily like the larger format, but hell, it keeps more kids playing and gives a lot of kids one more go at playing the game they've spent the same amount of time on.
Click to expand...
What that does not consider is the meaningless games the better teams have to play where there is no doubt who the winner will be and who the loser will be. Get a star player injured? That happened to BGM a few years back.

"In a lot of cases" the game is a blowout in the early rounds. I am not a fan of everybody gets a ribbon mentality so the expanded system is great because more get to play. Excellence deserves reward. Not mediocrity.


This post was edited on 10/28 11:12 PM by NoJustice
 
Nebraska uses a Wild Card formula to fill out their playoff brackets. I readily agree that the top 3 teams in a district are deserving of a playoff spot but not entirely sure about some of the 4th place teams compared to a 5th place team in another district. Maybe Iowa needs to take a closer look at other states as to how their football playoff teams are chosen. Let's go back to last year for example...District 1...If I remember a very good Woodbury Central team got left out. I don't recall the caliber of the 4th place team in district 2 but if they (WC) were determined to be a better team based on some sort of criteria then they get in and the district 2 4th place team is out. Using the same WC team and for this scenario the 4th place team in District 2 is deemed worthy of being in based on some sort of criteria WC is still not definately out yet because lets say WC's criteria is better than say the 4th place team in District 8 which is not a "sister" district but is still geographically in the western part of the state. Then WC gets in but will just have a very long road trip to play their game but at the same time they get the reward due them based on some sort of criteria. Just an idea.!!
 
Who is to decide what teams are good and which ones aren't? If you can't get top 4 in your district, then there is no point in that team making playoffs. Playoffs are to determine a champion, not make some teams feel good for one more week. Are some areas of the state weaker than others, maybe. But if you can't win your local region, then it won't matter in the long run anyway. At some point, you will still need to play the best to be the best. Not everyone deserves a trophy, no matter what Obama has told you.
 
A five win minimum to make the playoffs sounds like a decent idea until you take the time to actually think about it. If the #4 seed finished 4-3 in the district, but lost both non-district games, they would be 4-5 and unable to participate in the playoffs. Then, if you allowed the next team in that district with five total wins to be in, you could have a #5 seed who finished 5-4 overall qualifying, while having lost to the #4 seed (who is going home) head-to-head.

Very poor logic, especially coming from someone who rants on and on about how things should be decided "on the field".
 
Go back to calling the first round substate. Not everybody deserves to make the playoffs or get a banner, but it is really special to play the game of football and one last game means a lot to a lot of people. Playing your last game, watching a sibling/friend play theirs, or watching your own kid play their last game is pretty special in my eyes.

You never want to see a kid get hurt in a meaningless game, but that happens in football sometimes. In my mind, for how much kids complain these days, if it really bothered them to play on short rest you would hear about it. Maybe somebody else has, but I never have. It's always, "we're going to ____ on Wednesday or ____ is coming here." "We got a pretty good shot if we come to play". Never is it "Yah, I don't want to play on Wednesday because it's a short turn around. I'm afraid I'll get hurt". It just doesn't happen. If people are still concerned about the short turn around, find a way to lengthen the season, whether that be start earlier or go later, but please don't take away a game.
 
Not poor logic in the least. Who will teams be playing the first round of the playoffs? A district opponent or a non district opponent? So in your example a team that has already lost both of their non district games gets another shot at a nondistrict opponent in the playoffs while someone else who took care of business and earned a winning record to qualify stays home? What about the 2A and 3A schools that play 3 non district games. I don't think a team which has gone 3-3 in their district and 0-3 in their non district for an overall 3-6 record has proved their case "on the field".

You don't think the current system has situations where a team has beaten another team yet stayed home during week 10 while the other went on? Of course it already happens most likely when you get a 3 way tie for 3rd or 4th and someone loses out on points to someone they have beaten head to head.

Boone has a train wreck. They have tried to make the playoffs a little exclusive and let only the more successful teams play but have developed a system which allows teams with losing records in. IMO they either need to cut it back to 2 or 3 per district IF they have a winning record or let everyone in. Either way would be better then the Cluster F they currently have.

Can't have it both ways. If you want an exclusive playoff system where not everyone gets to play then the 4-5 and 3-6 teams need to stay home. It was already decided on the field.....they lost more games than they won. Instead of heading out to play in a playoff game and cheapening the playoff pool maybe they should stay home and get a head start on next year.



This post was edited on 10/29 11:39 PM by ghost80
 
Let's think about this...

I beat you head-to-head and lose to a couple strong opponents in non-district play. You finish with a worse record than me in the district (while also losing to me) but beat up on a couple cupcakes in your non-district games. You think you deserve the playoffs over me?? This is logical to you?? What's the point of district football if your district finish doesn't determine your playoff status?
 
Very logical. Why should someone be rewarded for biting off more than they can chew? The norm used to be to schedule an easy non district foe and one which will challenge you. That model still exists for many coaches. Even if you lose the "stretch" game it gives you a 1-1 non district record. Go 4-3 in your district and you have nothing to worry about.

At the next level do they not schedule some cupcakes to pad themselves for a bowl appearance?

As I already stated. There are already teams who beat other teams in district play yet stay home. Your point isn't really even valid because it is nothing new and already happening.
 
The teams who "beat other teams in district play yet stay home" do so because of their district finish. The playing field is equal with all teams playing the same district schedule. Certainly, you understand this, right?

If non-district games come into play, it will be a huge advantage to schedule the weakest teams possible. This would be just as important as how you finish in your district, since getting to five wins would be the only thing that really mattered.

It's just not a logical idea to improve high school football, unless you are planning to scrap district football altogether.
 
Coaches also get to say who they want to play for non-district games. That doesn't mean who they will play. The state still decides these match-ups. All college AD's can at least refuse to play someone for non-conference games.
 
It's a straw argument to belly ache about being a better team than another in a weaker district, where the weaker team makes it and your stronger team does not. The playoffs are to identify the one best team, not seed the entire state. If you are not strong enough to be a top team in your own district you do not need to be belly aching about some other weaker team making it. Tiresome to hear these whining examples.
 
Originally posted by bigBONYtony:
NoJustice, I was, and I loved every bit of turning around and playing sooner. It eliminates the ones who cant handle it, I'll put it that way.

This post was edited on 10/28 6:12 PM by bigBONYtony
Click to expand...
How many playoff games did you play in that year?
 
I am just as tired of hearing the "bellyaching" about playoff football on Wednesday night. These "whining examples" are indeed tiresome...
 
Take it back to 16 teams so that it actually means something when you make the playoffs. And to all those who would whine about bad luck or injuries costing them a shot... it's football, it's part of the game.
 
One less non-district game and one more opening round game. This lets everyone have a shot at a state title, just like in all other competing HS sports. Rotate between neighboring districts every other year so that you don't always have to play the same teams every year. Right now, half of all teams qualify for the playoffs the way it is now, so one more game would allow all teams to be in the tournament and you don't actually qualify for state until you reach the final 4 teams. Just a thought.
 
Agreed. I have always thought we should just let them all in. EVERY other sport does it that way. Every other sport you get to play at least one post season game. Why not football?
 
usfhawk....you may have missed it in my post...I said LAST year when referring to Woodbury Central. I agree this year they were not very good.
This post was edited on 10/30 8:07 PM by brewcrewman1
 
Originally posted by Eleven30:

I am just as tired of hearing the "bellyaching" about playoff football on Wednesday night. These "whining examples" are indeed tiresome...
Click to expand...
What was the average point differential in all classes in each of the 1vs.4 seed games?

Fight the stupidity. Give me your address and I will send you the button to wear and help spread the word.
wink.r191677.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I

Week 9 Games to Watch (3A-5A)

Replies
3
Views
964
General Football Forum
ISUChip
I
I

Week 8 Games to Watch (3A-5A)

Replies
5
Views
1K
General Football Forum
JB Football
J
I

Week 7 Games to Watch

Replies
8
Views
2K
General Football Forum
PNation
P
I

Week 6 Games to Watch

Replies
21
Views
2K
General Football Forum
Pinehawk
Pinehawk
P

8 Man Playoff Outlook

Replies
2
Views
1K
General Football Forum
Beaverball14
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back