New Playoff Format?

[IAHSAAFan4]

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.) Newell-Fonda (9-0)
8.) Harris-Lake Park (4-5)**

4.) River Valley (8-1)
5.) Ruthven GTRA (6-3)

3.) West Bend Mallard (9-1)
6.) NE Hamilton (6-3)

2.) MMC (8-1)
7.) Remsen-Union (5-4)

District 7&8

1.) Elk Horn-Kimb-Exira (8-0)
8.) Dunlap Boyer Valley (6-3)

4.) Fremont Mills (7-2)
5.) Coon Rapids-Bayard (7-3)

3.) Glidden-Ralston (8-1)
6.) Sidney (8-1)

2.) SW Valley (7-2)
7.) West Harrison (5-4)

District 3&4

1.) Springville (9-0)
8.) Elkader, Central (6-4)

4.) Lansing-Kee (6-3)
5.) Northwood-Kensett (6-3)

3.) Janesville (8-1)
6.) Clarksville (5-4)**

2.) Don Bosco, Gilbertsville (9-0)
7.) Tripoli (4-5)

District 5&6

1.) Adair-Casey (9-0)
8.) Mormon Trail (4-5)**

4.) Murray (8-2)
5.) Corydon-Wayne (6-3)

3.) Bussey Twin-Cedars (9-1)
6.) Lamoni (8-2)

2.) HLV (8-2)
7.) Meskwaki (5-4)

 

[AaronAnderson]

Personally I think BC Moore rankings are a joke. I don't mind the playoff format now

 

[zay_go_rams]

The only problem with using BC Moore is since it is a mathematical statistical based format you would then have teams running up the scores in order to get the highest playoff seed possible.

 

[GoldRocket]

If I understand BCMoore correctly:

Once the score spread gets to a certain amount BCMoore's rankings ignore the spread and rank it as a blow out, so running up the score wouldn't really do anything to help.

 

[Cardinal2012]

Originally posted by GoldRocket:
If I understand BCMoore correctly:

Once the score spread gets to a certain amount BCMoore's rankings ignore the spread and rank it as a blow out, so running up the score wouldn't really do anything to help.

Minute left in the game up 17 with 25 yards to score. Do you take a knee and run out the clock or do you try to score?

 

[tm3308]

Originally posted by AaronAnderson:
Personally I think BC Moore rankings are a joke. I don't mind the playoff format now

I'm not a big fan of the current format, but I do agree with you on the BCMoore rankings. Seems like every week there's some glitch that has a team rated way higher than they should be, or even ranking teams ahead of others that beat them (see 2-loss Mount Ayr ranked ahead of undefeated Van Meter in Class 1A). It's based largely on point spreads, which is wildly unreliable at the high school level, where even average teams blow out lousy ones.

But I think the number of teams from each district should be cut to three. 4 seeds never make any noise in the playoffs, and by eliminating them, you can give the district champions a first round bye. Take this as an example:

D5 vs. D6

Champs: HLV and Adair-Casey (first round byes)
2 seeds: Twin Cedars and Murray
3 seeds: Wayne and Lamoni

First round, game 1: Twin Cedars vs. Wayne
First round, game 2: Murray vs. Lamoni

Second round: HLV vs. G2 winner, A-C vs. G1 winner

I'd be open to mixing up the districts for the 2/3 games like they do currently. Play all the games on Fridays, until we hit the semis and that's no longer feasible. That means either pushing the playoffs one week further into November (which this year wouldn't overlap with Thanksgiving, but might in other years), or just make the current Week 0 Week 1.

This would help cut back on the watered-down effect that the 4-team system has created while still allowing a lot of very deserving teams into the field, lets the state still collect more money than it got under the old 16-team field, and gives teams a full week to prepare for/recover from games. The perfect win-win for everyone, IMO.
This post was edited on 10/28 12:44 AM by tm3308

 

[high90school]

BC system I dont feasably could work at the high school level. I agree that teams would be running up the score to get a higher score in the system even if some games are considered uncompetetive and "ignored" in the system.

The three team per district system with the #1 seeds getting a bye first round I have been saying for a long time would be the best way to go about it. #4 seeds I would love to see their record in first round games in playoffs since changing to the new system. It cant be good compared to the #3 seed really. The pairing of the quarterfinal round game I think would be good to give up to the state. Just like we all want to see, the best competition in the biggest spot light at the Dome so having the state do these pairings from quarterfinals on would be good.

 

[Voicefromthestands]

Originally posted by AaronAnderson:
Personally I think BC Moore rankings are a joke. I don't mind the playoff format now

+1

 

[paxregis]

Originally posted by high90school:

BC system I dont feasably could work at the high school level. I agree that teams would be running up the score to get a higher score in the system even if some games are considered uncompetetive and "ignored" in the system.

The three team per district system with the #1 seeds getting a bye first round I have been saying for a long time would be the best way to go about it. #4 seeds I would love to see their record in first round games in playoffs since changing to the new system. It cant be good compared to the #3 seed really. The pairing of the quarterfinal round game I think would be good to give up to the state. Just like we all want to see, the best competition in the biggest spot light at the Dome so having the state do these pairings from quarterfinals on would be good.

Just a quick & dirty look at first round records since 2008, #1 has won 188 games to #4's 12 wins. #2 wins 132 times to #3 getting the victory 68 times. So #4 has a 6% probability of winning, versus 34% for #3, almost six times as likely to move on.

By Class #3 #4
3A 13-27 5-35
2A 16-24 0-40
1A 12-28 2-38
A 15-25 2-38
8M 12-28 3-37

 

[NEHTrojan]

So you are saying we have a shot........ #1 MMC vs #4 NEH

 

[the wonderer]

What happens when you have the top 2 teams in the syaye in your own district? Could you not send them else where so they could meet in the dome for their second for their second meeting or leave it the way it is so you are knocking each other out?

 

[GoldRocket]

I'm not sure the solution, but something needs to be done. There is no reason that a team should be down 51-0 at halftime in the State Playoffs. The difference between teams in the "playoffs" is ridiculous. This "give every kid a medal" system is not the way to go about it. There was nothing wrong with only having a 16 team playoff, it made for better, less dangerous football.

That's my rant for the day.

This post was edited on 10/30 8:20 PM by GoldRocket