Playoff Seeding Talk
- Thread starter LukeFeddersen
- Start date
Lots of talk about how 4th seeded teams should not be n the playoffs, ask Montezuma about that. All 4 teams in District 7 advanced, still a soft district? So next year 2 of these teams don't get a look and 2 (#1 and #2) from a weaker district get the nod?? Mistake??
The biggest concern is player safety in having a compressed playoff schedule, and limiting the number of games on school nights. In my opinion they should either start games on Week 0 for all classes, or alternatively play one less regular season game and still have 4 teams from each district make it to the playoffs, while organizing some extra game for the teams that don't qualify. Coaches should be able to make a list at the end of the season for teams they would be willing to play.
lay off the non-district games and there is ample room to play them out. Never understood the non-district line-ups anyway. "This team plays up a class who in turn is playing down one". stay in class and count as part of the mix for seeding or overall record. I understand the whole "map" thing here but if you want to reduce games played for safety reasons, quit having poor "A" team go get their A$$ handed to them by "2A" or whatever. Just my opinion!! The "map" doesn't seam to bother anyone when they re-district and play 30-40% of games with an hour travel time.
The A vs 2A match ups as an example are usually a rivalry game. Also the coaches submit a list of 5 schools they would like to play, so it's not nearly as random as district alignments. Not that district alignments are random, but look at 2 schools 8 miles apart in 1A being in different districts. The non-district games are nice to get game ready for the part of the season that actually matters. It's seems unfair to choose between a rivalry game that will get your team ready vs a cakewalk game that won't.
I personally don't want to reduce games, I'd actually like to see more games by adding an extra week at the end with "equal" quality teams. The issue of games and safety comes from not having the full week of rest for at least 3 weeks in a row. They don't do that on any other level of football.
I personally don't want to reduce games, I'd actually like to see more games by adding an extra week at the end with "equal" quality teams. The issue of games and safety comes from not having the full week of rest for at least 3 weeks in a row. They don't do that on any other level of football.
The answer was to move week one up to week 0 and no longer have a week 0. 1st round of playoffs would have been last Friday. Second round tonight. And third next friday. Easy solution. But no one ever said they make the smart call. I know most coaches I've spoken with were in favor of that schedule.
If they did move to a Week Zero start, I would like to see the IHSAA give themselves the option to redraw 8-man districts in the second year of the cycle. Without the Week Zero games, many schools would end up with an eight game schedule due to losing opponents to programs starting a sharing agreement or canceling their varsity season for a year.
They could always just play the same team they would schedule week zero mid year whenever their bye week would occur. I understand it's nice to have those games as tune-up games, but the association would be more inclined to limit the amount of work they do.
