playoffs
- Thread starter ronsss
- Start date
The biggest issue is if you have multiple districts with ties their is no tie breaker so you could theoretically have more than 16 teams qualify. See how the state in all its wisdom explains that.
with the point system they have, i believe ties are allmost impossible.....one team may have .6954.......'
there is a system in place for ties----=-
What happens if two teams are tied in the final RPI standings? We have created a tiebreaker for this unlikely scenario. It is as follows: 1. Head-to-head result between the two teams 2. Winning percentage 3. Opponents' winning percentage 4. Opponents' opponents winning percentage 5. Alphabet Draw
there is a system in place for ties----=-
What happens if two teams are tied in the final RPI standings? We have created a tiebreaker for this unlikely scenario. It is as follows: 1. Head-to-head result between the two teams 2. Winning percentage 3. Opponents' winning percentage 4. Opponents' opponents winning percentage 5. Alphabet Draw
Last edited:
Anything with an alphabet draw as a possibility--even if it's extremely unlikely--is highly suspect from the get-go.
Their are no tie breakers for district champions and the rpi is only used for at large teams. You could have 3 teams tie for district title as they each beat each other and all go to the playoffs. I t happens a lot more than you think. Say you have 8 districts, so 8 district champs are automatic and 8 at large. so now if you have say a tie in a couple districts that takes spots from the at large group. Take one district that may not be strong and you have a tie because they both go 3-2 in their district and then another district that is loaded and say that 2nd place team went 4-1 and maybe 8-1 overall could be out just because they didnt win the district and another team not so good tied for theirs. The state screwed the pooch on this whole thing and I think a lot of coaches hope it comes back to bite them in the ass.
If there were 3-way ties in three districts, that would mean 15 automatic qualifiers, and just one wild-card chosen by RPI.
Three-way ties in two districts and a four-way tie in another means only district champions (and ties) are in, as that makes 16.
Two 4-way ties plus a 3-way tie in another district and there’s ... 17 auto qualifiers for only 16 spots.
These results are unlikely, of course, but not impossible.
Three-way ties in two districts and a four-way tie in another means only district champions (and ties) are in, as that makes 16.
Two 4-way ties plus a 3-way tie in another district and there’s ... 17 auto qualifiers for only 16 spots.
These results are unlikely, of course, but not impossible.
Yeah, it’s not a very likely problem. It would be an incredible cascade of coincidences to actually happen.
At one point last year I was going to look back and see how common district ties had been, but I didn’t really dig into it. I think having 2 districts with ties in the same class has happened a few times, but I don’t know about ties in 3 districts.
At one point last year I was going to look back and see how common district ties had been, but I didn’t really dig into it. I think having 2 districts with ties in the same class has happened a few times, but I don’t know about ties in 3 districts.
2017
44 total districts
4 two-way ties (3A-4, 2A-2, 2A-3, 1A-7)
0 three-way ties
2016
44 total districts
4 two-way ties (4A-6, 3A-2, 3A-4, A-6)
4 three-way ties (4A-5, A-4, 8P-4, 8P-8)
2015
48 total districts
4 two-way ties (2A-5, 2A-8, 1A-2, 1A-4)
3 three-way ties (3A-8, 2A-2, 2A-3)
2014
48 total districts
5 two-way ties (3A-3, 3A-5, 2A-3, 1A-8, 8P-6)
2 three-way ties (3A-4, 8P-2)
2013
44 total districts*
3 two-way ties (2A-4, 1A-1, 1A-4)
3 three-way ties (2A-7, A-2, 8P-8)
*4A east side was still in conferences
2012
44 total districts*
6 two-way ties (3A-2, 3A-3, 3A-8, 1A-5, A-1, A-6)
1 three-way tie (3A-6)
*4A east side was still in conferences
SIX-YEAR TOTAL
272 districts
26 two-way ties (4A: 1; 3A: 8; 2A: 6; 1A: 7; A: 3; 8P: 1)
13 three-way ties (4A: 1; 3A: 3; 2A: 3; 1A: 0; A: 2; 8P: 4)
44 total districts
4 two-way ties (3A-4, 2A-2, 2A-3, 1A-7)
0 three-way ties
2016
44 total districts
4 two-way ties (4A-6, 3A-2, 3A-4, A-6)
4 three-way ties (4A-5, A-4, 8P-4, 8P-8)
2015
48 total districts
4 two-way ties (2A-5, 2A-8, 1A-2, 1A-4)
3 three-way ties (3A-8, 2A-2, 2A-3)
2014
48 total districts
5 two-way ties (3A-3, 3A-5, 2A-3, 1A-8, 8P-6)
2 three-way ties (3A-4, 8P-2)
2013
44 total districts*
3 two-way ties (2A-4, 1A-1, 1A-4)
3 three-way ties (2A-7, A-2, 8P-8)
*4A east side was still in conferences
2012
44 total districts*
6 two-way ties (3A-2, 3A-3, 3A-8, 1A-5, A-1, A-6)
1 three-way tie (3A-6)
*4A east side was still in conferences
SIX-YEAR TOTAL
272 districts
26 two-way ties (4A: 1; 3A: 8; 2A: 6; 1A: 7; A: 3; 8P: 1)
13 three-way ties (4A: 1; 3A: 3; 2A: 3; 1A: 0; A: 2; 8P: 4)
Here is my question, is it straight RPI or do district standings and head to head mean something.
For example lets say that the top 3 teams in a district went 4-0, 2-2, 2-2 in non district. Then in district play the two 2-2 teams finished 1st and second and the team that went 4-0 finished 3rd. So the district champion is in at 7-2, but then the second place team is 6-3 and the 3rd is 7-2. The third place team beat the second place on RPI who gets in? I think that the second place should get in based upon the head to head and high place finish in district.
Or you have 2 second place teams that played in non district. The one played 3 lower class teams with good records and finished 7-2 4-1/3-1 and the other second place team played 3 larger schools and finished 5-4/ 1-3, but the one non district win for the 5-4 team is against the other team mentioned, if it is straight RPI then the team with the 7-2 record would probably get in even though they lost to another 2nd place team that might not get in.
I honestly think the state may of been better off going with a committee like FBS football has for their 4 team playoff. Have them meet once like around week 6 or 7 and then the last night of the regular season. Have the district champs get in, with some sort of tie breaker for 3 way ties, and then have the committee choose the at large bids.
For example lets say that the top 3 teams in a district went 4-0, 2-2, 2-2 in non district. Then in district play the two 2-2 teams finished 1st and second and the team that went 4-0 finished 3rd. So the district champion is in at 7-2, but then the second place team is 6-3 and the 3rd is 7-2. The third place team beat the second place on RPI who gets in? I think that the second place should get in based upon the head to head and high place finish in district.
Or you have 2 second place teams that played in non district. The one played 3 lower class teams with good records and finished 7-2 4-1/3-1 and the other second place team played 3 larger schools and finished 5-4/ 1-3, but the one non district win for the 5-4 team is against the other team mentioned, if it is straight RPI then the team with the 7-2 record would probably get in even though they lost to another 2nd place team that might not get in.
I honestly think the state may of been better off going with a committee like FBS football has for their 4 team playoff. Have them meet once like around week 6 or 7 and then the last night of the regular season. Have the district champs get in, with some sort of tie breaker for 3 way ties, and then have the committee choose the at large bids.
Nice work Chip. Looks like your number show 6.5 per year for the last 6 yrs.
That is a whole different story than PAX claim of 1-2 per year.
As to PNation’s question, this is how things read to me: all district champions (plus ties) get in the playoffs; the rest of the field is chosen by straight RPI. I can’t see anything different in the state’s criteria.
One can have issues with that methodology, but it looks like that’s how it’s going to go. The possibility exists for a team that’s currently 0-4 to rally and win a share of their district, meaning their relatively weak RPI gets in ahead of perhaps better RPIs in other districts, but that’s how it is.
One can have issues with that methodology, but it looks like that’s how it’s going to go. The possibility exists for a team that’s currently 0-4 to rally and win a share of their district, meaning their relatively weak RPI gets in ahead of perhaps better RPIs in other districts, but that’s how it is.
I meant to type 1-2 three-way ties originally, but nice work from chip on getting the numbers.
Since this is a 3A board if you take Chips numbers and apply them to actual Co Champions getting automatic berths here is the number of 3A At Large bids displaced by Co Champions.
2017 1
2016 2
2015 2
2014 4
2013 0
2012 5
Of course the caveat is that probably a good percentage of the Co Champs getting in would have been an At Large anyway.
Personally at the end of the day I have no problem the way Boone has it.
2017 1
2016 2
2015 2
2014 4
2013 0
2012 5
Of course the caveat is that probably a good percentage of the Co Champs getting in would have been an At Large anyway.
Personally at the end of the day I have no problem the way Boone has it.
RPI is the best solution for AT LARGE berths.
Boone has tried the 13 point rule in the past to arrive at AT LARGE berths and it was seriously flawed. The 13 point rule is equitable as long as everyone plays the same schedule. If you try and apply the 13 point rule when all people do not play the same schedule you actually are comparing teams with the same district records but rewarding the ones who had the easiest schedule.
Before all the consolidations and school closures the smaller classes had more districts and the district champs (10 or 12 I believe) were given playoffs berths and the remaining spots were AT LARGE by 13 point rule. I am familiar with a team who went 8-1 with their only loss being a district loss to the eventual state champs. They were in a stacked district and their district wins included 2 over ranked teams but the margins were under 13 points. Unfortunately they did not make the playoffs. Teams receiving the AT LARGE berths came from the weakest districts and had the greatest number of +13 games from their weak schedule which had them facing no ranked opponents.
Last edited:
As an aside, I also have the feeling the state will use RPI to determine playoff home fields in the first two rounds (after district champion and head-to-head criteria, I mean). While they haven’t posted how they’re going to decide home fields yet, I just think with this new RPI toy they have, they’ll want to use that.
First criteria will be district champions hosting, of course, as well as head-to-head in the mix. If two district champions play each other (which will happen at least once in the first round, and more often in the second) and there’s no head-to-head record, I figure they’ll go with RPI. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again.
First criteria will be district champions hosting, of course, as well as head-to-head in the mix. If two district champions play each other (which will happen at least once in the first round, and more often in the second) and there’s no head-to-head record, I figure they’ll go with RPI. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again.
I agree with you but I think it goes: district champ, winning %, head to head, then RPI.
Hmm. I didn’t think about winning percentage ... that could make sense. I agree district finish then head-to-head will be the first two items used to determine home field.
I think for district champs for opportunity to host it may be winning % then RPI, not sure though.
It is also mathematically possible for there to be a 5-way tie, (5 teams at 3-2 and 1 team at 0-5).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
The “WE’RE NUMBER ONE” lounge is temporarily closed for remodeling…..
- Latest: HONKifUvCOACHED4BAMA