Week 8 Top 16

[ScoutPrep4]

1. Don Bosco (1)
2. Turkey Valley (2)
3. Remsen St. Mary's (3)
4. Audubon (4)
5. Easton Valley (5)
6. CAM (6)
7. CR-B (7)
8. Fremont Mills (9)
9. Harris-Lake Park (12)
10. AGSWR (15)
11. SE Warren (14)
12. HLV (7)
13. Lenox (15)
14. Gladbrook-Reinbeck (16)
15. Rockford (NR)
16. Lamoni (NR)

 

[_yourself]

Should just straight bracket that out (1 plays 16 and so on) from coaches poll and newspaper poll with the averages to see who is where in standings at the end of the regular season.

 

[bigwig055]

Decisions should never be made based on media polls for something like this. Too much opportunity for bias, and even if every member of the media has the desire & knowledge to get their genuine opinion on the top X teams, there would be no way a media member could make an accurate ranking for all classes across the state. A sportswriter in Burlington couldn't care less about 8 man football in NW Iowa.

I'm a firm believer in 32 playoff qualifiers.

I've always been a fan of making the season 8 games, make week 9 the 1st week of the playoffs/have non playoff qualifiers match up with a sister district to have #5 play #5 and so on.

Without vetting it out, what if we had 16 4 team districts based more on regions so we don't shoehorn so many long drives into 1 district, then take the top 2 out of each district. It would allow more flexibility in non district games, which would be especially helpful in 8 man when you have these longer drives & teams forfeiting games, dropping teams entirely when they're on the borderline, or dropping down, or adding a team.

 

[We're Denver]

bigwig055- I can't say I agree with that, doesn't seem right to be in the playoffs with a 2-7 record, but I guess I know someone who is always saying "soft as baby sh&%"

 

[mazenblue06]

24 teams seems like a nice happy medium. Not sure how that shakes out with brackets and what not. Take top 2 in each district plus the next best 8? Then you don't have teams with losing records in and getting smoked 1st round.

 

[Hwkfn1]

bigwig055- I can't say I agree with that, doesn't seem right to be in the playoffs with a 2-7 record, but I guess I know someone who is always saying "soft as baby sh&%"

With 60 some 8-man teams, the chances of a 2-7 or 3-6 team getting in next to impossible. Especially since each district has 6-7 teams in it.

 

[ScoutPrep4]

With 60 some 8-man teams, the chances of a 2-7 or 3-6 team getting in next to impossible. Especially since each district has 6-7 teams in it.

I like the round down of the 32 team playoff. Am I in favor? I am not sure. Football is only sport that not every team makes the "playoffs". I myself feel in the other sports not every team should make it. The 24 team idea has been out there before as well and is not bad but I can see some issues with teams getting first round byes. That's a big deal come recovery of players and so forth. I feel it either stays at 16 to make it more of an elite honor or 32 to keep brackets even throughout. Great suggestions and opinions, thanks!

 

[_yourself]

Decisions should never be made based on media polls for something like this. Too much opportunity for bias, and even if every member of the media has the desire & knowledge to get their genuine opinion on the top X teams, there would be no way a media member could make an accurate ranking for all classes across the state. A sportswriter in Burlington couldn't care less about 8 man football in NW Iowa.

I'm a firm believer in 32 playoff qualifiers.

I've always been a fan of making the season 8 games, make week 9 the 1st week of the playoffs/have non playoff qualifiers match up with a sister district to have #5 play #5 and so on.

Without vetting it out, what if we had 16 4 team districts based more on regions so we don't shoehorn so many long drives into 1 district, then take the top 2 out of each district. It would allow more flexibility in non district games, which would be especially helpful in 8 man when you have these longer drives & teams forfeiting games, dropping teams entirely when they're on the borderline, or dropping down, or adding a team.

I understand the idea of the sportswriter has a poll or a say on who might make it in, but I do think teams need to play across the west side and east right off the bat. Something like this might make it happen...maybe... Let it be the supposedly weaker team crossing the over to play the number 1 of whatever district to see if they are better then that district champion. I am pretty sure there have been teams in the past that should have played each other in the finals from the same district or side of the state.

 

[_yourself]

I like the round down of the 32 team playoff. Am I in favor? I am not sure. Football is only sport that not every team makes the "playoffs". I myself feel in the other sports not every team should make it. The 24 team idea has been out there before as well and is not bad but I can see some issues with teams getting first round byes. That's a big deal come recovery of players and so forth. I feel it either stays at 16 to make it more of an elite honor or 32 to keep brackets even throughout. Great suggestions and opinions, thanks!

I believe, but I could be mistaken, Minnesota and Wisconsin allow every team to make the playoffs and brackets it out accordingly.

 

[mazenblue06]

I believe, but I could be mistaken, Minnesota and Wisconsin allow every team to make the playoffs and brackets it out accordingly.

That's called the regular season. Playoffs shouldn't be a participation trophy.

 

[bigwig055]

I believe, but I could be mistaken, Minnesota and Wisconsin allow every team to make the playoffs and brackets it out accordingly.

That's called the regular season. Playoffs shouldn't be a participation trophy.

That's not a participation trophy.

 

[paxregis]

I believe, but I could be mistaken, Minnesota and Wisconsin allow every team to make the playoffs and brackets it out accordingly.

only Minnesota allows every team to play in their regional playoffs. Wisconsin & Illinois have systems that base qualification on conference & total wins. Once they have their 256 (Illinois) or 224 (Wisconsin) teams determined, they list the qualifiers top to bottom by enrollment. The biggest 32 go in the highest class and so on down the line.

 

[mazenblue06]

It very definitely is. Saying "Hey!...you all get to go to the playoffs even though you have done nothing to earn it!" is very definitely giving kids something for nothing. Making the playoffs is hard and you should not ever make the playoffs with a below .500 record. EVER.

 

[bigwig055]

It very definitely is. Saying "Hey!...you all get to go to the playoffs even though you have done nothing to earn it!" is very definitely giving kids something for nothing. Making the playoffs is hard and you should not ever make the playoffs with a below .500 record. EVER.

What is being given to the kids? Another game to play? Why is .500 the definitive cutoff? What actual reasoning is there to not ever make the playoffs below .500? I'm not Todd Tharp, but I don't think they'd be throwing parades and handing out trophies for all "playoff" participants. So all that team "gets" is another game to play. Which is how qualifying for the state tournament in every other Iowa High School team sport occurs, as far as I'm aware.

Getting to the state championship is INCREDIBLY HARD. Getting to the Semifinals is SLIGHTLY LESS HARD. And so on. That does not change. You still have to WIN the playoff games to get those points.

Having said all of that - I'm still totally fine as having the whole regular season be the "districts" and limiting participation in the playoffs, I just firmly believe we should have a round of 32 teams be the "substate" qualifier. Quit trying to incorporate RPI and eye tests and all of this stuff - let a team that finishes in the top half of their district qualify for substate, then prove it out on the field. That's how you account for all sorts of other variables - district strength, ebbs & flows, matchups, etc. You play to win the game. If you aren't in the top half of the district, then you don't really have valid excuses anymore - you should have gotten it done on the field. If you are in the top half, you've earned the opportunity to prove it on the field.

 

[Hwkfn1]

What is being given to the kids? Another game to play? Why is .500 the definitive cutoff? What actual reasoning is there to not ever make the playoffs below .500? I'm not Todd Tharp, but I don't think they'd be throwing parades and handing out trophies for all "playoff" participants. So all that team "gets" is another game to play. Which is how qualifying for the state tournament in every other Iowa High School team sport occurs, as far as I'm aware.

Getting to the state championship is INCREDIBLY HARD. Getting to the Semifinals is SLIGHTLY LESS HARD. And so on. That does not change. You still have to WIN the playoff games to get those points.

Having said all of that - I'm still totally fine as having the whole regular season be the "districts" and limiting participation in the playoffs, I just firmly believe we should have a round of 32 teams be the "substate" qualifier. Quit trying to incorporate RPI and eye tests and all of this stuff - let a team that finishes in the top half of their district qualify for substate, then prove it out on the field. That's how you account for all sorts of other variables - district strength, ebbs & flows, matchups, etc. You play to win the game. If you aren't in the top half of the district, then you don't really have valid excuses anymore - you should have gotten it done on the field. If you are in the top half, you've earned the opportunity to prove it on the field.

YES! But the state won't do this because that would actually make sense...

 

[mazenblue06]

This is just my opinion, you are welcome to disagree...

It does not make sense. It is foolish to have EVERY TEAM qualify for the playoffs. The playoffs are for teams that have been successful that given season, which typically means having less than 3 losses (but not always). Far too many things are given away in this world that should be earned. Each team has an equal opportunity to make the play offs by winning games in the regular season. Some schedules may be harder than others, but each team has 8-10 games to prove their worth. I do believe we need more teams in the playoffs, I would like to see 24 rather than 16 or 32. Additionally I believe 8 man should have 2 classes like Nebraska does. In which case I believe a 16 team playoff would be great.

 

[DawgPoundGreat]

No one will go to 24. It's an odd number that doesn't break down properly, you'd need byes and coaches dont like them. 32 is a good number. You dont have to call it playoffs, call it sub-state, just give them a chance.

Just eliminate week 0 and make it week 1. Everyone gets 9 games and still done before Thanksgiving with all post season games played a week apart.

In the end I'd rather complain about a 3 win team getting in that "shouldnt" than about a 6 or 7 win team that didnt. It eliminates arguments about a solid team playing tough schedule or injuries leaving them at 5-4. With 32 they are in and can still have the dream.
Under the current format it's entirely possible the 2014 Newel Fonda team that won it all wouldn't have been in considering they were 0-3 to start the season. So what's the right number?

 

[bigwig055]

No one will go to 24. It's an odd number that doesn't break down properly, you'd need byes and coaches dont like them. 32 is a good number. You dont have to call it playoffs, call it sub-state, just give them a chance.

Just eliminate week 0 and make it week 1. Everyone gets 9 games and still done before Thanksgiving with all post season games played a week apart.

In the end I'd rather complain about a 3 win team getting in that "shouldnt" than about a 6 or 7 win team that didnt. It eliminates arguments about a solid team playing tough schedule or injuries leaving them at 5-4. With 32 they are in and can still have the dream.
Under the current format it's entirely possible the 2014 Newel Fonda team that won it all wouldn't have been in considering they were 0-3 to start the season. So what's the right number?

I wholeheartedly agree with this point, my only quibble is I'd vote going to 8 game regular season instead of pushing Week 1 up to Week 0, especially with Summer baseball in Iowa. I think pushing the season up discourages multi-sport participation, if you play baseball & qualify for the state tournament, you might actually have no summer break - straight from baseball into football camp.

Every team has a certain level of ramp-up and improvement, but certainly some teams have more focus & ability to improve through the season. Just like Newell Fonda - they proved it on the field.

Just as an example, say you have an "equal" district with 3 top teams, and Team C loses on the road by 1 score to Teams A & B in the 1st 2 games of the district season. Team C continuously improves through the year while Teams A & B have been running the same Wing T offense since they were 6 years old and don't really have as high of a ceiling to improve to, Team C should have the opportunity to prove how far they've come in the playoffs.

We've seen this type of situation plenty of times before - I wonder what percentage of state champions have 1 loss? 2 losses? More? With 16 teams, you will pretty much guarantee that you'll exclude a couple of 2 loss teams, and historically, those teams have proven that they have the ability to make a run.

 

[Hwkfn1]

I wholeheartedly agree with this point, my only quibble is I'd vote going to 8 game regular season instead of pushing Week 1 up to Week 0, especially with Summer baseball in Iowa. I think pushing the season up discourages multi-sport participation, if you play baseball & qualify for the state tournament, you might actually have no summer break - straight from baseball into football camp.

Every team has a certain level of ramp-up and improvement, but certainly some teams have more focus & ability to improve through the season. Just like Newell Fonda - they proved it on the field.

Just as an example, say you have an "equal" district with 3 top teams, and Team C loses on the road by 1 score to Teams A & B in the 1st 2 games of the district season. Team C continuously improves through the year while Teams A & B have been running the same Wing T offense since they were 6 years old and don't really have as high of a ceiling to improve to, Team C should have the opportunity to prove how far they've come in the playoffs.

We've seen this type of situation plenty of times before - I wonder what percentage of state champions have 1 loss? 2 losses? More? With 16 teams, you will pretty much guarantee that you'll exclude a couple of 2 loss teams, and historically, those teams have proven that they have the ability to make a run.

I would add that District 4 is loaded. Any of those top teams could make a run. Lone Tree, HLV, Iowa Valley, New London are all capable. Unfortunately it is possible only 1 gets in because they are beating each other. 32 teams makes it possible for them all to be in.

 

[bigwig055]

I would add that District 4 is loaded. Any of those top teams could make a run. Lone Tree, HLV, Iowa Valley, New London are all capable. Unfortunately it is possible only 1 gets in because they are beating each other. 32 teams makes it possible for them all to be in.

Great example, that district is crazy this year. Let's make it happen, take it to the state today.

PS - Just pulled the stat book & got counts just for State Champions in all classes, so this is not only teams that deserved to be in the conversation, but actually won the whole thing:

There have been 245 State Champions crowned since 1972, 8 Player through 4A:
153 (62.5%) had 0 losses
63 (25.7%) had 1 loss
25 (10.2%) had 2 losses
4 (1.6%) had 3 losses

Of course - not all of them would be excluded from the playoffs (many losses probably came from non-district, pre-districts, and from the expanded playoffs in 08-15).

In the 2008-2015 seasons, when playoffs were expanded to 32 teams, there were 48 champions:
34 (70.8%) had 0 losses
9 (18.8%) had 1 loss
4 (8.3%) had 2 losses
1 (2.1%) had 3 losses

Its a limited sample size, but a higher percentage were 0 & 3 loss teams. Maybe that means it slightly "rewards" the 1 seeds, and allows the 3 loss teams that prove themselves? Or maybe its too small of a sample size. Just thought it was worth sharing.

 

[_yourself]

Great example, that district is crazy this year. Let's make it happen, take it to the state today.

PS - Just pulled the stat book & got counts just for State Champions in all classes, so this is not only teams that deserved to be in the conversation, but actually won the whole thing:

There have been 245 State Champions crowned since 1972, 8 Player through 4A:
153 (62.5%) had 0 losses
63 (25.7%) had 1 loss
25 (10.2%) had 2 losses
4 (1.6%) had 3 losses

Of course - not all of them would be excluded from the playoffs (many losses probably came from non-district, pre-districts, and from the expanded playoffs in 08-15).

In the 2008-2015 seasons, when playoffs were expanded to 32 teams, there were 48 champions:
34 (70.8%) had 0 losses
9 (18.8%) had 1 loss
4 (8.3%) had 2 losses
1 (2.1%) had 3 losses

Its a limited sample size, but a higher percentage were 0 & 3 loss teams. Maybe that means it slightly "rewards" the 1 seeds, and allows the 3 loss teams that prove themselves? Or maybe its too small of a sample size. Just thought it was worth sharing.

I think a team that has two or maybe a three-loss type of teams that play in a very tough district should get a "pigtail" match up to get into the playoff but knowing this from wrestling backets the winner would have to go against the number one seed right off the bat then.

 

[bigwig055]

I think a team that has two or maybe a three-loss type of teams that play in a very tough district should get a "pigtail" match up to get into the playoff but knowing this from wrestling backets the winner would have to go against the number one seed right off the bat then.

I think the big difference is that a wrestler can wrestle multiple matches in a day, day-after-day, and the logistics of just needing 2 wrestlers, a mat, and a ref. With wrestling, you can have more flexibility and shoot from the hip a little more and be flexible with scheduling, so it allows for pigtails. I'm on the record as being a firm believer in allowing 32 playoff qualifiers, but I'm an even stronger believer in giving all teams 1 week between games and maintaining the start/end date of the season as they are. This is critical not only for player safety, but for the community members, players, family members, and coaching staff. Allow people the time to mentally & physically recover appropriately, schedule time off of work, scout & put in a gameplan, etc. Those factors aren't often talked about, but I think make a huge difference in the health, safety, and product on the field.

Since a football game takes so much more from logistics, recovery, and preparation, just based on the facilities, scale, logistics, etc., I think making a pigtail accomplishes the same thing as allowing 32 qualifiers, but the way I'm picturing it being implemented, a pigtail tends to allows "judgement" to sneak in and make it needlessly complicated. How do you judge a "tough district"? That's when we get back to RPI's and polls and eye tests and the like. Get the 4 teams into the playoffs, and let the results on the field determine "tough districts".

 

[_yourself]

RPI from DesMonies Register going into week 9:

1. Turkey Valley, 8-0, .6974 (District 3)
2. Audubon, 8-1, .6973 (District 8)
3. Don Bosco, 8-0, .6959 (District 2)
4. Remsen St. Mary’s, 8-0, .6729 (District 1)
5. Coon Rapids-Bayard, 7-1, .6634
6. CAM, Anita, 7-1, .6593
7. Easton Valley, 7-1, .6301
8. Fremont-Mills, 5-1, .6270 (District 7)
9. Lamoni, 7-1, .6157 (District 6)
10. Montezuma, 6-2, .6122
11. Harris-Lake Park, 7-1, .6105
12. HLV, Victor, 6-2, .6092 (District 4)
13. East Mills, 6-2, .6068
14. Northwood-Kensett, 6-2, .6006
15. Gladbrook-Reinbeck, 6-2, .5964 (District 5)
16. Midland, 6-2, .5880