Could the OHSAA do a better job with playoffs??
#1
Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:02 PM
#2
Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:02 PM
Currently the OHSAA allows 32 teams per division to participate in the playoffs. That's 192 teams (D1 through D6) out of a total 717 football-playing schools (27%). I think it is very possible to allow every HS team to participate in the tournaments. If the playoffs (football sectionals) were extended by just 2 weeks, that would quadruple the number of possible participants (4x192 = 768) making it possible for everyone to participate. This way, "quality losses" would not hurt your chances of making the playoffs, but would actually HELP your chances of becoming a better team for the tournaments (much like any other sport that encourages tougher scheduling to become better). There would not be "creative" scheduling to slide into the playoffs ahead of better, more qualified teams...and I would go so far as to say that we would not be watching all of our leagues going through the current changes if making the playoffs were not such a huge issue.
Here's how the OHSAA could make this happen:
First, the OHSAA has instituted the "Foundation Game" the past couple years as an extra scrimmage. Do away with this game and just start the season ONE week earlier...we're out there playing anyways, aren't we?
Next, only play 9 regular season games. This may not seem very popular...BUT, at this point, we would already be 2 weeks ahead of schedule...and ready to start the sectional tournament.
By this point, each sectional bracket would be drawn up with each team seeded. The first sectional game would be each school's 10th game...the same number we currently play. The losers would be done (having played a full schedule), but we'd still have 64 schools getting an 11th game in, with the chance to advance...TWICE the number of schools currently given a shot at the playoffs. WHAT COACH WOULDN'T WANT THOSE KIND OF CHANCES TO PLAY EXTRA GAMES???...EVERY YEAR.
With this structure, every schools gets a chance. Each sectional send an upper bracket winner and lower bracket winner to the district...just like most other sports the OHSAA has tournaments for. I think this would actually bring in more $$$ for the OHSAA, since there are extra rounds of play. It also gives the kids a reason to not "throw in the towel" after 2 or 3 losses. We all know that the tourney is the "second season" in every other sport and is usually an exciting time for the schools.
You can say that there would be too many blowout games, and that some football teams just don't "belong" in the tournament based on the weakness of their program...BUT, we see blowouts and mis-matches in every other sport, yet we don't hear how those teams shouldn't be allowed the chance to participate.
I think it's about time the OHSAA starts to look at "solutions" that make sense...not like splitting D1 into 2 separate groups and allowing an unequal number of bigger schools the chance to play in the post season. Every time the OHSAA comes up with some sort of "equalizer", we get proposals that make less and less sense...think about last season's proposal for multipliers and bumping schools up or down divisions based on free lunches. It is way too complex and still unfair to many schools when a SIMPLE plan like mine would include EVERYBODY.
#3
Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:34 AM
#4
Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:30 AM
veteranlefty, on 05 March 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:
I thought Indiana did it much like falconfan's proposal. 9 regular season games, and your first tournament game is the 10th game. I dont mind this idea, honestly, but, I also have no issues with the current set up either. I think that it is kind of "exclusive" to make the playoffs in Ohio football.
#5
Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:09 PM
Edited by HH75, 05 March 2012 - 07:11 PM.
#6
Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:15 PM
LJ
#7
Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:47 PM
I really think it would bring about better football teams. We currently get teams from the TAAC and NWCC that get to go to the playoffs based upon the computer point model doing its job and ranking teams accordingly...too many flaws in the system. We all know that there are schools among the top 8 that get extra practices and extra games...giving their players more stats, etc. All the while, a very decent #9, 10, or 11 gets to prepare for basketball season a bit earlier than they would hope for.
Each school plays within the conference that they belong...so they can only do so much to boost their computer points...just to get that CHANCE of a playoff appearance (even the MAC has dropped some conference games so that some of their teams won't be done after 10 games). On top of that, they have to be pretty much mistake-free (in terms of losses). The current system is an advantage for those champions of WEAK conferences to at least get to play beyond the regular season. If your team is a second or third placed team from a strong conference, you probably have a better team than a some conference champs, yet you'll not get the chance to play because you don't have a high enough computer point average. Also, what about the teams that start out with losses to good teams and seem to make some noise as the season progresses. I guess it's just too bad for them, huh?
If we did this in other sports, Coldwater would have one less final four appearance in boys' basketball. After finishing 4-16, do you think a computer point system would have let them into a basketball playoff?...I don't think so. But they still managed to take a 4-16 team win 5 or 6 tourney games to make it to State.
I had no idea that Indiana did anything like this for football, but I think it is a fair proposal....blowouts or not. Besides, like most sports, the blowouts SHOULD happen in the early rounds, when the higher seeds play the lowest seeds. After that, I would imagine that we'd start to see some blowouts in the state semifinals, when the teams from the stronger regions start to flex their muscle against the weaker regions. This already happens, and won't change until either the teams from those weak regions get better or we start seeding teams state-wide and send schools to the four corners of the state to play in "equally matched" regions. I really don't think we should do that, and if we did, the OHSAA would find a way to screw that up, too.
#8
Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:11 PM
In football, all a team has to do to be the equivalent to a District Champion is win ONE game in the post season. One victory and your in the Sweet Sixteen in the state??...that doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment for such a distinction, does it?...talk about handing out trophies for doing nothing (metaphorically speaking...I know they don't hand out a trophy for winning the first game). I'd bet that there are plenty of teams that don't get to the playoffs that are better than some of those first round winners. To me, the state waters it down by NOT allowing for the "underdog" to take their shot at the big dogs. If you want watered down, then push for the state to add more divisions. When I was in school, there was A, AA, and AAA...three champions. There would be schools like 10-0 Delphos Jefferson, 10-0 Arlington, etc. that never got to play in the post season, even though they blew everyone they played away. Back then, it was a much bigger deal to become a State Champion, but even then, I have to wonder if maybe DSJ wasn't better than the team that won it all.
Why would you NOT want to let the kids decide it on the field?
Edited by falconfan84, 05 March 2012 - 08:17 PM.
#9
Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:17 PM
falconfan84, on 05 March 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:
In football, all a team has to do to be the equivalent to a District Champion is win ONE game in the post season. One victory and your in the Sweet Sixteen in the state??...that doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment for such a distinction, does it? I'd bet that there are plenty of teams that don't get to the playoffs that are better than some of those first round winners...talk about handing out trophies for doing nothing. To me, the state waters it down by NOT allowing for the "underdog" to take their shot at the big dogs.
Why would you NOT want to let the kids decide it on the field?
You are my hero. Everything I wanted to say but I'm to lazy to write. Maybe its the little league, midget, and softball trophies I have.
LJ
#10
Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:34 PM
falconfan84, on 05 March 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:
In football, all a team has to do to be the equivalent to a District Champion is win ONE game in the post season. One victory and your in the Sweet Sixteen in the state??...that doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment for such a distinction, does it?...talk about handing out trophies for doing nothing (metaphorically speaking...I know they don't hand out a trophy for winning the first game). I'd bet that there are plenty of teams that don't get to the playoffs that are better than some of those first round winners. To me, the state waters it down by NOT allowing for the "underdog" to take their shot at the big dogs. If you want watered down, then push for the state to add more divisions. When I was in school, there was A, AA, and AAA...three champions. There would be schools like 10-0 Delphos Jefferson, 10-0 Arlington, etc. that never got to play in the post season, even though they blew everyone they played away. Back then, it was a much bigger deal to become a State Champion, but even then, I have to wonder if maybe DSJ wasn't better than the team that won it all.
Why would you NOT want to let the kids decide it on the field?
Fwiw.. there were 5 divisions and only the top 4 per region went when I played. (never made it in personally ) Why would I not want to let the kids decide it..... cause Im just cold hearted I guess! I have my opinion and think the current system is fine.... You have yours and want change. You and LJ can carry on now but I'm not gonna watch.....
#11
Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:34 PM
#12
Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:35 PM
How do you match up teams for the first playoff round? #1 vs. #30? #2 vs. #29? Some of those scores could hit triple digits.
Where do you play the first round games? At the higher seed's home field? Some teams may never get a home game week 10. And with only 9 reg. season games, They're losing a home game and home game revenue.
Edited by Bobby, 05 March 2012 - 10:39 PM.
#13
Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:27 AM
In this scenario, the State Championship game would be played no later than it already is. Many schools already play in a Foundation Game, which is one week before the season starts...so they are ALREADY playing. If a school is in a 10 team conference, they would get to play all 9 conference opponents during the season (4 home and 5 away one year, 5 home and 4 away the next...it evens itself out). Week 10, the sectionals begin. Just like many other sports, there would be 5 or 6 schools per sectional, with two sectionals per district. Some teams would get a bye, just like other sectional tournaments. This would be an option given to the top-seeded teams. The top seed could choose which bracket to play or if they would rather take the bye...just like in other sports. Each sectional bracket winner (2 of them) would advance to districts where they face the opposing sectional bracket winners. I'd think that the higher seeded team could host until the district championship game...this is the level that the OHSAA currently has the games played on neutral sites with more seating capacity. At this stage is where the teams that deserve to be there will be playing. I feel this would be a better represented group of teams compared to what the computers would determine.
Edited by falconfan84, 06 March 2012 - 07:28 AM.
#14
Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:04 AM
#15
Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:23 AM
#16
Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:16 AM
#17
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:10 PM
DirtyPBear76, on 05 March 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:
This
#18
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:11 PM
Bobby, on 05 March 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:
How do you match up teams for the first playoff round? #1 vs. #30? #2 vs. #29? Some of those scores could hit triple digits.
Where do you play the first round games? At the higher seed's home field? Some teams may never get a home game week 10. And with only 9 reg. season games, They're losing a home game and home game revenue.
This
#19
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:12 PM
PHDigger, on 06 March 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:
And this!
Everything I wanted to type but was to lazy to do it!
#20
Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:13 PM
1. The lower seed hosts in round one, both schools get 100% of money from presale tickets, the host school gets 100% sold at gate.
2. The higher seed hosts in round two, both schools get 100% of money from presale tickets, the host school gets 100% sold at gate.
Edited by bob22, 06 March 2012 - 05:14 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users