38 replies to this topic

[osufan512]

I think the only reformation I would make to the current playoff format is the regions. Leave the Harbin system in place but eliminate all pre-drawn regions. Have all of the divisions teams ranked from #1 all the way down to the last place team. Then the teams that finish in the top 32 in each division make the playoffs. THEN draw the regions based on which 32 teams made the playoffs. This would leave out some quality teams, but so does the current system. The other thing it would do is it could help eliminate a little of the gap that would exisist in the "level" of the regions. Sometime later on I may sit down and figure out how this would have changed last years playoffs and see what could have potentially taken place. If for nothing else, it will help keep the mind on football while we are still roughly 190 days away from game 1.

[falconfan84]

Ranking top 32 in the state instead of the top 8 in each region would be interesting.

The idea of the lower seed hosting the first game, the higher seed the second round, and the idea of schools keeping pre-sale/gate receipts are also very interesting.

The one thing that keeps being mentioned is that no matter how the teams are chosen by the computers, there are still some quality teams that don't get to play. I know that there are quite a few blowouts when the #1 or #2 seeds take on the #7 or #8 teams...but these 8 teams are representative of an entire region (1/4 of all the football-playing schools in state per division)...AND aren't TRULY the top 8 in the region (that's why you see some of them being blowouts...when they're SUPPOSED to be good)...they just have the most computer points.

You have to remember this, though...since there are fewer football-playing schools than there are basketball-playing schools, there would only be 4 schools per sectional instead of the 5 or 6 that I have been mentioning. In the ENTIRE Northwest Region (region 22) of the state, there were 30 Div.6 schools last year.

The sectional does not match teams across an entire quadrant of the state, it is a much closer proximity. Every sectional would not have the #1 team in the region playing in it...ONLY ONE sectional in the ENTIRE REGION will include THAT team. The 8 schools that now make playoffs would more-than-likely be spread out among the different sectionals...so we'd probably see more than a few of them lose along the way as they face what the computer says are the "next best" teams (#9, 10, and so on). I'd wonder what a 5-5 MAC team would do against a 9-1 Waynesfield-Goshen, for example. We all have a pretty good idea who would probably win, but the computer more-than-likely has the 9-1 team ranked higher.

It would be nice for a GOOD team with a few losses (that ends up just below the cut-off) to have the ability to face a team that got it's computer points playing a weaker schedule. We'd see the cream rise to the top, instead of just using the 8 teams that have the highest points.

I will admit, the worst part of this idea is that it makes the post-season about as long as the regular season. The State Champion would have to play 16 games (9 regular-season and 7 tournament). BUT...that's only ONE more game than the State Champion plays now. That's because this proposal takes week 10 and turns it into the first round of the tourney. Even the first-round losers get to play a 10-game season...and if they get blown out...SO WHAT!!...at least they got to face a quality opponent and know what they need to build toward in order to become better. The bottom teams of the NWCC, TAAC, or many other conferences may never get to see what a GOOD program brings to the field...should they settle for mediocrity (at best) in every game they play? If I'm in a sport I want to be challenged. Your team may not be the best, and while it's no fun losing all the time, you have to RESPECT the teams that put in the work to become good. It does good every now and then to compete against the best, even if you do get embarrassed.

Edited by falconfan84, 06 March 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[falconfan84]

I do like the "distinction" of making the playoffs. I like how after the first few weeks we all start speculating who is going to make it in. It's all a great part of the football season.

What I don't like is how a close win against a poor team will award one team more points than a close loss against a good team will award another team. It is because of this that good teams stay at home on week 11 instead of playing. Also, we're talking about a physical game that involves 11 people per team on the field at once. It may take a few games before things come together as compared to having 5 guys working together on the BB court. I'm sure that there are many teams that could turn the tides against an early season loss because of the improvements made during the season.

Good competition makes you better. The current system steers some schools away from scheduling good competition so their road to the playoffs is a bit easier. If you are a part of a very good conference, you also have a lesser chance of the playoffs. It isn't fair to NOT allow teams the same chance at the end of the season. If you're gonna let the better teams advance, you can't let a quality loss disqualify them from the post-season. This system would ENCOURAGE playing a tougher schedule. Conferences could still elect to drop a game or two in order to face non-conference opponents.

I really didn't intend to get this involved on this topic, I just keep thinking that there are some facets of this that people may not consider. I'd LIKE to sit back and read instead of type so much on this topic...so I'll try to shut up for a while.

Edited by falconfan84, 06 March 2012 - 10:21 PM.

[cameroncrazie90]

If everyone made the playoffs you would just have a bunch of MAC schools at the top.

[falconfan84]

Nah..they'd beat each other by the end of districts...just like in other sports.

[cameroncrazie90]

Maybe. It'd just be a disaster. All you do in the regular season is play conference games? Disregard any rivalries you may have out of conference?
Nothing more interesting than the division 6 matchup between Delphos St Johns and (insert NWCC school here) or Marion Local vs Vanlue.

[redskin rowdy]

As long as the way we do it proves who the Champion is I don't care. However I believe the way we have it no is great. Matter of fact I believe I read an article a while back stating how Ohio has probably the best setup for it's high school playoffs.

If it's not broken, then why fix it?

[redskin rowdy]

Not only that, but I believe with the way it is now it makes it look like the playoffs truly mean something to people no matter how deep they go in it.

[falconfan84]

cameroncrazie90, on 06 March 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Maybe. It'd just be a disaster. All you do in the regular season is play conference games? Disregard any rivalries you may have out of conference?

falconfan84, on 06 March 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

This system would ENCOURAGE playing a tougher schedule. Conferences could still elect to drop a game or two in order to face non-conference opponents.

cameroncrazie90, on 06 March 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Nothing more interesting than the division 6 matchup between Delphos St Johns and (insert NWCC school here) or Marion Local vs Vanlue.

DSJ vs. NWCC might not happen until district, because of proximity of schools...the NWCC team would have to be fairly decent to get that far. There's more of a chance of an opening round matchup like that with the current system.

Vanlue vs. Marion Local probably wouldn't happen until regional or maybe state semi. I'd think Vanlue would "belong" if they advanced that far.

You have to have some logical thinking about putting together these scenarios, guys. Like I said, the CURRENT system actually gives better probabilities of these matchups occurring...e.g. a #8 Vanlue vs. #1 ML (if they happened to shift to this region).

Edited by falconfan84, 07 March 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[fiver]

The system has worked for a long time, and I think there's no need of changing it now. In football, only 32 teams per division are able to qualify for the tournament. Now, usually these aren't the "best 32" schools, but we'll never get the system the way we want it.

[HH75]

Well that didn't last long

[falconfan84]

HH75, on 07 March 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Well that didn't last long

oops

[dhsdawg06]

cameroncrazie90, on 06 March 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Maybe. It'd just be a disaster. All you do in the regular season is play conference games? Disregard any rivalries you may have out of conference?
Nothing more interesting than the division 6 matchup between Delphos St Johns and (insert NWCC school here) or Marion Local vs Vanlue.

The bolded part is the biggest reason I'd be against this. If Defiance was forced into a scenario where we played nothing but the 9 WBL schools and we lost the rivalry with Napoleon, then forget it.

[PHDigger]

Gotta say that I dislike every aspect of this idea, just because I love the setup we have now.

So with that being said, I would certainly hope there would still be a method of ranking the teams in the playoff and not just a media opinion pole. So that tells me it would still be based on computer points. Which means shortening the regular season to 9 would be an even bigger destruction of conferences then we are seeing now. Leagues will be made smaller to keep some non conference games because they are too important in maximizing your computer point potential. The other alternative is to let the media decide and then you will see everyone trying to pad their schedules and not care so much about quality of their opponent. Just blowout wins.

[falconfan84]

PHDigger, on 08 March 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Gotta say that I dislike every aspect of this idea, just because I love the setup we have now.

So with that being said, I would certainly hope there would still be a method of ranking the teams in the playoff and not just a media opinion pole. So that tells me it would still be based on computer points. Which means shortening the regular season to 9 would be an even bigger destruction of conferences then we are seeing now. Leagues will be made smaller to keep some non conference games because they are too important in maximizing your computer point potential. The other alternative is to let the media decide and then you will see everyone trying to pad their schedules and not care so much about quality of their opponent. Just blowout wins.

If the system stays the same, then there would be no reason to "shorten the season". The only reason you'd shorten the season would be to include everyone in a tournament, not a playoff. Besides, my idea still gives every school a 10 game season. The last game is just the first round or tournaments. Where is the season "shortened"?...plus 1/2 of the teams would be EXTENDING their season to 11 games with a sectional tournament. The current system has almost 3/4 of the teams guaranteed of only playing 10 games.

The Big Ten has played for YEARS in football where every school does not play every other school. They have actually ADDED teams. You could have a 10-team conference that played 7 league games (keeping your top rivals and possibly rotating some of the farther away teams off the schedule every year). This allows 2 weeks to pick up a non-conference rival and pick up a strong opponent (good competition prepares teams for the post-season...the current system encourages finding a win any way you can, even if it means looking for Canadian schools that count as D1 points...they don't have to be good). If your school already plays in a league split into divisions (like ours does), you ALREADY have teams in your conference that you don't play every year...it's not the end of the world.

Edited by falconfan84, 08 March 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[jeffcat-bucki]

The max I would ever want to see is 12 teams/region. I'm fine the way it is. Teams get screwed out of the playoffs, but in MOST scenarios, they still controlled their own destiny. I think only once or twice an undefeated team has not made the field of 8 in a region. I'm not a big fan of seeing losing record teams in the field...yea sure you could have had Ursuline play last year, but they are an outlier and most losing record schools are just that...pretty bad.

[PHDigger]

That is pretty much what I am saying. If the system stays the same (as it is now) then there is no reason to shorten the season. But if the 10th game of the season is the first round of the tournament or playoffs. Then the regular season is 9 games (shortened). If the teams are ranked in any fashion for the tournament or playoff, then it would have to be before the start of the tournament, which is 9 games. And I'm all about not having every league team play each other each year. But most leagues (and people) are not. Thus leagues will be forced to get smaller to open up non-conference games in order to attempt to get a higher seed. I follow the NWOAL and have wanted to see an arrangement where not all teams play each other for 10-15 years. But the fact is, the league don't want it.

Right now, the regular season is a 10 game, media opinion free, ranking period. If a team don't want to schedule tough enough opponents to have the chance to make the playoffs, then they probably won't. If a team schedules very tough opponents to have the potential to make the playoffs, but don't win the games, then they probably won't make the playoffs. Gotta play tough opponents and gotta win.

But I do totally agree about the Canadian thing. That is messed up.

[dhsdawg06]

All you get out of leagues where everyone doesn't play everyone is false champions.

Could you imagine the uproar in Kenton if there was a year that they finished 2nd in the WBL because the team they missed playing was Van Wert while Wapak wins the league by missing O-G? My God. There would be riots. Maybe I'm in the minority but the ONLY way to decide a TRUE league champ is for everyone to play everyone. If you're going to do it any other way, then IMO no more league title trophies should be handed out and you should just call yourself an association that's around simply for ease of scheduling.

Just my 2 cents. Obviously with all the recent love of the 2 division formats that I personally find to absolutely stupid I'm in the minority.......

Edited by dhsdawg06, 10 March 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[falconfan84]

dhsdawg06, on 10 March 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

All you get out of leagues where everyone doesn't play everyone is false champions.

Could you imagine the uproar in Kenton if there was a year that they finished 2nd in the WBL because the team they missed playing was Van Wert while Wapak wins the league by missing O-G? My God. There would be riots. Maybe I'm in the minority but the ONLY way to decide a TRUE league champ is for everyone to play everyone. If you're going to do it any other way, then IMO no more league title trophies should be handed out and you should just call yourself an association that's around simply for ease of scheduling.

Just my 2 cents. Obviously with all the recent love of the 2 division formats that I personally find to absolutely stupid I'm in the minority.......

I kind of agree with you. Having 2 divisions will make it easier to at least play everyone in your division to get a divisional champ...and I agree there is not a TRUE champ in a divisional set-up.

I do keep responding to a good number of these posts, but I see some good points being made also. As far as having a playoff goes, I think Ohio's system is pretty decent, but we all have to admit some good teams don't get in, while some questionable teams do. At least a sectional tourney with all teams would put football on the same footing as other sports where teams don't have to qualify.

I was considering putting this thread up as a poll, but I am realizing it is not a popular idea (at least with those who are responding). I also think that since all we ever had was a playoff, that is all we know. Some people are "old school" in many ways and don't like change. If we never had a playoff system and went into sectional play instead, I suppose we wouldn't know anything different than that, and probably wouldn't have problems with it. With football being a game where teams only play once a week, it obviously makes it difficult to do anything differently than the way we do it. That is the major factor when comparing football to other sports.