New Class 2A football format could change prep landscapes

[Antwan]

I could see how a wildcard from reg 2 could and should easily be rated above a #2 seed out of reg. 1!

 

Check into how many games region 1 has won in the last few years in the play-offs over reg. 2, and you will see what I mean.

 

 

I don't think that could happen. All the #1s are seeded 1st...then #2s...and so on. Therefore...if I am reading it right...the wildcard can't be seeded above

anybody else except another wildcard.

[ksgovols]

Right. All the #1's are seeded, then all the #2's and so on. The region to region matchup in round 1 could change slightly, though it'll still be geographically based, so teams will likely play someone from their region or the next region over. The best #4's will go instead of all of the #4's. Most regions have 6 or 7 teams. One has 8 and 2 have 5. It would seem the #4's out of the 5 team regions are at a disadvantage in the new format whereas before all they had to do was not finish in last place in their region. That's about the only way some of the 2-8 and 1-9 teams could make it into the playoffs.

[Swildcat1967]

I don't think that could happen. All the #1s are seeded 1st...then #2s...and so on. Therefore...if I am reading it right...the wildcard can't be seeded above

anybody else except another wildcard.

 

 

If that is the case, then I don't like that part of the change at all! Their is in most years noway that a #3 in region 1 should be rated above a 4 or 5 in reg. 2 Check-out the head to head record in the play-offs of reg 1 vs reg 2 and you will see what I mean!

[ksgovols]

But truly, how much of a reward do you want to give someone for finishing 4th in their region? Let's face it, we're doing it to avoid byes and to make money. Has there ever been a 3 or 4 seed win state? 16 teams would accomplish the same thing as 32 and the top 2 from each region would go and we'd knock out a week of games. Making playoffs is the reward. The playing field is far from level between private schools and open zoned publics, so this is the best of all worlds. Every type of school is rewarded by making it to the playoffs. Winning the tournament is another story.

[Antwan]

But truly, how much of a reward do you want to give someone for finishing 4th in their region? Let's face it, we're doing it to avoid byes and to make money. Has there ever been a 3 or 4 seed win state? 16 teams would accomplish the same thing as 32 and the top 2 from each region would go and we'd knock out a week of games. Making playoffs is the reward. The playing field is far from level between private schools and open zoned publics, so this is the best of all worlds. Every type of school is rewarded by making it to the playoffs. Winning the tournament is another story.

 

 

Livingston Academy won 3a two years ago as a #4 seed. Goodpasture won in 1999 as a #3 seed. I think Pearl-Cohn was a 3 or 4 seed when they won. It is rare...

but it has been done. I don't think a wildcard should be seeded any higher than any 1-3 team. I think they got that part right. You should be rewarded for the regular season.

This format will likely reward good teams in tough or larger regions. It will knock out weak teams in small regions. I like that too.

[Bighurt]

I looked at the guidelines Antwan posted again and it may clear up some of my questions. The guidelines say "Once the #1 seeds are placed in the bracket, then the same procedure will be done for #2, #3 and wild card."

 

This tells me that they will seed the region #1's within a quadrant (bracket) first. So with the 9 region #1's, 4 will be seeded #1, 4 seeded #2 and one seeded #3 (in whichever quadrant has 3 #1 seeds). Then, they seed the #2's which I assume means that no region #2 will be higher than a #3 seed. So, region #2's will be seeded no higher than #3 and no lower than #5 unless a quadrant has 3 #1's and 3 #2's. Then, region #3's will be seeded no higher than #5 and no lower #7. One wildcard would be a #7 seed and the other 4 would be #8 seeds.

 

Does that make sense at least in theory?

[Antwan]

I looked at the guidelines Antwan posted again and it may clear up some of my questions. The guidelines say "Once the #1 seeds are placed in the bracket, then the same procedure will be done for #2, #3 and wild card."

 

This tells me that they will seed the region #1's within a quadrant (bracket) first. So with the 9 region #1's, 4 will be seeded #1, 4 seeded #2 and one seeded #3 (in whichever quadrant has 3 #1 seeds). Then, they seed the #2's which I assume means that no region #2 will be higher than a #3 seed. So, region #2's will be seeded no higher than #3 and no lower than #5 unless a quadrant has 3 #1's and 3 #2's. Then, region #3's will be seeded no higher than #5 and no lower #7. One wildcard would be a #7 seed and the other 4 would be #8 seeds.

 

Does that make sense at least in theory?

 

 

Thanks BH...that would be correct unless one quadrant gets overloaded with 1s or 2s. I don't see that happening. I think you are correct that there will be 3 #1s in one quadrant and 2 #1s in the other 3 quadrants (in theory as you said). The one thing that stands out is the no attention will be paid to region status when the quadrants are drawn. I haven't looked close enough to see where all of the teams are.

[Indian]

I tried it again, based on regular season finishes from last fall. Again, there's 8 wild cards in this model, but it's the same concept as how they'll get 5, evidently. Going by what was said on here, I ranked the region winners based on final record or without looking it up, the likely higher power rating if final record was same, then runner-ups and #3s and kept Regions 1-4 in Quadrants 1-2. Same for Quadrants 3-4. Each half was numbered to 16, but it's the same as evening out the quads 1-8, just making it easier to do the geography aspect. Before dividing the teams for playoffs, the halves looked like this:

 

Quadrant 1-2

1-Gatlinburg-Pittman (Gatlinburg) 6-0, 10-0 (1)

1-Alcoa 6-0, 8-2 (2)

1-Westmoreland (Westmoreland) 5-0, 8-2 (3)

1-Boyd-Buchanan (Chattanooga) 3-1, 3-7 (4)

2-Loudon 5-1, 8-2 (5)

2-Smith County (Carthage) 4-1, 8-2 (6)

2-Tyner (Chattanooga) 3-1, 6-4 (7)

2-South Greene (Greeneville) 5-1, 6-4 (8)

3-CAK (Knoxville) 4-2, 7-3 (9)

3-York Institute (Jamestown) 3-2, 7-3 (10)

3-Bledsoe County (Pikeville) 2-2, 5-5 (11)

3--Happy Valley (Elizabethton) 4-2, 4-6 (12)

WC-Sweetwater 3-3, 7-3 (13)

WC-Rockwood 2-4, 5-5 (14)

WC-Upperman (Baxter) 2-3, 5-5 (15)

WC-Ezell-Harding (Antioch) 3-4, 4-6 (16)

 

Quadrant 3 -4

1-Goodpasture (Madison) 7-0, 10-0 (1)

1-Booker T. Washington (Memphis) 6-0, 9-1 (2)

1-Camden 8-0, 9-1 (3)

1-Humboldt 6-1, 8-2 (4)

2-Lewis County (Hohenwald) 7-1, 9-1 (5)

2-CPA (Nashville) 6-1, 8-2 (6)

2-Milan 5-2, 5-5 (7)

2-George Carver (Memphis) 5-1, 5-5 (8)

3-Fairview 5-2, 8-2 (9)

3-Peabody (Trenton) 4-3, 7-3 (10)

3-Waverly 6-2, 7-3 (11)

3-Westwood 3-3, 3-7 (12)

WC-Westview (Martin) 4-3, 7-3 (13)

WC-DCA (Nashville) 4-3, 6-4 (14)

WC-Huntingdon 4-3, 5-5 (15)

WC-Adamsville 4-4. 4-6 (16)

 

Then I started with Gatlinburg-Pittman, the overall #1 in Quadrants 1-2, placed them against #16 Ezell-Harding in the first round, as so on.

 

Quadrant 1:

Gatlinburg-Pittman (Gatlinburg) 6-0, 10-0 (1)

vs.

Ezell-Harding (Antioch) 3-4, 4-6 (16)

 

South Greene (Greeneville) 5-1, 6-4 (8)

vs.

CAK (Knoxville) 4-2, 7-3 (9)

 

Loudon 5-1, 8-2 (5)

vs

Happy Valley (Elizabethton) 4-2, 4-6 (12)

 

Boyd-Buchanan (Chattanooga) 3-1, 3-7 (4)

vs.

WC-Sweetwater 3-3, 7-3 (13)

 

Quadrant 2:

Alcoa 6-0, 8-2 (2)

vs.

WC-Upperman (Baxter) 2-3, 5-5 (15)

 

Tyner (Chattanooga) 3-1, 6-4 (7)

vs

York Institute (Jamestown) 3-2, 7-3 (10)

 

Westmoreland (Westmoreland) 5-0, 8-2 (3)

vs

Rockwood 2-4, 5-5 (14)

 

Smith County (Carthage) 4-1, 8-2 (6)

vs

Bledsoe County (Pikeville) 2-2, 5-5 (11)

 

Quadrant 3

Goodpasture (Madison) 7-0, 10-0 (1)

vs

Adamsville 4-4. 4-6 (16)

 

George Carver (Memphis) 5-1, 5-5 (8)

vs

Fairview 5-2, 8-2 (9)

 

Lewis County (Hohenwald) 7-1, 9-1 (5)

vs

Westwood 3-3, 3-7 (12)

 

Humboldt 6-1, 8-2 (4)

vs

Westview (Martin) 4-3, 7-3 (13)

 

Quadrant 4

Booker T. Washington (Memphis) 6-0, 9-1 (2)

vs

Huntingdon 4-3, 5-5 (15)

 

Milan 5-2, 5-5 (7)

vs

Peabody (Trenton) 4-3, 7-3 (10)

 

Camden 8-0, 9-1 (3)

vs

DCA (Nashville) 4-3, 6-4 (14)

 

CPA (Nashville) 6-1, 8-2 (6)

vs

Waverly 6-2, 7-3 (11)

 

The big problem I saw with going with champs, runners-up, 3's then wildcards in that order was a lower team could have a potentially easier game than a higher team would. Of course that happened in the previous system but I thought this was in place, in part, to try and stop that. An example from last year's regular season numbers, Westwood is at 3-7 and is the last #3, just before the wild cards, and my #5 in the west, #3 in Quad 3, Lewis County hosts (projected). All four teams in the west above Lewis County have a tougher first round opponent. (This isn't picking on Lewis County, it would have been CPA, Milan or whoever, would be lucky enough to play the very final #3, whether it's Westwood or someone else.

[Bighurt]

Thanks BH...that would be correct unless one quadrant gets overloaded with 1s or 2s. I don't see that happening. I think you are correct that there will be 3 #1s in one quadrant and 2 #1s in the other 3 quadrants (in theory as you said). The one thing that stands out is the no attention will be paid to region status when the quadrants are drawn. I haven't looked close enough to see where all of the teams are.

 

I don't see one quadrant being overloaded with 1's amd 2's either.

 

The caveat - "Once the 32 teams have been selected for the playoffs, the 32 schools will be geographically grouped into four eight-team quadrants. This grouping will be done without regard to region alignments." - could make for things interesting. Given the TSSAA's past of drawing up gerrymandered regions, we will have to wait and see their interpretation of "geographically grouped".

[FBGIRL]

Am I the only person concerned with the POWER the TSSAA now has over 2A playoffs?

Do you think the other classes want this type of procedure, I think not.

[Antwan]

I don't see one quadrant being overloaded with 1's amd 2's either.

 

The caveat - "Once the 32 teams have been selected for the playoffs, the 32 schools will be geographically grouped into four eight-team quadrants. This grouping will be done without regard to region alignments." - could make for things interesting. Given the TSSAA's past of drawing up gerrymandered regions, we will have to wait and see their interpretation of "geographically grouped".

 

 

Agreed...that's the biggest question for me in this thing. There are many possibilities.

[ksgovols]

Am I the only person concerned with the POWER the TSSAA now has over 2A playoffs?

Do you think the other classes want this type of procedure, I think not.

 

 

It's no different than the power they have over drawing up regions.

 

Personally I like having the 4th team in a 5 team region having to answer to someone. In reality, 4-4th place teams will be on the outside looking in. #1 through #3 are the same as before. They just don't have pre-ordained pairings, which I also like. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they did it in all sports. At least swap up the region matchups from time to time. Travel considerations at playoff time isn't that big a deal. As far as seeding goes, it's all subjective anyway, whether the TSSAA does it or someone else does it. Seedings are just starting places.

 

I like it. I predict 1A will do it next and then 3A. Hopefully there won't be a proliferation of 4A and 5A schools to the point that more than 8 regions are ever needed in those classifications.