STATE PLAYOFFS - FAIR OR UNFAIR

[Jet Pride]

I wish everyone would quit complaining. The board of control is not going change anything, we have 6 classes for 4 more years and everyone going have except it. The reason they kept the 6 classes is because the school administrators want the current system because there making bigger gate money in the regular season in this system because to the closer rivialry's

[Hoganknows]

Mr. Jet Pride I think you better look a lot closer to why those 5 school administrators voted for the 6 class system. Don't think gate money had anything to do with it.

[coachfoozeball]

based on your description, there is nothing that seems unfair about it the current system Each team knows the teams in their district they must defeat prior to qualifying automatically for the postseason. It is absolutely impossible to construct each district the same from the number of teams, number of teams in the same postseason class, or the same talent level. Therefore, each team has the same opportunity knowing ahead of time the challenges that lie before them. Coaches can also choose how they schedule their non-district games to better allow them an opportunity of qualifying for the postseason. Now, is the system perfect? I answer that with a definate no. Does the system allow more student athletes and schools to experience the postseason...to this I answer absolutely! Is the system fair based on the issues you described?...to that I would also answer yes!

 

Easy for you to say when you only have to find 2 non-district games. Try finding 5 and 6 games when everyone is "choosing how they schedule their non-district games to better allow them an opportunity of qualifying for the postseason."

[coachfoozeball]

No. I'm saying if you and another team in ur district end up with the same overall and district record and you beat them head to head and finish higher then them in the district because of your head to head win but neither finishes 1st or 2nd.

 

I don't see how this happens but the team that got beat is seeded higher.

 

Ill use for example Hillsboro and centennial. Both have same overall record 6-4 and district record 2-3.. Hillsboro beat centennial head to head Yet centennial is a 3 seed and Hillsboro is a 5 because of a better resume. My argument is if you can use head to head then that should be used.. Not numbers that can be manipulated.

 

I think Cleveland and walker valley had the same overall record and played head to head as well and Cleveland won. But walker is in and Cleveland is out.

 

First off, I agree with you that Head to Head should matter. But I looked at the numbers and you guys were the 8th highest 6 win team and Centennial was the highest rated 6 win team, so if we say Hillsboro is ahead of Centennial then you are now ahead of the six other 6 win teams. I am with you the whole system is bad and rewards people playing bad teams out of district. To me the Cleveland Walker Valley deal is way worse than yours. I mean Cleveland is not in Wallker Valley is and they have the same record and Cleveland beat them. Just a totally messed up system. Go back to the old way and atleast we all know who is in and who is out and then it does not matter about non-district games except for tie-breakers.

[milo118]

The old system didn't eliminate teams with losing records from the playoffs. Matter of fact in 2007 under the old system we had double the teams with losing records get into the playoffs than this year.

 

In 2007 ( the next to last year of the old sysytem) we had five classifications of football excluding the D2 classifications. That year overall we had 16 teams with a losing record, with some of them being as low as a record 0f 1-9, make the playoffs. We had eight teams this year with one more classification (6A). So your next arguement may be that most of those teams in 2007 were in the lower classifications. You would be correct. 12 of the 16 lossing records came from 3A or lower in 2007. But not this year. Only 4 of 8 losing records came from 3A or lower with the other half coming from 4A and 5A. (When I use the term LOWER I mean number only not talent). On the flip side of that coin in 2007 we had 18 teams with a 5-5 reord make the playoffs as oppossed to 36 teams this year. I don't agree with losing records hosting in any round and getting a bye regardless of being district champs. The team with less wins should travel. So what is the solution? Good question. It seems that there is discrepancies with each system.

 

So what does this prove other than that I have way too much time on my hands. Sorry my team didn't make the playoffs. I would have to say this year you had to win more games overall to make the playoffs than in years past. Isn't that what we are after? Its not perfect but it is what we have in place. I say use a hybrid of the two systems where we keep the top two in the district with automatic bids. Everyone after that gets in under the current tie-breaker system. Then seed everyone accordingly using the same tiebreaker system and location to set the brackets regardless of their finish in thier district. This way no one gets rewarded for sub-par play, district records mean something, and strenght of schedule comes into play. But there is still a hole in the plan. Under this idea the teams with mixed districts get penalized because they are forced to play temas in their district in lower classifications. For this I have no answer other than no system that is used will be perfect.

Edited October 30, 2012 by milo118

[QBClubPrez]

For the record, the team I follow has a 8-2 overall record and a 7-1 district record. We actually finished the season in a 3-way tie for 1st place in the district. Nonetheless, we will be traveling this Friday as a #5 seed to play a team that is 6-4 (win one of these wins coming by way of forfeit). Our community is excited about this opportunity and many look forward to visiting this historic venue which to my knowledge, we've never played in before.

 

In the postseason, when trying to admit teams in or leave teams out of playoff brackets...I have a hard time feeling sympathetic to those who do not handle the "on the field business" in the 11 weeks prior. Yes, injuries occur, teams can not play to their potential on occasion...but all in all, the majority of the teams playing this week are among the very best in their classification. The only exception to this is White Station in 6A who I believe to be among the top 15 teams in 6A.....if their team could behave properly and their coach/AD had a better understanding of the rules, they would be hosting a game this weekend....however, they will be watching other teams around the city instead...

[Indian]

First off, I agree with you that Head to Head should matter. But I looked at the numbers and you guys were the 8th highest 6 win team and Centennial was the highest rated 6 win team, so if we say Hillsboro is ahead of Centennial then you are now ahead of the six other 6 win teams. I am with you the whole system is bad and rewards people playing bad teams out of district. To me the Cleveland Walker Valley deal is way worse than yours. I mean Cleveland is not in Wallker Valley is and they have the same record and Cleveland beat them. Just a totally messed up system. Go back to the old way and atleast we all know who is in and who is out and then it does not matter about non-district games except for tie-breakers.

 

Would you be willing to have six-hour round trip region games, on occasion, with a return to the five-class system.

 

Cleveland "didn't take care of business" vs Rhea County or they would have been in there. Walker Valley is in because when compared to other teams in the 5A group, their accomplisments were calculated to be better than Cleveland's. It's not just what happened when they played. A great system, no, but if you start going by order of district finish there will be holes in the format elsewhere.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Indian

[kwc]

There is no perfect system. Regardless of the format there will always be discrepancies. The discrepancies will only have attention brought to them when some team is affected by it. I didn't want to change from the old system to the new system because with the old system there wasn't anything involved that included someones interpretation of data. Strength of schedule is just that. Someone's interpretation of data. A good win to me may not be a good win to you. Who decides on the criteria for what constitutes a 'good win' ? I feel the same way about total wins. A team may have dined on cream puffs throughout their non-district schedule in order to pad their win column. Those cream puffs may not necessarily be below five hundred at the end of the season, therefore giving the illusion of having played "quality opponents" when in actuality, they were marginal at best. The old system allowed more 1-9 and 2-8 teams into the playoffs. The current system doesn't. It is an improvement in that respect. The current system also tries to encourage closer regional play among community schools. The older system had more travel costs. Travel costs for school A may not be an issue ... but for school B, it kills the budget and puts them in the red. Then there is the whole urban density verses the rural sparseness issue. Across the state it just throws monkey wrenches in the machine. As a result, there are pockets of cruelly intense competitiveness verses areas where a few strong schools dominate the district/region because they are surrounded by weaker, smaller, inferior competition. What do you do? Make the schools travel to play against comparative schools or regionalize the pool of play and have bigger stronger schools dominate in the rural areas? Well ... that's what the current system tries to address in system. It's not perfect and probably never will be. It does however, try it's best to eliminate personal subjective decisions as being a part of the selection process, as well as, allow deserving teams into the play-offs. There are issues that probably need to be addressed, and that's why you amend things. You live, you learn, you adapt.

[milo118]

Well said KWC

[QBClubPrez]

Easy for you to say when you only have to find 2 non-district games. Try finding 5 and 6 games when everyone is "choosing how they schedule their non-district games to better allow them an opportunity of qualifying for the postseason."

Foozeball....I can guarantee you that it is just as difficult for my team to schedule 2 non-districts as it is for your team to schedule their non-districts....we've fought this battle much longer than any other given our geographic location......while I respect your team and its rich history, the Conquistidors are not the "only" team left that would play your Bulldogs......you can't make us redneck fish eaters believe that....

[QBClubPrez]

There is no perfect system. Regardless of the format there will always be discrepancies. The discrepancies will only have attention brought to them when some team is affected by it. I didn't want to change from the old system to the new system because with the old system there wasn't anything involved that included someones interpretation of data. Strength of schedule is just that. Someone's interpretation of data. A good win to me may not be a good win to you. Who decides on the criteria for what constitutes a 'good win' ? I feel the same way about total wins. A team may have dined on cream puffs throughout their non-district schedule in order to pad their win column. Those cream puffs may not necessarily be below five hundred at the end of the season, therefore giving the illusion of having played "quality opponents" when in actuality, they were marginal at best. The old system allowed more 1-9 and 2-8 teams into the playoffs. The current system doesn't. It is an improvement in that respect. The current system also tries to encourage closer regional play among community schools. The older system had more travel costs. Travel costs for school A may not be an issue ... but for school B, it kills the budget and puts them in the red. Then there is the whole urban density verses the rural sparseness issue. Across the state it just throws monkey wrenches in the machine. As a result, there are pockets of cruelly intense competitiveness verses areas where a few strong schools dominate the district/region because they are surrounded by weaker, smaller, inferior competition. What do you do? Make the schools travel to play against comparative schools or regionalize the pool of play and have bigger stronger schools dominate in the rural areas? Well ... that's what the current system tries to address in system. It's not perfect and probably never will be. It does however, try it's best to eliminate personal subjective decisions as being a part of the selection process, as well as, allow deserving teams into the play-offs. There are issues that probably need to be addressed, and that's why you amend things. You live, you learn, you adapt.

I love reading posts from KWC....very wise poster!!

[kwc]

Well said KWC

 

Thanks Milo.