The Sunday Q&A with Bernard Childress: TSSAA may revise playoff system a

[davidlimbaugh]

This is one of the fairest systems in high school football. The state of West Virginia WVSSAC uses a simple power ranking that rewards teams that have to play up a class and teams that schedule strong teams.

 Here is their system in a nut shell  very easy.

1) For each win you have over a Class AAA team (5a & 6a) you get 12 points

2) For each win over a Class AA (3a &4a) team you get 9 points

3) For each win over a Class A (1a & 2a) team you get 6 points

4) 1 bonus point for each win of your defeated opponents

5) divide the point total by the # of games played 

 

The top 16 in power ranking make the playoffs each year. With #1 playing #16 , #2 playing 15 and so on. Higher seed hosts. This could easily be adapted for TN just split the state into  2 equal halves east and west and rank the teams in each half and the top 16 teams in the east and top 16 in the west make the playoffs. under this systems if you get wins over higher class and teams that have more wins your power ranking reflects it. 

 

I did the numbers this week in 4a and under a this system. 4A would be 1) Greeneville 2) Sullivan South 3)Fulton 4) Carter. instead of Fulton, Carter, Sullivan South, Greeneville

 

When they announced they were borrowing Virginia's 'Z' system I researched it and several other states' systems. 

 

West Virginia's allocating points based on the level of team you played is similar to the plan I suggested to the TSSAA when they implemented this, rewarding teams for playing up and playing teams with better records and punishing teams that played down in classification....

Edited November 3, 2013 by davidlimbaugh

[sportsguy22]

Here is the simple explanation to this annual discussion: many programs really like this system and many hate it...I'd say it's pretty close to an even split, based on the Board's votes and the polls conducted with coaches/administrators. And I understand both arguments.

#1 In high school football in this state, multiple-team tiebreakers have always used overall wins/non-district games, so David's argument does not fly with the way football is....there is only 10 games in football unlike other sports. ALL games are meaningful and should be that way. You should not have four or five "meaningless" games in a 10-game schedule...period. That is not football.

#2 I completely understand the argument for the 7-AAA teams and other big 6A schools as far as scheduling non-district games. It is not fair. I would suggest the TSSAA mandate all non-district games be within the division (i.e. 6A teams must play other 6A teams for all non-district games) for fairness purposes. If the TSSAA needs to come up with a mandated set non-district schedule every two years crossing over three or four districts, then that could work.

#3 It seems the rural teams really like this system for several reasons:

A) Most importantly, it brings back old-school rivalries that go way back and the gates/attendance have increased greatly because of that.

As previously mentioned, it gives more teams the opportunity to make the playoffs and keep excitement going for the program each year.

C) With the old, 5-class system, many rural teams are combined with big city teams and it screws up the rivalries, gates, and all-around excitement of each game....i.e. some of the 8-AAA teams have been paired with the Nashville metro schools in the past. Their game-night atmosphere is not good, nobody travels to support them, and the travel was much further. It was not a good fit. Whereas now all those metro schools are paired together and the 8-AAA schools have all their old rivalries back and the overall competitiveness of both districts is really good.

Just wanted to give the other side of this argument. I would not want to go back to the old system at all because it would take a lot away from a lot of teams.

[davidlimbaugh]

"Non district games have always counted in tie breakers. I do not see a problem with it."

 

" #1 In high school football in this state, multiple-team tiebreakers have always used overall wins/non-district games, so David's argument does not fly with the way football is....there is only 10 games in football unlike other sports. ALL games are meaningful and should be that way. You should not have four or five "meaningless" games in a 10-game schedule...period. That is not football."

 

Actually, before this new system, each district's own bylaws dictated tie-breakers for standings and the vast majority of districts DID NOT COUNT out-of-district games in tie-breaking process.   I know, I have sit in on the meetings. Helped write the bylaws over the years.   Most districts went with head-to-head, then some went to best record from top to bottom of standings. Some actually had coin-toss as a last resort. There were some other rather bizarre tie-breakers, and sometimes they came into play over the years...

 

In 7AAA, Non-District games never came into play when breaking a tie in the standings.

Edited November 4, 2013 by davidlimbaugh

[davidlimbaugh]

Non district games have always counted in tie breakers. I do not see a problem with it.

 

I asked several football coaches across the state, Not one of them can remember using non-district games in any tie-breaker scenario for district standings in the old system before the 'Z' plan.  They all agreed that their district by-laws only took district games into account.

[devils25]

When they announced they were borrowing Virginia's 'Z' system I researched it and several other states' systems. 

 

West Virginia's allocating points based on the level of team you played is similar to the plan I suggested to the TSSAA when they implemented this, rewarding teams for playing up and playing teams with better records and punishing teams that played down in classification....

The nice thing about the power ranking you always know where you stand in the rankings. I follow a team up in WV and if they win next Friday they are in the playoff's with a ranking of somewhere between 13-16 depending on their defeated opponents next Friday. They know if they win their game next Friday they are in. No guess work or surprises next Saturday morning. I just see this system as a fix for the current TSSAA system that has so many holes in it that is utterly ridiculous. The TSSAA system allows for the following scenario to be possible. If Greeneville at 13-0 advances to the semi-final round and Signal Mtn at 10-3 advances to the semi-final round. Greeneville the quad 1 #2 seed would have to travel to Signal Mtn the quad 2 #1 seed. Even though Greeneville would be undefeated and already beat a Signal Mnt team with 3 losses by 27 pts in week 9. That is how messed up this system is and under a power ranking system this would never happen.  An undefeated team should never have to go on the road and play a team that they beat head to head and a team that has 3 losses but it happens every year in this z system.

[davidlimbaugh]

The nice thing about the power ranking you always know where you stand in the rankings. I follow a team up in WV and if they win next Friday they are in the playoff's with a ranking of somewhere between 13-16 depending on their defeated opponents next Friday. They know if they win their game next Friday they are in. No guess work or surprises next Saturday morning. I just see this system as a fix for the current TSSAA system that has so many holes in it that is utterly ridiculous. The TSSAA system allows for the following scenario to be possible. If Greeneville at 13-0 advances to the semi-final round and Signal Mtn at 10-3 advances to the semi-final round. Greeneville the quad 1 #2 seed would have to travel to Signal Mtn the quad 2 #1 seed. Even though Greeneville would be undefeated and already beat a Signal Mnt team with 3 losses by 27 pts in week 9. That is how messed up this system is and under a power ranking system this would never happen.  An undefeated team should never have to go on the road and play a team that they beat head to head and a team that has 3 losses but it happens every year in this z system.

 

 

My proposal to TSSAA in 2009 was a point system based on winning games, the classification of each opponent you played, and their won-lost record. I proposed identifying the top 32 teams in the state, and then choose the 16 in the east and 16 in the west and seed them by the numbers, higher seed always at home. Reward for winning and difficulty of schedule.  It drew some interest from a couple of the board members but the majority of them felt then and feel now that the won-loss record is all that matters, regardless of who you play or why.   As you can see by the interview with Mr. Childress, some people in TSSAA are coming around to the fact the current system is broken.  Some of us here on coacht warned them when they were discussing going to it and as we pointed out the errors they kept tweaking it but no tweak is a good enough fix for the plan in its current state.

[GWAVE1]

I asked several football coaches across the state, Not one of them can remember using non-district games in any tie-breaker scenario for district standings in the old system before the 'Z' plan. They all agreed that their district by-laws only took district games into account.

I remember Loudon, Livingston Aca and Lenior City all tied one year and they had to go to the 8 or 9th tie breaker to decide the district champion. That included overall record.

 

If Gallatin, Hendersonville and Beech all beat each other once and ended up lets say 6-1 in the district. The next way to crown a champion would be overall record. It has happened time after time.

[davidlimbaugh]

I remember Loudon, Livingston Aca and Lenior City all tied one year and they had to go to the 8 or 9th tie breaker to decide the district champion. That included overall record.

 

If Gallatin, Hendersonville and Beech all beat each other once and ended up lets say 6-1 in the district. The next way to crown a champion would be overall record. It has happened time after time.

As I stated earlier,each district made their own bylaws.Of the 22 coaches across the state I contacted, not a single one could ever remember non-district games counting in any tie breaker scenario in their district bylaws. And I spoke to coaches from Memphis to Chattanooga...

[GWAVE1]

As I stated earlier,each district made their own bylaws.Of the 22 coaches across the state I contacted, not a single one could ever remember non-district games counting in any tie breaker scenario in their district bylaws. And I spoke to coaches from Memphis to Chattanooga...

If three or more teams end up in a tie during the regular season, it always went to overall record then back to head to head if someone's record was better than the others. That is the only way I ever remember it. Overall record has been a part of the process since the late 70's which is when I started keeping up with it. I do not disagree with things need to change but I cannot recall any three way or more tie that overall record was not used.

[davidlimbaugh]

If three or more teams end up in a tie during the regular season, it always went to overall record then back to head to head if someone's record was better than the others. That is the only way I ever remember it. Overall record has been a part of the process since the late 70's which is when I started keeping up with it. I do not disagree with things need to change but I cannot recall any three way or more tie that overall record was not used.

may have been how 9AAA did it but I can not find anywhere else it was done that way. We had a long tiebreaker method that ended with coin tosses.

Edited November 7, 2013 by davidlimbaugh