IHSA playoff seeding process.....
- Thread starter AwGabJazz
- Start date
a lot of comments here https://www.on3.com/boards/threads/...d-ihsa-state-football-playoff-system.9048260/
Thanks for sharing, I was on that thread, I was more asking for people's thoguhts on how they actually seed the teams, not necessarily on the new playoff format. I personally think just seeding teams based on win-loss record is flawed and you end up with a lot of the top/best teams in the same quadrant with each other and not always seeing the very best 4 teams by the time we get to the semi-finals.
There is when seeding your 9-0 group, 8-1, 7-2 and so on and so forth. Opponents wins is the second criteria.
QoW is a factor in the sense that beating a 8-1 team is better than beating a 7-2 team.
But purely a win/loss record is arbitrary in QoW.
Can it be a data point, sure, but you can't say a QoW of a 7-1 ESL vs. another 7-1 is relatively "equal" in the sense of seeding.
I agree with you as I have said multiple times I think its a bad way to give out playoff seeds. But, in the IHSA system, thats how they determine "quality".
I agree with what everyone is saying. You will have average teams such as Downers South in 8A that will end the year at 7-2, they will get a BYE when teams like Barrington or Lockport that will both end the year at 5-4 and have to play a first round game and most likely have a tougher draw. Barrington and Lockport would easily beat Downers South, but due to a challenging schedule and ending the year at 5-4 they will be seeded much lower.
You think Barrington and Lockport are the examples you want to use for this?
It was for the purpose of an example of other 8A teams with worse records, do you not think that both Barrignton and Lockport with their 4-4 current records soundly beat Downers South with thier 6-2 record? My point, is that there will be inferior teams that will have a BYE and easier draws simply due to playing much easier competition and having a better win/loss record
I haven't seen my Mustangs this year. Only Barrington game I saw was Hersey and the Broncos took a tremendous beating. Looking at the teams they beat 6-2 Conant struggled with Bartlett. After I saw that I figured I didnt even need to look further. I haven't seen any Lockport games this season, but I saw the score against NC. I just dont know that Barrington or Lockport really have an argument that doesnt look ridiculous.
I mean sure you may be right, but thats one Id have to see play out before I was confident in it.
DGS's Jr QB is out for the year, so ya, they would not beat Lockport for sure and most likely would lose to Barrington but I digress that isn't the point of this discussion.
Quality of win is also hard when there is such a large amount of teams and varying of enrollment or levels. Defeating a 6-2 TFN is not the same as defeating a 3-5 Depaul Prep.
In a matchup of the former Raiders as head coaches. I dont disagree that I would favor Lockport and Barrington in those games, but I find the argument that it shouldnt be that average 7-2 team who gets the bye it should be the average 5-4 team somewhat silly.
mc140 is right on it. A system weighted more toward strength of schedule would be good for the fans because it encourages scheduling tougher non-conference games (in theory), but it puts schools in closed conferences at a disadvantage on the average.
At some point, moving toward strength of schedule will add subjectivity into a process which currently has none. Which is fine if that's the way the schools (not the IHSA) want to go, but it will add a significant amount of time required by somebodies to do it correctly.
The most subjective process we have right now is the media poll and we have several threads already here about how people feel about that.
At some point, moving toward strength of schedule will add subjectivity into a process which currently has none. Which is fine if that's the way the schools (not the IHSA) want to go, but it will add a significant amount of time required by somebodies to do it correctly.
The most subjective process we have right now is the media poll and we have several threads already here about how people feel about that.
I get it, I am saying right now with DGS QB out they don't win either of those games and it probably isn't very close. Like I said in my other post, not really the point of the discussion.
Pretty high. If MC loses friday they will likely be playing in the opening round.
Just lock Soucie, View from the West, and Edgy in a room, and a few of the guys who made their own power rankings in a room and they can seed the teams. Far better than what we got right now.
Being that none of those guys complain about the current seeding I really don't think they want more work.
Also, with games being played on Saturday, you're asking them to seed 8 classes in only a few hours.
CCL schools routinely have the highest playoff points but somehow the system in flawed. Playoff points equal strength of schedule.
Montini is currently a #9 seed, thus they will be playing an Opening Round game. If the Broncos can figure out how to play defense, they are in the running for a 4A repeat
I agree with your sentiment. The 4A North bracket is full of CPS schools which will be light work for their opponents who won opening round games. Montini pretty much has path to the quarterfinals in which they could play their JV and advance.
Top 16 seeds do not play an Opening Round game. 17-48 play opening round games
Right, but 1A-6A are split north/south so seeds 1-8 in the north and 1-8 in the south are the 16 teams receiving byes. If Montini ends up seeded #9 in the north they will be playing an opening round game.
I have no issues with the current seeding system. My only fixes to the existing system would be to seed all classes 1-32, in round 1 the higher seed gets to choose if they want to be at home or on the road, and success factor would apply to all.
Those are two different things. Playoff points is just raw math of adding 1 or 0.
The flaw is the penalty is the same whether you lose to LA or Stagg.
Exactly as I stated. Attached is the IHSA Outlook. You will find Montini is listed as #20 seed as it stands today. When the brackets are geographically separated for classes 1-6, they are a #9 seed. Football Outlook - IHSA
I also attached the bracket in which they would be placed if things kicked off today.
Attachments
-
4A_North.png
Not true. LA gives you 8 playoff points, Stagg gives you 2. Your seed will be higher losing to LA versus losing to Stagg
There are tradeoffs in life and different people value the tradeoffs differently. You and many others want to seed the teams based on their ability to play excellent football. Such an approach requires a significant strength of schedule component when evaluating each team's season. It seems instinctively fair to reward teams for having excellent seasons (against difficult opponents) and would move some of the best playoff matchups towards the end of the playoffs (semifinal and championship games).
However, that is not a priority for the majority of IHSA members. They want to allow as many athletes, students, coaches and fans to experience the playoffs as possible. That is one of the reasons they expanded the playoffs to 48-team brackets. That is why they rotate which schools will host the playoff games largely irrespective of seeds. That is one reason why they use northern and southern brackets in classes 1A through 6A (so fans do not have to drive the entire length of the state to attend a playoff game). And, that is why they use a relatively insignificant strength of schedule component in their seeding process. They reward a team for having a highly successful season against its immediate peers (conference members) such as Machesney Park Harlem this year, rather than rewarding a team such as Nazareth for having an average season this year against its immediate peers.
Both approaches have some degree of merit. Nevertheless, unless the preferences of the majority of IHSA member schools change, the method of seeding the teams will not likely change.
My point wasnt very clear in the example I gave. Which is not all 9-0, or 8-1 or 4-5 records are equal. And just because we both play, or lose to, an 8-1 team, its not the same.
That is why they then use opponent's wins to rank the 9-0 group, 8-1 group, etc....
Last edited:
You are correct, it is not the same. Playoff points (which is opponents wins) separate different teams.
strength of schedule is used in the current system by way of playoff points. A 6-2 CCL team may have 50 playoff points while a 6-2 team from another conference may have 37 points. Based on playoff points, the CCL team will be ranked higher thus including strength of schedule.
LA has 46 points, LWE has 43 points and Huntley have 32 points (Closed Conference). Based on strength of schedule using playoff points, LA is 1, LWE is 2 and Huntley is 3. System works perfectly.
What you are suggesting is that we value MC more and rank them at 6-2 over Huntley because we feel like MC losses are more superior to Huntley being undefeated. There is no factual way to back that up using numbers unless we ignore w/l records.
The only system that is flawed with IHSA is North and South brackets. Everything else is sound and fact based.
Last edited:
Latest
-
01
Edgy Tim Football
Preview: Week 9 Top Games to Watch
-
02
Edgy Tim Football
Podcast: 3rd and Leng with Shawn Skinner
-
03
Edgy Tim Football
Watch Live Tonight: WJOL Pigskin Preview
-
04
Blue and Gold Football Recruiting
Notre Dame impressed Rivals300 four-star OT Kajus Muralis. Is it enough to stay No. 1?
-
05
Edgy Tim Football
Breakdown: York Dukes