Playoff Format Link
- Thread starter DinwiddieProud
- Start date
It would at least have to rotate on a yearly basis I would think. That's how the regional format used to work. I think it should go by points myself.
Is everyone seeing this?
A host B, and C host D for the semi-finals. Totally irrespective of the power points.
I don't know how you folks feel about it, but I don't like it. Every other matchup is based on power points. Why did the Executive Commitee decree that for only this game, power points were not important?
A host B, and C host D for the semi-finals. Totally irrespective of the power points.
I don't know how you folks feel about it, but I don't like it. Every other matchup is based on power points. Why did the Executive Commitee decree that for only this game, power points were not important?
I dont like it. Teams are being punished for just being in a certain region. Not fair if a 5 seed makes it and a lower seed has to travel. Not sure why they make it complicated.. if 2 one seeds make it, just go back to the original power points.
I'm seeing it. I just didn't want to ***** about it, because I feel like I ***** about everything. And, what good does it do? But, since you asked, I'll go ahead and ***** anyway.
No, I don't like that set up at all, either. I never did like the rotating between regions of hosting semi final games. They put so much stock in their point system, they should just stick with that. I also don't like that this apparently means it's always going to be A versus B, and C versus D. With a return to four regions in each classification, we had a chance to have our cake and eat it too. That is, we could have had regional champions and cross bracketing in the semi finals. So much for all of that, but I guess that is a separate issue, and a different thread.
And speaking of the point system, that whole thing needs a drastic overhaul, in my opinion. I most definitely do not like the fact that teams receive two bonus points per classification difference in non-district games. Or district games, for that matter. We now have situations, with the mixed districts, where a team like Class 4 Carroll County, that plays almost all Class 2 teams, could finish 6-4 and outpoint someone like Byrd or Jefferson Forest, who plays all Class 4's and 3's, but might finish 5-5. Due to the fact that all of Carroll's Class 2 opponents, district and non-district, give the same amount of points as they would if those schools were Class 4's. That could be the last playoff berth at stake. For the record, I think Carroll will win two or three games, but the above was just an example.
Last edited:
I didn't really specify, but my reason for not liking the rotation of regional hosting privileges is that it introduces a variable of luck that otherwise wouldn't be there. Let's say Pulaski County goes 10-0 in the regular season, wins the Region D playoffs, and has the highest ratings scale point value of all the teams in Regions C and D. Up in Region C, let's say Riverside goes 5-5, barely sneaks into the Region C playoffs, but catches lightning in a bottle and gets some real lucky breaks, and wins the Region C playoffs. By the points scale and by fairness, Pulaski should have earned the right to host the state semi final game.
But instead, the Cougars would have to board a bus for what would probably be close to a five hour bus ride. That would increase the odds in favor of what would be a big underdog Ram team, and thus would be a factor working against having what is probably the best team appear in the state championship game. I'm not in favor of anything that does that.
Of course, one could argue that if a team like Pulaski, in my example above, can't handle that bus trip, then they aren't the better team to begin with. But it just seems very unfair to me to put the onus of a long road trip on a team that should have earned the right to be at home, by virtue of what they did in the regular season.
But instead, the Cougars would have to board a bus for what would probably be close to a five hour bus ride. That would increase the odds in favor of what would be a big underdog Ram team, and thus would be a factor working against having what is probably the best team appear in the state championship game. I'm not in favor of anything that does that.
Of course, one could argue that if a team like Pulaski, in my example above, can't handle that bus trip, then they aren't the better team to begin with. But it just seems very unfair to me to put the onus of a long road trip on a team that should have earned the right to be at home, by virtue of what they did in the regular season.
BN and I were discussing this earlier, and he had a valid point. The points system lends it self to being abused by AD's and Coaches scheduling "soft" opponents with the plan to pad their power point totals. And thus reap the benefits. I.e., host a semi if it was based on points.
But, in reality, isn't that what everybody tries to do? Schedule OOD opponents that you can have a decent chance of beating, but hope they can dominate their own schedule?
Like you say Spartan, the points system is fraught with problems. But, I'm not sure what system would be better.
I can be happy with a preset Region to host each season. But I would like it tied to a two year cycle of matchups. Meaning A vs B for two years, alternating host locations. Then A vs C with the same alternating host provision. And then A vs D with same. So I guess you could say a six year cycle.
But, in reality, isn't that what everybody tries to do? Schedule OOD opponents that you can have a decent chance of beating, but hope they can dominate their own schedule?
Like you say Spartan, the points system is fraught with problems. But, I'm not sure what system would be better.
I can be happy with a preset Region to host each season. But I would like it tied to a two year cycle of matchups. Meaning A vs B for two years, alternating host locations. Then A vs C with the same alternating host provision. And then A vs D with same. So I guess you could say a six year cycle.
It's a return to the old way of doing it. I guess they felt outside of your region power point totals don't necessarily indicate the better team so it is fixed and probably will alternate. Sometimes the point differences are so small and turns how many wins a totally poor team ekes out.
Although I certainly agree with the points made by multiple posters above, I can also see (but, like others, do not like) why the VHSL rotates the semis every year on a set schedule, whether that be A-B & C-D one year followed by B-A & D-C the next, or on a 6 year cycle where all regions match up with all others and all regions get to host before the cycle repeats. I see two main reasons:
1. Pre-established regional semifinal hosts "spreads the wealth" so to speak, giving all regions an opportunity to host a big game every few years. I know it could mean a 10-0 travels to a weaker opponent that just got hot, but you could argue there is some merit to it. If they stick with the two year cycle, this also reduces the travel complaints, although I personally say stop whining and be grateful you reached the state semis.
2. I see this as the bigger issue, and it is this: there are regions/areas where the overall quality of teams in a given classification is just better than teams in the same classification in other regions. Say Team X goes 9-1 and goes on to win their region, defeating multiple 7-3 or 8-2 teams during the regular season in an area that just has more good teams. Team Y goes 10-0 and also goes on to win their region, but during the regular season has only 1 win over teams with a record better than 6-4. In this scenario, it is most likely that Team Y will never get to host and that is through no fault of their own.
1. Pre-established regional semifinal hosts "spreads the wealth" so to speak, giving all regions an opportunity to host a big game every few years. I know it could mean a 10-0 travels to a weaker opponent that just got hot, but you could argue there is some merit to it. If they stick with the two year cycle, this also reduces the travel complaints, although I personally say stop whining and be grateful you reached the state semis.
2. I see this as the bigger issue, and it is this: there are regions/areas where the overall quality of teams in a given classification is just better than teams in the same classification in other regions. Say Team X goes 9-1 and goes on to win their region, defeating multiple 7-3 or 8-2 teams during the regular season in an area that just has more good teams. Team Y goes 10-0 and also goes on to win their region, but during the regular season has only 1 win over teams with a record better than 6-4. In this scenario, it is most likely that Team Y will never get to host and that is through no fault of their own.
I like the 6 year cycle idea for Class 4. Region D is isolated from the other Regions, so it would spread the burden around of travel and allow for very interesting cross regional match ups in the state semifinals.
Speaking as a Salem fan, it's quite likely that even a 10-0 or 9-1 Salem team is usually going to be outpointed by a similar team in Region C due to Salem playing non-district Class 3 teams.
Speaking as a Salem fan, it's quite likely that even a 10-0 or 9-1 Salem team is usually going to be outpointed by a similar team in Region C due to Salem playing non-district Class 3 teams.