Instead of saying 8-teams must make the playoffs, why can't they say something like "at most 8 teams make the playoffs", and if you have a losing record, you don't get in. If you have to give the top seed(s) a bye due to a lack of teams, that's fine. Too many teams with losing records get in. Heck, too many teams with 0-victories get in.
Why don't regions have an adjustable playoff format?
- Thread starter 86CulpGrad_rivals
- Start date
It does. VHSL allows the AD's of each region to determine the playoff format for their perspective region. Just so happens than most choose an 8 team format. Class 4 Region C does something like you are talking about. Only six teams qualify for the playoffs based on power ratings unless a district champ is not in the top 6. In that case, the district champ would replace the six seed. The regions that you are referring to that has two 0-10 teams is in class 1 and they only have 6 teams total in their region.
IMO, 8 is the perfect number for each region. Anything more waters down the competition and anything less almost makes it unfair that two teams receive a bye week.
Interesting idea - I've never heard that one before! Take it a step further - if a region doesn't have 8 qualifiers - pull in the highest rated school(s) from another region that didn't qualify for the playoffs in their region.
While I'm at it - the VHSL needs to reconsider awarding bonus points to schools when they "play down" (2 points per class). My reasoning - the "bonus" points that schools are getting for playing opponents in smaller classes is costing other schools a playoff berth. Example, in 5D this year at least 2 (maybe 3) schools qualified for the playoffs over others largely based on these "bonus" bonus points - those Class 5 schools schedules are littered with Class 2, 3 and 4 schools - why do they get rewarded for playing them (especially if it is an out of district game?). They made the playoffs at the expense of others that had to play a hellish district schedule of Class 5 and 6 schools (Colonial Forge, Massaponax, North Stafford, or Hylton, Freedom, etc.). The 4 5D Commonwealth schools beat the 4 non-Commonwealth teams by 12, 32, 41 and 48 points respectively in the 1st round. Last year, the Commowealth teams won similar matchups by 21, 48 and 63 points. Can't help but wonder if this is happening in other regions as well.
What about this idea - "flexible regions" - at the end of the season, the Top 32 (power point ratings) teams for each class are divided into "East", "West", "North" and "South" with placement being based on geography (e.g. the 8 westernmost are the "West", etc.). Why do we need rigid regions?
While I'm at it - the VHSL needs to reconsider awarding bonus points to schools when they "play down" (2 points per class). My reasoning - the "bonus" points that schools are getting for playing opponents in smaller classes is costing other schools a playoff berth. Example, in 5D this year at least 2 (maybe 3) schools qualified for the playoffs over others largely based on these "bonus" bonus points - those Class 5 schools schedules are littered with Class 2, 3 and 4 schools - why do they get rewarded for playing them (especially if it is an out of district game?). They made the playoffs at the expense of others that had to play a hellish district schedule of Class 5 and 6 schools (Colonial Forge, Massaponax, North Stafford, or Hylton, Freedom, etc.). The 4 5D Commonwealth schools beat the 4 non-Commonwealth teams by 12, 32, 41 and 48 points respectively in the 1st round. Last year, the Commowealth teams won similar matchups by 21, 48 and 63 points. Can't help but wonder if this is happening in other regions as well.
What about this idea - "flexible regions" - at the end of the season, the Top 32 (power point ratings) teams for each class are divided into "East", "West", "North" and "South" with placement being based on geography (e.g. the 8 westernmost are the "West", etc.). Why do we need rigid regions?
The bonus points are necessary for the district games. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought out of district used to be just 1 point be level. My guess is that teams really didn't want to play down then so it was hard for lower teams to get quality upper division opponents. Personally I don't really like seeing teams that are more than 1 division apart in the same district. Class 6 should not be playing Class 3 unless their AD's want to go at it. There were at least 3 schools unable to field enough of a team to play a full schedule (Park View and Manassas Park didn't play at all, Bruton only played 2's and 3's and forfeited to the 4's). I think this will become a trend. It will only make district scheduling and points that much more complicated.
Before last season, it was split in 2, 16 for each side. I liked that format more, but it's not up to me.
I think because of different schedules and districts its really hard to say team A shouldn't get in because of record, but I agree about the 0-10 schools. I am a little more familiar with those being my area, and there are actually more than 6 schools in the region, but only 6 that qualify in football. There are 3 schools moving into that region next year. But remember, just year before last Blacksburg was 5-5 in 3a and won championship.
As for playing down, I think it was the double edge sword. It would be hard for the smaller schools to get games, and a lot of these schedules are made a couple years in advance, so teams are looking at the benefits of playing a good lower team, which may not be the case. And without the bonus points for OOD, I can see uproar occurring. You said some didn't make it in because of that, but just think if 2 teams played the same opponent and each get different points because of it.
If you didn't have those bonus points, then you wouldn't see 6a playing anything but 6a, 5a vs 5a, etc. So teams are going to spend a lot more time traveling and loss of money to find competitive games. And then the problem would be teams can only play a certain amount of games, which is going to hurt a lot of teams.
I'll give an example from my area, even if I dislike them. Riverheads. A lot of 1a teams arent going to want to play a perennial favorite, in fact they are going all around the state to find OOD games, some 2a and 3a I believe. They are STILL one game short. If those 2a and 3a teams didn't get the points, they would be 4 games short.
I think because of different schedules and districts its really hard to say team A shouldn't get in because of record, but I agree about the 0-10 schools. I am a little more familiar with those being my area, and there are actually more than 6 schools in the region, but only 6 that qualify in football. There are 3 schools moving into that region next year. But remember, just year before last Blacksburg was 5-5 in 3a and won championship.
As for playing down, I think it was the double edge sword. It would be hard for the smaller schools to get games, and a lot of these schedules are made a couple years in advance, so teams are looking at the benefits of playing a good lower team, which may not be the case. And without the bonus points for OOD, I can see uproar occurring. You said some didn't make it in because of that, but just think if 2 teams played the same opponent and each get different points because of it.
If you didn't have those bonus points, then you wouldn't see 6a playing anything but 6a, 5a vs 5a, etc. So teams are going to spend a lot more time traveling and loss of money to find competitive games. And then the problem would be teams can only play a certain amount of games, which is going to hurt a lot of teams.
I'll give an example from my area, even if I dislike them. Riverheads. A lot of 1a teams arent going to want to play a perennial favorite, in fact they are going all around the state to find OOD games, some 2a and 3a I believe. They are STILL one game short. If those 2a and 3a teams didn't get the points, they would be 4 games short.
Good input - gave me some food for more thought! Was scheduling a problem for smaller schools before they came up with the "playing down" bonus points? I'm sure it is for some no matter what. I think these types of points have only been around for only a relative handful of years (with the advent of the current six classes). The bonus is worth 2 points per class for both district and OOD games now, that is a change from when they first started applying them.
I know my alma mater (son's on current team so have vested interest) lost out on a playoff berth this year by 0.6 ratings points because one of the other teams had 18 more points based on playing down (not from winning or losing, just playing). Side by side schedule comparisons do not sit well. No matter what, team didn't take care of its own business plus a couple of our non-district wins had much worse than expected seasons which cost us heavily. Current district leaves no room for any type of let down not even a small one.
I know my alma mater (son's on current team so have vested interest) lost out on a playoff berth this year by 0.6 ratings points because one of the other teams had 18 more points based on playing down (not from winning or losing, just playing). Side by side schedule comparisons do not sit well. No matter what, team didn't take care of its own business plus a couple of our non-district wins had much worse than expected seasons which cost us heavily. Current district leaves no room for any type of let down not even a small one.
Yes teams had problems before the East/West, back when it was Regions before. But the main difference back then was teams who won districts got automatic bids, and teams with 9-1 records sometimes got left out.
I dont know what team you are for, and you probably have no idea about the small teams down here, which is understandable. Do since this is a 4a board, I will use a few teams as an example, just a hypothetical.
IF teams didnt get points for playing down, then the vast majority of teams would only play 4a teams in OOD. So then your opportunities base largely on your location if you dont want to travel all over the state for good games. And remember the open weeks have to line up. So use 4B as the example. With just the top 4 teams, maybe Dinwiddie and Louisa get good games worked out, while Monacan and Eastern View cant that's just 4 teams and a lot more goes into it than that. But teams can only play so many games, so for everyone that puts Dinwiddie on the schedule, to keep up the other would have to have a Dinwiddie caliber team. And that may work for the top teams in each region, but how about the up and coming teams. Just a couple years ago Amherst was a top team in state and Glass wasnt, not its flipped.
Not to try to sound smart or anything, because maybe you understand the points great, but a lot of people dont understand the points. You said they got 18 points. Well I will use wins as the example.
For playing up 2 classes is the difference in 2 wins, so since I am used to doing the points for 2a, do it every week on here, 18 points and 2 per win. So if you beat a 2 win 2a team, that is 22 points. The same as a 0 win 4a team.
So a 6a team beating a 2 win 4a is 26 points and 4 for the play down for a total of 30. Same as a 2 win 6a team. Assuming both the teams you are referring to played 10 games, that .6 is 6 total points.
Exactly, 6 points less overall including the 18 extra points our competition received from playing down. Anyway, I understand the points but not a real grasp on the scheduling issues outside of my area so I'm sure that is my hang-up with the specific situation I cited. For me, at the end of the day a 6A beating a 2 win 4A is 30 points and beating a 2 win 6A team is 30 points - theory is fine but in a comparison of specific schedules, it can leave a bit to be desired. I'm sure the inverse can happen with comparisons between other schools though.
I would love to see the VHSL have the same playoff format across the board. That makes it so much simpler for fans to follow and understand. The ghost of Ken Tilley continues to cause havoc.
I think the state semifinals switching would be a better change. If the regions take 6 so be it but switching up the state semifinals would be a better change. A/D B/C A/C B/D
Good teams do not like to have byes while the next opponent stays in a routine by playing the week before. Their is no advantage for 14-18 yr olds having a week off either. Now if we were talking about the NFL I would agree. Most first round games for top seeds are usually blowouts. If my team is rolling I want to play each week. Keep it moving. I see a bye week as a disadvantage not an advantage.
I guess there are pros and cons to having a bye as there are pros and cons to not having one. If I could guarantee my team have a cupcake opponent in the first round then I would definitely not want a bye. However, if my team is missing key players due to injury and we have a tough opponent in round 1 then, I would very much appreciate a bye. I guess it's 6 one way or a half dozen the other.
My gripe is that you should never reward a team with a losing record by giving them a playoff birth. A playoff birth should be something that is coveted. In the old days it was....but also back then many 9-1 teams sat at home during the playoffs.
I agree. The only problem is that not all regions have the same amount of teams be it geographically or just less schools. If the region only has 6 teams and 2 of those teams are 0-10. What do you do? Someone said move a few teams that did not make the playoffs from one region into that region. That makes sense if they are 7-3 but a majority of those teams have losing records too. In the end of the day the best teams move forward.
If there are that few teams in a region, it shouldn't be a region. They should have to combine with another region.
Again, that region with 6 teams is 1B. There are more than 6 teams in the region, but a few are schools that dont have football teams. These regions are for every sport, not just football. There are also 3 more schools going into that region next year
I think they change up districts/regions for field hockey and lacrosse. Should be able to do it for football if it’s due to a lack of teams.