|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Feb 26, 2021 16:50:57 GMT -6
Gents-
Is any HS coach here content with his state's playoff point system? If you are familiar with the system (as far as point distribution/bonus pts etc) please comment.
Our state recently realigned our football teams and is exploring adjustments to our current system. I have a voice in the matter and would like to hear some pros and cons from across the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 27, 2021 7:32:16 GMT -6
Gents- Is any HS coach here content with his state's playoff point system? If you are familiar with the system (as far as point distribution/bonus pts etc) please comment. Our state recently realigned our football teams and is exploring adjustments to our current system. I have a voice in the matter and would like to hear some pros and cons from across the country. I think the most important aspect of any such playoff point system isn't necessarily the calculation, BUT how it is utilized and how how it fits relative to other parts of the state set up. In its best iteration, I thought Louisiana's was pretty solid. The formula was relatively simple : 10 pts for a win 0 for a loss, PLus 2 points for every class differential if you played a larger school, plus one point for every win of the opponent. For example: Jefferson High is a 2A school and plays and beats Franklin High (a 4A school). At the end of the season Jefferson finishes 7-3, Franklin 5-5. The power points for that game would have been : Jefferson: 10 (win) + 4 (2pts * playing up 2 classes)+5 (Franklin total wins) = 19 points for that week. Franklin 0 (loss) + 0 (no play up points) +7 (Jefferson total wins) = 7 points. I thought this formula worked just fine for what it was originally intended to do- SELECT WILD CARDS. Previously, Louisiana had much larger districts (most were 7/8/9 team districts), and District champs and runner ups were automatically placed in the playoffs. The process was simple. Compile the power points, list them in order, scratch out district champs and runner ups from that list as you placed them in the bracket, and then start at the top of the remaining teams and fill in the rest the bracket. So if you had 8 districts, there were 16 wild cards. I felt the formula was completely acceptable to pick 16 teams that did not place 1st or 2nd in their district into the playoffs. As things changed a bit, and districts started to get smaller for various reasons -geography and travel being primary leaving 6,5 and even some 4 team districts-the pure math model becomes MUCH more easily manipulated because of the greater freedom in scheduling. That combined with the idea of now seeding teams by power points, assigning home games by seeds etc probably requires a different formula. And now on top of it all, Louisiana has split playoff brackets for schools with "select" enrollment (private schools and a few public schools with open enrollment) and "non select" (public schools) adds to the chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 27, 2021 7:41:45 GMT -6
Gents- Is any HS coach here content with his state's playoff point system? If you are familiar with the system (as far as point distribution/bonus pts etc) please comment. Our state recently realigned our football teams and is exploring adjustments to our current system. I have a voice in the matter and would like to hear some pros and cons from across the country. Here is a summary of our state's old system and the new one which will be used (hopefully, was supposed to be implemented last season but was not due to COVID interruptions) for first time this year: www.mhsaa.com/portals/0/documents/FB/Adjusted%20SOS%20Table.pdfThe major intent of the changes was to incentivize schools to schedule games against tougher competition and thus make it easier for better programs to get games. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Feb 28, 2021 0:04:40 GMT -6
When I was in HS Southern California had it perfect. We were in a league of 6 nearby teams; our league was grouped together with other, five other roughly same sized leagues comprised a division. The top three teams from each league, plus one at large, made the playoffs for that division and in the end winner was the champion.
It was roughly the same for every other school, give or take some numbers.
Then you got all these schools who started recruiting, poaching, and dominating. So instead of realigning and keeping things roughly the same we came up with these asinine ideas of point systems, and wanting to make things equitable so traditionally bad teams didnt always lose. That plus they wanted big schools in the playoffs more so they could make more $$.
But can anyone tell me a problem with just taking the best few teams from the roughly equal sized leagues (or whatever you want to call them) and having them in a playoff. Even if you end up with a dozen or so divisions (thus champions) why not just do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 6:40:12 GMT -6
When I was in HS Southern California had it perfect. We were in a league of 6 nearby teams; our league was grouped together with other, five other roughly same sized leagues comprised a division. The top three teams from each league, plus one at large, made the playoffs for that division and in the end winner was the champion. It was roughly the same for every other school, give or take some numbers. Then you got all these schools who started recruiting, poaching, and dominating. So instead of realigning and keeping things roughly the same we came up with these asinine ideas of point systems, and wanting to make things equitable so traditionally bad teams didnt always lose. That plus they wanted big schools in the playoffs more so they could make more $$. But can anyone tell me a problem with just taking the best few teams from the roughly equal sized leagues (or whatever you want to call them) and having them in a playoff. Even if you end up with a dozen or so divisions (thus champions) why not just do that? Because in the sports world- people have been convinced that unless something has bracket lines that end with one winner, it is somehow a lesser endeavor. Essentially, sports fans need to be "told" who the champ is. I often point at the 2007-2008 New England Patriots. Quite possibly the greatest American football team ever- but the "champion" was the 10-6 NYG (who lost to the aforementioned Patriot team) I believe these feelings started as an offshoot of the increased drama/entertainment value of such a tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament has absolutely cannibalized the sport. Does college basketball exist before March now? The CFP is in danger of doing the same, yet many people want it expanded. More lines on the bracket!! Almost no one would agree with me that maybe the kids should play 10 games and then go study for finals... even the ivy leagues are discussing change on that. For whatever reason, people clamor for a "true" (whatever the heck that means) champion, and apparently that can only be decided with an abundance of bracket lines. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Feb 28, 2021 10:15:09 GMT -6
When I was in HS Southern California had it perfect. We were in a league of 6 nearby teams; our league was grouped together with other, five other roughly same sized leagues comprised a division. The top three teams from each league, plus one at large, made the playoffs for that division and in the end winner was the champion. It was roughly the same for every other school, give or take some numbers. Then you got all these schools who started recruiting, poaching, and dominating. So instead of realigning and keeping things roughly the same we came up with these asinine ideas of point systems, and wanting to make things equitable so traditionally bad teams didnt always lose. That plus they wanted big schools in the playoffs more so they could make more $$. But can anyone tell me a problem with just taking the best few teams from the roughly equal sized leagues (or whatever you want to call them) and having them in a playoff. Even if you end up with a dozen or so divisions (thus champions) why not just do that? Because in the sports world- people have been convinced that unless something has bracket lines that end with one winner, it is somehow a lesser endeavor. Essentially, sports fans need to be "told" who the champ is. I often point at the 2007-2008 New England Patriots. Quite possibly the greatest American football team ever- but the "champion" was the 10-6 NYG (who lost to the aforementioned Patriot team) I believe these feelings started as an offshoot of the increased drama/entertainment value of such a tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament has absolutely cannibalized the sport. Does college basketball exist before March now? The CFP is in danger of doing the same, yet many people want it expanded. More lines on the bracket!! Almost no one would agree with me that maybe the kids should play 10 games and then go study for finals... even the ivy leagues are discussing change on that. For whatever reason, people clamor for a "true" (whatever the heck that means) champion, and apparently that can only be decided with an abundance of bracket lines. You know I considered that, but even now in our state we have over a dozen "State Champs", we arent having the best team from a school of 200 play the best team of a school with 4,000 (though we do have that size discrepancy within playoffs). I think having a single champion is part of it, but I think the call for 'equity', increasing revenue, and league offices desire to constantly change things (and justify their existence) play a big role too. |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 28, 2021 11:04:15 GMT -6
Utah just went to that the last 2 years... it was basically setup so the areas with more money don't end up getting a team left out of the playoffs because they took 5th place in a really good league. EVERYONE makes playoffs here now... which means the association gets to keep the $$$ for another entire round of playoffs. Schools don't keep any of it and many of them have to pay for transportation to get the kids/cheerleaders to the game. So it costs a bunch of schools who shouldn't be in the playoffs a couple thousand dollars to go get their ass kicked. There were several teams that went 0-11 this year because they "made the playoffs" and got to go on the road to face a juggernaut in the "1st round". Most games were running-clock by half in the 1st round.
They have a point system that (last time we were told about it) is broken down like this:
40% is your record
40% is your opponents record
20% is your opponents-opponents record
I'd have to sit down and REALLY crunch some numbers, but for me at first-glance, if I were at a powerhouse and just wanted the best seed possible, I would schedule the worst teams I could... You are guaranteed to win so you get your 40% and you know everyone else is gonna beat them too... so you get that 20% guaranteed. If you schedule a tough team, you have to beat them or you lose that part of your record, gain the same number in the opponents record (wash), but now as they kick the crap out of everyone else they play, your last 20% is going down...
It has made league/conference/region/district or whatever you call it in you state completely meaningless. You used to develop league rivalry with teams in your area that if you beat them, your kids could celebrate "conference champs", but now, being a "conference champ" could mean you go on the road in the 1st playoff game and have to play a team that got a higher "score" than you.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 13:15:52 GMT -6
Utah just went to that the last 2 years... it was basically setup so the areas with more money don't end up getting a team left out of the playoffs because they took 5th place in a really good league. EVERYONE makes playoffs here now... which means the association gets to keep the $$$ for another entire round of playoffs. Schools don't keep any of it and many of them have to pay for transportation to get the kids/cheerleaders to the game. So it costs a bunch of schools who shouldn't be in the playoffs a couple thousand dollars to go get their ass kicked. There were several teams that went 0-11 this year because they "made the playoffs" and got to go on the road to face a juggernaut in the "1st round". Most games were running-clock by half in the 1st round. They have a point system that (last time we were told about it) is broken down like this: 40% is your record 40% is your opponents record 20% is your opponents-opponents record I'd have to sit down and REALLY crunch some numbers, but for me at first-glance, if I were at a powerhouse and just wanted the best seed possible, I would schedule the worst teams I could... You are guaranteed to win so you get your 40% and you know everyone else is gonna beat them too... so you get that 20% guaranteed. If you schedule a tough team, you have to beat them or you lose that part of your record, gain the same number in the opponents record (wash), but now as they kick the crap out of everyone else they play, your last 20% is going down... It has made league/conference/region/district or whatever you call it in you state completely meaningless. You used to develop league rivalry with teams in your area that if you beat them, your kids could celebrate "conference champs", but now, being a "conference champ" could mean you go on the road in the 1st playoff game and have to play a team that got a higher "score" than you. I think your analysis is a little bit off. There is no real guarantee that you would receive a solid number for that 20% portion from scheduling bottom dwellers, as it is quite likely that terrible teams (0-2 wins) will be playing (and losing to) bad to mediocre teams (3-5 wins). This year, the all SEC game format gives a good example. Vanderbilt goes 0-9, with loses to 2 win South Carolina, 3-win Tennessee and Mississippi State, 4 win Ole Miss and Kentucky, and 5 win LSU and Missouri. 7 out of 9 losses to teams .500 or below. I absolutely agree with you that the pursuit of a "perfectly power point seeded" state tournament has cut off district/conference/league (whatever the lower level of groupings are called) achievements. Louisiana did that too, and I feel it is foolish. |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 28, 2021 18:37:22 GMT -6
To me the whole conference thing is a wash... average team will be .500 in league. Your overall league record is the same as everyone elses... for both categories. Basically your entire seeding boils down to your 3 or 4 non-league games.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 19:34:35 GMT -6
To me the whole conference thing is a wash... average team will be .500 in league. Your overall league record is the same as everyone elses... for both categories. Basically your entire seeding boils down to your 3 or 4 non-league games. I would likely agree. My previous post was just showing that the suggestion that the opponents of patsy would likely have better records and therefore having that patsy on the schedule would result in a higher score for that 20% category may not be a good thought process. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Mar 1, 2021 7:39:28 GMT -6
When SC used a points system, it wasn't used in all classifications. For the largest classification, your got 1 point for beating a A school, 2 points for beating a AA, 3 for beating a AAA, & 4 points for beating a AAAA. But you a got a point deduction for losing - 0 points for losng to a A, 1 point for AA, 2 points for AAA, & only 3 points for losing to a AAAA. But you would get an extra .5 points if that opponent had a winning record. We played 11 games and you had 2 'mark off games'... games you didn't count for points purposes. However you had to maximize your points come seeding time.... in other words you couldn't game the seedings to avoid a team or side of the bracket.
Region standing still counted in that if you won your region/conference you got seeded before any runner ups were seeded.
One thing that made it interesting was that the A, AA, AAA teams only played 10 games. So if a 5-5 lower classification team was in the playoffs that you played during the season, you'd have to see how they did in the 1st round of their playoff to determine whether or not that team had a winning or losing record and would give you that extra 1/2 point.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Mar 1, 2021 10:39:03 GMT -6
I think a point system for classification has merit, but must be used over at least 3 years to be accurate. You cant move a team up a class for having 1 great class that caught some breaks and made a run. However, if a team wins or plays for a championship 3 years in row, it might be time to look at bumping them. As far as using it for wild cards, I liked what coachd said they had used, rewarding for playing up and for opponent wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 2, 2021 8:52:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 2, 2021 9:08:35 GMT -6
Do you feel this invites good competition between divisions? Like in your case a Class 4 playing a Class 5? |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 2, 2021 9:17:23 GMT -6
Gents- Is any HS coach here content with his state's playoff point system? If you are familiar with the system (as far as point distribution/bonus pts etc) please comment. Our state recently realigned our football teams and is exploring adjustments to our current system. I have a voice in the matter and would like to hear some pros and cons from across the country. Here is a summary of our state's old system and the new one which will be used (hopefully, was supposed to be implemented last season but was not due to COVID interruptions) for first time this year: www.mhsaa.com/portals/0/documents/FB/Adjusted%20SOS%20Table.pdfThe major intent of the changes was to incentivize schools to schedule games against tougher competition and thus make it easier for better programs to get games. I'm interested in seeing IF it actually does incentivize the more competitive scheduling. That is exactly why our state re-aligned our districts. The issue is that the large/tough division (AAA) only has 11 teams in it. So we could play each team to fill out a 10 game schedule, and basically beat the snot out of each other, but we were looking for a way to get some inter-division games going. I'll keep an eye on Michigan in the fall for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 2, 2021 10:43:01 GMT -6
Do you feel this invites good competition between divisions? Like in your case a Class 4 playing a Class 5? In my area it did. The Peninsula District had schools whose enrollments varied from 6's to 3's. When the system changed there were worries that the disparity would force districts to break up and destroy traditional rivalries. The "classification points" allowed districts to stay together. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Mar 2, 2021 13:09:01 GMT -6
Gents- Is any HS coach here content with his state's playoff point system? If you are familiar with the system (as far as point distribution/bonus pts etc) please comment. Our state recently realigned our football teams and is exploring adjustments to our current system. I have a voice in the matter and would like to hear some pros and cons from across the country. Here is a summary of our state's old system and the new one which will be used (hopefully, was supposed to be implemented last season but was not due to COVID interruptions) for first time this year: www.mhsaa.com/portals/0/documents/FB/Adjusted%20SOS%20Table.pdfThe major intent of the changes was to incentivize schools to schedule games against tougher competition and thus make it easier for better programs to get games. I think the intent here in Michigan was going to work out. I know we actually had 9 games scheduled instead of a bunch of open dates for the first time in a long time. I was kind of okay with them letting everybody into the playoffs if they want to explore that going forward. I know it's probably not common but you had Oak Park in the playoffs at 0-6 because they played in our league, as a smaller school against some pretty loaded teams make a run all the way to the state semifinals once in the tournament. Would've been a really neat story to cap off a bizarre year had they gone all the way. |
|
|
|
Post by ahall005 on Mar 3, 2021 12:48:49 GMT -6
I don't think Ohio's Point system is perfect, but I do think it is as close as you can get. You get points for beating a team and more points if they are a bigger division than you and then you get second level points for the games the teams you beat win. I like that its very simple and MOST of the time gets the right teams in.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Mar 3, 2021 16:40:16 GMT -6
stupid question.... Is everyone talking about the same type of points system?  The one I mentioned was strickly for season by season playoff qualification and seeding.... not for reclassfication. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 3, 2021 17:04:06 GMT -6
stupid question.... Is everyone talking about the same type of points system? The one I mentioned was strickly for season by season playoff qualification and seeding.... not for reclassfication. Ours is for playoffs. Classification is strictly by enrollment. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 3, 2021 17:12:27 GMT -6
stupid question.... Is everyone talking about the same type of points system? The one I mentioned was strickly for season by season playoff qualification and seeding.... not for reclassfication. I think most are. I only saw one post about a promotion/demotion classification point system. The rest are about playoffs |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Mar 5, 2021 7:43:54 GMT -6
Thanks for the input, fellas. I am trying to find a balance between winning and opponent strength-of-schedule that could entice teams to play a more competitive schedule. The way it stands, with no adjustments, there is very little inter-class play because:
1) A large school can't afford to lose points for playing and even beating a smaller division school (beating a 0-10 AAA team is worth the same as beating a 9-1 AA team currently)
2) The smaller division schools don't want to play larger division schools as beating a 0-10 AA school is worth more than losing to a 10-0 AAA school
It FUBAR'd for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Mar 5, 2021 10:07:34 GMT -6
Thanks for the input, fellas. I am trying to find a balance between winning and opponent strength-of-schedule that could entice teams to play a more competitive schedule. The way it stands, with no adjustments, there is very little inter-class play because: 1) A large school can't afford to lose points for playing and even beating a smaller division school (beating a 0-10 AAA team is worth the same as beating a 9-1 AA team currently) 2) The smaller division schools don't want to play larger division schools as beating a 0-10 AA school is worth more than losing to a 10-0 AAA school It FUBAR'd for sure that's the reason we had the mark offs I'm guessing.... allowed for money games, local rivalries, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2021 11:18:09 GMT -6
Thanks for the input, fellas. I am trying to find a balance between winning and opponent strength-of-schedule that could entice teams to play a more competitive schedule. The way it stands, with no adjustments, there is very little inter-class play because: 1) A large school can't afford to lose points for playing and even beating a smaller division school (beating a 0-10 AAA team is worth the same as beating a 9-1 AA team currently) 2) The smaller division schools don't want to play larger division schools as beating a 0-10 AA school is worth more than losing to a 10-0 AAA school It FUBAR'd for sure The think the hardest thing to do mathematically is negotiate that fine line for strength of schedule. The inverse of the situation you describe here is getting “bonus points” for playing a horrible team that happens to be larger. Louisiana’s system lets a solid small school earn up to 8 points (The equivalent of beating an eight win team) just because of size differential. I think that is a little too much. |
|
The one I mentioned was strickly for season by season playoff qualification and seeding.... not for reclassfication.