Roundtable Discussion: Playoff Problems
Despite there being many critics of the eight-team playoff system, the biggest proponent of the new format is likely Robinson, who in 2007 upset Chantilly as the seventh seed. Their win was only one of two upsets the eight-team playoff has produced.
Photo By: Barry deNicola / GamedayMagazine | VIEW GALLERY
Tom Whipple stated he'd only have district winners advance to the playoffs, but that would leave out teams such as Briar Woods, who play in a district formed almost entirely of Division 4 teams.
Photo By: Chuck Moore / RandomSnapsPhotography.com | VIEW GALLERY
During Oakton's undefeated championship run, they faced eighth-seeded South County in the first round of the playoffs in which they won by 27 points. With a six-team playoff format, Oakton would have been given a bye-week while South County's season would have already ended.
Photo By: Dave Bernhardt / GamedayMagazine | VIEW GALLERY
For this roundtable, we ask our experts how to solve what seems like an ever-growing and ever-persistent problem: the playoffs. After all, over the past several years, this is a topic that has become a source of contention for nearly everyone.
Just rewind back a couple of years in the Northern Region to 2005 when only four teams were included in the playoffs. An electric team Centreville team, who finished the year at 8-2, failed to qualify for the playoffs while a 7-3 Annandale team did. Centreville's lone losses that year were to Oakton and Westfield, where they lost by a combined six points. Annandale, meanwhile, also played both Oakton and Westfield but lost by a combined 31 points.
You could only imagine the uproar from that event. Problem was, those in Centreville had a very legitimate gripe. How could an 8-2 team that was clearly better than a 7-3 Annandale team not get included? The solution to that problem was an expansion to an eight-team playoff.
Fast-forward back to this year and another problem exists, that being there are too many teams in the playoffs, more specifically in Division 5. In the two years since playoff expansion, teams seeded fifth through eighth in Division 5 have gone 0-8, losing by an average of 27.4 points. Furthermore, none of those lower seeded teams entered the playoffs with a winning record.
That alone has brought a lot of scrutiny into the system. Yet a compromise of six playoff teams in each region seems to be the trend. Both Region II and the Northwest Region have elected this year to expand to six playoff teams, but still other problems remain.
For example, the current powerpoints system has always been the subject of a lot of scrutiny, although much, much less as of late. Then with the rapid growth of Loudoun County, what's the best way to account for so many new teams? Is it maybe just time to scrap the whole system and go back to the drawing board? Currently, the VHSL is looking into a whole new classification system to simplify the process, something that could come into effect in 2013.
So for opinions on this certain problem, we turned to our experts to get their thoughts. We asked each of them this: If you could reform the current playoff system, what would you do?
But lastly, we want your thoughts. If you've got an opinion on how to change the playoff system, we want to hear from you. How many teams do you think should be in the playoffs? Or would you instead revamp the entire system and change the whole look of the classification system? Maybe you also think everyone should just stop whining and deal with the results. Tell us what you think at GamedayRecruits@aol.com and we'll publish what you had to say.
BRUCE BORNARTH
DL: Alright Bruce, so how would you change things up?
BB: I would put eight teams per region in the playoffs and I'll tell you why. One, you need to make it uniform across the board. It's not fair that in the Northern Region, that they get to decide to put eight teams in [the playoffs] and another gets to put in four. Fair, maybe, is not the right word. It's not even. You see the state tells the region to send a regional champion to the state playoffs. That's fine. If the region gets one champion to come out and go to the state playoffs, I don't have a problem from there forward.
DL: Right, I think everyone agrees with you on that. So where's your beef with the system?
BB: The problem I have is from districts to regions. Case in point: if you have four districts in a region, as you did before the Valley District left in AA, then all district winners go to the playoffs, which I agree with. However, that means that you could have a 9-1 team miss the playoffs, like my son's Park View team did one year. A 9-1 team should go to the playoffs! Now, if you have eight teams go to the regional playoff like they do in the Northern Region, then that 9-1 team will certainly make it and they then have an equal shot at winning a title like everyone else. So I think every region should be made up of an eight-team pool, which would add only one round. Make sense?
DL: Yeah, but on the flip side it's caused a lot of problems in Division 5 where you can have a 2-8 team make the playoffs, and let's face it, Division 5 is not that strong. So it's nearly a wash in that first round. Wouldn't the same problem occur in at least Division 3?
BB: Yeah, I see that, but I think that it is less of a crime to have a weak team get into the playoffs rather than leave a really good team left out because of just one loss.
DL: So do you like what you see with the Northern Region then with Division 6 being strong with eight teams but with Division 5 you have four pretty bad teams?
BB: Well, let me back up for one second. Maybe instead of going for eight, we go six.
DL: Six? I like that.
BB: Yeah, and you have the first two teams get a bye. I'll go back to AA when the Valley District was in. Let's say all four districts were won by Division 4 teams, then that's your playoff pool right there. So if you have an undefeated team in the district in Division 4 and then a 9-1 team in that same district who is also in Division 4, they won't make the playoffs because of the other district winners who snatched up the remaining playoff spots. The only way that 9-1 team could make it is if there was a wild-card or if a Division 3 team won their district. We need to even everything up and create two wild-card spots. The Northern Region would be fine if they backed it down to six teams.
DL: Could not agree with you more there Bruce. It's nice to see the seven and eight teams make it, but it's just a total wash when they go up against the top two, aside from when Robinson upset Chantilly. Actually, Region II is now moving to a six-team playoff format.
BB: Let's say the Valley District is won by a 5-5 team. You could theoretically go 5-5 and be 5-0 in your district. So there could be a 5-5 team win their district, which is fine b/c if it's a weak district and that's the way it plays out. But then you've got a 9-1 team and 8-2 team in the other districts that don't make it. See what I mean. If you create two wild-card spots, there's no way that bad district sends another team to the playoffs. Also, the top two teams would get a deserved bye while also giving the non-district winners a chance to advance to states. My whole point is that the whole playoffs should be changed where there is a six-team playoff.
DL: Right. What then do you think is preventing some regions from moving to a six-team playoff? Or why do you think the Northern Region went wild and jumped to eight? Is money involved there?
BB: No. I just think it's involved with personal preference between the Athletic Directors and principals. I'm not 100% correct on that, but the Athletic Directors and principals do have the final say. I think the VHSL should step in and not have a hands-off approach on regional playoffs. They should come in and say, 'every region is going to have a six-team playoff.' Now, in single A, it may not be a good idea b/c there may not be as many teams. So if there's not as many teams that play in the single A level, then that's fine. Leave it the way it is. But I know that at least Divisions 3, 4, 5 and 6 should have six-team playoffs. For Division 1 and 2, I think you need to a little more research to determine how many teams make the playoffs.
TOM WHIPPLE
DL: Alright so if you could reform the playoff system in any way, how would you do it?
TW: Oh you know what I'm going to say. I have been a proponent of this for many years. Do away with all the powerpoint systems which reward the teams that finish third, fourth and fifth and their districts. My whole deal is, you win your district, and you're in. You don't win, then you've got to do again better next year. Period. End of story.
DL: Haha. So by that logic then, in the Northern Region for example, you'd be looking at two teams each year in the regional playoffs.
TW: So be it.
DL: Well, what if a team like Langley in the Liberty wins the district, then you'd have three Division 6 playoff teams and the regional champ would automatically come from the National.
TW: Well in order for my plan to work, you'd have to do away with the current system now.
DL: Oh, so you'd also change around the whole regions?
TW: Right. You currently have only four regions in the state of Virginia. Your playoff format is that once you win your district, you advance to the regional playoffs, then a sectional playoff, then the state playoffs.
DL: Wow. So you'd really do a complete overhaul of things?
TW: Yeah. You have to take in the entire playoff structure and wipe it off the board. Do away with the entire regional system and come up with more regions. It's a big state for crying out loud. Why are there only four regions?
DL: It's not that big of a state. There are only three metropolitan areas after all.
TW: So? You can still divide things up into six regions.
DL: Six? And how many districts per region?
TW: Well, you'd really have to sit down and see what districts would be in each particular region. You'd have to structure each particular region where'd you have a sensible amount of districts.
DL: Okay, so it'd have to be structured in such a way that you wouldn't only have one playoff team per region, which under your ideal system, is a problem that could occur with the current classification system.
TW: Exactly.
DL: You'd almost have to go away with the whole splitting up each classification into two divisions thing then.
TW: Oh absolutely. Get rid of the thing.
DL: Is this what they do in Illinois, which is where you're from?
TW: It's sort of like Virginia. Here, we have six divisions, but [Illinois] has a lot more distinctions. They have six divisions like we do, but they split them up into A, AA and AAA. So you have 6A, 6AA and 6AAA.
DL: Sheesh they hand out state championships like it's candy.
TW: It's such a big state though that they have to do it that way. It has to be broken down like that.
DL: If you say so.
TW: Illinois though has it so that if you win your district, which they call leagues, then you make it to the playoffs. They don't have any second place teams making it to the playoffs in football.
DL: In a nutshell, your philosophy is that you hate rewarding second-place teams and you like to reward heavily those who do well in the regular season.
TW: Yeah! I'm so sick and tired of this whole, 'oh well you finished in second and third place, so you'll be rewarded for something.' I've hated that mentality for years. The bottom line is that you have to win your district. You don't win, then you know what, I'm very sorry. You've got to try again next year. Get ready for basketball, indoor track, swimming or whatever it is you do in the winter.
DL: Haha, well I understand your basic philosophy behind all of this, but you have to understand that you'd be creating a scenario where a 9-1 team could be left out of the playoffs, as what happened with Park View and Liberty a few years ago. Is that what you'd want to happen?
TW: It happened to me in high school.
DL: Really? So you still don't feel any remorse?
TW: It creates a bitter taste in your mouth, but when we came into the season, we knew full-well that we had to win our district and it gave us a whole lot more to play for in the regular season. I'll take the Northern Region for example. They have the biggest joke of a playoff system in football.
DL: I agree.
TW: If a 5-5 team or a 4-6 team makes it into the playoffs, then that's ridiculous, let alone a 2-8 team.
DL: Well, it wasn't always a joke. When there were four teams, it was pretty legitimate in Division 5. It just recently became a joke.
TW: I agree. Four teams was palatable quite frankly, but I'm still a proponent of disallowing a second-place team in the playoffs.
DL: You see, I've got to against you there on that one. I'm more than fine with having a second-place team in the playoffs, I think that's fair.
TW: Okay, well that's your opinion. But my playoff structure would be if you win, then you're in.
JUSTIN WADDLE
DL: If you could change up the playoff system in any way, how would you do it? Or would keep it the same?
JW: Oh man. Um, well here's what I've always wanted to do. I would get rid of the powerpoints and what you do is, go to a six-team playoff. Eight works, but six works too. I've always thought that six works best when you have four districts. So the way you would pick your wild-card teams though, since there wouldn't be any powerpoints, would be by your record against teams in your division. Follow?
DL: No, not completely.
JW: Take Broad Run for example. They get credit for only beating Division 4, 5 or 6 teams and not any teams lower than that. That way it would limit teams from scheduling softer teams and reward them for scheduling tougher teams.
DL: Still, it leaves the window open for a school to schedule weak teams within their Division for non-district games.
JW: It would, but at least you're still playing teams of equal size. Honestly, to me, you could leave the powerpoints in, but a six-team playoff is needed. My main point is that the powerpoint system should be updated.
DL: What's your main beef then with the current powerpoint system?
JW: Well, back to what you were saying, is that there could be a lot of weak teams in your district or division and there is not a big enough punishment for playing bad competition, and there's a lack of reward for scheduling tough teams.
DL: Okay, I think that's a fair point, but another problem you would have though, is that it could limit teams from wanting to play rivals, as we currently see with Stone Bridge and Broad Run.
JW: It would, but it would make for a better playoff system. I understand the hometown rivalry thing. But in a case like that, you could tweak it so that powerpoints don't count in that scenario. It'd be like playing a private school, so your record would be affected, but your powerpoints wouldn't be affected in an adverse way.
DL: Hmm, yeah I think that could work.
JW: I would honestly like to see them switch to the five division classification that they're talking about, because that proposal doesn't have divisions or any of that. Most of the Loudoun schools would fall into Division 4, which would keep all those natural rivalries. But back to my original point, I like the six-team playoff format. The big reason I like that is because three years ago, Liberty was 9-1, Sherando was 9-1 and Louisa was 9-1. There were three 9-1 teams in one district, so you had two 9-1 teams miss out on the playoffs.
DL: That makes for a good segue into what Whipple said. Him being a tough-love kind of guy, he wanted to change it up and make six regions in the state, and only the district winners advance to the regional playoffs. What are your thoughts on that?
JW: I don't really like going to six regions. It follows more of the Midwest format and I don't know if that fits for us.
DL: Yeah, I don't know if that's compatible for us either.
JW: But, if you switch to six teams in each region, which is what Region II and the Northwest Region is doing this year, it gets rid of a lot of controversy. Very rarely do you see a lot of controversy over the seventh and eighth playoff spots. Look at last year when Skyline missed the playoffs when they were one of the better teams in Division 3, but they missed out. That's why I think if you switch the playoffs to six teams, it's the way to go. But to take it a step further, it'd be best to take it to the five classification system, which is being proposed for the 2013 season.
DL: That's still very much in the works though right?
JW: Yeah, they haven't even voted on it. So for now, six teams is the way to go. You'd eliminate so much controversy.
DL: Yup, there's always been controversy over those top four spots.
JW: And let's be clear that eight is a little too much for a playoff system.
DL: I agree. Division 5 playoff system has been terrible with that format.
JW: Yeah, the bottom four teams only have a couple of wins. That's ridiculous. Where if you have six teams, the worst you'd get is maybe a 6-4 record. But I will say that having eight teams has made Division 6 very interesting. There was one year where Chantilly was upset and the teams are much more evenly matched.
DL: You're completely right about that. But I think that's a unique problem only to our region. The balance of power is in favor of Division 6 in such a strong way, that there are hardly any problems. Yet if you look at Division 5, it's a total mess because there have proven to be only two or three consistently good teams.
JW: Yeah, you're just giving those lower teams an extra week until they're done. Eight is just too much whereas six is more the right number.
Contact me, Derek LeComte, with comments or questions on Northern Virginia football at GamedayRecruits@aol.com
