Roundtable Reply: Week 3
One idea popular with our readers is a review of the current classification system. With the current system dividing teams up into districts and then divisions, it's caused a lot of conflicts, often splitting up natrual rivalries.
Photo By: Dave Bernhardt / Gameday Magazine | VIEW GALLERY
A popular demand in the Northern Region has been to move to a six-team playoff. Such a format would have allowed both Edison (pictured) and Stone Bridge a bye in the first round last year.
Photo By: Gameday Magazine | VIEW GALLERY
Last weekend, we asked our self-proclaimed experts on a problem that we called and ever-growing one, and that was the current playoff system. How do you seed the playoff teams? How many playoff teams should there be? Is the system all wrong? Or maybe too many people are whining.
Whatever the case, we paneled those at the Roundtable to get their thoughts and made them heard. But we also wanted your thoughts. After all, your say is just as valuable as anyone else's in this area. So we asked for opinion, and we'd publish them as well.
The Gameday Nation has spoken on the issue and here's what you all had to say:
Josh:
I would disagree with Bruce's reason on why the Northern Region went to eight teams. He said the Athletic Directors and principals expanded to eight teams based on "personal preference." But like a lot of things in this world, it's important to follow the money. In football, the incoming gate is split between both teams, unlike in other sports where only the home team takes in the gate. Therefore, if you add another playoff game, it's yet another way to increase profits. The wild expansion to eight teams is very much a money play in my opinion, just follow the money.
Well Josh, that would not be the first time we've heard that argument. I will say that is not at all a crazy conspiracy, as you may in fact have a legitimate gripe. You are correct in that both teams split the gate, so there is an added incentive in having an extra playoff game. For seven bucks a head and an average attendance of 1,500 in a first-round game, the total comes out to over $5,000 per school. Not too shabby! Yet while it may be a legitimate point you make, there is no way to prove that the principals and athletic directors expanded the playoffs for more money.
Keith:
I like either a six or eight team playoff and I also think some form of the powerpoint system needs to remain. What that powerpoint system might be I don't know, but that is not the point of this commentary.
Why keep powerpoints? Two reasons. First, it is not fair to exclude a team with an excellent record just because they did not win their district. It can be argued that in several seasons in the past ten or so years the third or even fourth-place Concorde team was better than most of the other teams in the region, so why should they be excluded just because they don't win their district? The move to more than four teams in the region playoffs fixed this, but why should that team be penalized in the playoff bracket just because they did not win as many games against good competition as a district winner who played a weaker schedule? Keeping powerpoints helps ensure you get the best six or eight teams and they are seeded appropriately.
The second reason for keeping powerpoints is potentially much more controversial and I have yet to see it in any of these discussions. I think there needs to be an eight team state level playoff, not four. I would do away with crowning the regional champions and have an eight team state playoff. You could still keep the six or eight team regional playoff format, just don't crown a regional champion. You would need powerpoints for this since each team entering the regional level would have to still be seeded, just as they are now. The two surviving teams from each region would then be re-seeded (based on the powerpoints) against all advancing teams at the state level and an eight team state playoff is played. Quarterfinal and semifinal rounds would be played at the higher seed and the final at a neutral location. This system does away with the standard cross-regional format at the state level now, which I personally don't care for because in some years the best matchups have not occurred in the state final. This new system would also allow a region with two very good teams to advance to the state level and have a shot at a state title and I think it creates more interesting matchups between the regions. True, there might be a bit more travel involved but the idea is to balance the competition state wide, give good teams that might be eliminated in the regional finals under the current system a chance at a state title, and create more interest at the state level.
Okay, a lot on the plate here. First, I like what you had to say about the powerpoints. Waaaaay too many fans do not fully appreciate their value, but the bottom line is that we need them. There have been numerous adjustments made to the point system, but I think they finally have it right. Teams who play with a strong schedule will be rewarded, and that's what we need, plus, as you said it rewards the good Concorde teams. If fans don't want the powerpoints, then prepare yourself to take a visit to Cupcake City.
I will say your comments on the state playoffs are very intriguing. I don't think many would be in favor of scrapping the regional championship, but the eight team state playoff is interesting, but in my opinion, I wouldn't do away with the region championship to make that happen.
Now, what you said about the regional pairings is SPOT ON. The regions should not be paired based on a two-year cycle as is the case now. Too many times the best game of the state playoffs comes in the semi-finals, which should never be the case. If teams are seeded in the state playoffs according to powerpoints, as is your argument, then we'd see some classic state championship games. Who wouldn't love to see Westfield take on Oscar Smith, or Phoebus going up against Stone Bridge, in the state championship?
John:
You hit it pretty dead on about Centreville back in 2005. After they missed the playoffs, the whining was continuous. They were a very good team, but they had their chance against Westfield that year but let the game slip from them. If they win, then they go in at 9-1 with a great shot at winning the title, which goes back to what Tom Whipple said. Today, we now reward second place teams, and that should not be acceptable. I understand there are a lot of great teams that get left out, but at one point or another, they all had a chance to get in the playoffs, like Centreville. Before you know it, we will be finding excuses to allow the 10 teams in the playoffs.
Well, you said it, not me! But come on John, you mean to tell me Centreville did not belong in the playoffs that year? That may have been the most talented team to have never made the playoffs in which I have ever seen. Plus, how amazing would it be seeing Centreville going up against Keith Payne, Lucas Caparelli, or (gasp) Westfield again?
Robert:
Too much whining. You win and take care of business then you won't have to complain.
Nice and to the point, I like it! I have a feeling you'd get along great with Tom Whipple.
Jon:
The current football playoff system should be scrapped. In addition, the district and region alignment needs to be fully reevaluated and probably restarted from scratch.
First and foremost, I am of the belief that absolutely NO team with a sub-.500 record should make the football playoffs. This would preclude what has happened in the Northern Region playoffs since the eight team format was implemented. I would put forth that something "similar" to the Illinois system be implemented. Namely that half of the eligible schools would make the playoffs. Virtually all teams with six wins or more make the playoffs. I also think that whatever system is implemented must be consistent across the state (be it a 4, 6 or 8 team playoff).
Second, do away with powerpoints. Illinois, for "tiebreakers", looks at the total number of wins by the teams you played. This may be worth looking at further.
Finally, I really like Justin's comments about the current powerpoint system: The current system does not penalize teams enough for defeating weaker opponents OR rewarding teams enough for defeating stronger opponents. I think the Illinois system has some merit in addressing this issue.
I think districts should be more geographic in nature, while still having some reliance on size/enrollment.
Hey Jon, loved what you said about NO teams making the playoffs with a sub.-500 record. Before expansion, absolutely zero teams with a .500 record qualified for the playoffs in this decade. It seems in trying to allow deserving teams to make the playoffs, we've permitted too many undeserving teams to qualify in the process. I'd love to implement the plus-.500 rule.
I'd encourage everyone reading this to click on the link about the Illinois playoff system. It's a very interesting process that almost makes too much sense. I took a look at it, and I gotta say that you Midwesterners are onto something.
On that subject, seeing as you do hail from the same state as Tom Whipple, it seems to be common thought that the powerpoints don't work, but it seems we are in agreement for a system deters teams from scheduling cupcakes and I hope we can maintain a system that keeps an emphasis on that.
