IHSA Approves 1-32 Seeding For all classes.

Saw this posted on Edgy...IHSA Approves 1-32 seeding for all classes in football.

i am a big fan of this

ging wrote:i am a big fan of this

My first question, and I'm not being a smart guy at all, but I'd love to here why.

Second, and maybe I've just been busy and out of touch the last few months, but how many people knew this was being voted on yesterday? I did not, and again, I've been pretty off the grid with responsibilities here, but I'd heard nothing about this before yesterday.

Honestly, we are still in a position where we are glad to be in the conversation each season of being a playoff team, but I'd wager a guess and say this is going to make scheduling more difficult in some ways; this will put a huge premium on the difference between being 6-3 and 7-2 or 8-1 and hosting or being on the road. Just my initial thought.

I’m just wondering about the criteria used for the seedings. Currently it’s all about won/lost records. Every year in the playoffs you see 9-0 or 8-1 high seeded teams knocked out in the second round because they just aren’t that good. Their record is a product of playing in a weak Conference/ playing a weak schedule.

Since the current North/South Format went into place we have played one team with in 30 miles of us. We have played four over 125 miles away and we are in Chicago land area. I am all for 1-32 as the travel wont change and it is nice playing teams we never see.

OSUBucks wrote:I’m just wondering about the criteria used for the seedings. Currently it’s all about won/lost records. Every year in the playoffs you see 9-0 or 8-1 high seeded teams knocked out in the second round because they just aren’t that good. Their record is a product of playing in a weak Conference/ playing a weak schedule.

North vs south debate is about as old as the Public vs Private debate.  I like the move because it will create new matchups and the same teams won't be seeing each other year in an year our, unless both programs are solid year in and year our. Lefty is correct that it may create some scheduling issues with teams looking for the 7th, 8th, or 9th win. Honestly for us, scheduling is an issue each and every year. We always create two year contracts but each year we have a team drop off and leaves us looking for week 1 or 2, and we are still looking for Week 2 and we are willing to travel but nobody wants to play us.  

Seeding process does need to change but how is a major question.  With so many closed conferences you will always have a strong conference matched up with a weak conference.  

Playoff points is flawed, cannot use media due to personal bias, and I don't know enough about how Cal Preps or Massey determine their ratings to see if that is feasible.  

I think an RPI formula could be the best option.  One I proposed on a previous thread was
RPI = (Wins x 1) + (.25 x opponent wins) + (.50 x defeated opponent wins).

lefty120 wrote:

ging wrote:i am a big fan of this

My first question, and I'm not being a smart guy at all, but I'd love to here why.
 

for me it's because it opens up so many more potential match ups for the team i support.

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:I’m just wondering about the criteria used for the seedings. Currently it’s all about won/lost records. Every year in the playoffs you see 9-0 or 8-1 high seeded teams knocked out in the second round because they just aren’t that good. Their record is a product of playing in a weak Conference/ playing a weak schedule.

North vs south debate is about as old as the Public vs Private debate.  I like the move because it will create new matchups and the same teams won't be seeing each other year in an year our, unless both programs are solid year in and year our. Lefty is correct that it may create some scheduling issues with teams looking for the 7th, 8th, or 9th win. Honestly for us, scheduling is an issue each and every year. We always create two year contracts but each year we have a team drop off and leaves us looking for week 1 or 2, and we are still looking for Week 2 and we are willing to travel but nobody wants to play us.    

Seeding process does need to change but how is a major question.  With so many closed conferences you will always have a strong conference matched up with a weak conference.  

Playoff points is flawed, cannot use media due to personal bias, and I don't know enough about how Cal Preps or Massey determine their ratings to see if that is feasible.  

I think an RPI formula could be the best option.  One I proposed on a previous thread was
RPI = (Wins x 1) + (.25 x opponent wins) + (.50 x defeated opponent wins).

Johnsburg dropped you guys?

Doctor D wrote:
Johnsburg dropped you guys?

Yep, they had a conference realignment or something and wanted to schedule a rival. Still looking for week 2 with very little hope.

dusty7 wrote:

Doctor D wrote:
Johnsburg dropped you guys?

Yep, they had a conference realignment or something and wanted to schedule a rival.  Still looking for week 2 with very little hope.

Sucks. Hopefully you can find a suitable opponent.

You guys return a decent core and should have a solid team again. I look forward to checking out a few games.

I'm curious what the coaches association knew about this move before hand...personally, I didn't hear anything about it before it became a reality.

Again, we are in a position we'd rather be in and go wherever to play than not be in...but we'd have had a trip up to Richmond Burton this year round 1...I get it, you get what you deserve when you go 5-4 against a schedule that doesn't provide you many points...and I have no issue playing teams like R-B...but really???  A round 1 game where we travel over 5 hours to get there?  I'd have had no issue going to the likes of Rochester or SHG this fall, as again, we were 5-4 and a low seed...but either of those trips would have afforded our players classmates the ability to make a road trip to see their friends play.  Not many schools have kids who'd travel 5+ hours to watch their classmates do anything.  I feel like this is a move that is taking some first round games away from the students...which is and should be the main priority of anything that's being done. I'll be interested to see some of the travel in the later rounds as this plan unfolds the next couple years. I'll wager a guess and say it's further...by quite a bit.

This is just my opinion. I guess as somewhat of an old school guy, I understand and that there is this motivation by many to keep football 'different'...but isn't it already very different compared to every other IHSA sport? There has to be a better way to get the best teams together in the championship game.

The 1-32 was a Football Advisory Committee recommendation that was discussed and voted on at their December Meeting:

https://www.ihsa.org/documents/adv%20minutes/21-22/21-fb-minutes.pdf

Then, at the February 7th meeting of the full board, the advisory committee recommendations from three different activities (one of which was football) were discussed and approved.

https://www.ihsa.org/News-Media/Announcements/ihsa-board-of-directors-february-meeting-recap-7

Here are the members of the football advisory committee:

https://www.ihsa.org/Sports-Activities/Boys-Football/Advisory-Committee

I get all that...those individuals are separate from the IHSFCA. I've spoken with several members of our association who had no knowledge of this...yes, all of this is public knowledge, but you'd think the advisory committee would have made it a bit more known so the coaches association could at least weigh in on it...and maybe that happened and I missed it...in my email folder however, the only things I've gotten from our association over the last 6 months are emails about membership dues, all state, and clinic advertisements.

lefty120 wrote:I'm curious what the coaches association knew about this move before hand...personally, I didn't hear anything about it before it became a reality.

Again, we are in a position we'd rather be in and go wherever to play than not be in...but we'd have had a trip up to Richmond Burton this year round 1...I get it, you get what you deserve when you go 5-4 against a schedule that doesn't provide you many points...and I have no issue playing teams like R-B...but really???  A round 1 game where we travel over 5 hours to get there?  I'd have had no issue going to the likes of Rochester or SHG this fall, as again, we were 5-4 and a low seed...but either of those trips would have afforded our players classmates the ability to make a road trip to see their friends play.  Not many schools have kids who'd travel 5+ hours to watch their classmates do anything.  I feel like this is a move that is taking some first round games away from the students...which is and should be the main priority of anything that's being done.  I'll be interested to see some of the travel in the later rounds as this plan unfolds the next couple years.  I'll wager a guess and say it's further...by quite a bit.  

This is just my opinion.  I guess as somewhat of an old school guy, I understand and that there is this motivation by many to keep football 'different'...but isn't it already very different compared to every other IHSA sport?  There has to be a better way to get the best teams together in the championship game.  

I understand your point, but these are STATE playoffs and only 256 schools get to participate in them. Should the convenience of players' classmates be taken into consideration in the design of the brackets? I think not. Another poster in this thread said his team has had FOUR road trips of over 125 miles in the 1-16 northern bracket. What kind of attendance is there for a 5-4 visiting team travelling two or three hours within the old format, and what kind of drop off in turnout would there be for that same team traveling four or five hours instead of two or three?

lefty120 wrote:I get all that...those individuals are separate from the IHSFCA.  

Are you sure about that?

Looks to me like 5 of the 8 Football Advisory Committee members are coaches.  https://www.ihsa.org/Sports-Activities/Boys-Football/Advisory-Committee  While they did not vote this recommendation into IHSA law, they were the ones who recommended it in the first place. I can't imagine these people would intentionally keep something like this under wraps in their conversations with other IHSFCA members.

I have no issue agreeing to disagree here...and know you're point is well taken.  And yes, these are state playoffs...isn't every other team / individual sport that as well?  I understand everyone gets into the tournament in other sports, but still it's a state series.  

Here's my question(s)...football is already different in many ways from other sports.  Do we always get the two best teams in other team sports?  I'd say probably not...rarely if that.  This is a situation where if we aren't doing what's in the best interest of the student athletes and students who cheer for them, what are we doing here??  This isn't the NCAA or NFL.  If the students aren't something that's taken into consideration when drawing these brackets, then I'd say it's being done so adults, coaches and fans, can get what they want...that, to me, isn't right.

I'd also add that traveling 125 miles is way different than traveling 310 miles, 1 way...which many schools will have to do when this comes to fruition.  Think about that for a second...Salem, where I'm at, is in the northern portion of what I'd consider to be Southern Illinois...there will be schools from even further south than us that will have to travel to the northern part of the state...for a 1st Round game.  We'd have put down 620 miles in one day this past fall. 10 hours on a bus...to play a 3 hour football game. Are we trying to strike a balance and make this competitive as well as special for the kids and people who support them, or just make sure the perennial top teams get to play who they want when they want?

ramblinman wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I get all that...those individuals are separate from the IHSFCA.  

Are you sure about that?

Looks to me like 5 of the 8 Football Advisory Committee members are coaches.  https://www.ihsa.org/Sports-Activities/Boys-Football/Advisory-Committee  While they did not vote this recommendation into IHSA law, they were the ones who recommended it in the first place.  I can't imagine these people would intentionally keep something like this under wraps in their conversations with other IHSFCA members.

I am...these two entities are not the same. There is always a coaching faction represented on the advisory committee. I've been a head coach in Illinois for 24 years. I know how the various groups in our state work and who comprises them.

I'm not saying that anyone was cloak and dagger intentionally about the seeding change...I just think this is a pretty big deal and it wasn't really publicized at all. I don't think I'm out of line by simply making that observation.

lefty120 wrote:
I'm not saying that anyone was cloak and dagger intentionally about the seeding change...I just think this is a pretty big deal and it wasn't really publicized at all.  I don't think I'm out of line by simply making that observation.  

I think pretty much everyone was surprised by this move. I don't know of any coaches who even knew this was a proposal. I am also not even sure what brought about this change. From a northern school perspective, I don't think many were complaining about this issue anyway. My guess is after the fact, you would get a split of 60% support and 40% don't support. Soucie said one of the rational reasons was it has worked for 7A and 8A. But for those classes you are only looking at a handful of schools south of I-80. Bring in 1A - 6A, you are looking at most of the state.

If you want competitive balance and want the best 2 teams in the finals, 1-32 is probably the best to accomplish that but you will inevitably have some teams forced to travel long distances which will hurt fans and ticket revenue, especially in the early rounds. But with almost every school streaming on NFHS or Youtube, fans still have an opportunity to watch the game. For us, travel is not really an issue, we have money and experience with overnight stays but that is not the same for all schools, especially smaller schools.

No matter what you do it there are going to be problems. Quads created way too many conference re-matches, 1-16 may not get the best 2 schools in the finals, 1-32 is too much travel.

All good points coach, especially in regards to the online streaming availability now. Just another issue we will deal with moving forward from the COVID era. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't recall that happening much before the pandemic.

lefty120 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I get all that...those individuals are separate from the IHSFCA.  

Are you sure about that?

Looks to me like 5 of the 8 Football Advisory Committee members are coaches.  https://www.ihsa.org/Sports-Activities/Boys-Football/Advisory-Committee  While they did not vote this recommendation into IHSA law, they were the ones who recommended it in the first place.  I can't imagine these people would intentionally keep something like this under wraps in their conversations with other IHSFCA members.

I am...these two entities are not the same.  There is always a coaching faction represented on the advisory committee.  I've been a head coach in Illinois for 24 years.  I know how the various groups in our state work and who comprises them.

I'm not saying that anyone was cloak and dagger intentionally about the seeding change...I just think this is a pretty big deal and it wasn't really publicized at all.  I don't think I'm out of line by simply making that observation.  

I understand the two entities are not the same, but is there zero crossover between them?  None of the five coaches on the FAC are IHSFCA members?   How big and how active is the IHSFCA?  It's hard to imagine that all of the members were uninformed about it.  If I were you, I wouldn't be looking at the IHSA to blame but rather those within the IHSFCA who knew about it and failed to raise it in discussions within the coaching community.

While there may not have been any IHSA or FAC communication to the IHSFCA in this regard, is that rare or is that the way it always is?  If there is regular communication between these entities and this time there was none, then I think you have a legit beef.  If there was no communication on this because there is never any official communication, then I think it's stretching it to claim that there should have been.

lefty120 wrote:All good points coach, especially in regards to the online streaming availability now.  Just another issue we will deal with moving forward from the COVID era.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't recall that happening much before the pandemic.  

You had schools here and there that streamed on NFHS but it definitely went to another level during COVID.

I can definitely see the IHSA losing money on ticket sales and how will they recover that lost revenue?

I still think there is more to this story, possibly moving Semis to neutral fields, which coaches won't ever vote for, and the finals to ISU.

ramblinman wrote:

lefty120 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I get all that...those individuals are separate from the IHSFCA.  

Are you sure about that?

Looks to me like 5 of the 8 Football Advisory Committee members are coaches.  https://www.ihsa.org/Sports-Activities/Boys-Football/Advisory-Committee  While they did not vote this recommendation into IHSA law, they were the ones who recommended it in the first place.  I can't imagine these people would intentionally keep something like this under wraps in their conversations with other IHSFCA members.

I am...these two entities are not the same.  There is always a coaching faction represented on the advisory committee.  I've been a head coach in Illinois for 24 years.  I know how the various groups in our state work and who comprises them.

I'm not saying that anyone was cloak and dagger intentionally about the seeding change...I just think this is a pretty big deal and it wasn't really publicized at all.  I don't think I'm out of line by simply making that observation.  

I understand the two entities are not the same, but is there zero crossover between them?  None of the five coaches on the FAC are IHSFCA members?   How big and how active is the IHSFCA?  It's hard to imagine that all of the members were uninformed about it.  If I were you, I wouldn't be looking at the IHSA to blame but rather those within the IHSFCA who knew about it and failed to raise it in discussions within the coaching community.

While there may not have been any IHSA or FAC communication to the IHSFCA in this regard, is that rare or is that the way it always is?  If there is regular communication between these entities and this time there was none, then I think you have a legit beef.  If there was no communication on this because there is never any official communication, then I think it's stretching it to claim that there should have been.

All fair questions and points. I would assume those coaches are members of the coaches association but I can’t confirm that. That, as history would prove, means nothing in regards to communication between the two. I’d say in the almost 3 decades I’ve been involved with both, the communication has been hit or miss. Some things yes some things no. Some things you’d say are not a big deal and others such as this would cause you to pause and ask why this wasn’t discussed. Again, solely my opinion, I’d say this is a pretty big deal and a fairly large shift. If the playoffs are as big a deal as many will make them out to be, state series, only 256 qualifiers etc., I’d say the way 6/8 classes are seeded and the make up of the 32 team brackets is an item that the coaches association should have been given the heads up on.

And as all of us can I’m sure agree, the FAC is part of the IHSA...the IHSA’s communication has proven time and again to be sketchy.

I’d also add that I understand teams from the central and northern parts of the state probably aren’t as curious about how this will work as schools from Southern Illinois...until they need to hop on a bus for a Round 2 game that makes up a 10 hour bus ride day.

i suggest an East West Split of the State 1-16

dusty7 wrote:

lefty120 wrote:All good points coach, especially in regards to the online streaming availability now.  Just another issue we will deal with moving forward from the COVID era.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't recall that happening much before the pandemic.  

You had schools here and there that streamed on NFHS but it definitely went to another level during COVID.  

I can definitely see the IHSA losing money on ticket sales and how will they recover that lost revenue?

I still think there is more to this story, possibly moving Semis to neutral fields, which coaches won't ever vote for,  and the finals to ISU.

Centrally locating the Finals at ISU makes perfect sense. I never understood the logic of playing at DeKalb ever other year. Obviously choosing DeKalb was based on other considerations which I won’t get in to.