PDA

View Full Version : Playoff format



slorch
11-16-2008, 08:52 PM
Through the years in Texas, we have seen many different methods for determining playoff qualifiers and championships in football. Which format do you think does the best job of providing the truest indicator of having the best team in any given season?

soontobeatrojandad
11-16-2008, 09:25 PM
I'd like to see DI & DII set before the season if we are really so concerned about larger enrollment schools playing the smaller schools.

Then take the District champions only.

SLC
11-16-2008, 09:33 PM
I believe the top 2 teams is the way to go... I know we would leave alot of teams out of the mix, but I certainly think it would be a better test then what we currently have.

BackNBlack97
11-16-2008, 09:33 PM
I'd like to see DI & DII set before the season if we are really so concerned about larger enrollment schools playing the smaller schools.

Then take the District champions only.

That won't work... what happens in a district like 2-5a with 10 teams? You assign 5 and 5 and what if 3 of the ones set for d1 make the playoffs? With 2-5a, all 4 playoff teams were in the top half of enrollment (1, 2, 3 and 5)...

Kt`86
11-16-2008, 09:35 PM
I'd like to see DI & DII set before the season if we are really so concerned about larger enrollment schools playing the smaller schools.

Then take the District champions only.

Great idea, but wouldn't that if effect be the same as creating a 6A and a 5A?:rolleyes:

I'm opposed to splitting up 5A before the season.

alienboy51
11-16-2008, 09:39 PM
Sad thing is that a lot of folks, unfortunately, equate the Div. 1 champion as a better team than the Div. 2 champion. On some occasions, the Div. 2 would seem to be a better team but don't receive the accolades simply because it is in the smaller school div.

Firebird
11-16-2008, 09:39 PM
Take the district champ and hand out one state champion.

twcpfan1
11-16-2008, 09:43 PM
I'd keep the 4 team format and reseed within region before Round 1. Some of the Rd 2 matchups are happening too early

alienboy51
11-16-2008, 09:57 PM
I'd keep the 4 team format and reseed within region before Round 1. Some of the Rd 2 matchups are happening too early

Gotta' beat the best to be the best. Doesn't matter when you meet them.

More teams in the playoffs mean more excitement for the fans as well as players not to mention more pieces of the 'financial pie' for all involved.

goodessa
11-16-2008, 11:06 PM
I'd like to see DI & DII set before the season if we are really so concerned about larger enrollment schools playing the smaller schools.

Then take the District champions only.then that would be a 5a & 6a system

goodessa
11-16-2008, 11:19 PM
That won't work... what happens in a district like 2-5a with 10 teams? You assign 5 and 5 and what if 3 of the ones set for d1 make the playoffs? With 2-5a, all 4 playoff teams were in the top half of enrollment (1, 2, 3 and 5)...no funny he said set the districts big school to little school meaning 5a & 6a i dont like that idea.lets just seed the teams 1 thru 32 on one side and one thru 32 on the other side.just like college basketball does march maddness.you could do it by splitting the state northeast vs northwest and southeast vs southwest.if they say it would create geographical diffrences they need look no further of the second rd matchup between elpaso montwood & mansfield.

goodessa
11-16-2008, 11:25 PM
Take the district champ and hand out one state champion.
thats not fun.

BackNBlack97
11-17-2008, 12:06 AM
no funny he said set the districts big school to little school meaning 5a & 6a i dont like that idea.lets just seed the teams 1 thru 32 on one side and one thru 32 on the other side.just like college basketball does march maddness.you could do it by splitting the state northeast vs northwest and southeast vs southwest.if they say it would create geographical diffrences they need look no further of the second rd matchup between elpaso montwood & mansfield.

You would still run into a huge problem in a district like 2-5a... you'd have 2 7-3 (Both with 7-2 district records) teams sitting at home, while you had 2 5-5 (4-5 district records) teams in the playoffs... Setting the teams prior to the season would just mean that the district standings were a joke...

TrojanMom88
11-17-2008, 12:14 AM
Start playing one week earlier and have D1 and D2 champs play for Final 5A Championship!

BackNBlack97
11-17-2008, 12:15 AM
Start playing one week earlier and have D1 and D2 champs play for Final 5A Championship!

If you want to keep 4 teams, that's the only way... otherwise, go back to 2 teams...

slorch
11-17-2008, 07:29 AM
bump

SLC
11-17-2008, 09:15 AM
If you want to keep 4 teams, that's the only way... otherwise, go back to 2 teams...


And really it works out to be the same as just 2 in a one division format. As I said, I know what we currently have would leave alot of teams sitting at home, but to me this D1 champ and D2 champ is not good.

You could also create a 6A and shuffle everyone to fit into either 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, and 1A. Thus having 1 champion in each again.

Jayhawker
11-17-2008, 10:00 AM
Gotta' beat the best to be the best. Doesn't matter when you meet them.

More teams in the playoffs mean more excitement for the fans as well as players not to mention more pieces of the 'financial pie' for all involved.

..too bad the college boys don't get this

grasshopper
11-17-2008, 10:13 AM
i think how they do it in other sports is the way to go, just 1 bracket and a 128 team free for all, probally one of the best formats in the country

HSFootball#1
11-17-2008, 10:16 AM
If you want a real competitive championship, the district champs should get a bye the first week. With seeding of both runner-ups (higher seeds as home team) and champs. The winning runner ups should all be seeded agains the champs with the champs always being home (no coin toss). Highest seed should always be home team and runner-up & champs from same district should not play each other until semi's if a good runner up team beats all others. This address all disadvantages of the current system and gives emphasis to win district and in competive districts win all other games to be runner-up instead of 4th place win enough to make the playoffs we have now. With no reward for winning district or winning more games then the minimum to get in the playoffs.

Maroondog
11-17-2008, 10:19 AM
Back in the day when only the dist champ went it was a no argument issue as to who should be in the playoffs.
A LOT of very fine 9-1 teams stayed home in all classifications. You had to be pretty salty in those days.

AFBroGermany
11-17-2008, 10:20 AM
Top 2 teams with no divisions. If you take just the district champ alot of good teams will be left out of the mix, plus with more teams we get longer playoffs..i.e. more FOOTBALL!!!

AFBroGermany
11-17-2008, 10:21 AM
Start playing one week earlier and have D1 and D2 champs play for Final 5A Championship!

so 2 state champs one for each division, then ultra state champ lol
what would the ultra state championship ring look like lol

HSFootball#1
11-17-2008, 10:22 AM
Back in the day when only the dist champ went it was a no argument issue as to who should be in the playoffs.
A LOT of very fine 9-1 teams stayed home in all classifications. You had to be pretty salty in those days.

So you should be watching from home this year, huh?

Maroondog
11-17-2008, 10:38 AM
So you should be watching from home this year, huh?

Yep.

CAKEETO
11-17-2008, 01:03 PM
I'd keep the 4 team format and reseed within region before Round 1. Some of the Rd 2 matchups are happening too early

I agree with with twcpfan1. My only concern is that some districts have ten teams, while others only have 6. I think that only districts with 8 or more teams can send 4 to the playoff's. Smaller districts get 3 slots.

slorch
11-17-2008, 01:10 PM
If you want a real competitive championship, the district champs should get a bye the first week. With seeding of both runner-ups (higher seeds as home team) and champs. The winning runner ups should all be seeded agains the champs with the champs always being home (no coin toss). Highest seed should always be home team and runner-up & champs from same district should not play each other until semi's if a good runner up team beats all others. This address all disadvantages of the current system and gives emphasis to win district and in competive districts win all other games to be runner-up instead of 4th place win enough to make the playoffs we have now. With no reward for winning district or winning more games then the minimum to get in the playoffs.

I like a whole bunch of that. it's like Duke in the NCAA hoops, but someone actually earns the home field...:D

youtellatale
11-17-2008, 01:34 PM
The idea of giving home field advantage to a district champ is a good one until a D/FW team has to drive to El Paso on the 2nd week of the playoffs to play a far inferior team that has played no one only to struggle because of the 600 mile trip. I see what you're saying but think that maybe the neutral site should still be an option for just such an occasion. Region 1 is too huge to have home field for a district champ no matter what.

slorch
11-17-2008, 06:20 PM
dp

abileneeagles311
11-17-2008, 06:32 PM
i like it when the top 2 teams from each district go, cuz SOME teams wouldn't have really easy first or 2 rounds.

Pinion
11-17-2008, 07:16 PM
Louisiana uses a power points system. It has it's ups and downs, but for the most part it works out I guess. it works off of strength of schedule and wins/losses.
when it gets interesting, you have situations like ECA's district has this season. 4 of the 7 teams in their district went to playoffs. I think some districts may not have a team in the playoffs.
Winning your district doesnt mean you will go to playoffs. But in most cases, at least the district winner goes.


I realize you cant please all the people all the time though.

Me personally, I'd rather it be set up where district winner and runner up go to playoffs. To me, that just seems more fair. But then, life isnt fair all the time.

85Roughneck
11-17-2008, 07:37 PM
And really it works out to be the same as just 2 in a one division format. As I said, I know what we currently have would leave alot of teams sitting at home, but to me this D1 champ and D2 champ is not good.

You could also create a 6A and shuffle everyone to fit into either 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, and 1A. Thus having 1 champion in each again.

I like the 6A class route. And then send the #1 and #2 schools to the POs.

Here's a question, why is it that there are many states that are much smaller than Texas that have the 6A classification. For instance, Florida has 6A, but I would find it hard to believe that Florida has more high schools in it than Texas. Is there some reason Texas does not go to 6A. 5A only started in 1980 and I'm sure there was a time that there was no 4A either.

Pinion
11-17-2008, 07:44 PM
I like the 6A class route. And then send the #1 and #2 schools to the POs.

Here's a question, why is it that there are many states that are much smaller than Texas that have the 6A classification. For instance, Florida has 6A, but I would find it hard to believe that Florida has more high schools in it than Texas. Is there some reason Texas does not go to 6A. 5A only started in 1980 and I'm sure there was a time that there was no 4A either.

Having 6A seems to make more sense in a state the size of Texas.

85Roughneck
11-17-2008, 07:47 PM
Having 6A seems to make more sense in a state the size of Texas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now there is a D1 and D2 in every classification from 5A down to 1A. There's plenty schools to set up 6A and why not go 7A if need be. You still play the same amoujnt of games and you have even more champs and then everyone is happy. 6A and then 7A why not? Everything's bigger in TEXAS.

teamkillbot1022
11-17-2008, 07:57 PM
I agree with with twcpfan1. My only concern is that some districts have ten teams, while others only have 6. I think that only districts with 8 or more teams can send 4 to the playoff's. Smaller districts get 3 slots.

or put 4 or 5 of the toughest teams in the state in the districts with only 6 teams in them. :D

P.S. GO DISTRICT 6-5A!!

Pinion
11-17-2008, 07:59 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now there is a D1 and D2 in every classification from 5A down to 1A. There's plenty schools to set up 6A and why not go 7A if need be. You still play the same amoujnt of games and you have even more champs and then everyone is happy. 6A and then 7A why not? Everything's bigger in TEXAS.

I think 7A would be a little bit over the top. But, this IS Texas. So it would be acceptable.
If a 6A set up was put into place, I think the 1-2A (currently) would be the ones to suffer a little. For the rest, I think it would be a good thing. Because any change is usually frowned upon, it would take a few seasons for everyone to really get on board with it. In the end, I think it would be better for all.
Having a 7A set up would prolly have teams currently in 4-5A making racket about it, but in the end it would be accepted as better for everyone.

The enrollment numbers are where the problems would come in for everyone. if you have a school that's currently just barely a 1A and ok with that, you would suddenly have them moved to 2A where they'd prolly rather not be. Or you'd have teams that are currently 2A moved down to 1A and you'd have people making noise about that.

Back home when the LHSAA (the UIL of Louisiana) forced private schools to play in their enrollment classifications, the teams of those classifications pitched a fit about it. And they still dont like it. But they cant force teams like ECA, Curtis and Calvary to play up. There was a push to get a 6A added in Louisiana that would allow anyone that wanted to play in 6A to be able to play in 6A. No matter what your enrollment numbers were. And the 1-5A would go strictly by enrollment, no exceptions. The problem was that there were only a handfull of teams that were interested in participating. Generally the current top in Louisiana would have made up the 6A teams. The first couple of years it would have been pretty fun, but after that it would have become boring. I guess... I'd still like to see it.


To answer your original question. I dont think so. I think 4A and 5A are the only ones with Div I and II. I've been here less than a years, I cant say for sure. But as I understand it, it's just the highest 2 that are set up that way. If it were all classifications, then for sure, 7A could be implemented.

SLC
11-17-2008, 08:50 PM
I think 7A would be a little bit over the top. But, this IS Texas. So it would be acceptable.
If a 6A set up was put into place, I think the 1-2A (currently) would be the ones to suffer a little. For the rest, I think it would be a good thing. Because any change is usually frowned upon, it would take a few seasons for everyone to really get on board with it. In the end, I think it would be better for all.
Having a 7A set up would prolly have teams currently in 4-5A making racket about it, but in the end it would be accepted as better for everyone.

The enrollment numbers are where the problems would come in for everyone. if you have a school that's currently just barely a 1A and ok with that, you would suddenly have them moved to 2A where they'd prolly rather not be. Or you'd have teams that are currently 2A moved down to 1A and you'd have people making noise about that.

Back home when the LHSAA (the UIL of Louisiana) forced private schools to play in their enrollment classifications, the teams of those classifications pitched a fit about it. And they still dont like it. But they cant force teams like ECA, Curtis and Calvary to play up. There was a push to get a 6A added in Louisiana that would allow anyone that wanted to play in 6A to be able to play in 6A. No matter what your enrollment numbers were. And the 1-5A would go strictly by enrollment, no exceptions. The problem was that there were only a handfull of teams that were interested in participating. Generally the current top in Louisiana would have made up the 6A teams. The first couple of years it would have been pretty fun, but after that it would have become boring. I guess... I'd still like to see it.


To answer your original question. I dont think so. I think 4A and 5A are the only ones with Div I and II. I've been here less than a years, I cant say for sure. But as I understand it, it's just the highest 2 that are set up that way. If it were all classifications, then for sure, 7A could be implemented.

Its 2 divisions down to 1A.. I am in favor of 6A.. Everything would work great if they did that. Just my opinion though.

Pinion
11-17-2008, 08:53 PM
Its 2 divisions down to 1A.. I am in favor of 6A.. Everything would work great if they did that. Just my opinion though.

oh. if that's the case, going to 6A is an idea that should all should be easily sold on. Going to 7A would even be a fair sale. IMO.

But I would guess the UIL would stand to make LESS money that way and therefore, wont do it.

SLC
11-17-2008, 08:56 PM
oh. if that's the case, going to 6A is an idea that should all should be easily sold on. Going to 7A would even be a fair sale. IMO.

But I would guess the UIL would stand to make LESS money that way and therefore, wont do it.


I dont see how they would have less money if we had the same amount of games.. which you would have if we went to a 6A.. 2 teams from each district.

goodessa
11-17-2008, 09:37 PM
If you want a real competitive championship, the district champs should get a bye the first week. With seeding of both runner-ups (higher seeds as home team) and champs. The winning runner ups should all be seeded agains the champs with the champs always being home (no coin toss). Highest seed should always be home team and runner-up & champs from same district should not play each other until semi's if a good runner up team beats all others. This address all disadvantages of the current system and gives emphasis to win district and in competive districts win all other games to be runner-up instead of 4th place win enough to make the playoffs we have now. With no reward for winning district or winning more games then the minimum to get in the playoffs.
and how is this more competitve when all the good teams dont have to travel.

The Original
11-17-2008, 10:25 PM
3 teams go from district. 1 whole division.

THSBandDad
11-17-2008, 10:42 PM
and how is this more competitve when all the good teams dont have to travel.

I think his point is that there should be some reward for winning your district.

THSBandDad
11-17-2008, 10:45 PM
Three teams with a district winner getting a bye might work, but I bet you'd get some complaints from coaches about having that bye week.

I prefer two teams, one champion. But doesn't that cause you to have 64 less games in the playoffs in 5A? UIL won't go for that.

slorch
11-18-2008, 08:35 AM
dp

Ramz
11-18-2008, 08:47 AM
You know slorch...I wondered why your avatar looked familiar???......

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0619/ncf_u_crabtree_300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://search.espn.go.com/michael-crabtree/photo/8&usg=__DjNBMgO0ePq03e7n6YG3hfpzFh0=&h=300&w=300&sz=65&hl=en&start=2&sig2=T2Y2lFsQ-O-o76US1_ZXAA&um=1&tbnid=6VlFkrKdc3dsIM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&ei=JtUiSdTZEIOw8ATu14n7Dw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmichael%2Bcrabtree%2Brams%26um%3D1%26 hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1

:D

slorch
11-18-2008, 08:54 AM
You know slorch...I wondered why your avatar looked familiar???......

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0619/ncf_u_crabtree_300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://search.espn.go.com/michael-crabtree/photo/8&usg=__DjNBMgO0ePq03e7n6YG3hfpzFh0=&h=300&w=300&sz=65&hl=en&start=2&sig2=T2Y2lFsQ-O-o76US1_ZXAA&um=1&tbnid=6VlFkrKdc3dsIM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&ei=JtUiSdTZEIOw8ATu14n7Dw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmichael%2Bcrabtree%2Brams%26um%3D1%26 hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1

:D

looked familiar in what way?

KT2000
11-18-2008, 09:15 AM
looked familiar in what way?

He took the picture. :) :notworthy

Ramz
11-18-2008, 09:16 AM
looked familiar in what way?

Its mine silly...I took it last year at Rice...

slorch
11-18-2008, 11:32 AM
Its mine silly...I took it last year at Rice...

you're a good shot.

didn't know you did that for a living...

TheDarkSide15
11-18-2008, 11:44 AM
after much thought... this is what the UIL (me) has decided...

Mojo plays at State every year.... and we draw a name out of a hat

BackNBlack97
11-18-2008, 02:02 PM
after much thought... this is what the UIL (me) has decided...

Mojo plays at State every year.... and we draw a name out of a hat

Just put 2-5a and all the RGV schools in one region and you'd accomplish that :p

slorch
11-19-2008, 12:04 PM
dp

PirateParent2011
11-19-2008, 12:14 PM
Create a 6A and have 1 champion from each "A" classification. Top 2 from each district advance to PO.

SLC
11-19-2008, 12:17 PM
Create a 6A and have 1 champion from each "A" classification. Top 2 from each district advance to PO.


Thats what I'm saying to.

2smooth07
11-19-2008, 12:42 PM
get rid of the two divisions...3 top teams go to playoffs...ONE STATE CHAMPION...In most cases there is not a big difference when a larger school plays a smaller one...6A is not the answer because we dont need it here...I just want to see one state champion...In recent years we have all said what if katy or North Shore (2003) or who ever were to meet Trinity or SLC or some of the schools from either division...What we are doing is telling the Cowboys (gazillion dollars) they cant play mid or low market team for superbowl LOL