Football Playoff Format Changes Being Considered By OHSAA

coolguy

Active member
Keep it the same, ....... but if so inclined to change ......... make a 9 week regular season schedule, start regular season a week earlier and everyone plays a playoff game (ala Indiana).
 

CCHS93

Active member
I agree. I know I'm in the minority but I'd actually like to see Harbins used in all team sports. We dont need a team that's won 1 game all year in basketball, baseball, softball etc in the playoffs. You should make it on merit, not simply because you are there.
I agree completely!!
 

sapientia et veritas

Well-known member
There's an inevitability about all of this. But I think if you're adding an extra week, then go ahead and add 8 teams and make everybody play a game in week 11. I don't like the idea of a week off for the bye teams. The rest might be nice for a team that finished with a brutal game, but the week off may create too many opportunities for the kinds of distractions that keep normal teenaged kids from playing their best.
 

guyinahoodie

Active member
By the time this generation is in charge of it that is exactly what will happen. Parents will start to sue school systems because Johnny had an anxiety attack from losing.
The proposal is asking for more teams to BE INVOLVED in the playoffs...that's it!

Still gotta play, still gotta win to move on.

Your generations "we've always done it this way" attitude is just as bad, if not worse than "the everybody gets a trophy generation".
 

guyinahoodie

Active member
There's an inevitability about all of this. But I think if you're adding an extra week, then go ahead and add 8 teams and make everybody play a game in week 11. I don't like the idea of a week off for the bye teams. The rest might be nice for a team that finished with a brutal game, but the week off may create too many opportunities for the kinds of distractions that keep normal teenaged kids from playing their best.
What? What team that just finished a 10-0 #1 seed season wouldn't want an extra week to prepare?
 

FirestoneFan

Well-known member
Speaking as one who played through 2-8 and 3-6-1 seasons in grades 10 and 11, most of us had played enough football for one season. I imagine most of the 3-6 teams that would have a shot at getting in would feel the same way.
This! I think most kids on these teams will want to get on to wrestling and (uggh) basketball. As it is most non playoff football participants might get a week off before starting their conditioning and practice for another sport.
 

The Dock

Well-known member
Eh, I’m not a fan. The current system works fine. Anything that galvanizes the generational backlash of “trophy culture” is just going to make our high school sports environment more toxic. The last thing we need in our high school football arena is a bunch of boomers constantly downplaying and castigating a local teams’ achievement of making the playoffs because the state expanded the window of entry.

If anything needs reform in the playoff qualification process, it’s structural change that promotes better regular season competition. Don’t give teams an incentive to take byes, don’t let an 0-10 conference opponent hurt a team’s chance to qualify. Right now the current system gives many schools no incentive to play a bigger and better program when an ‘L’ is an L. Set the L2 divisor at 9 x (sum of opponents’ games) regardless if a team has a bye or plays ten games.
 
Last edited:

FirestoneFan

Well-known member
Every year I see (and kind of understand) about a team with more Harbins being left out. But I understand the Harbin procedure and you can not just look at a team with more and think they deserve it because they are in a different region. Head to head in a tough league or conference means some might have more losses but it all works out in the wash. My example is D4 R13, 4 teams from the same league can and probably will make the playoffs. One with an 8-2 record and 3 with 6-4. I think the current system is fine.
All this talk about changing things seems to me to be brought about because of Gibsonburg. It will go away after the season IMO.
 

tcgobucks

Well-known member
What? What team that just finished a 10-0 #1 seed season wouldn't want an extra week to prepare?
Look at the scores of the #1 vs #8 games in recent years. The #1 seeds have done just fine with only a week to prepare. There is absolutely no reason to add more teams. Week 1 postseason games are regularly 40+ point blowouts.....adding more teams will only make it worse.
 

Raylan_Givens

Active member
I would rather see a system that guarantees the top 4 in each region a playoff home game, followed by the next 16 teams in the division highest in Harbin points, regardless of region. OHSAA would have to arrange 're-districting' of the 5-8 seeds based on geographic location, but it would make sure more good teams in exceptional regions get in the playoffs, and fewer bad teams in worse regions.
Fantastic idea!! Need to get this to Jerry immediately. Seriously, this makes A TON of sense (which is why it will never happen)
 

Raylan_Givens

Active member
From a fan perspective, I like it. It would have been great for this year considering the things going on with Iggy, Winton Woods and Gibsonburg. Also that would allow my Indians in the playoffs this year (who, if they win tonight, will be 7-3 and only have a 6% chance of getting in still).
NW, hate to be a stick in the mud, but your team is exactly why they should not expand. The Indians will have 1 win against a team with a winning record. That is an improvement but it should not qualify you for a chance at State Playoffs.
 

CometCountry

Well-known member
HS Basketball coaches would like to get their players before late November/early December--teams 5 thru 12 could play 16 games to match an NFL schedule--it's too many games. 4 teams per region seems like much better games and reward for a great season.
 

NWIndianNation01

Active member
NW, hate to be a stick in the mud, but your team is exactly why they should not expand. The Indians will have 1 win against a team with a winning record. That is an improvement but it should not qualify you for a chance at State Playoffs.
I was just saying that selfishly. Although, if you look at the teams in our region, I bet we could beat a lot of them. Solely just my opinion though, obviously.
 

RedRider1

Active member
Bad idea...but curious if the 1 seed would automatically play the 5 vs 12 winner, 2 seed plays 6/11 winner, 3 seed plays 7/10 winner and 4 seed plays 8/9 winner....or would the 1 play the lowest remaining seed based on how week 1 plays out.

So...

5 beats 12
6 beats 11
10 beats 7
8 beats 9

Lowest remaining seed is the 10. Would 1 play the 10 and then everyone else fills in based on that?
 

Sykotyk

Well-known member
Bad idea...but curious if the 1 seed would automatically play the 5 vs 12 winner, 2 seed plays 6/11 winner, 3 seed plays 7/10 winner and 4 seed plays 8/9 winner....or would the 1 play the lowest remaining seed based on how week 1 plays out.

So...

5 beats 12
6 beats 11
10 beats 7
8 beats 9

Lowest remaining seed is the 10. Would 1 play the 10 and then everyone else fills in based on that?
Considering the state uses a hard bracket for regional games it's doubtful they'd not have a hard bracket with 12 teams.
 
I know a thing or two about under .500 teams making the playoffs... I was on the 2001 Walsh Jesuit team that went 3-6 and made the D2 playoffs that year as a 7 seed and lost a close one to Youngstown Chaney in the 1st round. The reason we made it was because every single one of our opponents also went to the playoffs that year and our team EARNED those three tough wins against great competition (and had some close losses). That same year, 10-0 Newcomerstown missed the playoffs because of a weak schedule. My point: the Harbin system works and rewards a team challenging itself (there may be outliers where a legitimately great team is left out, but >95% of the time, the deserving teams get in). Expanding the playoffs would water down the sport by disincentivizing scheduling tough competition. Call me old school, but I think teaching the lesson that challenging oneself and taking tough opposition (in sports and in life) is one the youth of today (and much of my older-millennial cohort) desperately needs.
 

WarriorOne

Active member
I offered this suggestion in this forum along with the supporting metrics to expand to twelve qualifying teams per region some ten years, perhaps more, ago,

Although a few have expressed some valid concerns above, most are meaningless rhetoric or arguments that seem to support some edge or perceived advantaged benefited by their home team.

Still there are several issues not discussed above that should be considered.

First, the season does not have to be extended to accommodate the playoff bye week. Changing the “scrimmage game” before week one to a regular season allows completion of the 10-week schedule earlier.

Second, expanding to twelve teams per region is not to the detriment of the first eight qualifiers. It only offers some solace to those schools finishing just outside the current standards. Those schools finishing so usually have some, they believe, compelling argument that the system unfairly omitted them.

A team qualifying under these expanded standards that believes they will not be competitive always has the option to forfeit. Several options could be made available for managing forfeitures.

Next, by aligning the OHSAA starting date with the schedule of the surrounding states ends the skewing of the HARBINS caused by playing these teams. This too was presented in this forum juxtaposing a team’s HARBINS with and without this scheduling irregularity.

Finally, fan support and game attendance is increased significantly when the home team qualifies and takes part in the playoff tournament. Although I cannot offer empirical data to support this conclusion anecdotal evidence is offered each year throughout this forum.
 

gocards

This is the year
Especially in the Division I Regions, that would be 12 out of 18 teams making it.
The D1 pool of teams is too small right now for 4 Regions. I would rather see them go back to 2 Regions of 16 teams each. I prefer a bigger variety of opponents to play over having to play the same teams in the 1st three rounds of the playoffs that we play during the season.
 

the phog

Member
Especially in the Division I Regions, that would be 12 out of 18 teams making it.
The problem is this generation of kids have been getting participation ribbons since they were in flag football and t-ball. Not everyone wins, not everyone gets the job they really wanted. It’s ridiculous that some kids won’t know a loss or not getting what they want until they are adults.
For D1 this proposal would mean 48 of the 72 teams would make the playoffs, why on earth should 67% of the teams make it ? At that point put them all in and be done with it.
Just like the NHL and NBA.
 

bkmk1

Active member
I like it. The only thing I would add is go from 7 divisions to 6 divisions with this new format. Also playoffs would be 3 classes on Fridays and 3 classes on Saturdays. State Finals would be the same thing. 3 on Friday, 3 on Saturday.
 

BlessEmAll

Moderator
who cares, really? The kids are wasting a game per year on the Jamboree games. Make that week 1 and increase the qualifiers by 4. I guess I don’t see the problem. Jamboree games are a waste in my opinion. I’m not a coach though. Ask them.
Eliminate 7 divisions. Go back to 6
 
Not a fan, and I'm from Gibsonburg. I remember when the regular season and winning your league meant something. I agree with a lot of posters above, that if there is a specific desire to increase, change the regular season to nine weeks and go to sixteen teams.
 

serpico

Well-known member
I like it. The only thing I would add is go from 7 divisions to 6 divisions with this new format. Also playoffs would be 3 classes on Fridays and 3 classes on Saturdays. State Finals would be the same thing. 3 on Friday, 3 on Saturday.
Great, but if they eliminate a division they need to stop giving D1 teams an easier path to the playoffs by increasing the number of D1 teams.
 

Spread All Day

Well-known member
HS Basketball coaches would like to get their players before late November/early December--teams 5 thru 12 could play 16 games to match an NFL schedule--it's too many games. 4 teams per region seems like much better games and reward for a great season.
This is Ohio. You wanna play basketball, move.
 

Spread All Day

Well-known member
Bad idea...but curious if the 1 seed would automatically play the 5 vs 12 winner, 2 seed plays 6/11 winner, 3 seed plays 7/10 winner and 4 seed plays 8/9 winner....or would the 1 play the lowest remaining seed based on how week 1 plays out.

So...

5 beats 12
6 beats 11
10 beats 7
8 beats 9

Lowest remaining seed is the 10. Would 1 play the 10 and then everyone else fills in based on that?
You would think it would be the same format it is now. Winner of 5-12 plays 1
 
.
Top