Football Playoff Format Changes Being Considered By OHSAA

kingpin2010

Well-known member
I think something more concerning could be bubble teams canceling games against 0 or 1 loss teams late in the year like Lutheran East did, which got them a post-season berth
 

ghsknightsfan

Active member
i don’t hate the current format but i would either go to 4 regions of 8 or 8 regions of 4, just to get the 32 best teams in and eliminate some travel. 8 regions of 4 could be cool, creates a lot of good matchups. the only tweak i would make with harbins is reward teams for playing a tough schedule, something along the lines. or margin of victory with a cap at 30 points
 

FirestoneFan

Well-known member
Dang it really sucks when the two best teams in the state are in the same region. How can we fix this? Look at D2R5. Maybe send Hoban to Cincinnati in the round of 12? Massillon up to R6 in Toledo. Get real IMO. I'll watch the championship game in NE Ohio and send your best. Gripey man it is HS football. A sport to teach your children how to win and lose. It worked for me and my children and they did not get a participation medal. Heck my oldest son played on an 0-10 team and still was 2nd team all state.Played for Alliance. Oh well, I will watch Mogadore make a state run this year,
 

FirestoneFan

Well-known member
I honestly don’t think expanding the postseason will help with the issue but there are a few issues I feel could help allowing teams that truly deserve one of those 8 spots in their respective regions. And I may get crucified with these thoughts and I personally think my proposal is crazy.

A couple of things first.
*push up the first day of 2-a-days by two weeks. 2 scrimmages are kept during training camp. Eliminate the jamboree week and it will become the new Week 1.

Regarding the issue of playing weaker teams and still making the playoffs. The criteria is the point system remains, but a certain criteria can be met.

* Teams must finish at least .500 or better to qualify for the playoffs, and at least play 10 games. Top 8 teams with a .500 or better record with the most computer points qualify. This eliminates any chance of a sub .500 team from qualifying. If at 5-5, a school’s SOS, Head 2 head, Common Opponents, and how that team faired would be factored in for a nod. If in a scenario where a majority of the region is or will finish sub .500 (unlikely), then the top 8 with the most computer points make it in.

* If a team cancels a game of their own choosing for no good reason, (ala Lutheran East-Vienna Matthews) while in season, that canceled game will have a negative impact and would be viewed as a loss in the computer points, not overall record. An exception can be made at the judgement of the OHSAA if cancellation occurs prior to Week 1.

* Out of state opponents only count as half of the points of an in state opponents point worth. Example if Team A takes on a team from Michigan and is considered a D-I counterpart, a victory is worth only half of a full because of being an out of state opponent and won’t face common opponents. This would discourage schools from scheduling out of state and looking for in state teams.

*Strength of schedule would be factored into the points system that would include opponents record and opponents SOS and how a team faired head 2 head. This would benefit smaller schools that play larger schools but won’t have major effect in the points standings.

*League leniency would help a team that plays in a conference that consists of sub .500 teams would allow Team A to gain additional points that may be missed out due to a winless or 1 win team. However, this won’t have a major effect on the rankings, this would be only if more than 50% of your league is sub .500.

*Smaller schools won’t suffer points wise as much if playing a larger school and lose since the larger school is deemed the favorite and expected to win. Example would be if a D-II team plays a D-VI team and D-VI team loses, some points (25% of points possible from a win) from that game can be earned based on performance. Points can still be acquired despite a loss by the smaller school (won’t have major effect) however full points can be acquired by victory as usual. This would allow neighborhood rivals to resume playing each other without major ramifications.

*Geography will factor in Week 11 opponents and Region selections. Top 4 teams in standing earn a home game, however, their opponent will be selected based on proximity would be their 1st round opponent. A set bracket plays out the rest of the tournament with rest of rounds played on neutral sites. Regions are determined based on proximity as well.
I disagree with pushing the season up. I don't even know what a jamboree is in football. How can you teach your kid how to fish in the limited time you see them growing up if they are always doing football stuff? Let alone if a female likes them?
 

fballfan

Member
* Out of state opponents only count as half of the points of an in state opponents point worth. Example if Team A takes on a team from Michigan and is considered a D-I counterpart, a victory is worth only half of a full because of being an out of state opponent and won’t face common opponents. This would discourage schools from scheduling out of state and looking for in state teams.

If this were the case, How would teams Like St. Ed's, St. Ignatius, The Cincy GCL privates get games when they try to get in state games but no one will schedule them. So I believe that is flawed for the big schools. So why penalize a school when in state teams won't schedule them. These teams would have no problem playing in state schools if given the chance.
 

algernonsidney

Active member
* Out of state opponents only count as half of the points of an in state opponents point worth. Example if Team A takes on a team from Michigan and is considered a D-I counterpart, a victory is worth only half of a full because of being an out of state opponent and won’t face common opponents. This would discourage schools from scheduling out of state and looking for in state teams.

If this were the case, How would teams Like St. Ed's, St. Ignatius, The Cincy GCL privates get games when they try to get in state games but no one will schedule them. So I believe that is flawed for the big schools. So why penalize a school when in state teams won't schedule them. These teams would have no problem playing in state schools if given the chance.
Who suggested this? It's a horrible idea. It also an easier drive from Toledo to Detroit than Columbus or Cleveland. It's the same for Cincinnati schools playing schools across the river.
 

EagleFan

Useful Idiot
The coaches associations of various sports regularly ask for changes, and many times the school administrators are the one that collectively shoot it down. OHSAA's 1st step on coach association requests is to gather information/feedback from the administrator at each school.
 

C'Town216

Well-known member
If a 12 team playoff was implemented. here is how it would look Region 1 as an example of it was in place for 2019

D-I R1: Byes 1.) Mentor 10-0, 2.) St. Ed’s 9-1, 3.) McKinley 8-1, 4.) Euclid 8-2

1st round: #12 Strongsville 5-5 @ #5 Solon 8-2, #11 Brunswick 6-4 @ #6 Jackson 8-2, #10 St.Ignatius 4-5 @ #7 Medina 7-3, #9 Stow 6-4 @ #8 Cleveland Hts. 9-1

And the rest of the format would go for Rd.2
#8/9 @ #1 Mentor
#10/7 @ #2 St.Ed’s
#11/6 @ #3 McKinley
#12/5 @ #4 Euclid

I get the gripe over this proposal, however it has its advantages and disadvantages and we honestly can’t judge unless we’ve seen it in use for a season.
 

Protect the Nest

Active member
I posted this on another thread. A look at the numbers shows that it worked moving to 8 teams. More than 8 will most likely be a waste of time.

Below are the state champs Harbin rank/seed they had to start the playoffs. 1999 was the start of the current 8 team per region playoff system. 2013 was the start of Division 7.

All time rank/seed percentage that won state.
#1 - 54 times the #1 seed won state (43%)
#2 - 31 times the #2 seed won state (25%)
#3 - 20 times the #3 seed won state (16%)
#4 - 6 times the #4 seed won state (5%)
#5 - 8 times the #5 seed won state (6%)
#6 - 3 times the #6 seed won state (2%) 2006 Marion Local D6, 2008 Alter D4, 2012 Akron SVSM D3
#7 - 3 times the #7 seed won state (2%) 2001 St Ignatius D1, 2006 Piqua D2, 2018 St Edward D1
#8 - 1 time the #8 seed won state (< 1%) 2004 St Henry D5

Division 1 Rank
#1 - 6
#2 - 7
#3 - 4
#4 -
#5 - 1
#6 -
#7 - 2
#8 -

Division 2
#1 - 7
#2 - 10
#3 - 1
#4 -
#5 - 1
#6 -
#7 - 1
#8 -

Division 3
#1 - 12
#2 - 3
#3 -
#4 - 3
#5 - 1
#6 - 1
#7 -
#8 -

Division 4
#1 - 8
#2 - 5
#3 - 4
#4 -
#5 - 2
#6 - 1
#7 -
#8 -

Division 5
#1 - 10
#2 - 1
#3 - 5
#4 - 2
#5 - 1
#6 -
#7 -
#8 - 1

Division 6
#1 - 10
#2 - 5
#3 - 3
#4 -
#5 - 1
#6 - 1
#7 -
#8 -

Division 7
#1 - 1
#2 -
#3 - 3
#4 - 1
#5 - 1
#6 -
#7 -
#8 -
 

WarriorOne

Active member
It seems we have made, “the system we have now works just fine,” become the enemy of improvement.

It is amazing the extremes employed to prove the current system works. Yet, we need but to look around for examples of things that work but are still constantly made better.

Without ownership, think about this. Every year, why do we have so many stories about some flaw, bias, inequitable omission or unjust treatment in the OHSAA playoff system? Do these claims have even the slightest bit of merit?

We must not become complacent. Without flaws, there would be no need for improvement. We should embrace the weaknesses. Approach them as opportunities to improve. Expansion or improvement does not diminish the competition nor the trophy. It enhances it.
 

Yappi

Go Buckeyes
If we would happen to go to this, I would want the first round games to be played. After they are finished, I think the #1 seed should get to choose their opponent. Then #2 gets their pick, followed by #3 and #4.

It would be crazy to see the #1 seed playing the #8 seed while the #4 seed plays the #12 seed in what would "normally" be the first round.
 

ts1227

Member
I get some 10-0 teams missed, but on the other hand region 13 this year had every team that got to 6-4 make it. You’re really diluting it to go much past 8 a region usually.
 

Spread All Day

Well-known member
I get some 10-0 teams missed, but on the other hand region 13 this year had every team that got to 6-4 make it. You’re really diluting it to go much past 8 a region usually.
Region 13 last season had a few 7-3’s miss the playoffs. Just year by year everything is different.
 
Why is football the ONLY sport where EVERY team doesn't make a tournament?

Shorten the preseason and add the extra game for the extra 4 teams in each region. I like the idea of top 4 gets to have a week off.
 

Mackinbiner

Well-known member
I like the quotes from Tim Budd, Jackson's head coach, in today's Canton Repository -

“Are we not getting the best teams in the championship game every year? It seems like the same teams are in the championship every year, so the system seems to be working."

“I’m not a participation certificate kind of guy. I think you should have to earn your way in by having a great season.”

“There’s something magical about making the football playoffs. I think it’s diminished when you add more teams.”

“The more complicated it gets, the more you’re deferring from the fact that this is about learning life lessons through the sport of football. This isn’t the college football playoffs or the NFL playoffs. It’s an extracurricular activity meant to aid the educational process. The system isn’t always perfect, but we shouldn’t try to overcomplicate things by making up so many rules. I’d rather keep the system the way it is.”
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Why is football the ONLY sport where EVERY team doesn't make a tournament?

Shorten the preseason and add the extra game for the extra 4 teams in each region. I like the idea of top 4 gets to have a week off.
Football is different. You only play 1 game per week too, unlike other sports. No reason at all to include everyone. Plus there are too many teams in Ohio to do that.
 
Why is football the ONLY sport where EVERY team doesn't make a tournament?

Shorten the preseason and add the extra game for the extra 4 teams in each region. I like the idea of top 4 gets to have a week off.
Michigan does(did) a "Win 6 & you're in" kind of thing. Not all teams deserve the post season
 
How about we just eliminate all conferences, leagues. Let the ADs schedule 6 games with teams from wherever, use the Harbins to seed them in the regions they are assigned, give the top four seeds a bye and start the playoffs week 7 in the same highest/lowest seed format plugging 1-4 in week 8 that would make the playoffs 6 weeks. Teams that lose can schedule games with other teams that lose in their regions to keep from incurring long travel expenses to fill out the schedule for ten games.
That way everyone gets a shot at getting hot during the playoffs or that no one is penalized for scheduling a monster schedule and not winning.
BTW send little Johnnie over to the concession stand after losing for a soda, popcorn and his little gold cup participation trophy.
 

Mighty MAC

New member
why not have the top 32 in each division qualify...not region. Same length as current season. No regions where 3-4 good teams are sitting out or those with 5-5 records making the 6-8 seed.
 

JcksnPlrBrs2002

Well-known member
Absolutely hate the idea of expanding. Having 32 seems to be the "sweet spot". I'm really worried that it's a form of "bracket creep" that will lead to "48 teams, no 60, no everyone...".

The problem isn't the number of teams. I think they either need to reform how the "regions" are determined or look at reforming Harbins.

I wonder how much of a difference it would make to have Harbins evaluate losses as well as wins. Over the course of a season, any team that you beat is worth anywhere from 0.35 points (if you beat an 0-10 DVII team) to 6.50 points (if you beat a 9-1 DI team with 9 victories over other DI teams) for your final score, with most wins falling somewhere in between. I wonder how that would change things if you earned the points for winning, but also lost the inverse of points you could have had for losing. Someone with a better grasp on the math behind Harbins could probably point out why that doesn't work, but it always struck me as odd that all losses are treated equally.
 

ELK Strong

Active member
I like the idea. In all divisions except D1, half of the teams would qualify for the playoffs. I have always felt more teams should get a shot. In D1, the bottom 6 of 18 teams wouldn't qualify. This year is a good example, my Elks are the 12th seed this year and could compete with most teams in the top 12 in their region. Many states have all teams in the playoffs, no different than basketball in Ohio.
 

ELK Strong

Active member
No No and No at least for for Division 1 with only 16 teams in each region.

For Example here are the 4 sub 500 teams that would be added to this regions playoffs if this was in effect this year. Ouch !

Findlay - 4-5
Centerville - 4-5
Hilliard Bradley - 3-6
Deleware Hays 3-6
Findlay, Bradley, Fairmont, & Centerville would have made it with this new format. Centerville was down 6 points with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter against #1 seed Springfield this year. Elks could beat half of the proposed 12 teams in a playoff. There would be no harm in adding 1 week.
 
.
Top