Football Playoff Format Changes Being Considered By OHSAA

BillM85

New member
I'm reminded of the 2016 5-5 St. Xavier team who won the state and deservingly so. In addition there is another thread of 10-0 teams in danger of not making it into the play-offs. Food for thought!
A 10-0 team in danger of not making it is due to the poor records of who they beat. That's just the way things work sometimes.
 

BillM85

New 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.
But make sure that schools from inner city neighborhoods get a bigger trophy to make things fair. ;)
 

BillM85

New member
Expanding playoffs is a dumb idea. You are watering down the regular reason to the point where teams will rest starters, schedule cupcakes, etc. because they know they can just slide in at 5-5 or worse. The only thing I would tweak is a slight change to the computer rankings - add a little factor based on losses. For instance, if you lose to a team that ends up 9-1, you should get a very slight credit. If you lose to a team that winds up 1-9, you should get a slight penalty.
 

StSebastian

Active member
Across the state, here is what eliminating regions and going with top 32 based on Harbins would do to being IN v OUT:

DI - IN Stow, St. Ignatius (R1) Hilliard Darby and New Albany (R3)
OUT Marysville (R2) Princeton, Hamilton, Mason (R4)

DII - IN Barberton (R6) Winton Woods, Anderson, Talawanda (R8)
OUT Willoughby South, Warren G. Harding (R5) Olentangy Berlin, St. Francis de Sales (R7)

DIII - IN Ravenna, Canfield (R9) Bellbrook (R11)
OUT Glenville (R10) Kettering Alter, Trotwood-Madison (R12)

DIV - IN Clear Fork (R14) Washington Courthouse, Bethel-Tate (R16)
OUT Hubbard, Struthers, Girard (R13)

DV - IN Northwood, North Union (R18) ** Northwood is 10-0
OUT Portsmouth, Wellston (R19)

DVI - IN Nelsonville-York, Columbiana (R21) Gibsonburg, Spencerville (R23) ** Gibsonburg is 10-0
OUT Hillsdale, Crestview, Norwayne, Carey (R22)

DVII - IN Ansonia (R28)
OUT Malvern (R25)


A couple of observations:

- Gibsonburg and Northwood (both at 10-0) would have made the playoffs this year albeit just barely at 29th and 31st in their respective divisions.
- In DIII, I would venture to bet that Kettering Alter and Trotwood (both missed out in a top 32 scenario) would beat any of the 3 that made it in over them handily.
- R22 in DVI lost the most playoff teams at 4

Considering there are not a TON of changes, Regional Quarterfinals and Regional Semifinals could all still be played relatively close to home if the brackets were determined AFTER the 32 were determined.

The only thing that could throw travel off, which would HAVE to be the case if you truly want to make it a fair and equitable process, is to have a predetermined bracket based on 1-32 that gets placed NCAA style where the top 4 teams all go in different brackets followed by 5-8 where 8 would be in with 1, 7 in with 2, 6 in with 3 and 5 in with 4. After that, draw for bracket spots based on seed groupings (3's through 8's) This would get as close to guaranteeing that the BEST teams get to at least the final 4 every year with an occasional Cinderella team.

Just some data to digest! Enjoy :)
 

StSebastian

Active member
Just for fun...

Looking at just DVI with a Top 32 as I described above, here is how it would play out with top 4 overall in different brackets, 5-8 paired up like normal (1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5) and then 9-32 randomly placed based on bracket seed (data below table)...

4499

4500
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Just for fun...

Looking at just DVI with a Top 32 as I described above, here is how it would play out with top 4 overall in different brackets, 5-8 paired up like normal (1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5) and then 9-32 randomly placed based on bracket seed (data below table)...
They could probably layer in travel distances to ensure minimizing that, as well as avoiding rematches. I think Northmor was routed by East Knox in the regular season. Could easily move teams around.
 

StSebastian

Active member
They could probably layer in travel distances to ensure minimizing that, as well as avoiding rematches. I think Northmor was routed by East Knox in the regular season. Could easily move teams around.
Right and depending on the hypothetical draw, they may not have even been paired up in this scenario. I randomized the placements for the 3 - 8 seeds (9-32).

For example I just ran it again and randomized the 4 and 5 seeds and had the following match-ups come up:

Allen East v Fairview
Seneca East v Northmore
Paint Valley v Dalton
East Knox v Salineville Southern


In this particular set-up, the best way to approach it is to split-up the top 4 seeds, match-up the 5-8 accordingly and then have a pill drawing where all the 3's, for example, are grouped and let the coaches draw a pill 1, 2, 3, or 4 to determine which bracket they will be in. It is random (luck of the draw), keeps your top seeded teams spread out so the better (higher ranked) teams play later, and potentially avoid any week 11 or 12 rematches between 2 teams that are likely to win state. The Fort Loramie and Marion Local match-up in week 12 comes to mind in DVII. That is the defacto state championship game (in my humble opinion)...

Bigger games with more on the line later in the playoffs... I would think the OHSAA would draw bigger crowds and even capture the attention of the casual fan (State Semi and State Final in Columbus) if you were to do it this way. We all LOVE NCAA March Madness... why wouldn't it work for HS Football? There is a reason why MM is so popular...

I get that NO system is perfect but I think this comes close to what we currently have on average and in turn would increase the excitement and attendance year in and year out.
 
Last edited:

StSebastian

Active member
Also... This likely solves the 10-0 issue 99.99% of the time. This year for example, using a Top 32, the two teams that went 10-0 make the playoffs.

Another issue to address, were there any other teams that won their conference title and NOT make the playoffs? I think that is the bigger issue than going 10-0 and not making it. If you win your conference, you should be in...

Another ode to the NCAA style top 32 bracketing...
 

RedHawk89

New member
Just for fun...

Looking at just DVI with a Top 32 as I described above, here is how it would play out with top 4 overall in different brackets, 5-8 paired up like normal (1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5) and then 9-32 randomly placed based on bracket seed (data below table)...
The biggest reason I see the OHSAA never implementing something like this, your bracket would allow 3 MAC teams to make the state semi-finals. :eek:
 

StSebastian

Active member
SO
The biggest reason I see the OHSAA never implementing something like this, your bracket would allow 3 MAC teams to make the state semi-finals. :eek:
If they are the 3 of the 4 best teams in the state... I don't see a problem with that. The playing field is level, none had a "harder" or "easier" road (it is all based on seeding), and the attendance would be astronomical! No one in West Central Ohio would be at home on the nights they played whether they were affiliated or not...

Competitively even
OHSAA makes tons of money
Better football all around in later rounds of the playoffs
 

algernonsidney

Active 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.
I have wondered the same thing. I'm not sure what the best way to compute losses would be. Why should losing to a 10-0 count the same as losing to a 1-9? It's a good question.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
I have wondered the same thing. I'm not sure what the best way to compute losses would be. Why should losing to a 10-0 count the same as losing to a 1-9? It's a good question.
Because doing otherwise is rewarding losing. I don't give a damn about you playing someone good if you don't beat them.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Because doing otherwise is rewarding losing. I don't give a damn about you playing someone good if you don't beat them.
Isn't it rewarding making a good schedule, taking a risk, the things WINNERS do when it's available? I don't know what your argument has been about the 10-0 teams, if it's blaming them for not making a good schedule or not but one making that argument would seem contradictory to me, if they were also making an argument against a difficult schedule.
 

catstix

Member
I like it. Winton Woods more than any team I’ve seen in a while is one of the best 5 teams in all D2 and didn’t make it. Reward the top 4 with byes. Let the lesser teams play it out so “hopefully” the 10-0 teams and the Winton Woods of the world at least get a shot. NCAA Tourney is great because everyone gets that one chance. Running clocks will happen anyways, so why not let 4 more in.
 

HighSchoolFB45

Active member
Because doing otherwise is rewarding losing. I don't give a damn about you playing someone good if you don't beat them.
It isn’t rewarding losing, it’s punishing a team for losing because they are losing points for a loss. It is like inverse harbins. The min amount of points for harbins you can get for a win is 0.3500 by beating a 0-10 DVII school. The max amount you can get is 6.500 for beating a 9-1 D1 school. So just flip flop it. If you lose to a 10-0 D1 school, you lose 0.3500 harbins. If you lose to a 1-9 DVII school, you lose 6.5000 harbins.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Isn't it rewarding making a good schedule, taking a risk, the things WINNERS do when it's available?
When they score less points, it's not what winners do.

I don't know what your argument has been about the 10-0 teams, if it's blaming them for not making a good schedule or not but one making that argument would seem contradictory to me, if they were also making an argument against a difficult schedule.
I have no argument as fluke occurences are not worthy of one.
 
Last edited:

HomeRun10

New member
They want to go to a 16 week season? Seems the season is already long enough. But if we are going to do this, might as well go to 16 teams making the playoffs. I don't see any reason for giving 4 teams a bye.

The biggest reason I don't like this idea is that it seems that the biggest issue facing OHSAA football is that participation rates have declined in Ohio. This proposal does not address that and arguably, it will make things worse.
I think eliminating 30 days of practice before your first game is a great way to increase participation. SO many kids now a days don't want to put the time in, which is a shame, but this may help i the fact they won't go 30 days before having their first game
 

Tiger Alum

Member
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.
All due respect, but I doubt you wouldn't be singing that 12 team per region tune if Centerville HAD made the playoffs this year. There have to be standards and those teams didn't meet them. That's the way it goes. I don't know why so many whine about this especially in division 1. Half the teams in division 1 make the playoffs for crying out loud. Isn't that enough ? You should be rewarded for having a very good season not a mediocre to poor year.It's ludicrous to make it 12 per region. 75 percent make it to the playoffs ? If you do that,why stop at 12 ? Hell you might as well have ALL 16 teams per region make it then if there are no standards. Ridiculous.
 

ELK Strong

Active member
All due respect, but I doubt you wouldn't be singing that 12 team per region tune if Centerville HAD made the playoffs this year. There have to be standards and those teams didn't meet them. That's the way it goes. I don't know why so many whine about this especially in division 1. Half the teams in division 1 make the playoffs for crying out loud. Isn't that enough ? You should be rewarded for having a very good season not a mediocre to poor year.It's ludicrous to make it 12 per region. 75 percent make it to the playoffs ? If you do that,why stop at 12 ? Hell you might as well have ALL 16 teams per region make it then if there are no standards. Ridiculous.
you might be right, but that was not the case this year. I would say that the GWOC is a much tougher conference schedule than most conferences. Each year, 7 of our 10 games are usually against very good teams. This year, we had the #17 hardest D1 Strength of Schedule out of 72 teams. We also played 5 playoff teams - Fairfield, Lakota West, Springfield, Northmont, and Springboro. I do like this idea of expansion for D2 thru D7 better, but don't think you exclude D1 if the OHSAA goes that route.
 

ELK Strong

Active member
I think eliminating 30 days of practice before your first game is a great way to increase participation. SO many kids now a days don't want to put the time in, which is a shame, but this may help i the fact they won't go 30 days before having their first game
I do think the preseason is too long. Eliminate 1 scrimmage and add 1 week to playoffs.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
eastisbest said:
Isn't it rewarding making a good schedule, taking a risk, the things WINNERS do when it's available?
When they score less points, it's not what winners do.
Now you're arguing 10-0 Gibsonburg is more a winner than 9-1 Lima Central Catholic BUT do not deserve play-offs.

Just because you won't admit you're caught up in a lack of coherency, doesn't mean you're not caught up in a lack of coherency.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Now you're arguing 10-0 Gibsonburg is more a winner than 9-1 Lima Central Catholic BUT do not deserve play-offs.

Just because you won't admit you're caught up in a lack of coherency, doesn't mean you're not caught up in a lack of coherency.
Don't know where that became an argument I made. Just because you can't argue honestly doesn't mean you're not a liar.
 

ghsknightsfan

Active member
it would be interesting if they awarded each conference champion an automatic bid. will it happen? no. should it happen? probably not. would it work? maybe, maybe not.
 
I don’t know why not lets kids play more games? So some teams at 9-12 will get rolled. It is happening first round now anyway.
I look at it from the small school perspective, since that is the level I played at many, many years ago.
I dont see a down side of having 5-5 teams getting an extra game in.
It might be a catalyst to get more kids out for those teams that really struggle year in and out to have a legit shot of making the playoffs.
Try it for a time.. if it is obviously too much then go back to 8.
I am from a small school and I still don't want it. Especially the way it's being proposed. You cannot get away with less instruction time in football. It is a sport that a player can get severely hurt just by playing the game. We're talking about legal physicality that if not taught right can effect a kid for the rest of his life. We should not take away instruction time. Period.
 
.
Top