OHSAA To Announce Possible Football Playoff Change, From 16 To 12 Teams In A Region

big medicine said:
Just curious if those advocating going back to fewer divisions are also for combining current D I and D II into a single division like the old days when making the playoffs meant something ?
Click to expand...
Yes, divide the total number of schools into five divisions and let them go. Yes, I do know that means an enrollment discrepancy will exist in division one. I’m not opposed to looking into other factors besides enrollment and competitive balance but in the end, let’s arrive at five divisions.
 
David Wooderson said:
Tough one. From a pure football standpoint, less is more. But from a look at the bigger picture - taking away the opportunity for kids to get to play in the state playoffs doesn't sit well with me. Also, gives a chance for bottom of the roster kids a chance to play if there are blowouts.

Plus, what does it really give you?

A look at my favorite region, R5 shows that dropping to 12 teams wouldn't have improved the quality of football one bit. With the exception of Hudson crushing Boardman (example of the seeding being imperfect), the bottom seeds were not competitive at all. But I bet every single player from Hay, Riverside and Hoover all appreciated the opportunity to play in those games. I looked at a few other regions. My other favorite region R1 was basically the same story. Very few competitive 5-8 vs 9-12 match ups.

So what would we really be accomplishing here?

I'd be hesitant to change.
Click to expand...
I've never understood the opportunity to play argument. If everyone gets in as essentially happens with 16 teams what's special about it? It's just another game. The special comes with having to earn your way there by qualifying as happened with 8.
 
y2h said:
I've never understood the opportunity to play argument. If everyone gets in as essentially happens with 16 teams what's special about it? It's just another game. The special comes with having to earn your way there by qualifying as happened with 8.
Click to expand...
I assume your statement of 16 teams getting in being almost the same as everybody getting is from a purely division I perspective.

Even with the current 16 team playoff setup this is how the rest of us make out.
Divisions VII, VI, and V each advance 60.3 % of their teams to the playoffs.
Division IV 60.95 %
Division III 59.81 %
Division II 61.53 %
While division I rolls 88.88 % of their teams into the playoffs. Seems about even.
 
raising4daughters said:
2. If the goal is ensuring player safety while also ensuring that the likely winner isn't left out of the players, cut to 4 teams per region (or 16 per division overall). Sure, there are some upsets among the #5 - #12 seeds, but they typically fall out after the first round against the top 4.
Click to expand...
I don’t know exactly how many, but there have been a significant number of teams seeded 5 or higher that have won state titles. @YTOWN, do you know how many there have been, not counting 2020?
 
y2h said:
I've never understood the opportunity to play argument. If everyone gets in as essentially happens with 16 teams what's special about it? It's just another game. The special comes with having to earn your way there by qualifying as happened with 8.
Click to expand...
Top 8 is what it should be. Combine it someway that you have 4 weeks of playoffs. That way you could start season late August, early September. Not August 17th start. Teams will have to had earn it (playoffs).
 
serpico said:
I don’t know exactly how many, but there have been a significant number of teams seeded 5 or higher that have won state titles. @YTOWN, do you know how many there have been, not counting 2020?
Click to expand...

Not counting 2020, to my knowledge, there have been been 21 teams seeded #5-#8 that have won a state title. Two #8s, five #7s, three #6s and eleven #5s. In addition there have been 27 teams seeded #5-#8 that have finished as runner-up.
 
TOLedo said:
0/2 on takes.
Click to expand...
well the game time moves a hell of a lot faster with a running clock than it did without one, which allowed you more time to play younger guys in a blowout on a Friday. That I can assure you.

I actually like the running clock to be honest. Its why you have JV and Frosh games to get those kids more reps.
 
petepastromi said:
I see your point, but my argument to what your saying is shouldn't you have to earn the playoffs. Why play a regular season that is not going to matter when your letting teams in the playoffs that only win 2 or 3 games or less. Also your making the season longer. Imo, all sports seasons are too long where your starting baseball in March going into November. NBA and hockey going into the middle of June. The super bowl in February, college football until January 20. High school football should not start August 18th and end in early December imo.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is that the difference between letting 12 in and 16 in is negligible on the quality of the first round. Also, with between 25 and 28 teams in most regions, 12 vs 16 isn't that much more of an achievement. If you want real achievement, drop it down to 4 in each region. Problem with that is that the seeding formula isn't perfect. You'd see teams that shouldn't make it getting in and teams that should be in sitting out.

Also, as already noted in this thread, moving from 16 to 12 doesn't shorten the season for anyone except the 4 teams that don't get in.

The longer season only impacts the winter sports folks. Wrestling and basketball primarily. Especially in the lower divisions where 3 sport athletes are common and necessary to even fill up teams with competitive players. But these kids/schools find a way to make it work.

The point I disagree with the most is when you said "Why play a regular season that is not going to matter when you're letting teams in the playoffs that only win 2 or 3 games or less". I think that you & I would have a difference of opinion as to why athletics exist as school sanctioned activities. They don't exist so that a champion can be crowned. They exist to give kids a positive activity and competition. And they exist to give those who don't play sports a chance to be involved in a positive activity like cheerleading or marching band.

More opportunity to play and compete means more opportunity for everyone. Yes, you want to be careful to reduce the drive to compete as hard in the regular season if you know you are making the playoffs regardless. Between 40% and half of teams make the playoffs in professional sports. So its not a big deal if 60% make it in high school football.
 
algernonsidney said:
I wonder if they will ever get rid of the regions.
Click to expand...
Possible. But not likely. Ohio is a pretty big state. Probably close to 5 hours corner to corner. With the first 2 rounds at the higher seeds home field, getting rid of the regions would be a significant inconvenience for the players and families that would have to travel for the games, not to mention the $ for the schools. Even making all games neutral site would be an inconvenience as well as tough to pull off because who is going to want to work a playoff game at your local high school when your team is playing in it somewhere else? Usually it is the cheerleader, band and football parents manning the concessions, gate and parking (a lot of neutral site games charge for parking as a school fundraiser).

Just a small example: LaSalle was #7 in D2, Stow was 58th. Theoretically, without regions, they would have been matched up in round 1. That is over a 3.5 hour drive from Stow HS to LaSalle HS. Probably 4.5 on a bus. You can do that for the Final 4 (and OHSAA can even help subsidize the teams for travel and hotels like the NCAA does). But the early rounds would be too cost prohibitive.
 
algernonsidney said:
I wonder if they will ever get rid of the regions.
Click to expand...
Get rid of regions completely and just do a state-wide bracket? No, that would be a horrible idea. But I don't think it's inconceivable to get rid of the regions as we think of them, and instead take the top "x" teams across the state in each division to qualify for the playoffs and then split them into regions.
 
serpico said:
I don’t know exactly how many, but there have been a significant number of teams seeded 5 or higher that have won state titles. @YTOWN, do you know how many there have been, not counting 2020?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't doubt that. Probably not many, but I'm sure some. #5 and #6 seeds show to be almost as dominant in round 1 against #12 and #11 seeds as #1 - #4 are against their lesser seeds. I'm not lobbying to drop to 4, just stating that the vast majority (like 80%+) of regional winners come from the #1 - #4 seeds. So, if the goal is shorten the season (for health, for the benefit of winter sports, whatever), dropping to 4 per region wouldn't be a horrible idea. After all, the cutoff has to be somewhere.

I like 8 better than 16 in theory but not as long as the Harbin system is used to pick the 8. Taking 16 (or 10 or 12) covers for the flaws in Harbin seeding. I've seen this from both sides. Local public was a top 4 seed a few times due to playing in a weak conference and then got destroyed in a home playoff game; OTOH, one of my kids' parochial school has made the regional finals 2 of the last 3 seasons despite being a 7 seed and 10 seed.
 
David Wooderson said:
Fair point. But everyone doesn't make it. Outside of D1, around 1/3 don't make it. A move from 16 down to 12 doesn't make it that much more "special".
Click to expand...

I like 6 divisions with D1 being an open division. 32 teams per division qualify for post season. That would make 192 schools out of the 700+ qualifying. No regions, use the Harbin system to determine playoff teams but use a rating system to seed teams using a standard bracket and home games for the first two rounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top