The FHSAA new idea on reseeding each regional as well for football.

[Floridaatlantic1]

From the genius wizards who brought us a State championship a and B. Now they are going to reseed the regional in football according to power ranking which means a district champ can be a 8 seed and face the number one team in first round. Real nice that a district winner is seeded lower than wildcard. This board is full of idiots and simpletons. This is what happens when the backwoods areas of Florida control the FHSAA. 2 crummy ideas passed in one year. Way to go board. Barney Fifes are running our state association now. 

[THAT S--T WAS FUNNY]

11 hours ago, Floridaatlantic1 said:

From the genius wizards who brought us a State championship a and B. Now they are going to reseed the regional in football according to power ranking which means a district champ can be a 8 seed and face the number one team in first round. Real nice that a district winner is seeded lower than wildcard. This board is full of idiots and simpletons. This is what happens when the backwoods areas of Florida control the FHSAA. 2 crummy ideas passed in one year. Way to go board. Barney Fifes are running our state association now. 

Genius wizards...Simpletons...idiots...Barney Fifes=2 crummy ideas.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up for the FHSAA.

[Perspective]

So, this is NOT (I repeat, this is NOT) a defense of the FHSAA.  In my mind, I tried to figure out what the motivation was behind this new concept.  Was it really as simple as "we want the best two teams in the finals of each region" and a classic 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 bracket is the best way to do that?  If so, what are the flaws with the new system?  Are the power rankings (that will be used to determine the seeding) too 'unscientific' and unreliable?  Will the reseeding result in teams having to travel too far?  Does it not reward district champions?  

Let's take that last question and run with it a little . . . (no wrong answers here), hypothetically speaking, and within each region, should a district winner always have home field advantage over a non-district winner?   Let me use an example that could play out this year:  Metro Class 3, Region 3.  Under the most recent formula, the four district winners would host the four best non-district winners in the opening game.  District 11 has both Dillard and STA.  District 12 has Plantation, South Plantation, Piper and Nova.   Now, Plantation has had some good seasons lately (9-3 last year, with a close loss to Dillard and a blowout loss to Northwestern in the playoffs).   But, I think most observers would agree that, this season, both Dillard and STA will be better than Plantation.  (If you disagree, that's OK, but just stick with me for a minute and accept my hypothetical set of facts as true).   With that in mind, let's say Dillard squeaks out a narrow victory over STA in the regular season, but loses a couple of non-district games along the way.  STA suffers the single loss to Dillard.  As a result, Dillard wins the district championship, but STA ends up with a higher power ranking.   Under this scenario, STA has the best power ranking in the region and Dillard is number 2.   And let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that Plantation ends up 5-5, but beats their three district opponents.  Nevertheless, from a power ranking standpoint, let's say they finish 8th in the region.

Under the old system, Dillard would host a first round game (against the fourth best non-district winner).  Plantation, as the fourth best district winner, would host STA (as the highest rated non-district winner).   Under the new system, STA gets the No. 1 seed (based on power ranking) and would host Plantation.  Plantation would not get a single home game, even if they run the table.  Dillard would host the 7th rated team.  But, here's where it really gets interesting.  Say STA and Dillard both win their first two games.  Notwithstanding the fact that Dillard beat STA in the regular season and won the district championship, STA would host the Regional finals.   [Caveat:  I have not read the FHSAA language to see if there is an exception for this scenario). 

I guess the question comes down to this:  should a district champion be guaranteed at least one home game even if they are the worst of the 8 teams playing the regional playoffs?   

[THIS_IS_DILLARD]

2 hours ago, Perspective said:

So, this is NOT (I repeat, this is NOT) a defense of the FHSAA.  In my mind, I tried to figure out what the motivation was behind this new concept.  Was it really as simple as "we want the best two teams in the finals of each region" and a classic 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, 4 vs. 5 bracket is the best way to do that?  If so, what are the flaws with the new system?  Are the power rankings (that will be used to determine the seeding) too 'unscientific' and unreliable?  Will the reseeding result in teams having to travel too far?  Does it not reward district champions?  

Let's take that last question and run with it a little . . . (no wrong answers here), hypothetically speaking, and within each region, should a district winner always have home field advantage over a non-district winner?   Let me use an example that could play out this year:  Metro Class 3, Region 3.  Under the most recent formula, the four district winners would host the four best non-district winners in the opening game.  District 11 has both Dillard and STA.  District 12 has Plantation, South Plantation, Piper and Nova.   Now, Plantation has had some good seasons lately (9-3 last year, with a close loss to Dillard and a blowout loss to Northwestern in the playoffs).   But, I think most observers would agree that, this season, both Dillard and STA will be better than Plantation.  (If you disagree, that's OK, but just stick with me for a minute and accept my hypothetical set of facts as true).   With that in mind, let's say Dillard squeaks out a narrow victory over STA in the regular season, but loses a couple of non-district games along the way.  STA suffers the single loss to Dillard.  As a result, Dillard wins the district championship, but STA ends up with a higher power ranking.   Under this scenario, STA has the best power ranking in the region and Dillard is number 2.   And let's assume, for purposes of discussion, that Plantation ends up 5-5, but beats their three district opponents.  Nevertheless, from a power ranking standpoint, let's say they finish 8th in the region.

Under the old system, Dillard would host a first round game (against the fourth best non-district winner).  Plantation, as the fourth best district winner, would host STA (as the highest rated non-district winner).   Under the new system, STA gets the No. 1 seed (based on power ranking) and would host Plantation.  Plantation would not get a single home game, even if they run the table.  Dillard would host the 7th rated team.  But, here's where it really gets interesting.  Say STA and Dillard both win their first two games.  Notwithstanding the fact that Dillard beat STA in the regular season and won the district championship, STA would host the Regional finals.   [Caveat:  I have not read the FHSAA language to see if there is an exception for this scenario). 

I guess the question comes down to this:  should a district champion be guaranteed at least one home game even if they are the worst of the 8 teams playing the regional playoffs?   

I’m glad you used our district (Dillard) as an example so I could see how things could potentially play out & with that said that would be complete “BS”. 
 

nonetheless tho tell the raiders to bring that ass win or lose. 

[Dr. D]

A slight correction to your understanding of the new seeding system.

Under the new policy approved in April, in each region, the four district champions and the next four highest ranked teams will be seeded 1-8 and the higher seeded team will host.  However, if a district champion is playing an at-large team, in the first round of the regional tournament, the district champion will host, regardless of seeding.  If two district champions or two at-large teams play each other, the higher seed will host.  From the second round on, the higher seed hosts, regardless of district considerations.  

So under the scenario you outlined, Plantation would indeed host STA in the first round.

So the real question is does a district champion deserve a top-4 seed?  

 

[FBGUY1989]

I think they should have kept it the way it was. With this new system we have to many variables to figure out

[Floridaatlantic1]

This is the same brilliant people who gave us a playoff system a few years ago where the loser of a game earned more playoffs points than the winner of the game or at least the same number. I never trust these power rankings because someone has a formula that benefits what they think is important. So last year it was 1/3 record. 1/3 opponents record, and 1/3 opponents opponents. I see the first 2 parts but the third seemed a stretch and way to hard to predict when scheduling unless you put ST. Thomas Aquinas on the schedule. District winner and runner up was much better system es[ecially when they had a few wild cards in each division.