How did the seeding do?

[gatorman-uf]

In Round 1, 18 of the 104 games had an "upset" (lower seed beating a higher seed) or 17%.
7 of the 18 "upsets" were the 5 over the 4 seed (two teams that most of us would give a coin flip situation to).
So maybe, just maybe the FHSAA rankings aren't that bad? (With the need for transparency still a given).
Nobody has really come out with a giant list of teams that should have been in the playoffs over other teams in their region.

I know as we go deeper into the playoffs, seedings will hold up less (as is true in all seeded brackets), but let's celebrate that they got it mostly right.

[Dr. D]

While the seeding may be fairly accurate, a more concerning issue is the non-competitive nature of many games.  The median margin of victory for the 104 games was 27 points, so 50% of games were decided by 4 scores or more.  33% of games were in running clock territory (35+ margin of victory).  One of the purported benefits of the Metro-Suburban split was supposed to be more competitive playoff games (i.e. "competitive equity").  These results are not exactly a ringing endorsement of that logic.  Perhaps the games will become more competitive in the later rounds.  Perhaps there are too many mediocre teams in the playoffs to begin with....

[gatorman-uf]

On 11/11/2023 at 1:55 PM, Dr. D said:

1. While the seeding may be fairly accurate, a more concerning issue is the non-competitive nature of many games.  The median margin of victory for the 104 games was 27 points, so 50% of games were decided by 4 scores or more.  33% of games were in running clock territory (35+ margin of victory).  One of the purported benefits of the Metro-Suburban split was supposed to be more competitive playoff games (i.e. "competitive equity").  These results are not exactly a ringing endorsement of that logic.  Perhaps the games will become more competitive in the later rounds.  Perhaps there are too many mediocre teams in the playoffs to begin with....

1. Wouldn't we expect there to be bigger blowouts due to a #1 facing a #8, #2 vs 7 rather than the randomness that often was associated with the neighboring district champions/runner-up playoffs.
2. Additionally, I thought the competitive equity was for more the state championships than the playoffs themselves, but I might be wrong (but if the goal is competitive equity, then a promotion/relegation system does this better) Also I am not sure the old system solves the issue anymore than the Metro/Suburban issue does
3. As for too many mediocre teams making the playoffs, (not counting rural), we have 224 teams in the playoffs (if we went down to 6 classes (not counting rural), we would have 192 teams, so 32 teams less. If we assume that those mediocre teams are spread throughout all classes, you are talking about 5 teams per class, or a little over 1 per region. So just imagine removing the 8th seed (a couple of 7s) in every class, does that fix the issue, if not. Maybe there are bigger issues.
4. When deciding what kind of playoffs to have, the members have to make a decision if they want
   • A) every team that "could" win a championship even if that means bad teams get in
     OR 
   • Only having good teams in, even if 1 or 2 good teams stay home

I generally fall into the A camp and thus blowouts in the early rounds don't bother me too much (blowouts in 4th and 5th rounds would bother me more).

[Dr. D]

1.  The comparison to the district champion/runner-up model is not pertinent, as the current Metro-Suburban/Power Ranking system replaced the 1A-8A/RPI system.  The district champion/runner-up model has not been used for at least 5 seasons.  But I compared this year's results to the 2021 season, which was the last year of the previous system.  2021 had 96 first-round games, and the median margin of victory was 27 points - the same as this year.  So based on a limited sample size, the Metro-Suburban split made first-round games no more or less competitive on the whole.

2.  Although the data point that 89% of state champions had come from the 8 highest Metro areas in the previous 10 years was used as evidence of an imbalance, FHSAA documents cite "blowouts in playoff games and state championships" and "achieving a competitive balance in state championship series (i.e. 'playoff games').  It seems incredible that this seismic change would have been undertaken only to make 8 championship games more competitive.  In fairness, the 2022 championship games were more competitive than those in 2021.

3.  One could argue that if 52 of 104 playoff games were decided by 4 scores or more, there are up to 52 teams who may not belong in the playoffs.  We're talking about playoffs, not regular season games, where mismatches should be more likely.

4.  NCAA March Madness equates to your first option.  Even though we know Southeast Missouri, Canisius, or Western Carolina are not going to win the championship, they are given an opportunity to take their shot.  I still happen to enjoy March Madness, even if there are some blowouts.  So I guess that makes the FHSAA Playoffs -> November Madness!