Jump to content

Playoff Bracket Release


Perspective

Recommended Posts

That scenario is 100% accurate, if the FHSAA's own documents are to be believed (and chalk holds):

4.7.2.2.2 State Semifinals

(b) Bracketing. Teams will be seeded based on the FHSAA MaxPreps Rankings at the conclusion of the regular season. The one (1) seed will play the four (4) seed and the two (2) seed will play the three (3) seed. (c) Host Schools. Teams with the highest regular season FHSAA MaxPreps Ranking will be designated “home” team.

So if Lakeland (Region 2), Manatee (Region 3), any of Niceville/Lincoln/Mosley (Region 1), and STA (Region 4) win their respective Regions (which is very plausible), Lakeland (#1 seed) would host STA (#4 seed) in one semi-final, and Manatee (#2 seed) would host Region 1 winner (#3 seed) in the other semi-final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Longtime Observer said:

Full disclosure: I don't have any idea if this is true or not. I was thinking the semis would be R1 vs. R2 and R3 vs. R4. Meaning Lakeland and STA couldn't meet until the finals. But, I don't really know, and I'm not sure anyone else knows, either. LOL

There was very nearly a big controversy that would've gone against Lakeland. Central was Lakeland's biggest win, as the Rockets won every other game they played on the field. Due to being forced to forfeit all of those wins, Central's record showed up as 0-9, which was probably then Lakeland's WORST win. Lakeland thus went from being comfortably number 1 5A, to BARELY holding on to the #1 seed by the smallest of margins. Lakeland was four-tenths of a point away from falling to the #4 seed, which would've likely meant traveling for a game or two. All because, off the field, an 8-1 team was switched to 0-9 in the last week. I wonder if the switch in record really DID push Lakeland down, and the FHSAA "fudged" things a little to avert the controversy. Of course, with a SECRET formula, they'd be free to do that and no one could know for sure.

In this type of situation, I believe Central's "adjusted record" should be 0-9.  However, for purposes of determining the strength of schedule for any team that played Central, Central's "on the field record" ought to be whatever it was (in this case, 9-0).  Think about it, the forfeits are the result of Central using an ineligible player . . . so, arguably, Central was even better than they should have been when the actual game was played.  If a team like Lakeland beat a team like Central when Central was playing with a player that they shouldn't have been playing with, in my opinion, Lakeland should not be penalized.

Now, I'm guessing the response from the FHSAA would be as follows:  "Yep, you're right, but we can't figure out how to do that and neither can MaxPreps." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. D said:

That scenario is 100% accurate, if the FHSAA's own documents are to be believed (and chalk holds):

4.7.2.2.2 State Semifinals

(b) Bracketing. Teams will be seeded based on the FHSAA MaxPreps Rankings at the conclusion of the regular season. The one (1) seed will play the four (4) seed and the two (2) seed will play the three (3) seed. (c) Host Schools. Teams with the highest regular season FHSAA MaxPreps Ranking will be designated “home” team.

So if Lakeland (Region 2), Manatee (Region 3), any of Niceville/Lincoln/Mosley (Region 1), and STA (Region 4) win their respective Regions (which is very plausible), Lakeland (#1 seed) would host STA (#4 seed) in one semi-final, and Manatee (#2 seed) would host Region 1 winner (#3 seed) in the other semi-final.

The above is contrary to what's shown on the bracket, which shows R1 vs R2 and R3 vs R4 in the 5A semifinals.  As a Niceville fan, however, I much prefer the scenario you posted.  We might have a chance to host a semifinal then, assuming we make it that far, with a Manatee loss. Pretty confident Lakeland will win R2.  

Also, can anyone explain the discrepancy between the FHSAA final regular season rankings and the Maxpreps version on their site?  I thought they were one and the same, but not seeing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rattlin Steele said:

The above is contrary to what's shown on the bracket, which shows R1 vs R2 and R3 vs R4 in the 5A semifinals.  As a Niceville fan, however, I much prefer the scenario you posted.  We might have a chance to host a semifinal then, assuming we make it that far, with a Manatee loss. Pretty confident Lakeland will win R2.  

Also, can anyone explain the discrepancy between the FHSAA final regular season rankings and the Maxpreps version on their site?  I thought they were one and the same, but not seeing that.

As for your first question/comment, I'm pretty sure FHSAA simply uses a template that lays out all the games, but once the final four teams are established, they'll abandon the template and set up the seeding per the manual that Dr. D cited. 

As for the second question, they are not the same and no one can explain how the state rankings are determined.  There are a couple of threads (including a very recent one) that address this very issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Perspective said:

In this type of situation, I believe Central's "adjusted record" should be 0-9.  However, for purposes of determining the strength of schedule for any team that played Central, Central's "on the field record" ought to be whatever it was (in this case, 9-0).  Think about it, the forfeits are the result of Central using an ineligible player . . . so, arguably, Central was even better than they should have been when the actual game was played.  If a team like Lakeland beat a team like Central when Central was playing with a player that they shouldn't have been playing with, in my opinion, Lakeland should not be penalized.

Now, I'm guessing the response from the FHSAA would be as follows:  "Yep, you're right, but we can't figure out how to do that and neither can MaxPreps." 

No sir. One person messes up they ALL gotta do pushups :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nolebull813 said:

No sir. One person messes up they ALL gotta do pushups :lol:

I have no problem with the whole "cheating team" suffering when only one player on the "cheating team" cheats and gets caught.  I rarely come to the defense of Lakeland, but I just don't like the idea on punishing the teams who played the "cheating team."  It's not like Lakeland could have predicted that a marquee South Florida team might end up with an ineligible player.   B)  All cheap shots aside, the teams that scheduled the "cheating team" shouldn't be punished when a cheating team goes from undefeated to winless in the blink of an eye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Perspective said:

I have no problem with the whole "cheating team" suffering when only one player on the "cheating team" cheats and gets caught.  I rarely come to the defense of Lakeland, but I just don't like the idea on punishing the teams who played the "cheating team."  It's not like Lakeland could have predicted that a marquee South Florida team might end up with an ineligible player.   B)  All cheap shots aside, the teams that scheduled the "cheating team" shouldn't be punished when a cheating team goes from undefeated to winless in the blink of an eye. 

Based on the shift in points the last week, I believe that IS what happened here, as record has to be a major component in the ratings. Lakeland was up 5-6 points, and finished like 0.3 ahead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2024 at 12:02 PM, Ray Icaza said:

You are preaching to the choir my friend.  I just gave you a strong example with our team 2 years ago supporting the fact the rankings are flawed.  But just to enlighten you, the theory is stating that "CHEATING" is involved.  That my friend is not FACT as these examples you spent time listing only show flaws and do not prove the other.  Just this past week we beat St. Pete Lakewood, a team headed to the playoffs and dropped in the rankings so I understand the frustration.  

I seem to think that 2 yrs ago in the metro and suburban system, the rankings and such were much more transparent.  they told you about-if you lose to a higher ranked team you got this many points, if you win vs lower ranked team you got this many points.  and then sos, wins, opponents opponents win loss, all were .something a factor.

this system now, tells anyone and nobody, zero.  just because max preps, fhsaa say so, thats why.

another flawed system the money hungry clowns put in place....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, h8r said:

I seem to think that 2 yrs ago in the metro and suburban system, the rankings and such were much more transparent.  they told you about-if you lose to a higher ranked team you got this many points, if you win vs lower ranked team you got this many points.  and then sos, wins, opponents opponents win loss, all were .something a factor.

this system now, tells anyone and nobody, zero.  just because max preps, fhsaa say so, thats why.

another flawed system the money hungry clowns put in place....

The system that immediately preceded this one was transparent, though it required a bit of math. This system is not at all transparent. The only thing a team knows for certain is that if they win district, they will have at least one playoff game. Beyond that, everything is shrouded in darkness.

If an election or shareholders meeting were conducted in like circumstances, everyone affected would be up in arms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Other than the teams that got hit with forfeit sanctions, were there any teams that finished outside the playoff group looking in that deserved to make the playoffs over the 8 seed?

I think I mentioned this above, or on another strand,

astronaut is one, they beat villages charter thursday night for distrcit runner up spot.  better record, strength of schedule higher, had a higher ranking on the previous max preps and then the new rankings, they are lower?  which makes no sense to anyone.

saint cloud was another one I saw on twitter that was the exact same thing, like to the letter.

i think pace was another one,

im sure if there was some digging done, you would find alot of these same things.

its clearly a computer flaw in the rankings, villages jumped 2 spots above astronaut and pushe them out. same with saint cloud.

look on the astronaut twitter page, more details there, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oldage kicked in, the one that was truly mindblowing.

10-0 mitchell, beat 8-2 wiregrass ranch for district title.

mitchell is the 4 seed, wiregrass ranch is the 3 seed.

you cannot tell me that an actual human being looked at that and decided that 8-2 and a loss to another team in the bracket, is better than 10-0....

fhsaa messed up and its just hurting kids and coaches....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, h8r said:

oldage kicked in, the one that was truly mindblowing.

10-0 mitchell, beat 8-2 wiregrass ranch for district title.

mitchell is the 4 seed, wiregrass ranch is the 3 seed.

you cannot tell me that an actual human being looked at that and decided that 8-2 and a loss to another team in the bracket, is better than 10-0....

fhsaa messed up and its just hurting kids and coaches....

So, because they are 3 and 4 (and because Wiregrass isn't playing a district champ), both Mitchell and Wiregrass will host this Friday.  However, because Mitchell is the 4 seed, they'll face Parrish Community, which has an overall ranking of 87 and a class ranking of 17.   Wiregrass Ranch, on the other hand, as the 3 seed, will play Royal Palm Beach, which has an overall ranking of 178 and a class ranking of 26 (and who will be on the bus for a couple hours longer than Parrish).  No disrespect to either Parrish or RPB, but I know which of those teams I'd rather be facing in the first round. 

Then, if both teams win, Mitchell likely will go on the road to play top-seeded West Boca Raton (#4 overall in the state), while Wiregrass likely will go on the road to play 2nd seeded Palmetto (#42 overall).   Again, the second-round match-ups favor Wiregrass. 

For what it's worth, MaxPreps currently has Mitchell ranked 69th in the state, while Wiregrass is ranked eight spots lower at 77.  

Last point I'll make, the two schools had four common opponents and the results look eerily similar.  Both teams had some good non-district wins in the first half of the season, with the slightest of nods (maybe) going to Wiregrass.   But, at the end of the day (and in the final game of the season), the two teams played each other head-to-head and Mitchell won.  That should mean something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the last person to support the FHSAA Rankings, but some factual context is needed:

Astronaut was 6-4 and Villages 5-4.  Villages had a higher SOS.  Astronaut had one of the weaker schedules in 2A.  Astronaut won head-to-head by 1 point.

Mitchell was 10-0 and Wiregrass 9-1.  Wiregrass had a higher SOS.  In fact, Mitchell only played 2 teams above .500.  Mitchell won head-to-head by 17 points.

I have yet to find a case where a team had a better record and stronger SOS had a ranking lower than a team with a worse record and weaker SOS.  (Although there are 460 teams in the FHSAA rankings, so I may have missed one.)

Obviously the FHSAA Rankings put a value on both a team's record and its SOS.  (How much? will never know).  A cynic would say, win more games and/or schedule fewer cupcakes.

If head-to-head is the most important criteria, I have long supported going to large districts with round-robin, head-to-head competition deciding district champs and runners-up.  Otherwise, we will continue to be at the mercy of a computer closet in California.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. D said:

I am the last person to support the FHSAA Rankings, but some factual context is needed:

Astronaut was 6-4 and Villages 5-4.  Villages had a higher SOS.  Astronaut had one of the weaker schedules in 2A.  Astronaut won head-to-head by 1 point.

Mitchell was 10-0 and Wiregrass 9-1.  Wiregrass had a higher SOS.  In fact, Mitchell only played 2 teams above .500.  Mitchell won head-to-head by 17 points.

I have yet to find a case where a team had a better record and stronger SOS had a ranking lower than a team with a worse record and weaker SOS.  (Although there are 460 teams in the FHSAA rankings, so I may have missed one.)

Obviously the FHSAA Rankings put a value on both a team's record and its SOS.  (How much? will never know).  A cynic would say, win more games and/or schedule fewer cupcakes.

If head-to-head is the most important criteria, I have long supported going to large districts with round-robin, head-to-head competition deciding district champs and runners-up.  Otherwise, we will continue to be at the mercy of a computer closet in California.   

 

According to the explanation that was given to Astronaut the game between Mitchell and Wiregrass Ranch is what bumped Villages over them. The week prior to them playing Astronaut was ranked above them. The week they played the rankings weren't released so no one knew the standings and therefore everyone including the Villages thought that game was win and you're in situation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, KeemD321 said:

According to the explanation that was given to Astronaut the game between Mitchell and Wiregrass Ranch is what bumped Villages over them. The week prior to them playing Astronaut was ranked above them. The week they played the rankings weren't released so no one knew the standings and therefore everyone including the Villages thought that game was win and you're in situation 

astronaut got an explaination?  from who!?  surely the fhsaa did not give them the time of day, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2024 at 11:31 AM, Dr. D said:

I am the last person to support the FHSAA Rankings, but some factual context is needed:

Astronaut was 6-4 and Villages 5-4.  Villages had a higher SOS.  Astronaut had one of the weaker schedules in 2A.  Astronaut won head-to-head by 1 point.

Mitchell was 10-0 and Wiregrass 9-1.  Wiregrass had a higher SOS.  In fact, Mitchell only played 2 teams above .500.  Mitchell won head-to-head by 17 points.

I have yet to find a case where a team had a better record and stronger SOS had a ranking lower than a team with a worse record and weaker SOS.  (Although there are 460 teams in the FHSAA rankings, so I may have missed one.)

Obviously the FHSAA Rankings put a value on both a team's record and its SOS.  (How much? will never know).  A cynic would say, win more games and/or schedule fewer cupcakes.

If head-to-head is the most important criteria, I have long supported going to large districts with round-robin, head-to-head competition deciding district champs and runners-up.  Otherwise, we will continue to be at the mercy of a computer closet in California.   

 

check out south sumter, gainesville east side, dunellon.

3a-5 district.

sumter beat east side 21-7 on last thursday,

all 3 finish 2-1.

sumter technically was 2nd as it lost to dunellon, east side is 3rd. dunellon is 1st.

max preps has sumter at 9 and east side at 11 in 3a.

fhsaa doesnt see it that way and east side, likely to their 7-3 record vs 4-6 sumter(with a higher strength of schedule), east side is in, south sumter is out, dunellon is in too.

so 3 or 4 of these very similar situations in the brackets,

all at different classes.  

its clearly a computer glitch....

fhsaa got some splanin to do to some schools....

1 time is an oversight, a mistake, 2 times, defintely should look into it, 3 times and i bet some beach front property I own there are more, is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, h8r said:

check out south sumter, gainesville east side, dunellon.

3a-5 district.

sumter beat east side 21-7 on last thursday,

all 3 finish 2-1.

sumter technically was 2nd as it lost to dunellon, east side is 3rd. dunellon is 1st.

max preps has sumter at 9 and east side at 11 in 3a.

fhsaa doesnt see it that way and east side, likely to their 7-3 record vs 4-6 sumter(with a higher strength of schedule), east side is in, south sumter is out, dunellon is in too.

so 3 or 4 of these very similar situations in the brackets,

all at different classes.  

its clearly a computer glitch....

fhsaa got some splanin to do to some schools....

1 time is an oversight, a mistake, 2 times, defintely should look into it, 3 times and i bet some beach front property I own there are more, is a problem.

Back in the old days, when there was a three way district tie, the situation was addressed on the field on a Monday. To me, that was far better as you held your destiny in your own hands. With this current, non-transparent system, all the teams left outside looking in get is a nasty taste in their mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, h8r said:

check out south sumter, gainesville east side, dunellon.

3a-5 district.

sumter beat east side 21-7 on last thursday,

all 3 finish 2-1.

sumter technically was 2nd as it lost to dunellon, east side is 3rd. dunellon is 1st.

max preps has sumter at 9 and east side at 11 in 3a.

fhsaa doesnt see it that way and east side, likely to their 7-3 record vs 4-6 sumter(with a higher strength of schedule), east side is in, south sumter is out, dunellon is in too.

so 3 or 4 of these very similar situations in the brackets,

all at different classes.  

its clearly a computer glitch....

fhsaa got some splanin to do to some schools....

1 time is an oversight, a mistake, 2 times, defintely should look into it, 3 times and i bet some beach front property I own there are more, is a problem.

I agree with the tone of your assessment.  And having seen South Sumter with my own eyes this season, I can't believe they are not one of the top 8 teams in their region.

But I disagree that the occurrences you cite are the result of a "computer glitch".  Rather, they are the result of a conscious decision that someone has made when they set up the FHSAA rankings.  Let's assume that W-L record is weighted 40%, Strength of Schedule weighted 40%, margin of victory weighted 10%, and head-to-head results weighted 10%.  Now change the weighting to 25% each, and you may get a totally different set of results depending on the circumstances.  The real problem is we don't know the variables that go into the rankings, how those variables are calculated, and how much each variable is weighted.  So none of us can know or explain why the rankings turned out like they did, nor can we verify the results independently to ensure that mistakes have not been made.  All we can say is you are better off winning more than less, and having a stronger schedule than weak. 

I blame the sheep who are content to go along with letting computers define their fate.  Imagine if the NFL decided their post-season competition based on a computer ranking.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dr. D said:

I agree with the tone of your assessment.  And having seen South Sumter with my own eyes this season, I can't believe they are not one of the top 8 teams in their region.

But I disagree that the occurrences you cite are the result of a "computer glitch".  Rather, they are the result of a conscious decision that someone has made when they set up the FHSAA rankings.  Let's assume that W-L record is weighted 40%, Strength of Schedule weighted 40%, margin of victory weighted 10%, and head-to-head results weighted 10%.  Now change the weighting to 25% each, and you may get a totally different set of results depending on the circumstances.  The real problem is we don't know the variables that go into the rankings, how those variables are calculated, and how much each variable is weighted.  So none of us can know or explain why the rankings turned out like they did, nor can we verify the results independently to ensure that mistakes have not been made.  All we can say is you are better off winning more than less, and having a stronger schedule than weak. 

I blame the sheep who are content to go along with letting computers define their fate.  Imagine if the NFL decided their post-season competition based on a computer ranking.    

That would never be agreed to as too much dollars are involved. Folk who own NFL teams are not chumps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2024 at 11:31 AM, Dr. D said:

I am the last person to support the FHSAA Rankings, but some factual context is needed:

Astronaut was 6-4 and Villages 5-4.  Villages had a higher SOS.  Astronaut had one of the weaker schedules in 2A.  Astronaut won head-to-head by 1 point.

Mitchell was 10-0 and Wiregrass 9-1.  Wiregrass had a higher SOS.  In fact, Mitchell only played 2 teams above .500.  Mitchell won head-to-head by 17 points.

I have yet to find a case where a team had a better record and stronger SOS had a ranking lower than a team with a worse record and weaker SOS.  (Although there are 460 teams in the FHSAA rankings, so I may have missed one.)

Obviously the FHSAA Rankings put a value on both a team's record and its SOS.  (How much? will never know).  A cynic would say, win more games and/or schedule fewer cupcakes.

If head-to-head is the most important criteria, I have long supported going to large districts with round-robin, head-to-head competition deciding district champs and runners-up.  Otherwise, we will continue to be at the mercy of a computer closet in California.   

 

Larger districts would 100% be the way to go like they were many years ago. However the FHSAA figured out they can make more gate money by shrinking the district sizes and adding more classifications. What are we up to now? 9 classifications= 9 state title game revenue. It’s quite a joke really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking for something on MaxPreps the other day and ran across the state rankings for Florida.  Central is ranked #4, but their record is shown at 0-9.   Now, I'm not arguing over whether Central is one of the best four teams in the state; they probably are.   But I'm confused as to the formula that MaxPreps uses (and therefore the formula that the FHSAA uses) for ranking teams.   Is a team's won/loss record part of the formula or not?   It would appear from this ranking that overall record is irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that MaxPreps does not go back and retroactively adjust its rankings for forfeits, where the FHSAA has made arrangements for forfeits to be accounted for in the rankings.  According to Josh's article here:  https://floridahsfootball.com/2024/07/30/2024-storylines-to-follow-fhsaa-playoff-power-rankings-will-shift-more-toward-maxpreps-rankings/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, WindsorCT said:

Larger districts would 100% be the way to go like they were many years ago. However the FHSAA figured out they can make more gate money by shrinking the district sizes and adding more classifications. What are we up to now? 9 classifications= 9 state title game revenue. It’s quite a joke really

Actually, they don't make more money. They probably make less as attendance continues to shrink with the passage of time. So, the trend to more classes may have more to do with giving a larger number of teams a title to compete for. Now this has been largely been made irrelevant as the stacking of teams in the large metro areas will continue to ensure that only a small number of schools have a realistic shot at a title each year, especially with the scrapping of Urban/Suburban classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...