Increase of 4 teams to 6 teams per region in playoff approved by FHSAA BOD

[MuckCityChamp]

29 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

I actually would like idea of a district tournament 

 

That would add to many more games to a physical sport. 16 games is enough for High School football. 

[gatorman-uf]

7 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

I would rather a bye week be rewarded then just be standard 

 

Think about it for a second, now teams will be pushing to get enough points to get a bye week 

 

Makes things interesting 

First they haven't done a bye week in the first round of the playoffs for the last 2 years at least because they moved the playoffs all to the same weekend, so they give the state championship teams an extra week to prepare. Which makes a lot more sense than giving 8 random teams a bye.

Also remember, 2 games are played on Thursday, so that means a team plays Friday, only has Monday, Tuesday, and maybe Wednesday to practice for a Thursday Noon or Night Game. I would rather have the two overall teams.

Your argument for Leon vs Miami Central is moot because even in the new system a team like Leon can make it. Ultimately, Miami Central knew exactly what they had to do make the playoffs win certain games. They didn't do it. Thus, they didn't meet the standard.

How is old system weak? You win. You are in. Exactly how it should be. Now, it doesn't matter if you win or lose it only matters if your opponents win or lose. 
-----
Blackmagic,
No the blowouts are the exact reason people were sold on the new system. We were told that it would prevent blowouts in the early rounds and make more exciting playoffs. We were told that we would end up with the best teams in the state playoffs (of course, we ended with the exact teams we would have ended up with playoff points or not). 
-------
They have a district tournament for football it is called the regular season. Win and you are in. That was how the old system worked. Again, the new system is what it is, but stop trying to sell this system as if it answered any of the problems that existed previously. It doesn't. It just created new problems. The system is overly complex for something as simple as high school football.  Again, they could have fixed most of the problems that you guys complained about by shrinking one classification. They could have fixed most of the problems by increasing the number of teams in 2A-5A, and making 6A a gigantic classification divided into 32 districts of 8 teams, take top 3 district records. Top 3 teams are sent to division 1, 2, 3 based on their size in their district. 

 

[OldSchoolLion]

4 hours ago, MuckCityChamp said:

That would add to many more games to a physical sport. 16 games is enough for High School football. 

I just posted an article that covers this topic in a separate thread.  Some have serious concerns about what these extended seasons are subjecting the kids to.  Really interesting chart of the US and how many games each state plays.  

[badbird]

7 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

The athletic directors in 1-4a wanted it 

 

5-8a wanted districts and fought for it

 

Had 1-4a done same they could have same system as 5-8a

because most small schools don't want to be in a district with Madison, Pahokee, Chaminade, Oxbridge, Booker T, Cocoa etc.  Don't give them a choice.  

[blackmagic]

17 hours ago, MuckCityChamp said:

So you guys want a district tourney for Football? There will never be the perfect system. People are on here complaining about "who they lost to." If you want in the playoffs, beat the teams on your schedule. Simple

Wouldn't be a district but more of a regional tourney.... 

If it was a simple as beating teams on your schedule there wouldn't be any complaints. Your points are more about how well the team you won or lost to does and not determined on the field. Teams have already made most of their schedules for next year. Can you predict Newberrys record?? Cocoa record??? Pahokee record??? Can you predict transfers, player progression, coaching changes, strength of another teams schedule???? These things hold more weight than winning or losing to a team. Teams were suppose to be rewarded for playing good teams, but good teams usually schedule tough schedules which results in avg records. So teams are rewarded more for scheduling avg teams that schedule weak schedules. 

So yes there is a complaint if a team loses to a top 5 team in a class and they finished 5-5 and another team beats a bottom 5 team in the same class and they finished 9-1. Wheres the reward for playing the top 5 team???  Im assuming your a Pahokee guy. If vero beach doesnt go 10-0 and Cocoa doesnt go 9-1 you are singing a different song. So this is why I am for letting 2 more teams in. The more that is determined on the field the better...

[gatorman-uf]

21 minutes ago, blackmagic said:

Wouldn't be a district but more of a regional tourney.... 

If it was a simple as beating teams on your schedule there wouldn't be any complaints. Your points are more about how well the team you won or lost to does and not determined on the field. Teams have already made most of their schedules for next year. Can you predict Newberrys record?? Cocoa record??? Pahokee record??? Can you predict transfers, player progression, coaching changes, strength of another teams schedule???? These things hold more weight than winning or losing to a team. Teams were suppose to be rewarded for playing good teams, but good teams usually schedule tough schedules which results in avg records. So teams are rewarded more for scheduling avg teams that schedule weak schedules. 

Which is exactly why I said this new system was a step in the wrong direction. 
Again, simpler answer
1A stays the same
2A-5A each have 60 teams (240 teams)
6A has the rest of the teams divided in 32 8 team districts.
Top 3 district teams make the playoffs. School with largest enrollment in district goes to division 1, next division 2, next division 3. You wouldn't see any team that you saw in districts (so Miami Central, Miami Northwestern, and Miami Carol City could play each other in districts, but avoid each other in playoffs). It keeps districts relatively compact as you are taking the largest teams in 6A-8A and putting them into districts. It does mean a 3200 student Orlando school could play a 1700 student school, but as a lot of data shows us. Size has less of an impact when you are getting over 1700 students and are having two top notch programs play size doesn't matter. 

Another small change the FHSAA should make for next year is require district games to be played on the last week of the season. District championships were already sewn up the week before the end of the regular season, no drama there. 
 

[MuckCityChamp]

58 minutes ago, blackmagic said:

Wouldn't be a district but more of a regional tourney.... 

If it was a simple as beating teams on your schedule there wouldn't be any complaints. Your points are more about how well the team you won or lost to does and not determined on the field. Teams have already made most of their schedules for next year. Can you predict Newberrys record?? Cocoa record??? Pahokee record??? Can you predict transfers, player progression, coaching changes, strength of another teams schedule???? These things hold more weight than winning or losing to a team. Teams were suppose to be rewarded for playing good teams, but good teams usually schedule tough schedules which results in avg records. So teams are rewarded more for scheduling avg teams that schedule weak schedules. 

So yes there is a complaint if a team loses to a top 5 team in a class and they finished 5-5 and another team beats a bottom 5 team in the same class and they finished 9-1. Wheres the reward for playing the top 5 team???  Im assuming your a Pahokee guy. If vero beach doesnt go 10-0 and Cocoa doesnt go 9-1 you are singing a different song. So this is why I am for letting 2 more teams in. The more that is determined on the field the better...

Can all those things be predicted? Not 100%, but if you do your research, you can get a good idea of how well a team will be. That is why I am for team remaking schedules year to year instead of the 2 year deals. It was very easy to predict that Cocoa and Vero would have good seasons if you pay attention to what goes on around the state. Coaches just have to do their research. 

[gatorman-uf]

Mu

5 hours ago, MuckCityChamp said:

Can all those things be predicted? Not 100%, but if you do your research, you can get a good idea of how well a team will be. That is why I am for team remaking schedules year to year instead of the 2 year deals. It was very easy to predict that Cocoa and Vero would have good seasons if you pay attention to what goes on around the state. Coaches just have to do their research. 

Muck, 
I disagree, the difference is not if a team goes 10-0 or 9-1, it is when a team goes from 8-2 to 5-5. That kind of drop is very possible (see Booker T Washington). That is a drop from Category 1 to a Category 3 win or loss. They get an injury, their schedule is tougher than last year, ::BOOM:: they have added 3 losses without batting an eye. . Like I said, if they want to keep the power points for smaller classifications, fine, but at least add enough teams to make it competitive. 

 

[badbird]

7 hours ago, blackmagic said:

Wouldn't be a district but more of a regional tourney.... 

If it was a simple as beating teams on your schedule there wouldn't be any complaints. Your points are more about how well the team you won or lost to does and not determined on the field. Teams have already made most of their schedules for next year. Can you predict Newberrys record?? Cocoa record??? Pahokee record??? Can you predict transfers, player progression, coaching changes, strength of another teams schedule???? These things hold more weight than winning or losing to a team. Teams were suppose to be rewarded for playing good teams, but good teams usually schedule tough schedules which results in avg records. So teams are rewarded more for scheduling avg teams that schedule weak schedules. 

So yes there is a complaint if a team loses to a top 5 team in a class and they finished 5-5 and another team beats a bottom 5 team in the same class and they finished 9-1. Wheres the reward for playing the top 5 team???  Im assuming your a Pahokee guy. If vero beach doesnt go 10-0 and Cocoa doesnt go 9-1 you are singing a different song. So this is why I am for letting 2 more teams in. The more that is determined on the field the better...

I agree with you but the problem is they are adding 2 more teams in to fix the cluster F*** point system so good teams aren't left out.  So by fixing the problem that they created they are adding more problems.   So for every Booker T that got left out now a Cocoa beach gets in.  Just let everyone in the playoffs and give everyone a participation trophy.   

[badbird]

7 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Which is exactly why I said this new system was a step in the wrong direction. 
Again, simpler answer
1A stays the same
2A-5A each have 60 teams (240 teams)
6A has the rest of the teams divided in 32 8 team districts.
Top 3 district teams make the playoffs. School with largest enrollment in district goes to division 1, next division 2, next division 3. You wouldn't see any team that you saw in districts (so Miami Central, Miami Northwestern, and Miami Carol City could play each other in districts, but avoid each other in playoffs). It keeps districts relatively compact as you are taking the largest teams in 6A-8A and putting them into districts. It does mean a 3200 student Orlando school could play a 1700 student school, but as a lot of data shows us. Size has less of an impact when you are getting over 1700 students and are having two top notch programs play size doesn't matter. 

Another small change the FHSAA should make for next year is require district games to be played on the last week of the season. District championships were already sewn up the week before the end of the regular season, no drama there. 
 

I would like to see 1A same except make it be 36 teams.  Currently 34 but Trenton and 1 other could go in there.  4 Regions 9 teams in each region and you have to play 5 region games (draw teams out of hat)  Use point system to seed.  Top 4 in each region make it.  That is 4 out of 9 teams in each region make the playoffs.  I'm even ok with 6 teams but then that means 24 out of 36 make the playoffs that is way too many.

2A-4A 60 teams.  4 Regions of 15 teams and you have to play 6 region games (draw from a hat).  6 Teams from each region make the playoffs and 1 and 2 get a bye.

That leaves 5A-7A with about 96 teams each.  4 Regions 24 teams in each, 16 districts with 6 teams in a district (a few would have 7 but no less than 5).  Use current system.   District winner gets in and top 4 remaining in each region get in.   

Eliminate 8A

One note the new point system where they added 5 points for each loss category is a bad bad idea.  Re-tool point system.  it will never be 100% correct but doing this just created a new monster.  Fhsaa has created more problems trying to fix what happened to Booker T.

[OldSchoolLion]

22 minutes ago, badbird said:

I agree with you but the problem is they are adding 2 more teams in to fix the cluster F*** point system so good teams aren't left out.  So by fixing the problem that they created they are adding more problems.   So for every Booker T that got left out now a Cocoa beach gets in.  Just let everyone in the playoffs and give everyone a participation trophy.   

amen

In what league/sport do over half of the teams make the playoffs?   One could site the 40 bowl games, which are not really playoffs, per se. and we all know how much discussion there is about there being too many bowl games

 

[gatorman-uf]

10 minutes ago, badbird said:

I would like to see 1A same except make it be 36 teams.  Currently 34 but Trenton and 1 other could go in there.  4 Regions 9 teams in each region and you have to play 5 region games (draw teams out of hat)  Use point system to seed.  Top 4 in each region make it.  That is 4 out of 9 teams in each region make the playoffs.  I'm even ok with 6 teams but then that means 24 out of 36 make the playoffs that is way too many.

2A-4A 60 teams.  4 Regions of 15 teams and you have to play 6 region games (draw from a hat).  6 Teams from each region make the playoffs and 1 and 2 get a bye.

That leaves 5A-7A with about 96 teams each.  4 Regions 24 teams in each, 16 districts with 6 teams in a district (a few would have 7 but no less than 5).  Use current system.   District winner gets in and top 4 remaining in each region get in.   

Eliminate 8A

One note the new point system where they added 5 points for each loss category is a bad bad idea.  Re-tool point system.  it will never be 100% correct but doing this just created a new monster.  Fhsaa has created more problems trying to fix what happened to Booker T.

Yes, I agree eliminate 8A would be the easiest answer, but the FHSAA doesn't want to do that because of the revenue that is currently generated. Just remember, 31 games are gone with the elimination. So if conservatively the FHSAA gets $3 per game and 500 people per game that is extra revenue of $46,500 at a minimum. Yes that is only about 1% of the FHSAA's budget, but 1% is a lot. My solution keeps the # of playoff games the same, enlarges the number of teams in a district, and keeps the district travel to a minimum.

As for the point system, I would suggest based on what the coaches want.
Cat 1 Win: 65 points
Cat 1 Loss: 35 points
Cat 2 Win: 50 points
Cat 2 Loss: 30 points
Cat 3 Win: 40 points
Cat 3 Loss: 20 points
Cat 4 Win; 35 points
Cat 4 Loss: 5 points

Now, a Cat 1 win gives you a lot more points which is the true intention. A Cat 4 loss is devastating. Again, if I was in charge I am not making a Cat 4 win and a Cat 1 loss equal as that means we value losing equal to winning. 

But again, tell me the rationale for expanding from 4 to 6, how does this continue with the rationale of last year and why we switched to the point system?

[DisabledAccount]

If Fhsaa only wants money then why do they not expand to 9 classes like other sports 

 

Since money is the main objective

 

And several of you people who hate the point system hated it before a single game was played

 

Btw the biggest problem is with 3 team districts have come from teams being whiny babies who can't handle a little bloody travel 

 

Few of those panhandle teams were supposed to be in district with Lincoln but either the Tallahassee schools or the panhandle ones cried about travel (my money on panhandle schools because they in 6a now) 

 

So instead of throwing all blame on fhsaa how about blame some these schools who can't deal with a 2 hour bus ride

 

Late 90s we had St Augustine and Lincoln in our district 

 

That's 2 hours there and back (4 hours total) in 2 different directions (so 8 hours with just 2 teams on our schedule)

 

If we had no problem doing that these teams should quit complaining and deal with the hand they are dealt instead of trying to work the system to ease their path to the playoffs 

[badbird]

2 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

If Fhsaa only wants money then why do they not expand to 9 classes like other sports 

 

Since money is the main objective

 

And several of you people who hate the point system hated it before a single game was played

 

Btw the biggest problem is with 3 team districts have come from teams being whiny babies who can't handle a little bloody travel 

 

Few of those panhandle teams were supposed to be in district with Lincoln but either the Tallahassee schools or the panhandle ones cried about travel (my money on panhandle schools because they in 6a now) 

 

So instead of throwing all blame on fhsaa how about blame some these schools who can't deal with a 2 hour bus ride

 

Late 90s we had St Augustine and Lincoln in our district 

 

That's 2 hours there and back (4 hours total) in 2 different directions (so 8 hours with just 2 teams on our schedule)

 

If we had no problem doing that these teams should quit complaining and deal with the hand they are dealt instead of trying to work the system to ease their path to the playoffs 

and the whiny teams is why we now have no districts in 1A-4A.  The Fhsaa is in charge and they gave in to what was not in the best interest of the sport.  I have always said the schools should not be allowed to switch districts or classes and 99% of them that switch are to get in an easier district.  The panhandle teams are the one that complained because when the district first came out it looked really hard.  

[DisabledAccount]

1 minute ago, badbird said:

and the whiny teams is why we now have no districts in 1A-4A.  The Fhsaa is in charge and they gave in to what was not in the best interest of the sport.  I have always said the schools should not be allowed to switch districts or classes and 99% of them that switch are to get in an easier district.  The panhandle teams are the one that complained because when the district first came out it looked really hard.  

And it backfired because the Tallahassee district would have been easier then their current road

 

Lincoln has declined 

 

Leon is terrible 

 

Chiles is inconsistent 

 

 

 

Also the fhsaa could play hard ball but then those whiny babies would go independent and we would have even less teams then we do now,  in still having 8 classes

 

Again i put full blame on these schools for being crybabies, if they would pull their pants up and stop complaining about everything and deal with the hand they are dealt then maybe we wouldn't have 3 team districts and maybe we would have more competitive classifications

[gatorman-uf]

Yes, we did criticize it. I criticized the first power point system that came out because an 0-10 Creekside or Oakleaf (forget which one) would have made the playoffs under their system. So yes, I am going to criticize things when they don't run the numbers to show what would happen. Again, the FHSAA has this thing where they try different rules without actually seeing the consequences of the rules. People like me called what would happen to schools like Booker T Washington (they schedule up, lose games, and miss the playoffs). We stated over and over again that nothing in the old system stopped you from scheduling tough teams, it was not a detriment at all to your playoff success. The new system actually has a penalty for losing to a tough team (also a reward) , the old system if you lost to a tough out of district team it didn't hurt or help you. So yes, I have a problem with a system that they didn't test out, didn't run the numbers, and simply said "trust us, this is better." Simply put it didn't do anything of the things that it said it would do. We still had blowouts in the playoffs, your chance of getting to the playoffs and seeding had as much to do with how good your opponents were as it did with you winning those games.

I understand keeping districts small in geographic area. Football is the most expensive sport , but is a bread winner. Once you start adding the cost of travel for band, cheerleaders, and the fans. You want to keep the districts relatively small in geographic size. I am actually okay with limiting the size to 2 hours from end to end. 

The other problem, is that there is no consistency in size of schools, even in large metro areas. Look at the size of Orlando schools, even in comparison to Jacksonville or Tampa schools. It makes nearly impossible to be consistent. Which is why we should look at what Texas does for their largest classifications. They create 32 districts, put roughly 8 teams in a district. Top 4 move onto the playoffs, biggest 2 go to division 1, smallest 2 go to division 2. 

We could do the same thing, we alter it a little and make division 1, 2, 3. Top 3 teams make the playoffs based on district records. Largest school goes to division 1, next to division 2, next to division 3. Boom, relatively decent travel, you don't have to face district foes in the playoffs, so our "District of Doom/Death" could have had 3 state champions and that would have been fine in my scenario.  

[DisabledAccount]

13 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Yes, we did criticize it. I criticized the first power point system that came out because an 0-10 Creekside or Oakleaf (forget which one) would have made the playoffs under their system. So yes, I am going to criticize things when they don't run the numbers to show what would happen. Again, the FHSAA has this thing where they try different rules without actually seeing the consequences of the rules. People like me called what would happen to schools like Booker T Washington (they schedule up, lose games, and miss the playoffs). We stated over and over again that nothing in the old system stopped you from scheduling tough teams, it was not a detriment at all to your playoff success. The new system actually has a penalty for losing to a tough team (also a reward) , the old system if you lost to a tough out of district team it didn't hurt or help you. So yes, I have a problem with a system that they didn't test out, didn't run the numbers, and simply said "trust us, this is better." Simply put it didn't do anything of the things that it said it would do. We still had blowouts in the playoffs, your chance of getting to the playoffs and seeding had as much to do with how good your opponents were as it did with you winning those games.

I understand keeping districts small in geographic area. Football is the most expensive sport , but is a bread winner. Once you start adding the cost of travel for band, cheerleaders, and the fans. You want to keep the districts relatively small in geographic size. I am actually okay with limiting the size to 2 hours from end to end. 

The other problem, is that there is no consistency in size of schools, even in large metro areas. Look at the size of Orlando schools, even in comparison to Jacksonville or Tampa schools. It makes nearly impossible to be consistent. Which is why we should look at what Texas does for their largest classifications. They create 32 districts, put roughly 8 teams in a district. Top 4 move onto the playoffs, biggest 2 go to division 1, smallest 2 go to division 2. 

We could do the same thing, we alter it a little and make division 1, 2, 3. Top 3 teams make the playoffs based on district records. Largest school goes to division 1, next to division 2, next to division 3. Boom, relatively decent travel, you don't have to face district foes in the playoffs, so our "District of Doom/Death" could have had 3 state champions and that would have been fine in my scenario.  

That is where the problem lies

 

I created a purposal that would have no districts less than 5 and outside of 2 districts (who ended up with 9) the max was 8 

 

However the travel was not the best (but i tried to limit travel the best possible) i think the max travel was 130 miles at one point (which is about 2-2 1/2 hours) but most was under 2 hours 

 

 

The point is either travel has to be sacrificed or we stuck with small districts Which is the real issue with so many bad teams getting in

 

 

Sure the old system didn't hurt you for scheduling tough but at the same time the only games that would matter are a few district games 

 

A 1-9 record in a 3 team district is considered as good by that system as a 9-1 record in a 7 team district 

 

Explain how the hell that makes a ounce of sense

[DisabledAccount]

13 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Yes, we did criticize it. I criticized the first power point system that came out because an 0-10 Creekside or Oakleaf (forget which one) would have made the playoffs under their system. So yes, I am going to criticize things when they don't run the numbers to show what would happen. Again, the FHSAA has this thing where they try different rules without actually seeing the consequences of the rules. People like me called what would happen to schools like Booker T Washington (they schedule up, lose games, and miss the playoffs). We stated over and over again that nothing in the old system stopped you from scheduling tough teams, it was not a detriment at all to your playoff success. The new system actually has a penalty for losing to a tough team (also a reward) , the old system if you lost to a tough out of district team it didn't hurt or help you. So yes, I have a problem with a system that they didn't test out, didn't run the numbers, and simply said "trust us, this is better." Simply put it didn't do anything of the things that it said it would do. We still had blowouts in the playoffs, your chance of getting to the playoffs and seeding had as much to do with how good your opponents were as it did with you winning those games.

I understand keeping districts small in geographic area. Football is the most expensive sport , but is a bread winner. Once you start adding the cost of travel for band, cheerleaders, and the fans. You want to keep the districts relatively small in geographic size. I am actually okay with limiting the size to 2 hours from end to end. 

The other problem, is that there is no consistency in size of schools, even in large metro areas. Look at the size of Orlando schools, even in comparison to Jacksonville or Tampa schools. It makes nearly impossible to be consistent. Which is why we should look at what Texas does for their largest classifications. They create 32 districts, put roughly 8 teams in a district. Top 4 move onto the playoffs, biggest 2 go to division 1, smallest 2 go to division 2. 

We could do the same thing, we alter it a little and make division 1, 2, 3. Top 3 teams make the playoffs based on district records. Largest school goes to division 1, next to division 2, next to division 3. Boom, relatively decent travel, you don't have to face district foes in the playoffs, so our "District of Doom/Death" could have had 3 state champions and that would have been fine in my scenario.  

Yes it was Creekside and if i remember correctly they then altered the system once people pointed it out

 

 

I understand we both have completely different views on this but i still see potential and I like the idea of every game counting

 

I like knowing at end of season that Columbia win over a team like Gainesville could keep them watching From home 

 

It's also made rivarly games count for more than some meaningless non conference win that adds nothing to the season 

 

There are postives that the point system gave us and if given time I'm confident they will fix the quirks in the system

[badbird]

problem is they don't test it before they tweak it.  How many years are we going to have to see a bad point system.  At least run the numbers before you try it.  The new system allows OC University 5-4 in over Spruce Creek who went 8-1.  Spruce Creek also beat OC University by 20.  I only looked at 2 regions in 8A.  How bad would some others be?

[DisabledAccount]

9 minutes ago, badbird said:

problem is they don't test it before they tweak it.  How many years are we going to have to see a bad point system.  At least run the numbers before you try it.  The new system allows OC University 5-4 in over Spruce Creek who went 8-1.  Spruce Creek also beat OC University by 20.  I only looked at 2 regions in 8A.  How bad would some others be?

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results 

 

 

Sure the new system has some tweaks but at least they trying something new 

 

 

If they just kept the old system they were never going to have a ounce of improvement 

 

It would be easier if some teams weren't such babies

[OldSchoolLion]

Below is a comparison of point spreads in Class 3A and 4A playoff games before and after class numbers were cut in half.  I randomly picked "28 points" to define a blowout.  

Between seasons 2013-2017, there were 8 classes.  Class 3A and 4A teams played a total of 150 playoff games. 68(45%) of those games were decided by 28 or more points  

Between seasons 2000-2003, there were 6 classes. Classes 3A and 4A had about double the number of teams of the same classes today.  Class 3A and 4A teams played a total of 248 playoff games. 60(24%) of those games were decided by 28 or more points  

It appears the "cost" of reducing the class sizes was an increase in blowouts...24% versus 45%.  Even with the new system this year, the data did not change compared to the past 4 years...about 40-50% of playoff games being blowouts  I think it will remain the same unless class sizes are enlarged again or teams in the classes are somehow manipulated to allow for more parity.    

 

Class 3A and 4A Playoff games decided by 28 or more points in seasons 2013-2017  - 15 playoff games per class each year

4A 2017 - 8, 3A 2017- 7

4A 2016 - 8, 3A 2016 - 6

4A 2015 - 6, 3A 2015 - 7

4A 2014 - 7, 3A 2014 - 6

4A 2013 - 7, 3A 2013 - 6

 

Class 3A and 4A Playoff games decided by 28 or more points in seasons 2000-2003  - 31 playoff games per class each year

4A 2003 - 9, 3A 2003 - 8

4A 2002 - 6, 3A 2002 - 9

4A 2001 - 9, 3A 2001 - 4

4A 2000 - 10, 3A 2000 - 5

 

 

 

[badbird]

1 hour ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results 

 

 

Sure the new system has some tweaks but at least they trying something new 

 

 

If they just kept the old system they were never going to have a ounce of improvement 

 

It would be easier if some teams weren't such babies

you just don't get it.  It isn't about trying something new.  It is about trying something new that you at least test.  You can run data from past results using a new point system and see what problems will occur.  You don't have to play a season and then see if it works

[DisabledAccount]

20 minutes ago, badbird said:

you just don't get it.  It isn't about trying something new.  It is about trying something new that you at least test.  You can run data from past results using a new point system and see what problems will occur.  You don't have to play a season and then see if it works

Ok i agree you run projections to test something but even then it's not going to be exact 

[badbird]

On 1/29/2018 at 7:38 PM, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

 

[badbird]

57 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Ok i agree you run projections to test something but even then it's not going to be exact 

of course not every system is going to have some issues but eliminate the obvious ones.  Oh well I'm tired of arguing it.  I would love a team to go 0-10 next year and get in.  it could happen