Jump to content

  • Announcements

    • Joshua Wilson

      Rules of the Forums   09/02/2017

      Please be sure to read the rules of the forums. This is only to help all of us have a good time and we want to keep this board as fun as possible. 
    • SportsNut25

      Talking Other Sports   11/08/2017

      For those interested in talking about other sports, you can talk about them here. 
Sign in to follow this  
181pl

FHSAA Playoff system is very flawed

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, 181pl said:

I hear you. St Thomas and Columbus kind of mess up the classifications for private schools if we were to separate them. However, some private schools with tiny populations can compete with the biggest schools in the state public or private simply based on the fact that they recruit 20 or 30 elite football players. So as much as I don't like putting teams with much, much larger schools, privates could theoretically compete with these teams by simply ramping up their recruiting.

The fact is that those private schools don't get that many elite recruits.  See my past threads where I evaluated talent at Cardinal Gibbons, University School and Chaminade.  C-M was the only school I found this past year that got 10 players in who are currently starters, and some of those were not elite players.  I doubt those schools would want to get into a recruiting war with STA, but if they did, it could create a very undesirable, unintended effect.  Broward public schools already lose some of their most talented players to the private schools.  Imagine if it was even worse.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 181pl said:

It's weak logic. They are lost to everyone good they played that had a pulse except for Cocoa. And to say Hillsborough County doesn't have good teams is silly. A Hillsborough team has been in the finals almost every year for the last 15 years.

Yeah and half of those were either plant or armwood 

 

Hillsborough has some solid teams However don't pretend they are loaded with powerhouses 

 

Only plant and armwood fit that description 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

8 team districts and no scheduling flexibility 

 

I hope that never passes, our district games are generally boring games already

I agree. Districts should be between 5 and 7 teams each. No less than 5 or more than 7. That way, you don't have the three and four team cheesy districts, but you do have the ability to schedule at least four games outside the district. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the system. For the most part, the first round matchups are fantastic. I think people are getting caught up in W-L records instead of schedule strength and power numbers. Just my opinion but I foresee the first round winning margins being closer than any other first round since the turn of the century. 

Looking forward to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 181pl said:

Osceola was down by 2 scores most of the game. Dominated may have been a touch strong but the outcome never seemed in doubt.

It was 14-7 in the third quarter after a long touchdown run for Osceola.. The game was in doubt until the scoop and score.. But to each there own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 181pl said:

an l is an l

They are not debating that Jesuit won. They are not even saying they did not deserve to win. They are just saying the game was not a blowout. I believe they were both there and I trust the integrity of the posters to give an honest account of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:

They are not debating that Jesuit won. They are not even saying they did not deserve to win. They are just saying the game was not a blowout. I believe they were both there and I trust the integrity of the posters to give an honest account of the game. 

Thank you lol.. I dont think he understood that part. In no way am i taking credit from Jesuit they came to play that night but that game could've gone either way. Osceola just made to many mistakes and Jesuit capitalized....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LAZ said:

I like the system. For the most part, the first round matchups are fantastic. I think people are getting caught up in W-L records instead of schedule strength and power numbers. Just my opinion but I foresee the first round winning margins being closer than any other first round since the turn of the century. 

Looking forward to it. 

Laz,

I respect your work, but the system put in both Rutherford and Gadsden in above Jackson who you have ranked higher. How is that a good system?

Yes, i might be looking at one tree instead of the forest, but damn it is an ugly tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:

Two thoughts:

 

If the FHSAA doesn't expand to 6 teams this doesn't happen. If the FHSAA doesn't increase points for losses, this doesn't happen. 

Which one do you think the FHSAA changes this year? If any

second one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LAZ said:

I like the system. For the most part, the first round matchups are fantastic. I think people are getting caught up in W-L records instead of schedule strength and power numbers. Just my opinion but I foresee the first round winning margins being closer than any other first round since the turn of the century. 

Looking forward to it. 

You like the fact that 0-9 Gadsden got into the playoffs? That would never happen in any reasonable system.

 

Wake up people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gatorman-uf said:

Two thoughts:

 

If the FHSAA doesn't expand to 6 teams this doesn't happen. If the FHSAA doesn't increase points for losses, this doesn't happen. 

Which one do you think the FHSAA changes this year? If any

They loss point total likely decreases and implement a overall record tiebreaker so a coin flip gets pushed further back on the tiebreaker situation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 181pl said:

You like the fact that 0-9 Gadsden got into the playoffs? That would never happen in any reasonable system.

 

Wake up people.

Old system had a 1-9 Eastside team and a winless FAMU team in at one point while leaving a 8-2 defending 4 time champion like Miami Central out of playoffs 

 

Was the old one any better? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Old system had a 1-9 Eastside team and a winless FAMU team in at one point while leaving a 8-2 defending 4 time champion like Miami Central out of playoffs 

 

Was the old one any better? 

Much better because it was decided on wins and losses. No bonus points for scheduling a team that may have been OK in 2016 and snuck into the playoffs back then but is now hot garbage (Brandon and dozens of other examples).

 

The only way to fix this mess is to get out of the business of small districts. Go to large districts. Even with an 8 team district, you are left with 3 non-district games and K.O. classic. That's enough.

 

You can award the top two in the district with the playoffs and you aren't going to have many teams with bad records making it in. On top of that, bonus points to seed the playoff qualifiers by Section, not region. 1 point per win, no points for losses, a schedule bonus of 1-4 based on the overall record of the teams you played that year. That is the only fair way. Forget the playoff nonsense because a team that qualified a year or two before may have lost everyone to graduation or transfer and you are still getting points for a team that could wind up 3-7 or 2-8. 

The only flaw to that is fofreit losses when figuring out current schedule strength of the teams you played. I would perhaps only go with on field results or give 1/2 a win to a team that had to forfeit when figuring out the strength of a schedule. I'm not advocating giving the team that had to forfeit any points in their own compilation, only for the teams that had to play the team that had the forfeit loss.

 

A little bit of thought can fix this mess, but I'm not counting on it from the bozos upstairs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Old system had a 1-9 Eastside team and a winless FAMU team in at one point while leaving a 8-2 defending 4 time champion like Miami Central out of playoffs 

 

Was the old one any better? 


We have had this conversation before, but the old system was fixable with small changes. Increasing district size solves that problem, no need for an over complicated system. If there had been 7-8 teams in a district, boom, solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:


We have had this conversation before, but the old system was fixable with small changes. Increasing district size solves that problem, no need for an over complicated system. If there had been 7-8 teams in a district, boom, solved. 

If only it was that simple

 

Teams being whiny babies about a little travel or wanting a easy district caused this

 

What they gonna do?  Force teams and risk losing more schools to independent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 181pl said:

Much better because it was decided on wins and losses. No bonus points for scheduling a team that may have been OK in 2016 and snuck into the playoffs back then but is now hot garbage (Brandon and dozens of other examples).

 

The only way to fix this mess is to get out of the business of small districts. Go to large districts. Even with an 8 team district, you are left with 3 non-district games and K.O. classic. That's enough.

 

You can award the top two in the district with the playoffs and you aren't going to have many teams with bad records making it in. On top of that, bonus points to seed the playoff qualifiers by Section, not region. 1 point per win, no points for losses, a schedule bonus of 1-4 based on the overall record of the teams you played that year. That is the only fair way. Forget the playoff nonsense because a team that qualified a year or two before may have lost everyone to graduation or transfer and you are still getting points for a team that could wind up 3-7 or 2-8. 

The only flaw to that is fofreit losses when figuring out current schedule strength of the teams you played. I would perhaps only go with on field results or give 1/2 a win to a team that had to forfeit when figuring out the strength of a schedule. I'm not advocating giving the team that had to forfeit any points in their own compilation, only for the teams that had to play the team that had the forfeit loss.

 

A little bit of thought can fix this mess, but I'm not counting on it from the bozos upstairs.

 

No it was decided on a select few wins or losses while half the season had no meaning or value whatsoever 

 

That's why I despise that old system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 181pl said:

0-9 Gadsden got into the playoffs? That would never happen in any reasonable system.

 

Wake up people.

 

1 hour ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Old system had a 1-9 Eastside team and a winless FAMU team in at one point while leaving a 8-2 defending 4 time champion like Miami Central out of playoffs 

 

Was the old one any better? 

 

52 minutes ago, 181pl said:

MUCH BETTER  because it was decided on wins and losses. No bonus points for scheduling a team that may have been OK in 2016 and snuck into the playoffs back then but is now hot garbage (Brandon and dozens of other examples).

 

The only way to fix this mess is to get out of the business of small districts. Go to large districts. Even with an 8 team district, you are left with 3 non-district games and K.O. classic. That's enough.

 

You can award the top two in the district with the playoffs and you aren't going to have many teams with bad records making it in. On top of that, bonus points to seed the playoff qualifiers by Section, not region. 1 point per win, no points for losses, a schedule bonus of 1-4 based on the overall record of the teams you played that year. That is the only fair way. Forget the playoff nonsense because a team that qualified a year or two before may have lost everyone to graduation or transfer and you are still getting points for a team that could wind up 3-7 or 2-8. 

The only flaw to that is fofreit losses when figuring out current schedule strength of the teams you played. I would perhaps only go with on field results or give 1/2 a win to a team that had to forfeit when figuring out the strength of a schedule. I'm not advocating giving the team that had to forfeit any points in their own compilation, only for the teams that had to play the team that had the forfeit loss.

 

A little bit of thought can fix this mess, but I'm not counting on it from the bozos upstairs.

 

Hmm?? 

 

Am i the only one who caught the fact that the same thing you are saying makes this current system garbage happened on the old system yet for some reason you think it was better when it at best breaks even and throw in finally having seeding and makes every game count 

 

I call that UPGRADE 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:


We have had this conversation before, but the old system was fixable with small changes. Increasing district size solves that problem, no need for an over complicated system. If there had been 7-8 teams in a district, boom, solved. 

Increasing district size doesn't prevent the devaluing of non district games

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new system can be fixed in a easy way. Make all districts at least 6 teams instead of some with 4 and some with 7. This will stop hurting teams in large districts who have a certain number of guaranteed losses compared to 4 team districts. Next, make losing to a tier four team back to 30 instead of 35 to stop teams who lose a game from gaining more points than beating a team form lower tier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbia fan, take a step back take a deep breath. This is a very fixable situation. Just like gator man said, all we have to do is go back to larger districts. If you whine about the travel then you don't have to participate in the FHSAA playoffs, it's that easy. And there are enough teams in every geographic region to fill out districts very easily. We just need to be slightly more flexible with the classes. And for the folks that like points, what I suggested above works. You award points based on strength of schedule for that year. Based on wins and losses. Not past accomplishments. That's the fairest and most equable way to solve this stupid mess that the FHSAA has single-handedly caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the product of Frank Beasley and the Fhsaa and it has proven to be terribly flawed. The former system as mentioned above was better. The fact you had bad teams in the playoffs were because of 3 team districts. If you say the minimum number of teams in a district are 6, that guarantees 5 games then you still have schedule flexibility. You will NEVER make everyone happy but I don't know anyone that can honestly say that a winless team belongs in the playoffs. On top of that it was decided by a coin flip. We need a math degree to figure out the standings but we can't get teams together to play 1 qtr to decide a playoff spot. Let's just flip a coin and here we go. I would like to believe that the Fhsaa is embarrassed by these results but I really don't think they care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×