Many CPS teams are 2A/3A caliber put in 5A/6A. There needs to be 1-32 to avoid a 5A north debacle + true seeding. Weird how all these schools whine about districts/regional, but only 1 or 2 propsals happen annually. if 100 of all the member schools proposed 1-32. true seeding, higher seed semi host, 6 classes, separation, or whatever else is whined about ONLY during and after the playoff who knows what would happen. Only 1-32 in class 5-8A only I can see passing as it is the easiest thing for IHSA to do and less controversial.
CPS Round 1 stats.
- Thread starter OnVikings!
- Start date
How is it any scarier than watching Elgin, Hoffman Estates, West Hancock,.etc. lose by 50+ points? Surely, those kids were also dominated on every play.
Ahhh. My favorite time of the year. The annual, "CPS teams don't deserve to be in the playoffs," "We need to change the seeding, so these CPS teams will never play each other and advance," "High school kids playing varsity football shouldn't play varsity football against other varsity football players because they could get hurt," threads!
The arguments about this being about "putting on the best possible show," miss the point that this is a high school tournament, played by high school kids. Yes, there should be a good tournament. The IHSA requires teams to qualify for the playoffs, and then seeds the qualifiers. While it may not be perfect, it certainly beats systems like in Indiana where everyone qualifies for the tournament, and there is absolutely no seeding. Every year top 5 teams in Indiana play in the first or second round because the sectional pairings are based on geography, not seeding. Even if it isn't perfect, the IHSA has a better system in place than that.
These arguments always end up being about CPL teams with 8-1 records getting in to the playoffs in place of "more deserving" non CPL teams with 4-5 records. The kids don't get to control who they play or where they live. There is enough data to show that the first rounds of the playoffs aren't that competitive across the board. Let the CPL kids have their day.
I'll also say this to all of the well meaning folks who knock CPL teams in the playoffs. Come watch a 3:30 Thursday, or a 9:15 Saturday start at Eckersall or Stagg. Fans are outnumbered by security guards. Teams playing for the love of the game, and coaches keeping a number of players on those teams because they need football more than football needs them. Watch a few of those games and tell me that when those kids beat all of the odds and have some success on the field, they don't deserve to play in the state playoffs.
The arguments about this being about "putting on the best possible show," miss the point that this is a high school tournament, played by high school kids. Yes, there should be a good tournament. The IHSA requires teams to qualify for the playoffs, and then seeds the qualifiers. While it may not be perfect, it certainly beats systems like in Indiana where everyone qualifies for the tournament, and there is absolutely no seeding. Every year top 5 teams in Indiana play in the first or second round because the sectional pairings are based on geography, not seeding. Even if it isn't perfect, the IHSA has a better system in place than that.
These arguments always end up being about CPL teams with 8-1 records getting in to the playoffs in place of "more deserving" non CPL teams with 4-5 records. The kids don't get to control who they play or where they live. There is enough data to show that the first rounds of the playoffs aren't that competitive across the board. Let the CPL kids have their day.
I'll also say this to all of the well meaning folks who knock CPL teams in the playoffs. Come watch a 3:30 Thursday, or a 9:15 Saturday start at Eckersall or Stagg. Fans are outnumbered by security guards. Teams playing for the love of the game, and coaches keeping a number of players on those teams because they need football more than football needs them. Watch a few of those games and tell me that when those kids beat all of the odds and have some success on the field, they don't deserve to play in the state playoffs.
I can point at plenty of conferences that have had little to no success in the playoffs. They just don't have as many teams as CPS in the playoffs. But their lack of success is just as staggering.
But that doesn't mean that CPS teams don't belong in the playoffs. They earned their right to be there by the standards that are in place right now.
I can both agree with you and disagree with you.
I don’t think anyone is saying, at least I’m not saying, that CPS shouldn’t be in the playoffs. I certainly won’t make the argument that they are taking the place of a more deserving 4-5 team, that 4-5 team had their chance to make the playoffs and they lost 5x.
I just don’t think it’s good to have a tournament like 5a north this year in which the quarterfinal will have a running clock in the first half bc CPS schools advancement.
Objective criteria have been offered in the past on this board. I know because I myself offered an objective comprehensive proposal a few years ago.
I'm not saying I have a big problem with the current system. However, one can address some of the concerns written about in this thread by objectively measuring the strength of the different conferences. It is not worth my time to try and find the thread where my comprehensive proposal was offered, because it was clear at the time that no proposal will have consensus support, including (obviously) the current system.
Having stated the above, I will spend a brief amount of time to outline the nature of the proposal. It was objective because it was based on easily verified facts, namely semifinal appearances by conference teams. Regarding playoff qualification, the additional criteria was something like this:
* All conference champions from conferences with six or more teams qualify. (This is also the existing criterion.)
* For conferences that had no teams appear in the playoff semifinals during the previous five playoffs, teams with fewer than seven wins are not eligible for the current year's playoffs.
* For conferences that had no teams appear in the playoff semifinals during the previous ten playoffs, teams with fewer than eight wins are not eligible for the current year's playoffs.
The proposal was objective, it was transparent, and it was simple to administer. It did not discriminate against Chicago Public League teams because the same criteria would be applied to all conferences. With respect to classes 5A through 8A, I'm thinking it would currently apply to the following conferences: Central Suburban North, Northern Lake County, Upstate Eight, Southwest Prairie, Western Big Six, and the various CPL conferences.
Too many people live in a fantasy world where they believe there is a system to make every playoff game a 27-24 final score.
Forget the first couple rounds. I went through the last handful of years when this came up last season, and the % of blowouts (3+ scores) in the quarters/semi’s/even championship games is really high. (I’m sure those posts are lost to the old board, but maybe I can try to do the numbers again)
Forget the first couple rounds. I went through the last handful of years when this came up last season, and the % of blowouts (3+ scores) in the quarters/semi’s/even championship games is really high. (I’m sure those posts are lost to the old board, but maybe I can try to do the numbers again)
Did a quick look of just last season:
Quarters/semi’s/finals: 8 classes with 7 games each (56 games)
32 out of 56 (57%) were 17+ point final scores (including 7 of the 8 championship games)
Quarters/semi’s/finals: 8 classes with 7 games each (56 games)
32 out of 56 (57%) were 17+ point final scores (including 7 of the 8 championship games)
@Alexander33 Thank you, all I've been asking for is a proposal that can be applied to ALL schools that isn't seeking to target CPL schools. As you said its going to be hard to come up with a system that gets majority support.
That said I think there are a lot of problems with tying playoff participation to historical performance. Partly is that some of these conferences didn't exist 5 and 10 years ago. Does 7-2 LWE not get in because the Southwest Valley is 2 years old?
But again, kudos on at the very least putting something out that doesn't target a single group of kids for exclusion.
That said I think there are a lot of problems with tying playoff participation to historical performance. Partly is that some of these conferences didn't exist 5 and 10 years ago. Does 7-2 LWE not get in because the Southwest Valley is 2 years old?
But again, kudos on at the very least putting something out that doesn't target a single group of kids for exclusion.
So how does this system work for conferences that move teams around? The CCL adjusts teams among their divisions based on success, as does the CPL. Or what about conferences with multiple divisions like the CS8?
Shhhh that doesn't fit the narrative that the CPL teams don't belong in the playoffs.
Yep, blowouts continue... as I said earlier in thread:
Finally, there are going to be a lot of blowouts in the large school classes because the best players are congregating at a select number of schools. Enrollment is a crude way to group football programs at this point, if you wanted really competitive tournaments, it would be more like AAU hoops tournaments where you have Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze divisions
If the goal is for there to be the best competition, then you group teams together by ability (subjective and imperfect). Below would be a 16 team "Platinum" playoff based on Massey rating. Some of the teams would advance less than they would in current system, but they would have the accomplishment of making the Platinum playoff.
I feel the consolidation of talent is only going to make for more blowout games....
Honestly, the first playoff adjustment I would make is to go 1-32 across the state. Eliminate the regional seeding. I'm sure I've seen someone break down the actual difference in travel distances if the regional seeding was eliminated. If I recall, it wasn't that big of a deal.
Yes, 100%, see how that goes. It is such an easy adjustment.
The semifinal appearance(s) follows the team to whatever conference it currently is in. So, to use the Southwest Valley Blue Conference as an example, because it is only two years old (as pointed out by "Cross Bones" above), all the teams in that conference would qualify under the existing criteria. That is because Lincoln-Way East, Lockport and Naperville Central all have made a semifinal appearance within the last five years. Even if Naperville Central and Lincoln-Way East had not made the semifinals last year while members of the newly created Southwest Valley Blue Conference, all conference teams would still be eligible under the existing rules because Lincoln-Way East and Lockport made the semifinals in earlier seasons (but still within the five-year period) while members of a different conference.
The proposal I submitted truly was comprehensive and it therefore provided an exception to the above rule for independents and other teams generally (which would include conferences with more than one division such as the Central State Eight). I don't recall if the requirement was playing one or two teams that had made a semifinal within the previous five playoffs, but independent teams and teams from conferences/divisions that did not include a semifinalist could nonetheless still qualify under the existing rules if their schedule or nonconference schedule (as the case may be) included one or more semifinalists. The Central State Eight Conference would not need to utilize this exception because both divisions include teams that have made a semifinal appearance in the last five playoffs. [Glenwood, Rochester / Sacred Heart, Notre Dame]
The proposal also included similar adjustments for seeding purposes.
I feel like this would potentially create more conference jumping. Mid level teams in conferences that don't fit the semifinal rule would look to move to another conference.
In the 2025 CFP, every one of the 4 teams with the first round bye got beaten at home in the quarterfinals.
That the CFP realized their tournament wasn't seeded correctly and corrected it this year. Same thing some of us would like the IHSA to do.
The part of the quote containing the exact word "bye" ... possible negative results of sitting a week even when hosting ... a recent outcome during a first trial of a bye week in a football playoff ... hopefully that spells it out better.
I’ve mentioned the same thing numerous times but got attacked by 4 or 5 of the good ole boys keyboard warriors on here. In fact one of the warriors wrote the same thing about CPS teams I did & he attacked me. I’d like to see all teams get a shot IF THEY QUALIFY. The arguement is that they’d get destroyed in the playoffs well WTH do ppl think is going on now? And as stated not just CPS teams. Back in the day when there was only 16 teams & 6 classes there were blowouts mostly CPS teams but there were others who got blown out. Many times CPS teams were paired vs each other then destroyed in the quarterfinals. There were some success stories such as Robeson who I watched throw away the state championship then watching Reavis finally win it. I enjoyed Mather & Hubbard & other CPS teams who made a run in the playoffs or at least play close win the Prep Bowl. And seeding. Look at Reavis 6-3. They lost 3 games they should have won & could have gotten one of the top seeds & been 9-0 yet the result would have been the same in round 1 for them & they get blown out. There were teams who finished 2-7 or 3-6 who would have beaten teams who were in the playoffs.
Since the CFP got brought up. 11 games last year, and flaws or not, had an actual committee seeding the teams. 2 of the 11 games were one score and 4 of 11 were 17+ points. There will always be many blowouts.
Take the top few teams in Illinois and have them play 10 games against each other. Likely going to end up with 3 blowouts games just based on teams having good days/bad days/lucky bounces/weird stuff happening. It’s sports, not a spreadsheet.
Take the top few teams in Illinois and have them play 10 games against each other. Likely going to end up with 3 blowouts games just based on teams having good days/bad days/lucky bounces/weird stuff happening. It’s sports, not a spreadsheet.