One thing you have made abundantly clear is you really have no understanding of what seeding is. And that is evident by the fact you continually use outcomes of certain matchups as some proof that the seeding was done accurately or not. Seeding has nothing to do with who will advance or who is favored to win. Sort of pointless having a discussion about seeding a playoff bracket when you obviously don't know much about it.
Playoff Projections Post Week 3
- Thread starter wildkit_fan
- Start date
They played each other and York won by 2+ TDs, so I guess I don't have reason to challenge that.
We may need to jump to our own thread. We're outnumbered here, but I think understand each other
I am more than well aware of what seeding is as it gives the higher seed to perceived better teams in order to reward them and give them the easiest path to make it further. The NCAA football championship was played between #7 ND and #8 OSU, wild card teams have won the World Series, and Super Bowl. There are years where the 2 best teams in the NFL are both in the AFC or NFC. An 8 seed has beat a 1 seed in the NBA playoffs. Seeding isn't as important as you make it out to be.
Just because you want your team to be on the one line on the bracket doesn't mean they're any less likely to run the table or make them any less good just because their seed is 9 instead of 1.
You're out numbered because the majority of people are fine with the current system. You're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.We may need to jump to our own thread. We're outnumbered here, but I think understand each other
Im not arguing the importance of it. Im debating the accuracy of the ihsa seeding system and pointing out the consequences of grossly mis seeding teams.
If people think the IHSA seeding system doesn’t need to be improved, I have no idea why it seems everyone is adamant that the north/south thing must be eliminated. If the seeding is so inaccurate as to which are the best teams anyway, who cares if it’s split into 2 regions?
Who has suffered the consequences of being "grossly mis-seeded"? Sticking with our 8A example, you think Loyola was grossly mis-seeded, yet they won as a 12 seed. Same goes for MC in 7A, grossly mis-seeded and won as a 19 seed.
My contention is that seeding in the IHSA football tournament, and only that tournament, the accuracy of seeding isn't as relevant as you think it should be because the better team will win more times than they lose and those that follow the sport know which team is better regardless of the accuracy of their seed.
The IHSA tried using football enrollment, they've tried geographic quads, but even after using those methods the constant for seeding has always been wins and playoff points. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
So, your argument is that your don't like that a 9-0 CPS team is seeded higher than some 5-4 team? Or that Naz was a 16-seed and won a state title?
Seriously? If there are, let's say four dominant teams, in a class 1A-6A and 3 of them are all in the North bracket then they have to battle it out while the one team in the south gets a cakewalk to the semi's or finals. It prevents it from being a true tournament and just looks to have equal representation from the north and south rather than seeding 1-32. There's a reason why geographic quads failed miserably.
I care.
And so do many people that are involved in high school football.
It is all about the possibility of new opportunities for players, coaches, their schools and their fans. You can play the same old stale schools down the street or meet someone new.
One of the greatest things in football playoffs is two schools who have never played each other, getting an opportunity to do that. Maybe it is a CPS school headed out to Southwestern Illinois. Or kids from the Decatur area headed to the Western burbs of Chicago.
I get that some 4-5 teams will be needed in the future as school either consolidate (Which will happen by the dozens) or COOP, but it's my personal opinion that instead of allowing 3-6 teams into the playoffs, the state should reduce the number of classifications. I can see Illinois having only 6 classes soon!
Not likely to go back to 6 classes any time soon. There was only one 4-5 team in the field last year and 6 the year before that so there is no issue getting 256 teams to qualify with only a handful of 4-5 outliers.
What if coaches ranked all teams in their area (sectional assignments) after the week 8 games. After the week 9 games you could use the playoffs points and records to then determine the qualifiers. Coaches have until 5pm Saturday to adjust any rankings in their area (big wins or losses making differences).
I feel like I'm missing a math component here, but that's just what popped into my mind with the whole "coaches not voting" scenario.
I feel like I'm missing a math component here, but that's just what popped into my mind with the whole "coaches not voting" scenario.
Last edited:
You’re not understanding my point. In the current seeding system, there’s no guarantee those dominant teams have high seeds because they may have played a killer schedule (for example Naz 2 years ago when they won state with a 4-5 regular season). So unless you fix that, just going to 1-32 does not prevent the top teams playing in the same side of bracket (for example LWE, Loyola, and Marist in 8A last year). So, to me, eliminating regions seems silly if you don’t fix obvious irrational seeds.
Do you have experience as a coach who seeds teams he knows little to nothing about? How do you know coaches will take it seriously? What if they delegate it to someone who knows even less? What's the punishment for a coach not submitting his seedings?
Going this route you're saying you want to eliminate 1-32 seeding in all classes because you can't have coaches in the North accurately seeding teams in the south and vise versa.
See Quaggs earlier post. He previously voted on the AP and they wouldn't regularly vote, so why do you assume all coaches will comply or even want to take the time to seed teams?
If they don't vote, their vote defaults to what the current seeding protocol is.
I'm at a loss. The coaches could do a crappy job. Could it possibly be less accurate then seeding Loyola 12 and MC 19, when as 4AFan would admit, everyone knows they were among top 4 teams in the state? How about Chicago Sullivan being a #1 seed in 4A and losing 42-0 in the 1st round? Could the coaches possibly do worse than this? I'm taking crazy pills or something.
We're not comparing this to some sort of reasonably accurate system. If you polled every coach in the state, would find a single one who would support the seeds I just mentioned last year. I'm open to other ideas on how to do it, coaches, media, Massey,.... for all I care, 4AFan and Quaggs could get together at a Buffalo Wild Wings and do the seeding themselves. Guaranteed there would not be the completely obvious irrational seeds that we see in the current system.
Which I feel would deter more coaches from taking time to do the seeding themselves. There would be a lot of coaches thinking, "if I don't do the seeding the IHSA will handle it as they always have and I'm fine with that."
Seems like a realistic scenario being that there has been no outcry from any school or coaches to change the current process.
I don't think the coaches care near as much as you do. They see Sullivan ranked #1 and think, yeah whatever they're gonna lose anyway. Same with a team like Loyola. Coaches see it and know how the current system works and know Loyola is the top team and seeding them higher is irrelevant.
I'd be happy to meet Quaggs at Buffalo Wild Wings to have some beers and bad wing and at the end of the day agree that the IHSA seedings are fine as we go about our day.
Again, no one has called for any change to the seeding or made claims that it's not accurate or fair. You're looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Seed all classes 1-32, allow the higher seeded team to choose if they want to play at home or on the road in the first round, success factor all teams, and be done with it.
Last edited:
Yeahhhh, you could argue a lot of things about this, but coaches not caring about their seeding isn't one of them.
You know this how? Again, where is the outcry from coaches regarding seeding? I don't recall hearing Lynch complain about MCs seed or claim that they were disrespected or that the system is broken.
Was Loyola's title last year any less satisfying than their 2023 title because they were seeded 12 vs. 1 like they were in 2023?
Firsthand knowledge. Talked to plenty of coaches about this. Like anything else, if they saw a good idea they would get behind it.
This isn't college or the NFL, you're not going to see 99.99 percent of high school coaches complain to the media about anything.
I can say that I talk to about 10-12 coaches on seeding night. Text another 5-6 more. These are all 7A and 8A coaches.
The only time a coach complains is when they lose the coin flip and it sends them in a direction they don't like..
The reality is that they know how the system works. Everything is spelled out and they can't do anything that day to change it.
And I have been known to drink a beer or two. And I love wings.
Oh...they complain to me. I just don't write about it since most of time its off the record.
Generally speaking, the teams that win the whole thing aren't going to complain. You don't think #5 seed Marist and #3 seed St. Charles North (reasonably logical seeds for both) were a bit pissed off that they drew Loyola & MC in the 2nd round vs. appropriately seeded teams where they would have been favored?
Exactly, this isn't the NFL or college so stop trying to treat HS football like it is by trying to create some complex, convoluted seeding system.
You know what they don't say?:
"I really wish they would put that guy Wildkit_fan from the Edgy Tim forum in charge. He REALLY knows what he is talking about."
Then why are you complaining about their seed?!?!
Hypothetical situation. If seeding were different we don't know who Marist or SCN would have played in the first or second round. No guarantee they would have made the quarters or semi's to face Loyola or MC.
OUTCOMES OF THE GAME ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE SEEDING!
OUTCOMES OF THE GAME ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE SEEDING!
OUTCOMES OF THE GAME ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE SEEDING!
It been said a 1000x yet you still want to use game outcomes as some proof of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the seeding. You can determine or evaluate the accuracy of the seeding before a single game has been played.
Trying to have this discussion with you is like talking to a sack of potatoes.
Neither. I made my point in the post you responded to which has nothing to do with any individual team or conference.
Really weird statement to make coming from someone who has spent this entire thread claiming they don't care about seeding. Haven't you said multiple times the best team will win anyway? Why do you care about a "true tournament" then?
I can summarize the discussion:
- hey, seems like some of the seeds don’t make sense, maybe we should have coaches vote
- nah, that s too much work and coaches may do a bad job, we need to use a formula
- ok, I get it. Well, the Massey ratings seem to be the most comprehensive and accurate formula to rank teams, let’s use that to create seeds
- are you crazy man? The IHSA has a way worse formula that ends up with totally ridiculous seeds. Why would we switch from that!
-
You were the one who said "suffered the consequences of grossly mis-seeding." So how did they suffer the consequences without knowing the outcome of a game?
In the current system, the outcome of regular season games are relevant to the seeding.
Fine, use whatever seeding system you want, hypothetically MC ends up as the #1 seed and wins 7A in 2024. How is it different than the actual outcome?
I don’t want Chicago Sullivan to be #1 seed in 4A north bracket, I want them to be #1 seed in the entire state!
My apologies, I should have added the sentence, in the current IHSA system 1-32 creates a true tournament. When classes are split north/south depending on the year and the class the north/south split has the potential to turn the first 2 rounds into a conference tournament for those larger, competitive conferences that get more than 3 teams in the same class.
Coaches voting, using a formula, and claiming Massey is the best are all your points, so are you debating with yourself?I can summarize the discussion:
- hey, seems like some of the seeds don’t make sense, maybe we should have coaches vote
- nah, that s too much work and coaches may do a bad job, we need to use a formula
- ok, I get it. Well, the Massey ratings seem to be the most comprehensive and accurate formula to rank teams, let’s use that to create seeds
- are you crazy man? The IHSA has a way worse formula that ends up with totally ridiculous seeds. Why would we switch from that!
-
To your last point, there is no formula! It's as straight forward and transparent as you can get. You go 9-0 you're seeded higher than all 8-1 teams and so on. There's multiple 9-0 team, it goes to playoff points, the combined wins of all your opponents to determine seeding. Nothing difficult about it, no school claiming they got hosed by the process.
What you are doing is looking for a way to make the process more complicated.
That’s a formula, my man.
It’s actually how I’m able to do the projected seedings in excel. Take the number wins a team has, multiply that by 100 and add opponent wins, then sort. It’s just a very simple formula that does a very poor job of ranking teams. The Massey ranking is also a (bit more complex) formula but has the benefit of much more accurately ranking the teams.