WHY THE BRACKETS ARE CORRECT!!!

[winston wolfe]

Yes, the lower bracket (D1) clearly has the toughest road to Columbia. There are many that would argue that having Byrnes, Dorman, and Dutch Fork seeded in the playoffs is NOT an accurate picture of how these teams should be seeded. You have to give you region champions and runner up's their due process. Dorman finished 3rd in their region. Region 2 has been a murderers row for many years. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the upper/lower state format. While there are few who can actually understand and interpret the 4A points system correctly; It does serve its purpose and is really only used for tie breakers......for those who don't get the points system just read below for a simple explanation....by the way not taking up for the SCHSL here........

如果你能读到这你应该能够找出这点事儿

[Rebel-Fan-74]

There is another side to this argument...

Region Play is not an accurate method to determine the quality of a team's ability. Is there anyone who thinks being the Champion of Region Five this season is anything to brag about?

Personally, I'd give the Region Champs a 2 point bonus and the runner up a 1 point bonus and seed them all at one time based on points. And, you count ten games, only one throw away game, and that is only because some teams have rivalry games with smaller schools.

Do away completely with that phantom BIG 16 list and make the points consistent from A to AAAA. Now you get a bonus half point for beating a 6-5 Mauldin but not for beating a 10-1 Goose Creek??? Are you kidding me??? I think you should get bonus points for beating a good team, not a mediocre team.

Winning a weak Region (White Knoll) over finishing 3rd in Region Two (Dorman) would mean a better seed... but who would you bet your hard earned money on? Would you take White Knoll at home or Dorman? I bet it takes you very little time to make the call...... and before you start with the Upper State biased, stop long enough to read the post as well as some of my other posts... If I'm biased to anything, show me where because I'm using pure facts.

I'd rather have a committee picking the seeds as compared to what we have now.

[SF Band dad]

A committee? That's not a bad idea.

We could rotate the chairmanship every year between Duncan, Easley and Florence.

I do not want to go back to an Upper/Lower format, and I agree that the points format could be improved. I like the system used in 3A, it rewards winning, playing larger schools and playing schools with good records.

You get a base number of points based on the opponent's classification:

• 1A = 1.5
  2A = 2
  3A = 2.5
  4A = 3

You get 1 point for a Win, 0 for a loss.
You get 0.1 points for each of your opponent's wins.

Examples:
Beating a 4A school with a 6-5 record = 3 + 1 + 0.6 = 4.6
Losing to a 4A school with an 9-2 record = 3 + 0 + 0.9 = 3.9

[Dave Pickren]

12 years ago, I was invited to work with some of the Athletic Directors that designed the current system and that we used today. The thoughts of that committee were eventually proposed to the 4A schools and voted on and eventually approved. So I guess you could say I wrote this thing in part.

Just about every idea listed here was discussed at one time but the prevailing opinion and though process was Region games and placement was prized above all. Thus Region Champs were always guaranteed a home game and a top seed.

There was no way that the lower state or any part of the state was going to approve a system which allowed Region 2 which at the time had 6 BIG 16 teams to take the majority of the top seeds. It would have never been approved by the required 32 of 48. It was still a challenge to get this one approved.

Recently I was speaking with "someone influencial" within the state. He stated that current discussion are looking at these tweaks. The changes that most around the state are in favor include.

1) eliminate the half point for winning Big 16 schools.
2) winning record is 6-4 in lower classes.
3) Only region champs seeded. Remainder down to points
4) Revamped point system where the game earn a value of 10 points down to 1.
ie Defeating a winning 4A school would be 10
ie Losing to a winning 4a school would be 9
5) Only a single mark off which would be announced before the season.

I would be surprised if any of this passed.

[EHSMeanGreen]

Just about every idea listed here was discussed at one time but the prevailing opinion and though process was Region games and placement was prized above all. Thus Region Champs were always guaranteed a home game and a top seed.

I like that the 1 and 2 from the Regions are just about guaranteed a home game.
(Only Sumter doesn't get a home game out of this group this year) 15 out of 16 teams.

The biggest weakness of the current system is the small Region, potentially a team could go 3-8 overall and ( 3-1) in Region Play and get a home game. I would vote for a provision that states that a #2 team from a Region should have to at least have a winning record overall to host. If they don't, then they should be seeded by points with all the others.

There was no way that the lower state or any part of the state was going to approve a system which allowed Region 2 which at the time had 6 BIG 16 teams to take the majority of the top seeds. It would have never been approved by the required 32 of 48. It was still a challenge to get this one approved.

You can include us folks from Region One on that one also...
too many wounds from all the years that teams with losing records, whose main resume points were taking 40-50 point beatings from Big 16 teams in Region 2, keeping some of our Region One teams with winning records out of the Division 2 playoffs.

1) eliminate the half point for winning Big 16 schools.
2) winning record is 6-4 in lower classes. (This means if you beat a 3A school, they have to go 6-3 in all their other games) Nobody from Easley in their right mind could be for this
3) Only region champs seeded. Remainder down to points (just put in a provision for at least a 6-5 overall record)
4) Revamped point system where the game earn a value of 10 points down to 1. - NO
ie Defeating a winning 4A school would be 10 - NO
ie Losing to a winning 4a school would be 9 - NO
(All 4A teams should be counted the same, we should not be responsible for how bad the other teams are in the Region that the SCHSL decides to put us in)
Region 2 folks need to be against this one. Only 3 teams from that Region have a winning record this year!
In other words: it is not your fault that they put JL Mann in your Region and on your schedule.

5) Only a single mark off - this first part is good
which would be announced before the season.- the second part is bad

I would be surprised if any of this passed.- Well, Thank the Lord!!!

It was still a challenge to get this one approved.

Our current system is not perfect but it is much better than what we previously had.

[Rebel-Fan-74]

There is another side to this argument...

I rest my case....

[Rebel-Fan-74]

The system that I proposed several times is almost the same system in the post above (my points were not 10 9 8 etc and the one mark off was not determined BEFORE the season, but it couldn't be a Region Game).

There were a few other things as well. Instead of 52 teams in AAAA, there would be 64, 8 regions with 8 teams. I think that is the first thing they should address. An 8 team Region in one place and 5 team Region in an other? Basically, win two region games and you could be in the playoffs at 2-9. How is that fair to a team that has to win 4 games to get an automatic bid? Balance in the region for quantity is possible, for quality is not.... we all know that things change in football all the time. Teams go up, and sometimes teams go down (how quickly is a whole other issue). There is not a practical way to "balance the quality" so I will not even go there. But play the same number of games. If you don't go to 64, then 6 team regions and 9 regions for 54 teams. Nothing in stone that says you have to have 8 regions!

I think Region Champs getting seeded first is a compromise that I could live with.... I prefer to seed them based on overall record regardless because a 7-4 Region Champion or a 10-1 runner up, without looking more in depth the 10-1 could be deceiving..

MATCH UP..........Size.......Result..Team's Record
Westwood River Bluff 4 W 7 4
Westwood Richland Northeast 3 W 2 8
Westwood Clover 16 W 3 8
Westwood Keenan 2 W 8 3
Westwood Lexington 4 W 5 6
Westwood West Florence 4 W 5 6
Westwood Lugoff-Elgin 4 W 0 11
Westwood Ridge View 4 W 3 8
Westwood Blythewood 4 W 5 6
Westwood Dutch Fork 4 L 9 2
Westwood Spring Valley 16 W 6 5

10-1 Record (the teams with winning record teams)
River Bluff's very first varsity game
AA School that is good but AA
6-5 Spring Valley

Lost solidly to Dutch Fork

I don't know much of anything about Westwood, they may run the table in Division II; however, the 10-1 is not as impressive when looked at in detail... seven teams with losing record...

Who would be on the "COMMITTEE" if they had one SF Band Dad? I mean other than me and you... of course...

[Tigerific]

If you not going to reward region finish then why have regions? They mean nothing so you might as well just let scheduling be a free for all and seed totally by points. The problem you run into with that is way too many tiebreakers. Need to go back to 8 team regions like the old days. It eliminates some scheduling problems because you guaranteed 7 4a teams and 4 spots for rivalries.

[EHSMeanGreen]

I am interested in the 3A point system and how that would shake out in combination with seeding the top finishers in Regions first. I might tackle that, It really wouldn't take that much time to adjust my current spread sheet to those changes.

I am also interested in Rebel-Fan's suggestions, evening up the number of teams in Regions would help.
I think the travel expense argument has always been the barrier, but some of his other suggestions could help that.
Another thing that will help is Bluffton going back to 3A.

For most of my life, the majority of teams from Region One were not given a fair shake when it came to the playoffs.
Greenwood is the exception.
Right now, we have a fair shake. Any changes that would move that back in the other direction, I am dead set against.

[wave 80]

This is way to complicated. Make it simple.
8 regions with 8 teams each and the top 4 teams from each region make the pool.
then take the 32 qualifiers by enrollment and breakout the 16 division 1 and 2.
now that you have your 16 bracket qualifiers.
let the region Champs draw straws to decide whom gets 1st, 2nd,3rd and so on choice
and let them decide what position they want to take in the bracket 1-16.
then let the 2nd place region finishes draw straws for the right to choose what position that is available in their brackets until the brackets are filled in.
This puts more incentive to be a region champion and allows the coaches the decision of what part of the bracket they want to go in. Because they choose from what's available.
and it also allows 4 games to play rivals without points being an issue.