SHCL possible proposal for fall sports

[Deputy]

Can make an argument for both sides of the issue. But I think the expanded playoff format is fair. Sure, it gives some teams a participation trophy for limping into the playoffs. But on the other side one has to come to grips with the fact that not all regions are created equal. There are often situations where one regions 4th place team is better than another regions 2nd place team. Sometimes better than another regions 1st place team. For that reason alone, I am for the the larger playoff. And if the gate for a couple extra games helps out the finances, that is just a bonus.

[I'm Batman!]

If a team wins a playoff game, regardless if they are 10-0 or 3-7, then obviously they deserve to advance. There have been years that Boiling Springs could have been that 3-7 team but they could have been a top 10 team! The reason, they played Northwestern & Dutch Fork before Region Play and then Gaffney, Dorman, Byrnes, Spartanburg in Region to finish 4th, all in the same season, so them beating the winner of Region One in the playoffs would not have been a huge shock to many fans. It's why looking at the record can be deceiving if you don't look at the teams behind the numbers. A couple of years ago, Northwestern was something like 1-5 at one point in the season and you would think they were horrible heading into Region Play... yet, when you went back and looked at the schedule, they had played a killer schedule that included Dutch Fork, Dorman on the road. They ended up in the Upper State Semi-Finals. But to answer your specific question, "Yes, I'd be upset if the team they knocked out was my team! However, to the point, I'd be upset no matter who knocked them out but in that case, I'd be mad at my coaching staff for not having them focused and ready to play a good team!"


As Penguin mentioned,

I find it truly amazing that 99% of the posters on this website, criticize the SCHSL for the way that they choose to operate things. Yet, that same 99%, piss and moan whenever the SCHSL proposes something different. My take away from this, is that you 99%ers just want to piss and moan.

To expand on that thought, I think 99% of the loudest complainers don't dig into the facts enough before they complain... but unlike Penguin, I say let them get on the board and complain and I will just ignore them or maybe I get a good laugh at their posts.

I actually had a long detailed and analytic response for you with a bunch of facts and figures from several states but took my wife's advice and erased what I wrote. Suggest you research other states (more than 20 and you can stay on this side of the Mississippi) and then get back to me on your thoughts with your results. I have too many years of experience and maturity to argue with you or anyone else anymore on this page. We can compare notes then. People who show their ignorance without research usually post the most ignorant responses.

P.S. I don't complain I just state facts and MY opinion.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here? You asked a question and I answered it... and I NEVER said you were complaining, I just stated that many cannot post anything positive because I believe they are just looking for a place to vent. You totally misread something into my post that wasn't there... I just do not share your opinion of allowing only Region Champions in the playoffs, but I did like the PLAYOFF IDEA.

Maybe we keep Region Champs, (4 Upper and 4 Lower) and they get a BYE week and then the next 16 (regardless of Upper and Lower) are matched up in week one in those "bowl games" with the winners advancing to face the Region Champions (who would host) the second week. How to select the 16 for week one? Not Runner Up vs Region 3rd, but select 16 teams that are the most deserving. Points or a committee, I'm sure we could come up with something....

As for those analytical facts, I stated facts from South Carolina (the only state that matters when it comes to our playoff system) how I think limiting the playoffs is the wrong way to go. Now, I do think we could tweak it to make it better, but only Region Champions in the playoffs in my opinion is not the way to go. I favor the idea I mentioned of allowing Region Champs a bye week and then 16 other teams (based on a to be determined system) playing in week one to move on to face the Region Champs.

I'm not a liberal who thinks anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong... I'll leave that to someone else. I simply, and with recent historical facts by the way, stated why I feel we need to keep the playoffs open to more than just Region Champions.

[Onion Rings]

Just using region champs is a terrible idea. There are 3rd and 4th place teams from some regions that are better than the region champs from others

I'm fine with 32 teams in. No byes, you may get to play a cupcake, but you have to play

seeding the teams by points and cross bracketing is as close as we will get to a fair and equitable system. It was done this way for a few years, and it worked

[DFOLDMAN]

Now let's be honest in 5A...there is actually only one "team" that makes it to the playoffs...hand the trophy to boys from Ballentine and White Rock...Fear The Fox

[Penguin]

Would someone please explain exactly what you are trying to achieve with your particular suggestion for a playoff format? Do not forget that there are currently 5 classifications for football in SC. Class 5A is NOT the only child in the room.

I am a proponent of the system used last fall. Only the top 2 teams from each Region qualify. If everyone plays a 10 game schedule in an 11 week time frame, then there is an extra week after the end of the regular season. If only, roughly, half of the schools qualify for that 1st round game in week 11, allow those schools who did not qualify, play an extra game as if they made the playoffs and lost in week 11.

That satisfies those who claim that games would be lost for some schools. A 16 team bracket is nice, neat, and compact. For those complaining about 3rd and 4th place teams being so good, then propose a football only, Region re-alignment to allow for more even strength from Region to Region. Travel is not really that big of a deal. If a team from the Lowcountry was expected to travel to Pickens County to play a championship game, then everything else is a cakewalk. I just bet that those in Sumter, Conway, and Myrtle Beach, can fill you in on how to travel long distances.

But I still do not understand what the end game is. Are some people trying to have a Region 2 ONLY playoff structure? Other people do actually play football in other parts of the state. Please explain what you are trying to get to? Perfection? Ain't happening, so try and figure out how best to accommodate everyone, not just a specific one.

[SF Band dad]

Can make an argument for both sides of the issue. But I think the expanded playoff format is fair. Sure, it gives some teams a participation trophy for limping into the playoffs. But on the other side one has to come to grips with the fact that not all regions are created equal. There are often situations where one regions 4th place team is better than another regions 2nd place team. Sometimes better than another regions 1st place team. For that reason alone, I am for the the larger playoff. And if the gate for a couple extra games helps out the finances, that is just a bonus.

Valid points. I recall a few years ago the 16th seed River Bluff Gators defeated the #1 seed Goose Creek Gators in the first round.

[I'm Batman!]

Can make an argument for both sides of the issue. But I think the expanded playoff format is fair. Sure, it gives some teams a participation trophy for limping into the playoffs. But on the other side one has to come to grips with the fact that not all regions are created equal. There are often situations where one regions 4th place team is better than another regions 2nd place team. Sometimes better than another regions 1st place team. For that reason alone, I am for the the larger playoff. And if the gate for a couple extra games helps out the finances, that is just a bonus.

Careful, the liberals will jump on that and make us stop keeping score!


Seriously, you are correct about the valid arguments point for both sides. I think we are all in agreement that the playoffs are meant to be a reward for the teams that earned it during the season. It's the point of "who earned it" that we have differing ideas. Is that number 8, 32 or a point somewhere in between. It really comes down to how many are in the classification to determine the percentage of teams making the playoffs. I think 50% should be the target.

For example, in 5A, you have 8 Regions, 5 teams each, so 40 teams. That means you either go with 16 and don't hit the 50% or you go to 24 and get the 50% with a couple extra. The 24 bracket would be give the Region Champs a BYE week and the 16 come from the 16 most deserving teams regardless of location in the state and location in the standings. Now, how do we determine the "most deserving teams" would be the next issue. Honestly, I'm not sure what works best. A committee, a points system, and I'm sure some of you can come up with other ideas.

My thoughts (add the voice over of the standard legal disclaimer, "not necessarily those of management etc, etc and etc"):

8 - Just the Region Champs - Too narrow of a field. To use 5A and Region II again (not just to piss Penguin off, but because it is clearly relevant to the discussion and is recent enough to be a valid example, and OK, I admit it, the part about pissing Penguin off, too) I know for at least 3 and possibly 4 times since 2009 that the winner of the Regular Season game lost in the playoffs - not just the playoffs, but in the State Championship game. So the State Champions wouldn't have qualified using the 8 only format. Now some would say, well they should have won the first time! True and factual statement, and if we get down to the hardcore bottom line, taking only the Region Champions is a fair way to do things. TO BE CLEAR: The actual playoff system is fair, not saying the balance of Regions is fair <-- and they will never be balanced in any of the 5 classifications, no matter what system we use.

16 - Region Champs and Region Runner up - A balanced playoff bracket. Runner Up's on the road in round one. But with 40+ teams in the classification, we might not be allowing enough participation (back to my original comment on this thread, coaches are judged on "making the playoffs" and they want bigger brackets).

32 - WAY TOO MANY!


Again, just my thoughts (I swear I just heard my wife moaning, oh God, he's thinking again!)

[Penguin]

Do what I suggested. Remake the Regions every re-alignment, based upon a 2 year seeding system. Forget travel, just even out the Regions and only count Region games for seeding purposes. It would give every school 4 or 5 games every year to use as they wish. A 16 team Playoff then works for everyone.

[Onion Rings]

the goal? get all of the best teams in

[Penguin]

the goal? get all of the best teams in

Impossible. You would have to have a group of 10 or more people to see every team play every game, or any other solution is mere conjecture. None of the polling in this state is fair and impartial.

The most equitable way to conduct the playoffs would be to have Regional sub-playoffs where teams would be selected by Regional authorities. Then combine those Champions into a mini tournament to determine the overall State Champion. This would have to be done in each Class.

The NCAA Basketball playoffs have expanded in my lifetime, from 27 to 64 in incremental adjustments, so as to include all Conference champions and all other justified teams. Yet every year, someone calls foul.

My point is, to accomplish perfection, ALL Schools would have to be included with a Tournament style bracket. No way that happens, so we have what we have, and no amount of tweaking will guarantee that EVERY qualified team would get in. So, as I stated before, PERFECTION will NEVER happen.