Opinions on playoffs?

[Gunz41]

Since this seems like the most active board and a lot of people that would be "from" another board, figured this would be the place to post.
What is everyone's thoughts on the current playoff system?

I have seen complaints because of 1st round blowouts, somewhat justifications for someone like Warren who decided not to play and the question of why they would want to play it, suggestions on less Classes, going back to the previous system of the East/West (16 each, so say A/B and C/D together), unfair to certain regions, even waiting to classify teams until playoffs for situations where a dominant team like Riverheads.

Then there is the pros and cons to each: longer travel, really good record teams missing out, kids getting the extra game no matter the outcome, unfair if one region gets a BYE, really bad teams getting in etc.

 

[1MoreHokie]

I just scanned Salem's first round PO games since 1986 (first year Salem made the POs) and saw no overarching pattern that games were closer then than now. Salem blew out teams back then, they had close wins as well, and they lost every now and then, too. Not really any different from today imo.

If you wanted to sell me on doing one less PO game because the longer a season goes the injury risk goes up as well then that's one thing but getting mad because a 1 (predictably) demolishes an 8 is ridiculous. Look at the MOV in your average 1-16 game in the NCAAT, hasn't been a reason to not play them and especially not now after the UMBC upset.

 

[ClarkeFan83]

Well, not too long ago some teams in 4a got a first round bye if they were ranked 1 or 2, I think it was because there wasn't enough 4a teams to warrant no byes because then you'd get what we have now, #1 seeds blowing out #8 seeds who have a losing record. I don't know what the perfect scenario would be unless the VHSL would be flexible enough each season to do what made the most sense for that season based on how much parity in the division there was. Probably a planning nightmare, I dunno.

 

[Gunz41]

Well, not too long ago some teams in 4a got a first round bye if they were ranked 1 or 2, I think it was because there wasn't enough 4a teams to warrant no byes because then you'd get what we have now, #1 seeds blowing out #8 seeds who have a losing record. I don't know what the perfect scenario would be unless the VHSL would be flexible enough each season to do what made the most sense for that season based on how much parity in the division there was. Probably a planning nightmare, I dunno.

That part stuck in my mind because of Riverheads. Before this year they had a BYE last couple years. There were people saying that was so unfair, and a main reason they won the championship, and of course the usual "hiding students" to stay 1a. It couldn't possibly been because they were just better. And I dislike them lol

 

[ClarkeFan83]

Sherando was also a beneficiary of bye weeks in the recent past.

 

[falcettik]

One way to reduce the number of 1-8 blowouts is to reduce the number of classes. Six is way too many, IMO, for a state the size of VA. Four would be better and would probably result in the #8's with records more like 7-3, maybe 6-4 vs some of the poor records we see now in the #7/#8 seeds.

 

[schoolboard]

Everyone on a message board has a plan that makes sense to them, their team, their year. Athletic directors from the entire state have to make decisions that benefit the greater good. Be thankful that regions have their own autonomy to make rules that fit their region in football and other sports. It would be worse if they did not.

 

[Virginia HS Football Fan]

I just scanned Salem's first round PO games since 1986 (first year Salem made the POs) and saw no overarching pattern that games were closer then than now. Salem blew out teams back then, they had close wins as well, and they lost every now and then, too. Not really any different from today imo.

If you wanted to sell me on doing one less PO game because the longer a season goes the injury risk goes up as well then that's one thing but getting mad because a 1 (predictably) demolishes an 8 is ridiculous. Look at the MOV in your average 1-16 game in the NCAAT, hasn't been a reason to not play them and especially not now after the UMBC upset.

There are definitely more playoff games now. I would like to see a comparison of average first round scores from say, the last year we had a four-team per region setup and so far in 2019. It would be an easy comparison.

Group A Division 1 = Class 1
Group A Division 2 = Class 2
Group A Division 3 = Class 3
Group A Division 4 = Class 4
Group A Division 5 = Class 5
Group A Division 6 = Class 6

Maybe because there are more games today, then there are more blowouts and the whole situation is expounded.

Any number crunchers out there who can do the comparisons?

 

[Virginia HS Football Fan]

One way to reduce the number of 1-8 blowouts is to reduce the number of classes. Six is way too many, IMO, for a state the size of VA. Four would be better and would probably result in the #8's with records more like 7-3, maybe 6-4 vs some of the poor records we see now in the #7/#8 seeds.

I think four is the number to be honest. This would also allow regions to be more balanced numbers-wise as well (I speak in totality and not just Class 4). The overall quality of games would increase and the quality of playoff teams would increase as well.

 

[Lafayette]

why not go to three classes and merge into 6/5, 4/3 and 2/1. It would eliminate a lot of the reclassifications and keep teams in their class for extended periods.

 

[ClarkeFan83]

why not go to three classes and merge into 6/5, 4/3 and 2/1. It would eliminate a lot of the reclassifications and keep teams in their class for extended periods.

That would cut the VHSL take from playoffs in half.

 

[MaroonDude]

They need to do it like European Soccer Leagues and do some relegation

 

[Gunz41]

Glad the discussion is going on, but to me people are missing a key point in it when suggesting 4 or merging.

Just because I know it the best, take 2B, and there is no issue with records for those 8 teams.

1. 9-1 2. 9-1 3. 8-2 4. 8-2 5. 7-3 6. 6-4 7. 7-3 8. 6-4

The 6 seed just beat 3 seed by a lot, 2 seed beat 7 seed by 1 in OT, 5 seed won, and 8 seed played a decent game (23-6).

The point I am trying to make is that the way that some districts and less so schedules are constituted gives teams either an advantage or disadvantage.

A closer look at Class 2, in A both 4 and 5 seed had better records than 3 seed, but because of the schedules (which I believe everyone except some Richmond area schools are mandated to play district games, which benefited Poquoson with playing all bigger teams, where a team like Nottoway has several lower class teams who aren't very good.

And in all honesty, schools in areas would be treated differently. This isn't as much of an issue in the larger classes, and isn't an issue for teams in my area, but there are teams who have long trips just for district games, and long hauls (like HOURS) to find others.

There are pros and cons to any system we have had. When it was 4 per region, some really good teams got left out, and depending on where you were you could miss out on playoffs at even 9-1, while look at a different Region and a below .500 in because they won in a small district. But most times you didn't have bad teams in.

With the East/West, there was a greater chance of 2 best teams playing for title. There were also a few BYES, but you frequently saw more travel, "bad" teams got in, and had some blowouts.

Now the current system, teams with bad records are getting in and some blowouts. And I have read some Regional bias, like what I was saying when 4 teams (i.e. some regions better), and have had rematches.

But aside from the obvious that someone COULD get hurt, I haven't heard anyone say anything about how it is a bad thing that these kids get to play ONE MORE GAME, even if they get blown out, as most of these kids won't play any longer than HS.

Competitively, sure some of these games aren't good or good to watch. But there is more to it than that. It gives those host schools more revenue, and most importantly it should be about the KIDS. Not how entertaining a certain game is. And I will GUARANTEE that at some point, there has been one of these games that "shouldn't have been played" has given a kid a chance to move forward after high school because someone was watching that superior team

 

[RedPrideNation_RollPride]

@MaroonDude has it. For playoffs move teams up or down depending on record, SOS, avg finish during a cycle, etc. The top tier (6-10 teams) of 1A would move to 2A for a cycle while the bottom of 2A would drop down to 1A. And you do that throughout the classifications. There would be a logistics nightmare in once sense but you wouldn't have to affect regular season play as you would still keep the points system for a definable number. And the other thing is that when ever this comes up people want to say it has to be across the board for all sports and that's just nonsense. If the current system is working in softball, why would we try to fit a square peg in a round hole. There are alternatives to what is currently playing out but the VHSL has no appetite for making a broad change like that. Just my .02 and before anyone asks, I would not have cared if Riverheads was moved to 2A in this years playoffs. It is what it is and a trophy does not define the culture that is present in Greenville.

 

[falcettik]

They need to do it like European Soccer Leagues and do some relegation

The only way a relegation system (up or down) would work is if it is based on a set period of time, say 3-4 years. Relegation works in the Euro soccer leagues because those teams can keep players for a long time, or purchase new ones. Not so in high school, and often the younger kids don't even play varsity unless it is a necessity due to numbers or the kid is a stud.
As an example why relegation based on a single year would be a bad idea:
1. For teams moving up, say that Team X is a senior laden team, they move up, and 80% of the starters graduate. Next year's team is young. They probably struggle in a higher class. Getting hammered every week also inhibits their development to a degree.
2. Secondarily, at the lower classifications (Classes 1-3) simply having one or two stud players makes a huge difference. That could skew the performance as well if based on a single year. Several stud players on a team in the upper classes does make a difference, but not nearly as much.
3. For teams demoted, how many times have we seen a young team struggle, then come back like gangbusters the next season? If you compound that by demoting them there is the potential to have a team that is a cut above the overall competitive levels of the class they are demoted into, which is not fair either way, IMO.

Just food for thought. It is a hard thing to get right for everyone.

 

[Gunz41]

The only way a relegation system (up or down) would work is if it is based on a set period of time, say 3-4 years. Relegation works in the Euro soccer leagues because those teams can keep players for a long time, or purchase new ones. Not so in high school, and often the younger kids don't even play varsity unless it is a necessity due to numbers or the kid is a stud.
As an example why relegation based on a single year would be a bad idea:
1. For teams moving up, say that Team X is a senior laden team, they move up, and 80% of the starters graduate. Next year's team is young. They probably struggle in a higher class. Getting hammered every week also inhibits their development to a degree.
2. Secondarily, at the lower classifications (Classes 1-3) simply having one or two stud players makes a huge difference. That could skew the performance as well if based on a single year. Several stud players on a team in the upper classes does make a difference, but not nearly as much.
3. For teams demoted, how many times have we seen a young team struggle, then come back like gangbusters the next season? If you compound that by demoting them there is the potential to have a team that is a cut above the overall competitive levels of the class they are demoted into, which is not fair either way, IMO.

Just food for thought. It is a hard thing to get right for everyone.

And in addition if it is done on a yearly basis that could open pandoras box. Going into last game or 2 and knowing you win you will have to "move up", you could see some hinky things. Not that I think it would happen in 99% of cases, but even a hint of it would be ugly.

I'll give an example. Obviously it didn't happen this year, but take the last week of season. I remember 2 games that were between two 9-0 teams. One of them the "underdog" won (Broad Run) and the other way a blowout (Riverheads over SD). In the SD case, as being my team, I can say Riverheads was clearly the better team. But if teams were moving up/down, wouldn't anyone say that those could possibly give the appearance of impropriety? Even worse if it's to someone who you are certainly supposed to beat by record.

 

[RedPrideNation_RollPride]

The 4 year cycle would need to be in play still and the measurables would have to be more than wins/losses IMO.

 

[schoolboard]

@MaroonDude has it. For playoffs move teams up or down depending on record, SOS, avg finish during a cycle, etc. The top tier (6-10 teams) of 1A would move to 2A for a cycle while the bottom of 2A would drop down to 1A. And you do that throughout the classifications. There would be a logistics nightmare in once sense but you wouldn't have to affect regular season play as you would still keep the points system for a definable number. And the other thing is that when ever this comes up people want to say it has to be across the board for all sports and that's just nonsense. If the current system is working in softball, why would we try to fit a square peg in a round hole. There are alternatives to what is currently playing out but the VHSL has no appetite for making a broad change like that. Just my .02 and before anyone asks, I would not have cared if Riverheads was moved to 2A in this years playoffs. It is what it is and a trophy does not define the culture that is present in Greenville.

But the current system isn't working in softball either. Or tennis. But nobody cares. And it is not feasible to have one region for one sport and a different one for another.

 

[schoolboard]

But the current system isn't working in softball either. Or tennis. But nobody cares. And it is not feasible to have one region for one sport and a different one for another.

Athletic directors would be in 18 meetings a day because they would be in one class for this sport, different class and region for another. Just deal with your first round blowouts.

 

[RedPrideNation_RollPride]

Oh now you have brought up a very valid point. So now we can look at overall sports programs to determine which classification a school is in. I still think it works.

 

[falcettik]

The 4 year cycle would need to be in play still and the measurables would have to be more than wins/losses IMO.

Be careful with "measurables" as well. I grew up in CT and follow the CT sports through my parents. For basketball in CT they have a tournament classification system based on points for your record, but also for "measurables". A team near where I grew up, according to enrollment, is in the lowest of the five classifications and has one of the lowest enrollments in the state. The had a super group of kids come through and made the state semis two years ago, then the finals last year. Then all those studs graduated. Their tournament performance those two years ("measurables") were factored into their tournament class for this year - their reward? Playing in the third highest classification (up two levels) against schools with 4 times as many students. They have zero chance even if they go 16-4 or better during the regular season.

 

[RedPrideNation_RollPride]

I hear ya but if we don’t like just using the current number of students to at least establish the outline of the classes, we would have to look at something tangible that can be infallible. Math or better yet a formula that has several factors that are weighted within the equation such as W/L, SOS, student population, etc. I would also factor points for and against in there somehow but in conjunction with the SOS. Also institute a geo fence of the teams you must choose to play in your OoD schedule. That may reduce travel for teams frozen out of local rotations. It would actually put the VHSL in control of something other than the collection of money. Shoot I even lost myself on that last point dang it.

 

[SpartanOfYore]

Some thoughts:
~First and foremost, the VHSL's ratings point scale needs a serious retooling. The goals should be to provide more separation among teams in the final points standings, and to not give the same amount of credit to teams that have similar records, but vastly different schedules. I haven't sat down and given serious consideration to what scheme would be better, but here are a few changes I thought of:

• Stop awarding two bonus points per difference in classification to larger schools in non-district games. It used to be one point per classification difference in non-district games; go back to that. To use an example, Carroll County is a Class 3 school whose entire schedule consists of schools from Classes 1 and 2. The Cavaliers could easily play two or three Class 3 schools non-district, such as William Byrd, Christiansburg, or Cave Spring, if they so desired. One trip to Roanoke per football season isn't going to blow their budget, and in actuality, Carroll's average round-trip distance to district opponents was shorter in the River Ridge District than it is now that they've moved to the Three Rivers (counter-intuitive, but true). Carroll's entire district slate is either Class 2 or 1; they don't need to be rewarded for rounding out their schedule with smaller schools, as well. The Cavs could conceivably qualify for the Class 3 playoffs without ever facing any school that large. Again, that's just an example. I'm sure there are lots of other schools around the state that subtly "game the system" in a similar fashion.
• Stop treating all victories by defeated opponents as equal. Let's say Tuscarora beats Woodgrove, who then goes on to give Broad Run their only loss. Now let's say Liberty beats Fauquier, who later knocks off a team that finishes 0-10. In the VHSL points rating scale, Tuscarora gets two bonus points for Woodgrove's win over a 9-1 Broad Run - just the same as the two points Liberty would get for Fauquier's ho-hum win over that winless team. That doesn't seem right, and it needs to be addressed. I'm just not sure how.
• Add another bonus points value, called "Quality points". Here's how it would work. Every VHSL team and out-of-state opponent would be assigned to one of six tiers. The tier would be determined by the average number of wins per season, over the previous ten seasons. This would take a lot of cipherin', but that's why the VHSL has interns. And there's probably a computer program that could do it fairly quickly. The tiers could be as follows: Tier 1: >10.00 Average Wins Per Season (AWPS); Tier 2: 8.01-10.00 AWPS; Tier 3: 6.01-8.00 AWPS; Tier 4: 4.01-6.00 AWPS; Tier 5: 2.01-4.00 AWPS; Tier 6: 0.0-2.00 AWPS. Every team would be awarded a number of Quality points every game, with the Quality point value corresponding to a tier. Tier 1 = 6 Quality points; Tier 2 = 5 Quality points; Tier 3 = 4 Quality points; Tier 4 = 3 Quality points;Tier 5 = 2 Quality points; and Tier 6 = 1 Quality point. Example 1: For the previous ten seasons (2009-2018), Stone Bridge has averaged 11.6 wins per season, or 11.6 AWPS. That would place Stone Bridge on Tier 1. So, each of Stone Bridge's regular season opponents in 2019 would receive 6 Quality points, added to their VHSL ratings scale total at the conclusion of the game, win or lose. Example 2: Craig County's AWPS for 2009-2018 is 2.2, making the Rockets a Tier 5 team. Each of their 2019 regular season opponents would receive 2 Quality points. Every team's AWPS value, and corresonding tier placement, would have to be updated every year, but again - interns. I feel this tier system, based on team's performances over a decade, could go a long way in differentiating between schedules of differing strengths.

~Once the new, improved VHSL ratings point scale is finalized, use it to determine state semifinal pairings. This would be somewhat similar to cross-bracketing, in a way. Of the four regional champions (state semifinalists), number four on the ratings point scale would travel to number one, regardless of regions. Number three would head to number two. If E. C. Glass had the fourth-highest rating, and Lake Taylor the highest, then Glass would travel to LT in the state semis. This wouldn't ensure that the two best teams would always meet in the final - I don't think there's any to to ensure that - but it might help. And, we still get to have regional champions, which I feel is important.

~ I like the four region set up. Four regions makes much more sense than two, in my opinion. Four regional champions gives us four natural state semifinalists, in all sports. From 2013 through the 2016-17 school year, each classification was split into two megaregions, and IMO, they were just too big. Especially in the smaller divisions, and especially the western halves. 4A North(later 4A West) had twenty-nine schools, and that's too many for one region. In all sports, we were getting first-round matchups that led to one-way trips of three-plus hours. In football, that was translating to lots of games with nearly-empty stands, which in turn meant less money. The one aspect I did enjoy was getting to see teams that Salem otherwise would probably never play. In the current arrangement, with only eight schools in 4D, there's going to be lots of year-to-year repetition in playoff pairings, and rematches from the regular season will be inevitable. But, so be it. Rematches don't bother me as they do many of our posters. And the VHSL really had no viable alternative to setting up the regions in Class 4 as they did, due to geography.

 

[Sirduke5]

Just for competitive purposes only, to eliminating redoing the entire existing structure I would make a suggestion of
1vs5
2vs6
3vs7
4vs8
1-5 vs 3-7
2-6 vs 4-8

 

[ClarkeFan83]

Just for competitive purposes only, to eliminating redoing the entire existing structure I would make a suggestion of
1vs5
2vs6
3vs7
4vs8
1-5 vs 3-7
2-6 vs 4-8

But then if the 1 and 2 seed teams are truly the best, they won't end up in the championship game against each other.

This has become a really great thread! We all have our thinking caps on!

 

[1MoreHokie]

I love how absurdly complicated the answers are here because you guys don't like first round games that don't make your grip your seat until your knuckles go white.

K
I
S
S

 

[SpartanOfYore]

I love how absurdly complicated the answers are here because you guys don't like first round games that don't make your grip your seat until your knuckles go white.

K
I
S
S

I’ll take it for granted you’re referring to others, because I didn’t say anything like that, nor imply it.

 

[1MoreHokie]

I’ll take it for granted you’re referring to others, because I didn’t say anything like that, nor imply it.

I mean talks of relegation, 3 classes, 4 team regions (I'm sure I could get people behind 2 team regions if I made the argument), it's all just entirely too much.

Like I said, people are hilariously overcomplicating a complete non-issue because they, purely as fans, don't enjoy first round games enough. It's laughable.

 

[SpartanOfYore]

I mean talks of relegation, 3 classes, 4 team regions (I'm sure I could get people behind 2 team regions if I made the argument), it's all just entirely too much.

Like I said, people are hilariously overcomplicating a complete non-issue because they, purely as fans, don't enjoy first round games enough. It's laughable.

Please point out in my post where I indicated that I don’t enjoy first round games. I offered my opinion on the playoff system, which is the subject of the thread. Personally, I enjoyed seeing Salem pound the crap out of Amherst yet again last week.

 

[1MoreHokie]

Please point out in my post where I indicated that I don’t enjoy first round games. I offered my opinion on the playoff system, which is the subject of the thread. Personally, I enjoyed seeing Salem pound the crap out of Amherst yet again last week.

Still unsure where in any of that you think I'm talking to you. I specifically mentioned the posts I was talking about, I was quite specific.

 

[SpartanOfYore]

Still unsure where in any of that you think I'm talking to you. I specifically mentioned the posts I was talking about, I was quite specific.

No, you weren’t as clear as you think you were.

 

[1MoreHokie]

No, you weren’t as clear as you think you were.

Shrug, your problem not mine then. I specifically clarified relegation, shrinking classes, shrinking seed numbers.

 

[falcettik]

Some thoughts:
~First and foremost, the VHSL's ratings point scale needs a serious retooling. The goals should be to provide more separation among teams in the final points standings, and to not give the same amount of credit to teams that have similar records, but vastly different schedules. I haven't sat down and given serious consideration to what scheme would be better, but here are a few changes I thought of:

• Stop awarding two bonus points per difference in classification to larger schools in non-district games. It used to be one point per classification difference in non-district games; go back to that. To use an example, Carroll County is a Class 3 school whose entire schedule consists of schools from Classes 1 and 2. The Cavaliers could easily play two or three Class 3 schools non-district, such as William Byrd, Christiansburg, or Cave Spring, if they so desired. One trip to Roanoke per football season isn't going to blow their budget, and in actuality, Carroll's average round-trip distance to district opponents was shorter in the River Ridge District than it is now that they've moved to the Three Rivers (counter-intuitive, but true). Carroll's entire district slate is either Class 2 or 1; they don't need to be rewarded for rounding out their schedule with smaller schools, as well. The Cavs could conceivably qualify for the Class 3 playoffs without ever facing any school that large. Again, that's just an example. I'm sure there are lots of other schools around the state that subtly "game the system" in a similar fashion.
• Stop treating all victories by defeated opponents as equal. Let's say Tuscarora beats Woodgrove, who then goes on to give Broad Run their only loss. Now let's say Liberty beats Fauquier, who later knocks off a team that finishes 0-10. In the VHSL points rating scale, Tuscarora gets two bonus points for Woodgrove's win over a 9-1 Broad Run - just the same as the two points Liberty would get for Fauquier's ho-hum win over that winless team. That doesn't seem right, and it needs to be addressed. I'm just not sure how.
• Add another bonus points value, called "Quality points". Here's how it would work. Every VHSL team and out-of-state opponent would be assigned to one of six tiers. The tier would be determined by the average number of wins per season, over the previous ten seasons. This would take a lot of cipherin', but that's why the VHSL has interns. And there's probably a computer program that could do it fairly quickly. The tiers could be as follows: Tier 1: >10.00 Average Wins Per Season (AWPS); Tier 2: 8.01-10.00 AWPS; Tier 3: 6.01-8.00 AWPS; Tier 4: 4.01-6.00 AWPS; Tier 5: 2.01-4.00 AWPS; Tier 6: 0.0-2.00 AWPS. Every team would be awarded a number of Quality points every game, with the Quality point value corresponding to a tier. Tier 1 = 6 Quality points; Tier 2 = 5 Quality points; Tier 3 = 4 Quality points; Tier 4 = 3 Quality points;Tier 5 = 2 Quality points; and Tier 6 = 1 Quality point. Example 1: For the previous ten seasons (2009-2018), Stone Bridge has averaged 11.6 wins per season, or 11.6 AWPS. That would place Stone Bridge on Tier 1. So, each of Stone Bridge's regular season opponents in 2019 would receive 6 Quality points, added to their VHSL ratings scale total at the conclusion of the game, win or lose. Example 2: Craig County's AWPS for 2009-2018 is 2.2, making the Rockets a Tier 5 team. Each of their 2019 regular season opponents would receive 2 Quality points. Every team's AWPS value, and corresonding tier placement, would have to be updated every year, but again - interns. I feel this tier system, based on team's performances over a decade, could go a long way in differentiating between schedules of differing strengths.

~Once the new, improved VHSL ratings point scale is finalized, use it to determine state semifinal pairings. This would be somewhat similar to cross-bracketing, in a way. Of the four regional champions (state semifinalists), number four on the ratings point scale would travel to number one, regardless of regions. Number three would head to number two. If E. C. Glass had the fourth-highest rating, and Lake Taylor the highest, then Glass would travel to LT in the state semis. This wouldn't ensure that the two best teams would always meet in the final - I don't think there's any to to ensure that - but it might help. And, we still get to have regional champions, which I feel is important.

~ I like the four region set up. Four regions makes much more sense than two, in my opinion. Four regional champions gives us four natural state semifinalists, in all sports. From 2013 through the 2016-17 school year, each classification was split into two megaregions, and IMO, they were just too big. Especially in the smaller divisions, and especially the western halves. 4A North(later 4A West) had twenty-nine schools, and that's too many for one region. In all sports, we were getting first-round matchups, in all sports, that led to one-way trips of three-plus hours. In football, that was translating to lots of games with nearly-empty stands, which in turn meant less money. The one aspect I did enjoy was getting to see teams that Salem otherwise would probably never play. In the current arrangement, with only eight schools in 4D, there's going to be lots of year-to-year repetition in playoff pairings, and rematches from the regular season will be inevitable. But, so be it. Rematches don't bother me as they do many of our posters. And the VHSL really had no viable alternative to setting up the regions in Class 4 as they did, due to geography.

I like your third bullet point (quality points). That essentially amounts to a strength of schedule component. However, I would consider making the assigned point values what you have (1-6 points) for a win, but cut the values in half for a loss. Greater reward for beating a really good (historically) team.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

LOL, I have a novel idea. Let's don't change the format for another 4 to 6 years so there can be some consistency for a reasonable period of time. I might be in the minority, but I think the system is allowing the best teams to reach the state semi and finals. Isn't that the goal?