Why have a point system if a committee is going to seed as they see fit anyway? The State Committee went to the point system to get away from this subjective selection and now we are right back there. Which is it going to be?GCA played up against Covenant (2 bonus points), Norfolk Academy (2 bonus point), Portsmouth Christian (1 bonus point), HRA, Norfolk Christian (2 bonus points). For GCA most are conference games and they don't have the luxury to play 8 DIII schools. Either follow the point system as stated or get rid of it.
I don't know when (if ever) the state committee "went to" the point system-- pretty sure it's always been used since the founding of the old VISFA. And who says it has to be either/or? The committee was able to take into account the point ratings, the coaches' poll (which seems to have had really crappy participation in the final week), head-to-head results, etc.
There have always been gripes about the points system, which has the benefit of impartiality but the drawback of inflexibility. BSH in over Greenbrier makes sense to me, but look at my screenname-- still an old VCC believer
. Greenbrier didn't "play up" against any of the teams you listed except Norfolk Academy-- they special-appealed their way down to D-III after this season started, making those games bonus-point-yielding games long after they were scheduled (and should we credit them for "playing up" against conference opponents they have been required to play for over 20 years?). Also their point-rating didn't include two 8-man losses to STAB and HRA (HRA, y'all). BSH was ranked 4th all year (and still ranked 4th in the last coaches' poll, in the only division where most of the coaches actually voted). Greenbrier only pulled ahead in the last week because of the value of their *losses*, including losses to non-playoff teams. But if you want to do it that way, look at the schedule THIS week for Greenbrier's losses vs. BSH's losses. Five of Greenbrier's losses are sitting home with Greenbrier this week while two (including a non-optional conference opponent) are going to the playoffs. Every team BSH lost to, but one (PCS), is in the playoffs this week. The only better argument I can think of in Greenbrier's favor is that BSH was already blown out by Roanoke Catholic, so why not give Greenbrier a shot at the upset rather than sending BSH back for what's likely to be more of the same? But then I realize, BSH didn't shy away from Catholic, Fuqua, OR Quantico this year. If you look at D-III like a conference (and I know that's not necessarily the best way to look at it), the standings would be obvious: Catholic, Fuqua, Quantico, BSH, with Greenbrier not even in the conversation.
On Blue Ridge, it's a little trickier, but I still agree with the outcome. Covenant lost to Blue Ridge-- there needs to be a really compelling reason to seed a head-to-head loser ahead of the head-to-head winner. Blue Ridge losses were both to D-I playoff teams, including the consensus #1 team in D-I. That doesn't strike me as a compelling reason to punish them in relation to their ranking among other D-II teams. The Benedictine loss yielded no bonus points this year, not because BCP was a scrub team (I've already got Flint Hill on upset-alert), but because they had to schedule too many out-of-association opponents and their record suffered for it (a whole separate conversation to be had there).
Covenant ahead of Norfolk Christian, I get disagreeing with that-- it's a bit of a toss-up. But Covenant's one loss was to Blue Ridge (#1 in D-II) and Christian's one loss was to a D-I team who was never seriously in playoff contention this year.
Honestly, I spent this whole season thinking that committee selection was unnecessary now that they are not awarding opponent win points for lower-division opponents (that was almost directly targeted at Norfolk Academy and worked like a charm keeping them low-rated this year). But some of the wild fluctuations in points here at the end produced some questionable matchups (St. Chris rewarded for their win over Collegiate by finishing behind and having to travel TO Collegiate?). So I am glad they were able to discuss those, acknowledge them, accept them where they made sense, and reject them where better arguments could be made, or where common sense was actually more sensible.
