ADVERTISEMENT

If playoffs started this week?

It's a Starmount fan complaining about how the playoff seedings are being done bc there team will not get seeded where they prob should be and I get that!!! If MA people complain about same thing then we are stupid. There is such a double standard on here when it comes to MA by posters and all the Moderators. Sportsnut is worse one.
Sports nut just enjoying the nice day. Don't bring him in on it.
 
That rematch In the second round has the Bears hosting the Rams right? Hate to see two great programs and conference foes play each other that early. Both have potential to make deep runs. But what a great opportunity to put the what ifs to bed. I’m sure the bears and rams would like that.
If stm a # 9 I think its 3rd rd.
 
A couple of questions:

When did the NCHSAA ever put people in a room to determine playoff seeds?

What system do you propose to use instead?

The watch them play doesn't work because no one can watch every team.

Every system has problems.
They always did this when they seeded teams. If you had several undefeated conf champs they would draw straws for seeding #1. I remember 80s and 90s
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downeastsmashmouth
Drawing straws and having people sit in a room to determine seeding are two very different things.
NCHSAA board sure did sit down and do the seedings by rankings and how you finished in your conference. How you think its done now by just a computer? There is a playoff committee for every sport that puts brackets together and schedules the brackets by rpi and conf finishes.
 
I say we go back to the days of 4 rounds and 16 teams in the west and you would do away with this watered down money making version. The system is not perfect and I think rpi should be trashed and go back to seeding teams by a committee in a room. Starmount could prob be the #2 seed if they did it the old way. As last year MA deserved #1 seed and should not had to traveled 5 hours away in a perfect world. I hate the rpi in its current format.

NCHSAA board sure did sit down and do the seedings by rankings and how you finished in your conference. How you think its done now by just a computer? There is a playoff committee for every sport that puts brackets together and schedules the brackets by rpi and conf finishes.

You said you wanted the seeding to go back to a committee in a room... Obviously someone writes the brackets out but that's not what you said originally. You wanted them to seed by what they thought. And to be honest, it could be done by a computer. It's pretty straight forward logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: recycled2
Beat you to what y'all are the most petty pot stirrers out of nothing I have seen. Like I said MA posters cant say shit without y'all trying to make us look bad!
Again, a committee making decisions is not the same as drawing straws. Now you're angry because you know that it is true. BTW, don't hide behind other Mt Airy posters. You are the one making the laughable statements.
 
Said the man with no credibility. Several posters on here have my and others respect. To name a few, thekidd, mbdfan, football star and Sportsnut. I may not agree with everything, but I value their opinions. Where as with you that is not the case. How can anyone?
Good for you! I could give a crap about having respect on a message board! Proud for you yay!!!!!
 
When they did that for every sport other than football in the mid 2000s it was terrible

The only advantage to the predetermined brackets was that it enabled teams to scout their opponents more thoroughly.

The "pod" system was another attempt at perfection. The advantage was reduced travel (especially in sports that played 2 or more games a week. The disadvantage was that only one conference team could usually advance deep into the playoffs.

The current seeding and RPI process seems to have fewer glitches than the others. Seeding #1 teams first is not perfect but is a good compromise for mixed conferences.
 
The only advantage to the predetermined brackets was that it enabled teams to scout their opponents more thoroughly.

The "pod" system was another attempt at perfection. The advantage was reduced travel (especially in sports that played 2 or more games a week. The disadvantage was that only one conference team could usually advance deep into the playoffs.

The current seeding and RPI process seems to have fewer glitches than the others. Seeding #1 teams first is not perfect but is a good compromise for mixed conferences.
To not pile on anybody but how has the RPI worked out in years past? Not just football but all the other sports? Seems like it gets it right more often than not. Is it perfect? Probably not. But it’s a lot less convoluted than some super secret sauce computer thingy. Or some guys in a room who couldn’t possibly have seen all the teams in question play…
 
That rematch In the second round has the Bears hosting the Rams right? Hate to see two great programs and conference foes play each other that early. Both have potential to make deep runs. But what a great opportunity to put the what ifs to bed. I’m sure the bears and rams would like that.
We want MH first. Unfinished business from last year. But yes hope Rams and Bears get to play each other. Would be a HUGE crowd for that one
 
WHO CARES!!!! Line them up on a patch of grass or turf in galax , gaffney , Wilmington , Myrtle Beach or Blue Ridge Georgia. Don’t matter where. You gonna play who Yhea play and if you good enough then you don’t care who it is , where it is or what time it is. Whole lotta calories spent on a WHOLE LOTTA NOTHING.
 
The only advantage to the predetermined brackets was that it enabled teams to scout their opponents more thoroughly.

The "pod" system was another attempt at perfection. The advantage was reduced travel (especially in sports that played 2 or more games a week. The disadvantage was that only one conference team could usually advance deep into the playoffs.

The current seeding and RPI process seems to have fewer glitches than the others. Seeding #1 teams first is not perfect but is a good compromise for mixed conferences.

I think this is the best system we've had in years. I was skeptical at first but I think it works
 
To not pile on anybody but how has the RPI worked out in years past? Not just football but all the other sports? Seems like it gets it right more often than not. Is it perfect? Probably not. But it’s a lot less convoluted than some super secret sauce computer thingy. Or some guys in a room who couldn’t possibly have seen all the teams in question play…

Great post. I think the RPI is the best system yet. Here is the one tweak I would like to add: if a conference does not have a playoff win every 3 or 4 years, then that conference will have their top team seeded at large based on RPI . Once they get a playoff win they can again be seeded as a #1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thekidd12
Great post. I think the RPI is the best system yet. Here is the one tweak I would like to add: if a conference does not have a playoff win every 3 or 4 years, then that conference will have their top team seeded at large based on RPI . Once they get a playoff win they can again be seeded as a #1.
And see I would tweak it by giving teams a bonus for playing up in classification. 4A probably wouldn’t like that very much huh?
It’s also self serving however as my former high school doesn’t play a 1A team until the playoffs so…😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: recycled2
Great post. I think the RPI is the best system yet. Here is the one tweak I would like to add: if a conference does not have a playoff win every 3 or 4 years, then that conference will have their top team seeded at large based on RPI . Once they get a playoff win they can again be seeded as a #1.

Interesting change. Initially I like that. Only problem would be that conferences change every 4 years so that would be hard to do.
 
Interesting change. Initially I like that. Only problem would be that conferences change every 4 years so that would be hard to do.
Good point. What if we used the last 3 or 4 years of the teams that currently comprise a conference? A playoff win by a team in a previous conference would count for their current conference. One additional stipulation would be that the win must be against a team from another conference. It would not count if it was a win in a first round matchup with a conference opponent.

What about a win every 2 years? Surely a conference champ could win at least 50% of the time
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thekidd12
Good point. What if we used the last 3 or 4 years of the teams that currently comprise a conference? A playoff win by a team in a previous conference would count for their current conference. One additional stipulation would be that the win must be against a team from another conference. It would not count if it was a win in a first round matchup with a conference opponent.

What about a win every 2 years? Surely a conference champ could win at least 50% of the time
These are all interesting points, really. But let’s play devil’s advocate for a minute. What if that team ends up playing a team that is under seeded because of some of the reasons given above? Or injuries in last game of season before playoffs that, as we all know, could cause a team to not be nearly as good.
That would throw a kink in it probably.
Even though I DO like the proposal…
 
  • Like
Reactions: recycled2
These are all interesting points, really. But let’s play devil’s advocate for a minute. What if that team ends up playing a team that is under seeded because of some of the reasons given above? Or injuries in last game of season before playoffs that, as we all know, could cause a team to not be nearly as good.
That would throw a kink in it probably.
Even though I DO like the proposal…
Well, if it was an underrated team at least it would be a home game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thekidd12
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT