Important note from NCHSAA Winter Sports Meeting

[TitanDan2001]

Everyone is talking about the changes in regards to spring workouts but at last week's NCHSAA Winter Meetings a significant action was taken that will have some affect on playoff selection process.

The NCHSAA has changed its policy on #2 automatic qualifers from split-conferences. Those #2 teams now must have a .340 winning percentage to be eligible. In the case of football, that essentially means those teams have to win 4-games now to get the automatic qualifier.

I personally think its a step in the right direction and will do a better job at preventing teams with low records from making the playoffs by technicality.


NCHSAA Winter Meetings

 

[No.1RamsFan]

The figure is too low. It needs to be .500 minimum.

 

[btango]

Originally posted by No.1RamsFan:
The figure is too low. It needs to be .500 minimum.

The reasoning behind the lower percentage is due to the smaller schools playing larger schools in the split conferences. 1A/2A being the one where the largest disparity is noticed. A 4-6 / 4-7 is going to make the playoffs. The idea is not to punish a team playing in the split conference for seeding purposes as compared to a team playing in a non split.

 

[blindref73]

This was also a recommendation to make changes. This is not final yet.

 

[TitanDan2001]

Originally posted by blindref73:

This was also a recommendation to make changes. This is not final yet.

My apology on that...I was thinking this month's meeting approved the measure.

With that said, my next question...Will it likely get approved as written or will they adjust or possibly drop the recommendation?

Any thoughts on that?

 

[BigSkyCountry]

While I understand your concern about teams with low records entering the playoffs, consider this: There are teams out there that are stuck in a split conference against their will. There are spit conferences where there are only two teams of the lower classification stuck with a conference full of larger teams. Now, I too would agree that perhaps a team with a loosing record should not qualify, but how do you justify punishing a team for being forced to play larger schools all year when you are going to have 8 brackets filled with many teams who are not that good. If a team plays in a non-spit conference and looses, then they made their own bed and should lie in it. But some teams have no choice but to face larger teams every week. Who is to say that a team that is 3-8 in a split league is worse than a 6-5 team in a patty cake league of teams in one classification? Again, if you are going to allow 32 X 8 teams into the playoffs, don't punish teams that are forced into a split league by a self serving realignment committee.

 

[blindref73]

BigSkyCountry, that makes sense, but there are too many examples of the opposite situation (a split conference with 2 4A teams and the rest 3A). Both 4A teams are automatically in after losing all year. Some very qualified "wild-card" teams are left out for a team that is 0-9, 2-8, 3-7, but they get in because of a technicality.

I will also never agree with the statement that a small school in a split conference that goes 3-8 is better (and more deserving of a playoff spot) than a 6-5 team from an easier conference. Just because they are playing against bigger schools, does not mean the competition is better. If they both had 6-5 records, then you may have a point. You have to win the games on your schedule. If you can't do that during the regular season, then you won't do it during the playoffs.

 

[BigSkyCountry]

Originally posted by blindref73:

I will also never agree with the statement that a small school in a split conference that goes 3-8 is better (and more deserving of a playoff spot) than a 6-5 team from an easier conference. Just because they are playing against bigger schools, does not mean the competition is better. If they both had 6-5 records, then you may have a point. You have to win the games on your schedule. If you can't do that during the regular season, then you won't do it during the playoffs.

I really want to agree with you, and I do agree with most of it, but the proof of my point is the fact that much lower seeds beat top 4 seeds every year in the first round. There is so much diversity of football across the state that pure winning percentage is only one factor in determining how good a team in a particular classification is in comparison to other teams in their classification. As for winning the games on your schedule, things are much different for rural schools that get stuck in a split conference against their will. If you have little to no control over who you schedule, then sometimes your only chance to prove your worth in come playoff time when you play teams your own size. I know my argument is not going to be very popular on the 4A message board, because 4A schools should never have to fact this issue. I am posting here, because small, rural, geographically isolated, 1A and 2A schools really have no voice. By definition, 4A out numbers the small schools in both athletes and political voice. I really do understand your perspective. I am just asking that you big guys try to understand the perspective of a school that is surrounded by schools twice their size and those that have no choice but to try to build a playoff worthy record playing those much larger schools. A 4A school only needs about 3% of their student body to field a 50-60 man football team. For many 1A schools, it takes 20% or better just to put a team on the field. I agree 100% that big schools should have to win a certain number of games to qualify for the playoffs, but the same rule applies much differently for small schools. It just is not the same situation. I am trying to get anyone that will listen to consider the plight of some of the small schools when a rule that makes perfect sense for large schools is applied to all schools.