Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alternative playoff seeding plans

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alternative playoff seeding plans

    We're in a conference where our likely champion just barely got by the 6th place team last week. The conference is highly competitive, so much so that, even in one of the weaker (if not the weakest) regions we seldom have a number 1 seed. This year we will likely have the 1 & 2 seeds. Our top two teams will likely be 9-0 and 10-0 when they meet in the last game of the regular season. There's a decent possibility both of these teams could get to the championship game, but alas that is not possible. I'm sure there have been times in the past where the same thing has happened in other conferences.

    Now to the point...
    Not that it is the case for us, but if there were ever a case that two teams from the same conference were ranked in the top 4 overall (if there isn't such a ranking there should be), could a feasible method be created to move one of the teams to another region?

    Are there any other ideas on how we can make our playoffs better (keeping cost in mind of course)?

  • #2
    Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

    Happens often (every year maybe?)
    anyway, just last year in SR3 Ashland was 3 and Ferris 4 seed
    In SR1 Indiana was 1 and Shippensburg was 4

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

      Right now, MSU Mankato is ranked #1 and UMD is ranked #5. Because there are 16 teams in the NSIC the two don't play in the regular season this year. I'm thinking that both might have been unbeaten when they met in the quarterfinals back in 2014.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

        In 2005, Pitt St. was #5 and NW was #6. Guess which two teams went to the regional final.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

          Originally posted by Ian Carlson View Post
          In 2005, Pitt St. was #5 and NW was #6. Guess which two teams went to the regional final.
          OBU and Harding??? :smile-big:

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

            Originally posted by boyblue View Post
            We're in a conference where our likely champion just barely got by the 6th place team last week. The conference is highly competitive, so much so that, even in one of the weaker (if not the weakest) regions we seldom have a number 1 seed. This year we will likely have the 1 & 2 seeds. Our top two teams will likely be 9-0 and 10-0 when they meet in the last game of the regular season. There's a decent possibility both of these teams could get to the championship game, but alas that is not possible. I'm sure there have been times in the past where the same thing has happened in other conferences.

            Now to the point...
            Not that it is the case for us, but if there were ever a case that two teams from the same conference were ranked in the top 4 overall (if there isn't such a ranking there should be), could a feasible method be created to move one of the teams to another region?

            Are there any other ideas on how we can make our playoffs better (keeping cost in mind of course)?
            That 6th place team was better than all the SIAC and SAC teams they had beaten earlier in season and last year’s NC runner-up. WALA may be 5-3 but they are over the injury bug and played better than FIT or UWF did against UWG. Bottom-line is the #1 gets the bye but the Wolves and Blazers will undoubtedly play twice this season.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

              Originally posted by boyblue View Post
              We're in a conference where our likely champion just barely got by the 6th place team last week. The conference is highly competitive, so much so that, even in one of the weaker (if not the weakest) regions we seldom have a number 1 seed. This year we will likely have the 1 & 2 seeds. Our top two teams will likely be 9-0 and 10-0 when they meet in the last game of the regular season. There's a decent possibility both of these teams could get to the championship game, but alas that is not possible. I'm sure there have been times in the past where the same thing has happened in other conferences.

              Now to the point...
              Not that it is the case for us, but if there were ever a case that two teams from the same conference were ranked in the top 4 overall (if there isn't such a ranking there should be), could a feasible method be created to move one of the teams to another region?

              Are there any other ideas on how we can make our playoffs better (keeping cost in mind of course)?
              one factor in your region is that you are the only fully funded conference which of course means you have the best teams in the region...also factor in how many fewer teams your region has had recently...then factor in how the other conferences in your region play out of conference games so those weaker teams in weaker conferences take losses before their conference play begins which means at the end of the season you generally end up with maybe one team from each of those other conferences with 2 or less loses...all of that allows for 4+ gsc teams to get in every year

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                WALA also lost to NGU though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                  Originally posted by dvaara View Post
                  one factor in your region is that you are the only fully funded conference which of course means you have the best teams in the region...also factor in how many fewer teams your region has had recently...then factor in how the other conferences in your region play out of conference games so those weaker teams in weaker conferences take losses before their conference play begins which means at the end of the season you generally end up with maybe one team from each of those other conferences with 2 or less loses...all of that allows for 4+ gsc teams to get in every year
                  4 teams is the exception and because we beat each other up so much 3 isn't guaranteed. The SAC normally gets a couple in and I'd say a little less than half the time they get the 3rd team in as well.

                  This is not about the GSC though, because the situation probably wouldn't apply to us year anyway, but when there are clearly two teams from the same conference in the top 4, would it be interesting if there could be a swap?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                    Originally posted by boyblue View Post
                    4 teams is the exception and because we beat each other up so much 3 isn't guaranteed. The SAC normally gets a couple in and I'd say a little less than half the time they get the 3rd team in as well.

                    This is not about the GSC though, because the situation probably wouldn't apply to us year anyway, but when there are clearly two teams from the same conference in the top 4, would it be interesting if there could be a swap?
                    i would just be happy that with the current system you will always have at least 3 playoff teams and will always win the region

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                      Originally posted by dvaara View Post
                      i would just be happy that with the current system you will always have at least 3 playoff teams and will always win the region
                      I guess, but if we end up being the two seed, I'd love to get a crack at one of those powerhouses in the midwest, instead of playing our neighbors for a second time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                        Originally posted by Ian Carlson View Post
                        In 2005, Pitt St. was #5 and NW was #6. Guess which two teams went to the regional final.
                        I was thinking a better response was 2004. Pitt and NW both undefeated, ranked 1 and 2 nationally (irrelevant for playoffs I know) and played last game of the year. Both were top seeds in the region for the playoffs with byes and played again in the regional final.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                          Originally posted by boyblue View Post
                          Are there any other ideas on how we can make our playoffs better (keeping cost in mind of course)?
                          I used to put one together that was much better (at least imo). It used the W/L percentage, SOS, D2 poll, AFCA poll, and Massey poll all combined. Every conference champion was guaranteed a playoff spot (and home game). At large were then filled from the remaining highest seeds of the aggregate score. Conference champions were clustered into regions AFTER they were known to minimize travel. At large filled the closest region to them as it went down. This would have removed the two biggest omissions in post season play that has happened in D2 that I know if in 2011 Sioux Falls and the even worse 2007 Carson Newman debacle.

                          It essentially removes EA from possibly removing (expected) top tier teams due to the early regionalization in play today. It rewards conference winners with guaranteed home games. It also rewards stronger conferences/results by filling all at large nationally and not being constrained to a region first.

                          All of the 300/500/total mile breakdowns were basically identical to todays usage but involved what would be perceived as a much better overall field. It would also allow for a conference to show it was top flight by being in two and possibly even three regions in a given year.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                            Originally posted by boyblue View Post
                            I guess, but if we end up being the two seed, I'd love to get a crack at one of those powerhouses in the midwest, instead of playing our neighbors for a second time.
                            it would be nice if they did away w the regions

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Alternative playoff seeding plans

                              Originally posted by NewCatEyez View Post
                              I used to put one together that was much better (at least imo). It used the W/L percentage, SOS, D2 poll, AFCA poll, and Massey poll all combined. Every conference champion was guaranteed a playoff spot (and home game). At large were then filled from the remaining highest seeds of the aggregate score. Conference champions were clustered into regions AFTER they were known to minimize travel. At large filled the closest region to them as it went down. This would have removed the two biggest omissions in post season play that has happened in D2 that I know if in 2011 Sioux Falls and the even worse 2007 Carson Newman debacle.

                              It essentially removes EA from possibly removing (expected) top tier teams due to the early regionalization in play today. It rewards conference winners with guaranteed home games. It also rewards stronger conferences/results by filling all at large nationally and not being constrained to a region first.

                              All of the 300/500/total mile breakdowns were basically identical to todays usage but involved what would be perceived as a much better overall field. It would also allow for a conference to show it was top flight by being in two and possibly even three regions in a given year.
                              I still laugh when I think about first round playoff games between Michigan teams and Texas teams in a regionalized system

                              Comment

                              Ad3

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X