Silos should get a limited amount of teams into the playoffs

[boyblue]

Of course the issue with silos is all of their wins and losses equate to .500 so there's no telling how strong the conference is. What if the CIAA went silo? They're a 12 team conference, so they could play 11 games and likely end up with an undefeated team and a 1 loss team. So without increasing their level of play they would go from occasionally one team in, to basically being assured of two spots every year, maybe even a third.

Not to besmirch the GAC, because the level of play is a whole lot better than when some of the teams were in the GSC but, if you came from a background where for a long time your members were under represented in the playoffs, wouldn't you use the rules to your benefit to assure that you get as much representation as possible? A siloed conference of kindergartners could qualify one or two teams.


What are the Silo Conferences MIAA, NSIC & GAC? Any others?

[catbacker07]

[Brandon]

There has been too many times that a low seeded team made it to the regional championship game and won it to say we need 2 fewer teams in the playoffs.

I was curious so I did the research.

x
Regional Winners 2004-2018
x

Rank	#	%
1	24	40%
2	17	28%
3/4	8	13%
5+	11	18%

x
Regional Winners 2015-2018
x

Rank	#	%
1	9	56%
2	2	13%
3/4	1	6%
5+	4	25%

x
Overall, a team with a bye has won the region 65% of the time. A team with the bye won the region 56% of the time from 2015-2018 (only bye for #1 seed).

[Marvin Everett]

This also makes the Massey ratings of these teams higher than normal correct?

[Brandon]

This also makes the Massey ratings of these teams higher than normal correct?

I don't know how it affects Massey. Before the GAC/MIAA/NSIC scheduling issues, I thought Massey was incredibly accurate.

[Marvin Everett]

[Boohaha]

I was curious so I did the research.

x
Regional Winners 2004-2018
x

Rank	#	%
1	24	40%
2	17	28%
3/4	8	13%
5+	11	18%

x
Regional Winners 2015-2018
x

Rank	#	%
1	9	56%
2	2	13%
3/4	1	6%
5+	4	25%

x
Overall, a team with a bye has won the region 65% of the time. A team with the bye won the region 56% of the time from 2015-2018 (only bye for #1 seed).

How many times has a lower seeded team made the regional championship, 5th or lower?

65% is pretty good but not good enough to say we should just go 1-4 and eliminate the 5-7seeds

What is remarkable is that the lower seeded teams since 2015 have won their regions more so than the 2-4 combined.

[Gorilla John 92]

In SR4 and 3 at this time of year weather is a HUGE factor, allowing the NSIC and others in the north to get the 1 seed and make everyone go there without any outside measurement is major advantage for them.

And what about an abnormally warm day with humidity in the south? Someone having to play in the rain that rarely ever plays in the rain? Weather is a HUGE factor this time of year regardless of where you are playing. To me altitude is a bigger factor. It appears that Sioux Falls ran out of gas in the 4th last week at Mines. You can't tell me that altitude DOESN'T play a factor as having lived in the inter-mountain west, I can tell you that it indeed does. So those teams, Mines and even Pueblo, shouldn't play at home due to unfair advantages?

[boyblue]

What is remarkable is that the lower seeded teams since 2015 have won their regions more so than the 2-4 combined.

I believe this is more about the differences in conference strength. The seeding is about resume as well it should be but the playoffs are the proving ground and that is how it should be as well.

Brandon's quick analysis proves this. As an example let's look at SR2 this year. GSC's second team (5 seed) against the SAC's second team (4 seed) and it's a mismatch. Then take the SAC's third team (7 seed) against the CIAA's first team (3 seed), what you get on paper is an upset, but CN was picked 11 times vs Bowie's 7 in the playoff pick'um, more importantly no one that I could tell is from SR2 picked Bowie, to us this was expected.

[Gorilla John 92]

How many times has a lower seeded team made the regional championship, 5th or lower?

65% is pretty good but not good enough to say we should just go 1-4 and eliminate the 5-7seeds

What is remarkable is that the lower seeded teams since 2015 have won their regions more so than the 2-4 combined.

Without looking back and looking at the teams that won, how many of those lower seeds were actually one loss teams that lost to a higher seed in their own conference? Just curious.

[boyblue]

Without looking back and looking at the teams that won, how many of those lower seeds were actually one loss teams that lost to a higher seed in their own conference? Just curious.

To your point, they may not be one loss teams, but I bet they played in a tougher conference or played a tougher schedule and in a lot of cases, their win was no big surprise.

[Boohaha]

And what about an abnormally warm day with humidity in the south? Someone having to play in the rain that rarely ever plays in the rain? Weather is a HUGE factor this time of year regardless of where you are playing. To me altitude is a bigger factor. It appears that Sioux Falls ran out of gas in the 4th last week at Mines. You can't tell me that altitude DOESN'T play a factor as having lived in the inter-mountain west, I can tell you that it indeed does. So those teams, Mines and even Pueblo, shouldn't play at home due to unfair advantages?

The enormous snows that the Grest Lakes areas get are a different thing.

I dont having a problem with teams having a home field advantage it's how the silo scheduling is an easy "hack" for dome teams to get that home field advantage.

[Brandon]

How many times has a lower seeded team made the regional championship, 5th or lower?

65% is pretty good but not good enough to say we should just go 1-4 and eliminate the 5-7seeds

What is remarkable is that the lower seeded teams since 2015 have won their regions more so than the 2-4 combined.

You had mentioned winning the region earlier, which is why I ran those numbers. I also wasn't saying get rid of the 5-7, it's just the best categorization of your statement about lower seeds winning the region.

[Brandon]

That's still theoretically possible no matter the insular scheduling.

[Brandon]

I believe this is more about the differences in conference strength. The seeding is about resume as well it should be but the playoffs are the proving ground and that is how it should be as well.

Brandon's quick analysis proves this. As an example let's look at SR2 this year. GSC's second team (5 seed) against the SAC's second team (4 seed) and it's a mismatch. Then take the SAC's third team (7 seed) against the CIAA's first team (3 seed), what you get on paper is an upset, but CN was picked 11 times vs Bowie's 7 in the playoff pick'um, more importantly no one that I could tell is from SR2 picked Bowie, to us this was expected.

Your thought is exactly where I was headed. It would be interesting to see how conferences perform related to their seed.