DKC Playoff System Proposal
All data on these pages Copyright © 1998--2008
Digital Knight Communications,
including lists. You may not republish or rebroadcast this information without
express written communication from Digital Knight Communications.
Note: This system can be modified for any number of regions in a division.
Just change the number of guaranteed berths to # of regions, leaving the
number of at-large berths to be 16 - # of guaranteed berths.
Power points were used for the first time in Arizona 2A football in 2007. The
only guarantee is that winners in each region would be guaranteed a playoff
spot, leaving 11 spots open. 50 points per win, 5 points for each win by
opponents if the opponents are same division or higher.
The argument against power points is very simple - they don't take into account
relevant factors like schedule strength or opponent quality. Also, power
points will reward teams in large regions for losses more than they reward wins
by teams from small regions against quality opponents, regardless of the
opponent's region or division. In other words, instead of a team making the
playoffs based on how well it plays on the field, teams are given "extra credit"
(5 points) for the way OTHER teams play. I believe this to be inherently unfair -
and isn't the AIA supposed to be all about fairness?
Note that the playoff rules the AIA currently uses must be tweaked
every two years to accommodate the division realignments and the wishes of
the most vocal opponents.
In 2007, the 2A division breakdown was thus:
- Central - 6 teams
- South - 7 teams
- North - 8 teams
- East - 7 teams
- West - 7 teams
In theory, this works great, but in practice it's a nightmare - if your team
resides in a strong region, you will get the benefit of those region members'
wins. This practice is unfair to the teams whose division is weaker.
Consider this problem: in 2007, Camp Verde (4-6) makes the playoffs as a #14
seed (!!) over four teams with better records. In addition, the two teams it
was seeded higher than ALSO had better records.
How was this possible? Camp Verde plays in the Central region where its fellow
region members went a combined 30-17. Sanders Valley, one of those left off
the list, was 6-4, but it plays in the North region, a region who has 2 more
members, and whose fellow members went a combined 28-37 - two LESS wins than
the North region's members without Camp Verde! Camp Verde was the beneficiary
of the "bonus points" rule within the AIA's Power Rankings. And therein lies
the other pitfall - Sanders Valley was PENALIZED for playing out of state
opponents, a necessity since Sanders is on the reservation in Northern
Arizona and plays longtime and tribal rivals every season. Only wins over AIA
opponents gain "win" points, so a win over a New Mexico school gains a team
zero, and all the wins by THAT team also gain zero.
It's not hard to add that up quickly - Camp Verde gained another 150 points
versus Sanders Valley gaining less than 140 points. Camp Verde's final tally?
50.6 points versus Sanders Valley's 45.75. If I were Sanders Valley, I'd be up
in arms right now, and rightly so.
The other schools Camp Verde beat out? Greyhills Academy, also a North region
school, and also in the same boat as Sanders (5-5, but had 44.65 points),
Phoenix Christian (5-5, 48.0625, though they knocked themselves out of the
playoffs with a loss in the final week), and Miami (5-4, 44.375).
Also interesting to note is that Morenci (3-6) ended up with 46.375 points.
How does a team with only 3 wins come only two spots away (#18 in the power
points that year) from qualifying for the playoffs? Again, not a good
scenario at all.
Lastly, note that the NCAA does not utilize power points for its Division I
schools - why on earth would any self-respecting sports-governing body
use power points? Maybe because they've already figured out what is laid
out here - that such a system is not fair.
This proposal tries to ensure fairness while also allowing for quality
teams to receive playoff berths. It guarantees a seeding of 1-4 (or 1-5)
based on region champions - while team #2 from each region is also
guaranteed a playoff spot, said team is NOT guaranteed any seeding other
than below 5 (or 6).
Questions? Comments? Send email.
Notes:
- Rules are numbered in order of precendence. (Rule #2 takes precendence over
Rule #7, for example.)
- "Ranked teams" is to be understood as using a mutually-agreed upon ranking
system.
- Teams on probation or playing an "independent" or "JV" schedule are
ineligible for this playoff.
Rules:
- In the event of a tie for any berth, the tiebreaker procedure is as
follows: head-to-head, overall record, record vs. division (last 6
divisional games), common opponents, strength of schedule, net points (last
6 games regardless of division), coin flip.
- For a team to be eligible for playoffs, it must have won 50% or more of
its games against AIA or comparable opponents. This means that games against
JV or Juniors squads do not count toward a team's eligibility. However, games
against out of state squads count fully.
- The region champion and 2nd place team as determined by region record
shall automatically receive playoff berths. The remaining berths shall be
considered at-large.
- The region champions shall be seeded 1-4 (or 1-5).
- No region shall send more than four teams in total, even if more than
four qualify under all Rules.
- In the event that more than four teams qualify for playoff berths, the
region shall send the two highest ranked teams that are not already the
region champion and runner-up team, so long as there are open slots for all
such teams.
- Any remaining team that has not been eliminated from consideration by the
playoff Rules shall receive an at-large berth should any still be available.
- Any remaining berths shall be filled in order of the highest ranked teams
not already been eliminated from consideration by the playoff Rules by
comparing the teams' final ranks.
- Playoff seeding after the region champions shall be determined by the
teams' final ranks. The higher seed shall always be considered the home team.
As an example, use the 2A 2007 season results to determine the qualifying
teams:
- Slots 1-5 would be filled by: Yuma Catholic (West champ), Scottsdale
Christian (Central champ), Hayden (South champ), St. Johns (North champ), and
Benson (East champ)
The runners-up in each region also are guaranteed a playoff spot; however,
seeding is determined by final rank. Those teams would then be: Valley
Christian (Central), Thatcher (East), Red Mesa (North), and Pusch Ridge
Christian (South).
In the West, Antelope and Arizona Lutheran were tied for
2nd with 4-2 records in their region. According to the tiebreaker procedure,
the head-to-head matchup would first determine who gets the 2nd place nod,
and Antelope beat AZ Lutheran 28-21 in week 8. Therefore Antelope gets the
automatic spot.
- The next 6 slots are deteremined by using rankings. For argument's sake,
use the final DKC rankings for the regular season:
- Yuma Catholic (auto)
- Hayden (auto)
- Scottsdale Christian (auto)
- Valley Christian (auto)
- Benson (auto)
- Red Mesa (auto)
- St. Johns (auto)
- Arizona Lutheran
- Northwest Christian
- Thatcher (auto)
- Antelope (auto)
- Pusch Ridge Christian (auto)
- Sanders Valley
- Bisbee
- Tonopah Valley
- Greyhills Academy
Central region sends Northwest Christian, Scottsdale Christian, and Valley
Christian
South region sends Hayden and Pusch Ridge Christian
North region sends Greyhills Academy, Red Mesa, St. Johns, and Sanders
Valley
East region sends Benson, Bisbee, and Thatcher
West region sends Antelope, Arizona Lutheran, Tonopah Valley, and Yuma
Catholic
- Seedings for 1-5 would then be determined:
- Yuma Catholic (10-0)
- Hayden (9-1)
- Scottsdale Christian (8-1)
- Benson (8-2)
- St. Johns (6-3)
- The remaining seeding would then be in rank order from 1-16 discounting
the region champs:
6. Valley Christian
7. Red Mesa
8. Arizona Lutheran
9. Northwest Christian
10. Thatcher
11. Antelope
12. Pusch Ridge Christian
13. Sanders Valley
14. Bisbee
15. Tonopah Valley
16. Greyhills Academy
Use standard bracketing for 16 team playoff.
An example bracket is below for your viewing pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1 |
Yuma Catholic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
Greyhills Academy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
Arizona Lutheran |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
Northwest Christian |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
St. Johns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
Pusch Ridge Christian |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
Benson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
Sanders Valley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
Scottsdale Christian |
|
|
|
2A State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Champion |
|
#14 |
Bisbee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
Valley Christian |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
Antelope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
Red Mesa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
Thatcher |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
Hayden |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
Tonopah Valley |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to main DKC HS Ratings page