With all the COVID issues, the shortened regular season, interrupted schedules and not all teams playing this Fall, this is probably not the best year to provide some thoughts on the football playoff qualifying and seeding process. But we’ve had two years to work with the system currently in place and it might be time to consider some small adjustments.
Overall, we like the additional metrics that have been used for the past two years especially when compared to the exclusive use of RPI to determine which teams advance to the playoffs. In our mind, it’s never a bad thing to have more sources involved in making important decisions. The playoff fields also seem to be more balanced and seeded better over the past two years compared to when RPI was the sole factor in qualifying and seeding.
Three of the sources used are computer models (Packard, MaxPreps, RPI) and should stay in place. But I think CHSAA and member schools should consider eliminating or at least slightly changing the use of the coach’s poll.
These votes can be manipulated somewhat to benefit or hurt a certain team or conference. Coaches also have the option of voting for their team in any spot in the rankings, including number one. In some cases, those votes are obviously justified but, in some cases, a number one vote is probably not a true indication of where a program stacks up.
This year, we’ve also seen quite a few examples of teams across the various classes receive top 10 votes that may not be deserving. This is not a slight against any program or coach, but if a club opens with three straight losses or sits at 1-4 near seasons end, they’re probably not a top 10 club and should not receive votes in the polling. Obviously, there might be some exceptions to this rule where a solid club has played a very difficult schedule.
And one other note, coaches are human and hold grudges. If a coach feels an opponent ran up the score on them last year or even a decade ago, they have long memories and those thoughts could impact their voting.
All in all, we believe coaches are a great resource for determining top teams across the state but unless we make these votes public, we should consider eliminating the coach’s poll from the playoff metrics. A bit more on this later.
Another concern with the system is the equal distribution of points from the various polling sources. As I understand the process, each of the four seeding metrics are to be treated equally with each receiving 25 percent of the overall score. I’m not sure that’s the case right now with the percentage-based system employed by CHSAA. Percentages are used to better represent gaps in polling where for example, if a fourth place team is well ahead of a fifth place team in a respective poll, that gap shows up in the current formula. And the opposite is true in a close race.
I understand individuals with PHD’s in mathematics have put the current system in place and I’m not smart enough to argue the case on whether percentages are the best route to go. In my mind though, equal representation should result in a fourth place vote in one poll having the same value of a fourth place vote in another.
A good example of this could be Eads in six man. They finished the regular season ranked sixth in RPI, MaxPreps and the Coaches Poll. But the percentages added to their total are quite different:
- RPI: .796
- MaxPreps: .736
- Coaches: .441
By comparison, Colorado Preps employs a simple point system to tabulate weekly consensus rankings combining the four seeding metrics. The system gives one point to a team if they receive a first place vote, two points for a second place vote and on through the polls. In our example, Eads would jave received six points in each poll; providing them with equal value across the board.
Here are a few other breakdowns based on positioning in each poll. We randomly selected poll placement for each of the seven classifications.
| Team |
RPI |
MaxPreps | CHSAA |
Packard |
| 5A – 5th Place |
.941 |
.727 | .463 |
.832 |
| 4A – 3rd place |
.901 |
.881 | .767 |
.952 |
| 3A – 7th place |
.861 |
.789 | .300 |
.847 |
| 2A – 2nd place |
.956 |
.990 | .893 |
.983 |
| 1A – 8th place |
.821 |
.745 | .353 |
.745 |
| 8man – 4th place |
.931 |
.687 | .579 |
.837 |
| 6man – 6th place |
.796 |
.736 | .441 |
.776 |
As you can see, values are much different in almost every example. Class 5A’s fifth place team in RPI received over double the points of the fifth place team in the coach’s poll. Again, in our system, those two teams would receive five points in both cases.
In addition, a simple point system would also be very easy to track for coaches, athletic directors, parents and fans to know each week where their team stands in regards to playoff qualifying and placement in the bracket.
Now back to the coach’s poll a bit. Just for fun, we used the point system employed in the Colorado Preps consensus rankings but eliminated the coach’s poll from the mix. The list of playoff clubs was almost identical to the official selections by CHSAA. Of the 56 teams in the current playoff bracket, 54 would have also qualified in this format. The only changes occurred in 1A where Highland would be in the bracket instead of Holyoke and in 8man where Swink would get the nod for the eighth seed instead of Crowley County. Seeding would have also been altered slightly in each division.
One other note I will mention involves teams choosing not to play this fall still showing up in the rankings for MaxPreps and Packard. The best example in both cases involves Class 2A where in MaxPreps, Basalt is #4, Classical Academy is #7, Aspen #11 and Faith Christian #13. None of those four teams are competing this fall. In Packard, Rifle is #4, Basalt #6 and Faith Christian #7.
The question is how these teams show up in the rankings without playing a game. They are still listed with “points” in both systems but without games, how are they accumulating points? Do the rankings from these two sources carry over a bit from year to year? If so, that should be a discussion point moving forward. Playoff qualifiers should be determined on what happens this year and not based on tradition or results from previous seasons.
This is one man’s simple opinion on the playoff process for football. It’s not meant for criticism of the current system which has many strengths and as mentioned, is a vast improvement over stand alone RPI. My idea for the article is to start the discussion with hopes of making some slight tweaks that hopefully improves on what’s already been built. Some of these suggestions have come from interaction with coaches and athletic directors across Colorado.
As always, I would like to hear your input on the playoff process. Feedback can be sent to me by email to [email protected] or by text to 970.380.7737. And please don’t just criticize what’s in place, simply provide some feedback to this column and/or make suggestions on how the process can be better.
Thank you for reading and enjoy the playoffs this month!
