A new proposal for determining the state’s 256 football playoff teams will be presented to the MHSAA’s representative council at its May meeting with no clear indication so far whether it will pass. But it does appear that the system that has been approved by the Michigan High School Football Coaches Association and the MHSAA football committee will get a serious look from the representative council, which approved the current system in 1998.
The new proposal will emphasize strength of schedule rather than guarantee that all teams with six wins in a nine-game schedule or five in an eight-game schedule will get into the five-week playoff system. Its supporters say that it is time to stop rewarding schools looking for six wins as a guarantee to make the postseason and instead reward those that play tough schedules.
There would still be 32 teams in eight different divisions in the playoffs, but several changes from the current format are proposed:
•Playoff divisions currently are determined on selection Sunday. After the 256 teams have been determined, they are divided into eight divisions depending on school enrollment. The new setup would divide the approximately 600 schools that play 11-man football into eight divisions prior to the start of the season.
•Six wins in nine games or five wins in eight gets a team in the playoffs currently. Seven wins would be the new automatic qualifier.
•Additional qualifiers outside of the automatic ones get in now based on playoff points by adding a Class A team, then a Class B team, then a Class C team, etc. The proposed format would use playoff points and fill additional spots until each division gets 32 teams.
•Points for wins are now based on the Classes A, B, C, and D, which the MHSFC says is an outdated system and grants the same number of points for defeating a Class B team with almost 1,000 students as it does for defeating one with under 500 students. The new way bases points on the eight divisions, with 88 for Division 1, 80 for Division 2, and so on down to 32 points for Division 8.
•Currently, a team gets more points for each win by an opponent it defeats and less for each victory by an opponent the team lost to. The new format would give a team points for all of its opponents’ wins, regardless of whether or not the team beat that opponent.
•The new system would have a bonus-point multiplier depending on the enrollment size of its opponent.
Geoff Kimmerly, MHSAA media and content coordinator, noted that a similar proposal to change the format, endorsed by the football committee, has previously come up to the representative council.
“I’m sure this will have a lot of conversation,” he said. “The people on the council are very familiar with this topic. It’s been discussed for awhile. There’s football people involved with the council.”
“The proposal we’re talking about got there last year, but the council said it would like another year of data,” Kimmerly said. “When the coaches association came to us, we took what they wanted to do and matched it up with data from the previous season.
“Some areas of the state like this proposal. Some areas, like the U.P. do not. Our council has people from all over the state. It could be an interesting vote.”
Area football coaches have differing viewpoints on the matter.
Ithaca athletic director Terry Hessbrook, whose team has won four straight state titles and is 56-0 the last four seasons, said “I do feel that the playoff system needs to be revamped to make sure that it is working for everyone. However, I am not 100 percent sure that this proposal will help everyone. This proposal does allow for more freedom in your scheduling. [However,] I think that we are really just transferring the difficulty of finding games from the ‘better’ teams to the teams that struggle.”
“I proposed a format that allowed 80 percent of schools into the playoffs,” said Devin Pringle, coach at Carson City-Crystal.
Pringle’s proposal calls for an eight-game schedule. In the ninth week, the state would divide schools into five-team districts based on geography and records. No. 1 and No. 4 would play each other for the right to move on, as would No. 2 and No. 3. “The 5-seed plays a 5-seed from another district but does not advance with a win,” Pringle said. “All schools play at least nine games. No one is afraid to schedule power teams. It’s the same number of weeks as we currently have. Jack Roberts responded to me that he was not in favor of my proposal.”
While Pringle said the proposed new system would encourage teams to schedule and play foes that are traditional powers, he sees some drawbacks.
“Many schools are locked in a conference where they have little control on ‘quality wins’,” he said. “This system would only favor the traditional ‘power’ teams, who people do not want to schedule. This system would cut down on the number of schools who get to experience playoff football for the first time.”
Chad Klopf of Coleman High School said that there’s always a need to tweak the system. “There was a season a few back where under the past proposal, Coleman would have made the playoffs with four wins, so I can see how it could help,” he said. “However, they say the 6-and-in method was causing schools to drive all over to find games and even breaking up conferences. I see that as an excuse.
“There is more than one sports team at those schools, and making the playoffs in football isn’t what is causing conferences to break up. As for searching for games, I would gladly play closer to home, but we are a conference of six teams and have more games to search for. This has nothing to do with finding a sixth win, but everything to do with filling a schedule. If conferences were breaking up because competition was too tough, now smaller conferences like ours will start to break up because they might be too weak.
“No system is perfect. But if a team with four wins gets in front of a team with six wins, regardless of strength of schedule, that’s a shame.”