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 or not it will pass.
But it does appear the system that has been approved by the Michigan High School Football Coaches Association and the MHSAA football committee will get a serous 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 on a nine-game schedule and five on an eight-game schedule will get into the five-week playoff system.
There would still be 32 teams in eight different divisions for the playoffs. But the proposal’s supporters say it’s time to stop awarding schools looking for six wins as a guarantee to make the post-season and award those that play tough schedules. There would be several changes from the current format.
•Playoff divisions currently are determined on election Sunday after the 256 teams have been determined. They are then divided into eight divisions depending on 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 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 by playoff points by adding a Class A team then Class B, then Class C, etc. The proposed format would use playoff points and fill additional spots until each division gets 32 teams.
•Points for wins now are based on the Classes A, B, C and D which the MHSFC says is an outdated system and grants the same number of points for defeating a Class B team with just under 1,000 students and one with under 500. The new way would have points based on eight divisions with 88 for Division 1, 80 for Division 2….and down to 32 points for Division 8.
•Bonus points for an opponents’ wins and losses: 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 each 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.”
Those skeptical of strength of schedule concepts point out that a 4-5 team could make the playoffs and a 6-3 squad might not.
“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 various viewpoints on the matter, including Ithaca athletic director Terry Hessbrook, whose team has won four straight state titles and is 56-0 the last four seasons.
“I do feel that the playoff system needs to be revamped to make sure that it is working for everyone,” he said. “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 and for the ninth week, the state would divide schools into five-team districts based on geography and records: 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 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 minuses.
“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 there’s always a need to tweak and fix 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 completions 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.”
Clark Huntey of Morley Stanwood, football and coach and AD, hopes there are no playoff changes.
“I don’t think it’s going to solve the problems,” he said. “My guess this will create a whole new set of problems. I really don’t see any positives over the current system.
“Schools that are in a conference with 10 teams will never have the flexibility to schedule to a strength. I just don’t see small schools scheduling larger schools to get more playoff points. There’s no way I’m going to do that.”
“I am in favor of the proposal,” said Central Montcalm coach Marty James. “Sad to say, the ‘6 win system’ has destroyed a lot of leagues and even many rivalries.Teams will be more likely to stay in leagues where the competition is not above their ability to get to six wins.”
But James acknowledged the other side.
“Many schools are already locked into leagues where they are not able to increase their strength of schedule,” he said. “There may also be geographic restraints.”