A new proposal for determining the state’s 256 football playoff teams was presented to the MHSAA’s representative council at its May meeting but was voted down. Geoff Kimmerly, MHSAA media and content coordinator, confirmed on May 19 that the proposal was rejected and that it “didn’t have a lot of support from the Michigan Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association when it surveyed its membershp earlier this spring.”

The proposal to change the current system, which was approved in 1998, had been approved by the Michigan High School Football Coaches Association and by the MHSAA football committee. It emphasized strength of schedule rather than guaranteeing that all teams with six wins in a nine-game schedule and five in an eight-game schedule would get into the five-week playoff system. Its supporters said that it was a way to stop rewarding schools looking for six wins as a guarantee to make the postseason and instead reward those that play tough schedules.

Under the new proposal, there would still have been 32 teams in eight different divisions for the playoffs, but the following changes were 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 have divided 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 have been 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 have used playoff points and fill additional spots until each division got to 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•Points for wins are now based on the Classes A, B, C, and D, which the MHSFC says is an outdated system and grants the same number of points for defeating a Class B team with almost 1,000 students as it does for defeating one with under 500 students.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 based 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 have given a team points for all of its opponents’ wins, regardless of whether or not the team beat that opponent.

•The new system would have had a bonus-point multiplier depending on the enrollment size of its opponent.

Area football coaches had differing viewpoints on the proposal.

Ithaca athletic director and football coach 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 called 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 have encouraged teams to schedule and play foes that are traditional powers, he did see a drawback. “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 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.”

Clark Huntey, football coach and athletic director at Morley Stanwood, was not in favor of the proposal. “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 ‘six-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 he also 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.”