This is longer than I intended but I’m an old fart with some time to kill.
Let me start by saying I think the current way is the best we have had in our history and I don’t mind it really at all. The old system where teams qualified for the playoffs by some points system was the worst. I liked the 4 team districts OK, but I didn’t like MSHSAA dictating your last 3 opponents and the round robin nature of districts sometimes led to some oddities. The current system allows schools to do their own scheduling, gives everyone a chance to “continue playing” through a week 10 and I like that a points system is used to “seed” districts. I do like things that make me think though so I tried to come up with something I thought might be better.
The trick I think is to somehow balance travel, competitiveness and getting “better” matchups the deeper you get into the playoffs with the ideal of having the 2 “best” teams in the championship. If your goal is to somehow minimize travel (like it appears schools and by extension MSHSAA want), then the way we are doing things works reasonably well but we sacrifice some competitiveness and you don’t always necessarily get the best 2 teams in the championship. For instance in class 6, there is one district with 3 conference champions, who should honestly only have 1 loss total between those 3 teams, and another with 0 conference champions and the top 3 seeds having 8 losses. There were instances even more glaring when we had 4 team disticts. At the same time, if you are just concerned about competitiveness and getting the “best” matchup in the championship, then do normal seeding 1-64 (or 1-32 for class 6) and have 1v64, 2v63 and so forth in the first round. You could even re-seed after each round in case of upsets, but the travel could get ridiculous and the logistics could be problematic to say the least.
I think some of the “problems” with the current system is the pre-determined nature of the 8 team districts. What I would propose would use a point system (either one currently used or a mutually agreed upon objective ranking system) that would give an overall rank to all teams in a class and be used to assign teams to a district but only after the regular season. The top 8 in classes 1-5 (top 4 in class 6) would receive a #1 district seed, the next 8 (next 4 in class 6) would receive a #2 district seed and so on until everyone has a district seed 1-8. You could then assign teams with overall ranking 1-16 (1-8 for class 6) to a normal single elimination bracket, then assign the remaining teams to districts based on their overall or district seeding using either geography or competitive balance.
With the NCAA POD system as inspiration, using geography as a priority, you would then assign seeds #1 & #2 on opposite sides of 8 team district brackets and then fill out each four team “POD” for the #1 and #2 by overall ranking and proximity.
Using competitiveness as a higher criteria before geography, you would preserve the 1v8, 2v7 and so forth using overall rank and proximity in the assignments. This could force more travel, but you could mitigate it somewhat.
I did this with Class 6 using the points as now calculated and these are the results I got:
First, the ranking
Overall Rank/ Team/ District Seed/ Record/ Pts.
1 DeSmet 1 9-0 47.44
2 Liberty North 1 9-0 46.72
3 Joplin 1 9-0 46
4 Marquette 1 8-1 44.21
5 Francis Howell 2 8-1 43.92
6 Hazelwood West 2 8-1 42.47
7 Christian Brothers College 2 7-2 40.89
8 Raymore-Peculiar 2 7-2 40.43
9 Lafayette (Wildwood) 3 7-2 39.56
10 Ft. Zumwalt West 3 7-2 39.22
11 Park Hill 3 7-2 39.12
12 Troy Buchanan 3 6-3 37.07
13 Rockhurst 4 6-3 37.02
14 Kirkwood 4 5-3 35.04
15 Holt 4 6-3 34.29
16 Lee's Summit North 4 5-4 32.93
17 Lee's Summit 5 5-4 32.86
18 Lee's Summit West 5 4-5 32.56
19 St. Louis University 5 5-4 32.5
20 Hazelwood Central 5 4-5 30.44
21 Blue Springs 6 5-4 30.29
22 Northwest (Cedar Hill) 6 5-4 29.33
23 Lindbergh 6 4-5 29.05
24 Kickapoo 6 4-5 28.96
25 Rock Bridge 7 3-6 28.21
26 Hickman 7 4-5 27.67
27 Liberty 7 4-5 27.14
28 Blue Springs South 7 2-7 24.32
29 Timberland 8 2-7 23.43
30 Francis Howell Central 8 3-6 23.04
31 Pattonville 8 2-7 22.94
32 Jefferson City 8 2-6 21.87
So in my scenario, you would have (if everything went to chalk) Ray-Pec @ DeSmet, CBC @ Liberty North, Hazelwood West @ Joplin & Francis Howell @ Marquette for the district championships, with DeSmet hosting Marquette & Liberty North hosting Joplin in the semifinal.
Compare this to what is current: Francis Howell @ DeSmet, Park Hill @ Liberty North, Holt @ Fort Zumwalt West & Marquette @ Joplin for the district championships, with DeSmet hosting Liberty North and Fort Zumwalt West hosting Joplin in the semifinal.
Using geography (or at least my understanding of these schools’ locations) as the higher criteria than competitive balance, you would have the following 4-team PODS for each of those top 2 district seeds in order of ranking (i.e. team listed first would play the last team with the winner facing the winner of the middle 2):
DeSmet-SLUH, Pattonville, Jefferson City
Liberty North-Park Hill, Lee’s Summit West, Blue Springs
Joplin-Kickapoo, Liberty, Blue Springs South
Marquette-Lafayette, Northwest, Lindbergh
Francis Howell-Fort Zumwalt West, Troy Buchanan, Holt
Hazelwood West-Hazelwood Central, Rock Bridge, Hickman
CBC-Kirkwood, Timberland, Francis Howell Central
Ray-Pec-Rockhurst, Lee’s Summit North, Lee’s Summit
This way keeps travel to a minimum until the district championships. You could minimize it even until the semifinals if you switch the CBC and Ray-Pec PODS. It also makes some of the districts more difficult/easier than others, at least objectively so, theoretically giving some teams an “easier” path to the district championship.
With competitive balance as the first criteria, then geography, this is what you might get:
DeSmet- Holt, SLUH, Francis Howell Central
Liberty North-Rockhurst, Lee’s Summit, Pattonville
Joplin-, Lee’s Summit North, Lee’s Summit West, Jefferson City
Marquette- Kirkwood, Hazelwood Central, Timberland
Francis Howell- Lafayette, Lindbergh, Rock Bridge
Hazelwood West- Fort Zumwalt West, Kickapoo, Hickman
CBC- Troy Buchanan, Northwest, Blue Springs South
Ray-Pec- Park Hill, Blue Springs, Liberty
This way guarantees each #1 district seed a #8 opponent first, followed by the winner of a #4/5 matchup. It also guarantees the #2 district seed a #7 opponent first, followed by the winner of a #3/6 matchup but it would generally require some of the lower ranked teams to travel more.
This may seem overly complicated, but I knocked this out (actually 5 different scenarios) in a little over an hour. Once a method was decided upon, a lot could be done automatically and in a very short time. I think either of these I’ve presented gets us to a more competitive tournament, with the outcomes of the regular season playing an even bigger role and the possibilities of the most intriguing matchups in the finals, without the chance of those matchups occurring in earlier rounds.
Let me start by saying I think the current way is the best we have had in our history and I don’t mind it really at all. The old system where teams qualified for the playoffs by some points system was the worst. I liked the 4 team districts OK, but I didn’t like MSHSAA dictating your last 3 opponents and the round robin nature of districts sometimes led to some oddities. The current system allows schools to do their own scheduling, gives everyone a chance to “continue playing” through a week 10 and I like that a points system is used to “seed” districts. I do like things that make me think though so I tried to come up with something I thought might be better.
The trick I think is to somehow balance travel, competitiveness and getting “better” matchups the deeper you get into the playoffs with the ideal of having the 2 “best” teams in the championship. If your goal is to somehow minimize travel (like it appears schools and by extension MSHSAA want), then the way we are doing things works reasonably well but we sacrifice some competitiveness and you don’t always necessarily get the best 2 teams in the championship. For instance in class 6, there is one district with 3 conference champions, who should honestly only have 1 loss total between those 3 teams, and another with 0 conference champions and the top 3 seeds having 8 losses. There were instances even more glaring when we had 4 team disticts. At the same time, if you are just concerned about competitiveness and getting the “best” matchup in the championship, then do normal seeding 1-64 (or 1-32 for class 6) and have 1v64, 2v63 and so forth in the first round. You could even re-seed after each round in case of upsets, but the travel could get ridiculous and the logistics could be problematic to say the least.
I think some of the “problems” with the current system is the pre-determined nature of the 8 team districts. What I would propose would use a point system (either one currently used or a mutually agreed upon objective ranking system) that would give an overall rank to all teams in a class and be used to assign teams to a district but only after the regular season. The top 8 in classes 1-5 (top 4 in class 6) would receive a #1 district seed, the next 8 (next 4 in class 6) would receive a #2 district seed and so on until everyone has a district seed 1-8. You could then assign teams with overall ranking 1-16 (1-8 for class 6) to a normal single elimination bracket, then assign the remaining teams to districts based on their overall or district seeding using either geography or competitive balance.
With the NCAA POD system as inspiration, using geography as a priority, you would then assign seeds #1 & #2 on opposite sides of 8 team district brackets and then fill out each four team “POD” for the #1 and #2 by overall ranking and proximity.
Using competitiveness as a higher criteria before geography, you would preserve the 1v8, 2v7 and so forth using overall rank and proximity in the assignments. This could force more travel, but you could mitigate it somewhat.
I did this with Class 6 using the points as now calculated and these are the results I got:
First, the ranking
Overall Rank/ Team/ District Seed/ Record/ Pts.
1 DeSmet 1 9-0 47.44
2 Liberty North 1 9-0 46.72
3 Joplin 1 9-0 46
4 Marquette 1 8-1 44.21
5 Francis Howell 2 8-1 43.92
6 Hazelwood West 2 8-1 42.47
7 Christian Brothers College 2 7-2 40.89
8 Raymore-Peculiar 2 7-2 40.43
9 Lafayette (Wildwood) 3 7-2 39.56
10 Ft. Zumwalt West 3 7-2 39.22
11 Park Hill 3 7-2 39.12
12 Troy Buchanan 3 6-3 37.07
13 Rockhurst 4 6-3 37.02
14 Kirkwood 4 5-3 35.04
15 Holt 4 6-3 34.29
16 Lee's Summit North 4 5-4 32.93
17 Lee's Summit 5 5-4 32.86
18 Lee's Summit West 5 4-5 32.56
19 St. Louis University 5 5-4 32.5
20 Hazelwood Central 5 4-5 30.44
21 Blue Springs 6 5-4 30.29
22 Northwest (Cedar Hill) 6 5-4 29.33
23 Lindbergh 6 4-5 29.05
24 Kickapoo 6 4-5 28.96
25 Rock Bridge 7 3-6 28.21
26 Hickman 7 4-5 27.67
27 Liberty 7 4-5 27.14
28 Blue Springs South 7 2-7 24.32
29 Timberland 8 2-7 23.43
30 Francis Howell Central 8 3-6 23.04
31 Pattonville 8 2-7 22.94
32 Jefferson City 8 2-6 21.87
So in my scenario, you would have (if everything went to chalk) Ray-Pec @ DeSmet, CBC @ Liberty North, Hazelwood West @ Joplin & Francis Howell @ Marquette for the district championships, with DeSmet hosting Marquette & Liberty North hosting Joplin in the semifinal.
Compare this to what is current: Francis Howell @ DeSmet, Park Hill @ Liberty North, Holt @ Fort Zumwalt West & Marquette @ Joplin for the district championships, with DeSmet hosting Liberty North and Fort Zumwalt West hosting Joplin in the semifinal.
Using geography (or at least my understanding of these schools’ locations) as the higher criteria than competitive balance, you would have the following 4-team PODS for each of those top 2 district seeds in order of ranking (i.e. team listed first would play the last team with the winner facing the winner of the middle 2):
DeSmet-SLUH, Pattonville, Jefferson City
Liberty North-Park Hill, Lee’s Summit West, Blue Springs
Joplin-Kickapoo, Liberty, Blue Springs South
Marquette-Lafayette, Northwest, Lindbergh
Francis Howell-Fort Zumwalt West, Troy Buchanan, Holt
Hazelwood West-Hazelwood Central, Rock Bridge, Hickman
CBC-Kirkwood, Timberland, Francis Howell Central
Ray-Pec-Rockhurst, Lee’s Summit North, Lee’s Summit
This way keeps travel to a minimum until the district championships. You could minimize it even until the semifinals if you switch the CBC and Ray-Pec PODS. It also makes some of the districts more difficult/easier than others, at least objectively so, theoretically giving some teams an “easier” path to the district championship.
With competitive balance as the first criteria, then geography, this is what you might get:
DeSmet- Holt, SLUH, Francis Howell Central
Liberty North-Rockhurst, Lee’s Summit, Pattonville
Joplin-, Lee’s Summit North, Lee’s Summit West, Jefferson City
Marquette- Kirkwood, Hazelwood Central, Timberland
Francis Howell- Lafayette, Lindbergh, Rock Bridge
Hazelwood West- Fort Zumwalt West, Kickapoo, Hickman
CBC- Troy Buchanan, Northwest, Blue Springs South
Ray-Pec- Park Hill, Blue Springs, Liberty
This way guarantees each #1 district seed a #8 opponent first, followed by the winner of a #4/5 matchup. It also guarantees the #2 district seed a #7 opponent first, followed by the winner of a #3/6 matchup but it would generally require some of the lower ranked teams to travel more.
This may seem overly complicated, but I knocked this out (actually 5 different scenarios) in a little over an hour. Once a method was decided upon, a lot could be done automatically and in a very short time. I think either of these I’ve presented gets us to a more competitive tournament, with the outcomes of the regular season playing an even bigger role and the possibilities of the most intriguing matchups in the finals, without the chance of those matchups occurring in earlier rounds.
