Seed the Tournament Right

[heimer]

Why four? Because it's easy? We seed five in baskeball, and, if you have 16, the equivalent of five of eight is 10 that should be seeded.

Random draw it, or seed it based totally on QRF, fine, but seed it right, so #2 and #5 don't run into each other in the round of eight, assuming the seeds hold. This geographic nonsense is outdated.

Here's the first round based on QRF, allowing for #17 and #18 to displace #15 and #16, as those two QRF finishers did not make the playoffs.

Northern Cass at Velva
Harvey at Rugby (yes, Harvey won head to head, but Rugby has higher QRF)
Des Lacs at Oakes
Kenmare at Bowman County
Grafton at Lisbon
Thompson at Minot Ryan
New Salem at Shiloh
Killdeer at Langdon

[Run4Fun2009]

Why four? Because it's easy? We seed five in baskeball, and, if you have 16, the equivalent of five of eight is 10 that should be seeded.

Random draw it, or seed it based totally on QRF, fine, but seed it right, so #2 and #5 don't run into each other in the round of eight, assuming the seeds hold. This geographic nonsense is outdated.

Here's the first round based on QRF, allowing for #17 and #18 to displace #15 and #16, as those two QRF finishers did not make the playoffs.

Northern Cass at Velva
Harvey at Rugby (yes, Harvey won head to head, but Rugby has higher QRF)
Des Lacs at Oakes
Kenmare at Bowman County
Grafton at Lisbon
Thompson at Minot Ryan
New Salem at Shiloh
Killdeer at Langdon

I like it. Seed the whole thing.

Do we avoid same region games in first round though?

[Fletcher]

I would agree with seeding the entire tournament 1-16. But Run makes a fair point, so I would add the exception that the teams seeded 9-16 would face the possibility of a seeding adjustment of plus or minus 1 spot to avoid same region games in the first round.

As you've explained above...seeding the entire tournament, based on QRF would like like this:
16 Northern Cass (Region 1)
1 Velva (Region 3)

9 Harvey (Region 2)
8 Rugby (Region 2)

12 Des Lacs (Region 3)
5 Oakes (Region 1)

13 Kenmare (Region 3)
4 Bowman County (Region 4)

14 Grafton (Region 2)
3 Lisbon (Region 1)

11 Thompson (Region 1)
6 Minot Ryan (Region 3)

10 New Salem (Region 4)
7 Shiloh (Region 4)

15 Killdeer (Region 4)
2 Langdon (Region 2)

After the initial seeding you've got two first round games that involve the same region, Harvey at Rugby and New Salem at Shiloh.

In this case the solution is pretty easy, you flip flop the #9 and #10 teams (Harvey and New Salem) to avoid the rematch of a region game in the first round and the bracket looks like this:
16 Northern Cass (Region 1)
1 Velva (Region 3)

10 New Salem (Region 4)
8 Rugby (Region 2)

12 Des Lacs (Region 3)
5 Oakes (Region 1)

13 Kenmare (Region 3)
4 Bowman County (Region 4)

14 Grafton (Region 2)
3 Lisbon (Region 1)

11 Thompson (Region 1)
6 Minot Ryan (Region 3)

9 Harvey (Region 2)
7 Shiloh (Region 4)

15 Killdeer (Region 4)
2 Langdon (Region 2)

Pretty straight forward as a #9 for #10 flip is relatively minor, and maintains the integrity of the bracket for the most part as #10 vs #8 and #9 vs #7 matchups are very similar to an original bracket of #8 vs #9 and #7 and #10.

[heimer]

Okay.

And while we're at it, if two teams from the same region make the finals, we declare co-champs, roast marshmallows, sing Koom Bye Yah, and get ready for basketball.

Why the aytch does region matter? So what that they played in the regular season. Northern Cass played Langdon game one. They play again this weekend. Big flipping deal.

I don't get this small town idea that regions have anything to do with it, other than we need a regular season. Harvey vs Rugby and Shiloh vs New Salem is a dream in the first round. Instead let's pu$$foot around people's feelings because its just not fair one of our teams lose?

[The Schwab]

I could also get on board with playing 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in each region in the first round. Getting down to 8 teams, each of the 4 regions would have 2 teams left and then seeding the final 8. Might be an easier idea to get passed through than just seeding the first 16. In a perfect world I would love to see them seed 16 from the start, but I think I could live with a scenario like this.

[Run4Fun2009]

Okay.

And while we're at it, if two teams from the same region make the finals, we declare co-champs, roast marshmallows, sing Koom Bye Yah, and get ready for basketball.

Why the aytch does region matter? So what that they played in the regular season. Northern Cass played Langdon game one. They play again this weekend. Big flipping deal.

I don't get this small town idea that regions have anything to do with it, other than we need a regular season. Harvey vs Rugby and Shiloh vs New Salem is a dream in the first round. Instead let's pu$$foot around people's feelings because its just not fair one of our teams lose?

I just asked a simple question after being intrigued by the idea...just say you like your idea better and move on. That’s fine...we are human and have different viewpoints on things; some respect though should be given.

[packers21]

Okay.

And while we're at it, if two teams from the same region make the finals, we declare co-champs, roast marshmallows, sing Koom Bye Yah, and get ready for basketball.

Why the aytch does region matter? So what that they played in the regular season. Northern Cass played Langdon game one. They play again this weekend. Big flipping deal.

I don't get this small town idea that regions have anything to do with it, other than we need a regular season. Harvey vs Rugby and Shiloh vs New Salem is a dream in the first round. Instead let's pu$$foot around people's feelings because its just not fair one of our teams lose?

I just asked a simple question after being intrigued by the idea...just say you like your idea better and move on. That’s fine...we are human and have different viewpoints on things; some respect though should be given.

You should know by now if you don’t agree with everything heimer says he will belittle you and rip some small town in ND for it. He knows it all. Some of his ideas are pretty good, this one isnt bad either. The regular season needs to mean something and so does a region head to head matchup. We don’t even know the formula they are using.

[Fletcher]

JHC heimer...why so aggressive? You act like some one just ran over your dog!

The only reason I don't think we should have regions play against each other in the first round is to try and get a variety of interesting matchups in the tournament that we wouldn't normally see. I think it's fun to see teams face off that don't get to very often.

It's not due to any "small town" thinking or to protect anyone's feelings. You're the one who sounds like your feelings are hurt starting, this thread by whining about a #2 vs #5 matchup in the second round. According to your so called "logic" that should be a "dream" matchup too.

[heimer]

I think we do know the formula they use. It looks like they use QRF to determine the top four seeds, and then organize the old-fashioned way (A1 vs B4), and so on.

I guess the hope is that there is balance in the top four seeds, so that each region's #1 has enough of a QRF to be a even spread of the top four seeds.

As far as the regions are concerned, I'm still waiting for one good reason to avoid those matchups in the first round.

[Run4Fun2009]

If it’s not your reason given then it is wrong...we as users know that so why waste our time in giving logical options?!

[Fletcher]

I don't get this small town idea that regions have anything to do with it, other than we need a regular season.

FYI, the AAA bracket is setup like this (so is the AA), which avoids same region matchups in the first round:
W1 vs E4
E2 vs W3

E1 vs W4
W2 vs E3

If this is such a "small town idea" why isn't the AAA bracket setup like this:
E1 vs E4
W2 vs W3

W1 vs W4
E2 vs E3

Or even this:
W1 vs W4
W2 vs W3

E1 vs E4
E2 vs E3

I guess they don't want to hurt the feelings of those in the "big city"

[heimer]

Fletcher,

Understand that I have to play a part on this site, because I've been pidgeon-holed into it by Packers 21 and Bisonguy06 and a bunch of other buffoons who think any idea not born in the 1960's "Golden Era" is a bad idea. If I don't play that role, people would wonder if something was wrong.

Therefore, let me give you the logical, rational argument I'd like to give you, but couldn't due to the nature of the form:

What I'm looking for is uniformity all the way through. I view the current plan of the playoffs as the NDHSAA's sneaky way of working geography into a system when the coaches have stated they would rather use competition for a basis of alignment, rather than geography.

Last year, the NDHSAA surveyed the coaches, and, for the first time, coaches stated in the survey they would favor uniformity of competition over geography in the planning purposes for athletics. However, when you look at the lack of seeding in football, it's clear that their wishes weren't adopted. We seed four of 16, and then use geography to fill the bracket in.

I'm not interested in preserving some idiotic "east vs west" mentality of the post-season, and I feel that's what the current seeding formula does, in, again, a sneaky way that opposes the coaches' wishes.

Geography still has a role to play. That role is qualifying teams for the state tournament. And that's what the playoffs are, a state tournament. Once that role is fulfilled, it should go away.

For uniformity we should:

Use geography to qualify teams
Seed 5/8ths of the teams (as in basketball)
Use random draws to fill the rest

So, in all reality, using QRF to fill it out was just a mock-up. I'd favor seeding 10, which is 5/8ths, and then random draw the rest.

That means geography has done it's part, and it's over, period. In short, I don't like your idea of regional consideration when seeding first-round matchups. However, if it got us closer to a better end game, I might live with it, but I'd still object. There's nothing good that's served by giving both Rugby and Harvey or Shiloh and New Salem chances to advance simply because they are from the same region. You landed 8 and 9. If you don't like it, win another game in the regular season. Otherwise, play the game.

And you're right about AAA and AA. Seed them 1 through 5, random draw the rest. Uniformity. I like it.

[Fletcher]

Heimer, thanks for the reasoned and well thought out response. I can definitely see the benefits of your argument, even though I may not agree with all of them. We should be able to debate the merits of that plan versus others without slinging insults about small towns and hurt feelings. Thanks again.

[caserace0710]

I would have a system for the tournament that follows a mix of the current system and other ideas that have already been thrown out there. This is assuming that 16 teams qualify for the tournament (they did 12 a few years back I remember, so that would be different)

Team Selection

• Top 3 teams out of each region based on region standings would automatically qualify (12 teams)
  
  • NDHSAA tiebreakers would still be used in an event of a tie in the standings
• The last four teams, regardless of region who already did not automatically qualify will be selected based on QRF. These will be at-large berths.

Seeding

• All seeding would be done based on QRF
  
  • Option A: Region champs seeded 1-4, remaining auto bids seeded 5-12, at-large seeded 13-16
  • Option B: Region champs seeded 1-4, remaining teams seeded 5-16
  • Option C: Seed all auto bids 1-12 and at-large 13-16
  • Option D: Seed all teams 1-16

Pairings

• Each team will be placed in a pod based on seeding (i.e.: Pod 1 = 1-4, Pod 2 = 5-8, etc...)
• First Round Pairings will be as follows: 1 vs. 16/8 vs. 9, 4 vs. 13/5 vs. 12, 3 vs. 14/6 vs. 11, and 2 vs. 15/7 vs. 10
• If a 1st Round pairing features two teams from the same region, then one of the teams in a matchup would flip with someone from their same pod. If there is no possible way that a matchup can be flipped with one pod, the other.
  
  • This is what the NCAA Men's Hockey tournament does when it comes to pairings (Fletcher did a swap in his bracket in an earlier post)
  • Example: #9 Harvey @ #8 Rugby and #10 New Salem @ #7 Shiloh Christian. Both matchups are intra-region matchups (Region 2 and 4 respectively). Harvey and New Salem are in Pod 3 (9-12 seeds). Flip those two teams around and you'll get #10 New Salem @ #8 Rugby and #9 Harvey @ #7 Shiloh Christian.
• Bracket integrity will be preserved as much as possible

One major con about this proposal is that a team could finish 4th in the region but not be selected over a team who finished below them in the same region. If we did this proposal then Hatton/Northwood and Dickinson Trinity would be in while Northern Cass and Killdeer would be out (even though both Killdeer and Northern Cass beat Hatton/NW and Trinity respectively in region play).

[woodchuck10]

top 3 in each region, next 4 highest QRF for total of 16 teams. seed 1-16, region champs guaranteed at least a top 8 position. No region matchups in first round.

Reasons to avoid region matchups in first round:
Might have to play a team back to back.
Play somebody different than that team you've been playing since 7th grade (Harvey vs Rugby)
See what regions were the strongest/weakest.

Do this for both 9 man and Class A.

[heimer]

I still don't understand the love affair with keeping regional teams away from each other.

What good does it serve?

[The Schwab]

I think if we're going to use the QRF to seed all 16 positions (which I'm in favor of) don't require teams to play every team in their "region". Reward teams for wanting to play a tougher schedule.

[heimer]

We use the regions to qualify teams. Its necessary to play everyone to have an accurate qualification method.

You could adjust by taking the top 16 QRFs, but, if you did that, and removed the scheduling requirements, you'd have teams that couldn't find games. They would be skipped by playoff hopefuls in favor of better competition. Then, you'd get some 6-2 team out there skipped for the playoffs because they mopped up on weaker teams in scheduling, and that would not be pretty, similar to why Boise State and others can't make the playoffs in college football.

North Dakota has geographical challenges. There will always be a need to mix some geography into the mix to ensure everyone gets a fair shot at qualifying. We do that through the regional schedule. After that, it's time to ditch the geography and concentrate on seeding.

[The Schwab]

I understand that it could be difficult for teams to find games to schedule. I know states like South Dakota (I know I use SD a lot, but they do some pretty good things down there), don't require teams to play everyone in their region but they still qualify teams based on regional alignments top 3 in each region automatically qualify and then the next 4 highest qrf rated teams make the playoffs. They play their first round of the playoffs in a region setting 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3. If the 4 seed in your "region" is replaced by one of the other 4 qualifiers that's who you play. After the first round they seed 1-8 based on seed point averages. Their QRF formula isn't a secret. The state also schedules every teams games (which could be a possibility in ND as well.) They use seed points to seed everything. Here is how they calculate football seed points (for the teams QRF they total their seed points and divide by number of games played).

Opp. Win Pct. Pts. for Win Pts. for Loss
.750 and above 50 39
.500 - .749 47 36
.250 - .499 44 33
.249 and below 41 30

[heimer]

Again, I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel, and I think that's what this is turning into. We either seed or we don't, and we've decided to.

If we're seeding, do it in a uniform way. We've decided to seed 5/8ths. Let's seed 5/8ths, at all levels. That means 10 in a 16 team bracket.

That means 8 and 9 play, and 7 and 10 play. There's a reason basketball seeds 5. It's so we get a marquis game in the first round. Otherwise, we'd seed four, and draw it.

If we're seeding 10, we play 8 vs 9 and 7 vs 10 because we want those games in the first round.

Let the regional alignment situation settle who qualifies. Then, seed them, draw games for 1 through 6 and be done.

KISS.

[Flip]

Random draw it, or seed it based totally on QRF, fine, but seed it right, so #2 and #5 don't run into each other in the round of eight, assuming the seeds hold. This geographic nonsense is outdated.

Outside of the FBS playoff every NCAA tournament I can think of uses geography to some extent.

[heimer]

Yep, so does the NAIA. And that's why the #7 team in the nation plays #2 in the first round.

And it's a joke.

If this is the strongest argument for keeping the status quo, the status quo is stupid.

Just one man's opinion.

[Thundersnow]

I think heimer makes a good point here. Not everyone is happy with the way the state basketball tournament 1-5 seeds end up, but it's a way better system than the predetermined "Region X vs. Region Y" old way of doing things. Seeding a 16-team tournament 1-10 should be doable with QRF as a relatively unbiased system. People will still complain about their team being seeded too low or not getting a seed, but that's just part of sports.

[The Schwab]

My point in bringing up the South Dakota seed points and having the state schedule games is to show that it can be done, and it wouldn't be a huge deal. I'm honestly fine with playing each team in your region and qualifying for playoffs with 4 teams from each region still. I agree with Heimer that if we are going to seed 5/8ths of the teams in the Basketball, Volleyball and Baseball we need to seed 5/8ths of Football. Seeding the 4 regional champions has left us with a 2 vs 3 in the quarters, which is what everyone should want to try to avoid. I'd be in favor of seeding all of the teams in every tournament.

[heimer]

In the 9-man bracket we have

#1 vs unranked
unranked vs unranked
#2 vs #3
unranked vs #5

Yeah we did well.