A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT COLOR?

New District 2 playoff proposal now under consideration

Is the proposed change, developed by the Lackawanna Interscholastic Athletic Association, a truly unique playoff proposal or just a re-packaged version of the existing open format tournament? Well – to some degree - that depends on a school’s classification. At the very least, it is definitely a highly creative idea and a praiseworthy attempt by LIAA administrators to try and make the current system better. But, that alone should not be cause to ratify it without the proper scrutiny among all league coaches, administrators, and district officials. After all, the core value supported by all is to ensure that the most deserving teams have the chance to represent District 2 in PIAA playoff competition. While the notion of covering separate Lackawanna League and Wyoming Valley Conference qualifying tournaments (in addition to the District 2 event) has the Northeast Beat downright giddy with playoff madness, it cannot be the sole basis of our support. Instead, we thought it best to spend a few minutes looking at the current system, some of the different aspects of the proposed system, and how it compares to what is happening around the other eleven districts across the state.

Currently in District 2, an open format tournament is conducted. Schools can opt-out (I know, few, if any ever do), but all are welcome to participate, regardless to whether they win a league (or overall) game. Teams from the WVC and LL are grouped together into their respective classifications and league won-loss records are used to position teams in A, AA, and AAA. Overall season records are used in AAAA if Williamsport (the lone 4A school from District 4) qualifies by winning half of their games. Of the 44 boys’ and 43 girls’ teams competing this year, the vast majority (67 in all) are in the 2A and 3A category. District play-in and quarter-final games are played on the home court of the higher seeded teams. One of the inherent characteristics of grouping all of the 2A or 3A teams together is that some teams compete in divisions with larger (or smaller) schools and that often impacts their league record, both favorably and unfavorably. That is, the comparison is not leveled out. For example, Abington Heights boys (in 3A) compete in Division 1 of the Lackawanna League which has three quad-A participants. Attempts to establish a qualifying winning % for eligibility into district playoffs have proven quite difficult and understandably met with rejection.

Basically, what the LIAA proposed is for the Wyoming Valley Conference and Lackawanna League to hold separate qualifying tournaments for 2A and 3A teams to get seeded into an 8-team District 2 tourney. Participation would be mandatory by all schools. Because single-A and quad-A have so few members, their current formats would remain unchanged. Since winless teams would have to win several games to qualify, the District 2 tourney would no longer be viewed as an open tournament. Based on initial development, the breakdown would be as follows

Wyoming Valley Conference

3A Boys (10 teams) = 5 advance to district

2A Boys (6 teams) = 3 advance to district

3A Girls (9 teams) = 5 advance to district

2A Girls (5 teams) = 3 advance to district

Lackawanna League

3A Boys (7 teams) = 3 advance to district

2A Boys (11 teams) = 5 advance to district

3A Girls (6 teams) = 3 advance to district

2A Girls (10 teams) = 3 advance to district

On paper the concept appears ingenious – break down the divisions and allow teams an even playing field to qualify for district playoffs. It’s a win-win situation. Some say it is too good to be true. The Northeast Beat has some concerns that maybe it is, at least logistically. To properly position all qualifying teams, consolation and playback games are typically part of the seeding mix. That takes time. And the reality is that the hoops season has repeatedly gotten shorter and league championship games are often right on the doorstep of district playoffs. Obviously, league schedules would have to be backed up into December. That impacts exhibition schedules – trying to find time to play the 8 or 9 non-league games can be a challenge. Some teams have already played 5 games in 7 days this season. Combine that with the typically unpredictable northeastern PA winter weather and things could get very interesting. A valid concern by the big and small schools is that they might find themselves struggling to play 22 games over 8 weeks only to face a 15 to 20 day layoff awaiting District 2 action. A middle-ground solution might be to eliminate separate first and second half league play, and the associated first half playoff dates usually set aside. That may help bridge the time gap. Finally, the overall achievement of winning a division championship cannot be forgotten and should be rewarded in some way. Are teams going to be rewarded with an automatic berth into the district tourney for such an accomplishment? How will the 8-teams be seeded? Lots of potential issues here and there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. And maybe that is why the LIAA should be commended for realizing that and trying to doing something about it.

So, what is happening across districts throughout the commonwealth? Interestingly, the much maligned and often criticized open tournament format (we’re among those guilty of that) is alive and well throughout the smaller districts. In addition to District 2, Districts 4, 6, and 9 all feature some type of open tourney. These districts include some very rural landscape, so game travel is a given part of their playoffs. Most of the larger districts use some type of point or power rating system. Districts 5 and 11 assign more points for defeating larger schools. Districts 1 and 3 both use a rather complicated power ratings system. District 1 has a formula to add up win points, schedule points, and bonus points across the entire season schedule. District 7 (WPIAL) merely uses section (division) won-loss records. Maybe the only district that remotely resembles the LIAA proposal is District 10. They divide teams up into “regions” and further break them down into like-classifications (A through AAAA). Sound familiar? But, their teams receive automatic bids while others go through established criteria for at-large bids. On the surface it appears that they are approaching things with a similar intent without actually having a qualifying tournament.

In the end, the LIAA proposal may not be perfect, but it is worthy of strong consideration. The Northeast Beat urges the groups involved to make an informed and well thought out decision; even if it takes the process out an extra month. In a few weeks, the 2009-2010 playoff fields will be determined. Why not use that as an opportunity to use the proposed LIAA format to simulate the qualifying tourneys for additional discussion and review?