Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

D1 Sections

Posted: 11/29/2012 3:53 PM

D1 Sections 


After looking at the 29 D1 Teams, the AIA could go with 4 Sections as follows:

North Section

Boulder Creek
SDO
Mt. Ridge
Pinnacle
Horizon
Desert Mountain
North Canyon

West Section

Millennium
Westview
Valley Vista
Maryvale
Brophy
North
Chavez

East Section

Skyline
Desert Ridge
Red Mtn
Highland
Gilbert
Mt. View
Mesa
Dobson

South Section

Mt. Pointe
Desert Vista
Corona Del Sol
Chandler
Hamilton
Perry
Basha


Any thoughts if they go with smaller or larger sections?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/29/2012 5:43 PM

Re: D1 Sections 


They are looking at a four section component in Division One and Four. Essentially a North, South, East, West.  It may or may not happen, however, that option does make the most sense for both divisions.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/29/2012 6:04 PM

Re: D1 Sections 


Makes sense. Would you take 2 autos from each section and 8 at large?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 4:55 AM

Re: D1 Sections 


I think each Section winner should get a bye then the next 24 play the first round. Then all but the worst team is in the playoffs. Would eliminate a whole lot of crying about power point method and would make some of those first and second round games a little more competitive.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 5:48 AM

Re: D1 Sections 


Are there any Tucson schools that need to be thrown into the mix?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 6:36 AM

Re: D1 Sections 


There are no Tucson (or Yuma) schools in Division I as of next year.  Buena, Sunnyside, and Tucson are moving into Division II.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 8:56 AM

RE: D1 Sections 


I think thats a great way to break it down. I'm not exactly sure how scheduling works but seems to me that every school could play every other school in their section once, and then play one more school from each of the other sections for a total of 9 games (the school from a different section would change each year). That would leave one game left for each school to "pick" on their own. That seems to be the most fair way to set everyone's schedule up so that everyone's strength of schedule is virtually identical.

I also like the idea of each section winner getting a first round bye. However, I think that 28 teams in the playoffs is too many. Teams can gripe all they want about not making the playoffs...but the fact of the matter is, if you're not a top 16-20 team...you're not winning a state championship.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 9:09 AM

RE: D1 Sections 


There aren't 16 teams that honestly feel they can win the D1 title, maybe 5.  Hamilton,  then depending on the year any of Brophy, DV, Mtn Pointe, Red Mtn, and recently Desert Ridge.  It's no different than other states that have certain powerhouses, Nevada has Gorman, then some contenders, Cali has the Orange County schools and a couple north DSL and Long Beach Poly.  Wonder if Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pa, have the same issue?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 9:27 AM

RE: D1 Sections 


In PA there really aren't power houses like Hamilton and Bishop Gorman. There really good teams in the larger school divisions that compete for championships each year but they don't dominate like a hamilton. You occasionally get a team that has a great 4 year run. Like Thomas Jefferson which had quite a few d-1 kids on their team. Or when Terrell Pryor was in high school his team had a really good run but since then hey have cooled off. Usually the East side of the state is the more dominant in football.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 9:33 AM

Re: D1 Sections 



asutbone45 wrote: Makes sense. Would you take 2 autos from each section and 8 at large?

I can't imagine there will still be 16 teams in D1 playoffs.  Should reduce to 12, so 1 auto from each section (first place), then 8 at large play in teams would work.  First 4 would get first week bye, and 4 play in games in first round.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 10:01 AM

Re: D1 Sections 


How is reducing the number of playoff teams fair?  The teams that moved out of division 1 were not playoff caliber teams.  The AIA cannot punish the teams remaining in Division 1 by reducing the playoff structure.  They created this animal by approving all those appeals that shouldn't have been approved, they can't justify changing the rules for playoff participation after the appeals process.  They need to live with what they have done.  If teams knew there would be a rules change, I'm sure more teams would have potentially petitioned up/down.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 11:04 AM

Re: D1 Sections 


29 D1 teams with a 16 game playoff; that is so weak.  Still like my idea of combining D1 & 2 and making it a 32 game playoff; would be a heck of a lot more interesting.

73 teams broken down into 12 regions with region champs auto qualify and power or seeding points taking care of the rest of the placement.

Combine the powerhouses in D1 & D2 and it will be a lot more interesting and not so predictable. 

D3 & 4 can be combined too, and have a 32 team playoff for them. 

Love to see teams like Hamilton, Ironwood Ridge, Chaparral, Mountain Pointe, etc. playing for it all.  Also, in D3 & 4 teams like Queen Creek, Blue Ridge, Saguaro, Desert Edge, Show Low, Seton, etc.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 12:05 PM

Re: D1 Sections 



RoastedNuts wrote: They are looking at a four section component in Division One and Four. Essentially a North, South, East, West.  It may or may not happen, however, that option does make the most sense for both divisions.

Actually, it wouldn't at all make sense.

According to the Exec Board meeting minutes from 10/22/12, the board accepted the recommendations from the sport advisory committee that placed the optimum number of teams in a section at 6, which was the basis for my sectional projections.  Since there are 29 teams in D1, making three divisions of 7 and one of 8 was less optimal, according to the AIA's own statements, than four divisions of 6 and one of 5.

In D4, unlike D1, schools are spread out across the state, so with 32 teams, according to your statement, you would have to have four divisions of 8 teams. For starters, this would require grouping the seven Tucson schools with one unlucky other school (Coolidge? Florence? Seton? Globe?) who would have to travel to Tucson three or four times in order to play all their required sectional games.  That's an unreasonable burden unless your school is named "Brophy" and your coach could care less about location. And who are the three schools that get grouped with the five Rez schools in NE Arizona? I shudder to think what might happen there... last cycle, Payson was grouped in the WEST with Parker, Chino Valley, and Wickenburg. (Really, AIA?)

In reality, the better D4 solution is five sections of 5 and one of 7.
Check out the DKC Ratings

Last edited 11/30/2012 12:06 PM by ranchandkc

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 3:00 PM

Re: D1 Sections 



ranchandkc wrote:
RoastedNuts wrote: They are looking at a four section component in Division One and Four. Essentially a North, South, East, West.  It may or may not happen, however, that option does make the most sense for both divisions.

Actually, it wouldn't at all make sense.

According to the Exec Board meeting minutes from 10/22/12, the board accepted the recommendations from the sport advisory committee that placed the optimum number of teams in a section at 6, which was the basis for my sectional projections.  Since there are 29 teams in D1, making three divisions of 7 and one of 8 was less optimal, according to the AIA's own statements, than four divisions of 6 and one of 5.

In D4, unlike D1, schools are spread out across the state, so with 32 teams, according to your statement, you would have to have four divisions of 8 teams. For starters, this would require grouping the seven Tucson schools with one unlucky other school (Coolidge? Florence? Seton? Globe?) who would have to travel to Tucson three or four times in order to play all their required sectional games.  That's an unreasonable burden unless your school is named "Brophy" and your coach could care less about location. And who are the three schools that get grouped with the five Rez schools in NE Arizona? I shudder to think what might happen there... last cycle, Payson was grouped in the WEST with Parker, Chino Valley, and Wickenburg. (Really, AIA?)

In reality, the better D4 solution is five sections of 5 and one of 7.
I understand your point - mine is simply reflective of the options reviewed.

Division 4 is spread out. There will never be a perfect Section in D4, D5 or D6 due to the distances. You travel regardless. Coolidge heading to Tucson three or four times is not as bad as River Valley traveling to Yuma, Welton, Wickenburg or Phoenix in one season. The Rez schools would be combined with Payson, Winslow.

As I said in my previous post, it doesn't mean it will happen, but it is one of many possibilities that have been discussed.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/30/2012 6:45 PM

Re: D1 Sections 


Disagree with reducing the number of teams in the Division I playoffs.

15 teams moved down from those that competed in D-I this past block.  Of those, only Buena and Cibola were in the playoffs in the 2012 season.  Don't penalize the rest of the teams in Division I just because others moved down.

Also, remember part of the reason the number dropped was due to the southern Arizona schools (Buena, Sunnyside, and Tucson) moving down.  This made sense because they would have been stuck being in a section (where they would have played every team) with either Ahwatukee/Tempe or SE Chandler teams.

The same thing happened with the Yuma area schools (Cibola, Kofa, and San Luis).  They will be together in a section in Division II.

Yes, we will probably see a couple of 4-6 teams (and maybe even a 3-7 team that plays a tough schedule) in the playoffs the next 2 years.  Maybe THAT will be the catalyst for a promotion/relegation system in 2015 with no appeals!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/01/2012 7:52 AM

Re: D1 Sections 


South section is loaded.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/01/2012 8:19 AM

Re: D1 Sections 



statguy wrote: Disagree with reducing the number of teams in the Division I playoffs.

15 teams moved down from those that competed in D-I this past block.  Of those, only Buena and Cibola were in the playoffs in the 2012 season.  Don't penalize the rest of the teams in Division I just because others moved down.

Also, remember part of the reason the number dropped was due to the southern Arizona schools (Buena, Sunnyside, and Tucson) moving down.  This made sense because they would have been stuck being in a section (where they would have played every team) with either Ahwatukee/Tempe or SE Chandler teams.

The same thing happened with the Yuma area schools (Cibola, Kofa, and San Luis).  They will be together in a section in Division II.

Yes, we will probably see a couple of 4-6 teams (and maybe even a 3-7 team that plays a tough schedule) in the playoffs the next 2 years.  Maybe THAT will be the catalyst for a promotion/relegation system in 2015 with no appeals!
So in other words, all logic and common sense will be abandoned in favor of a system that is fundamentally retarded.  Sounds par for the course for the AIA.

"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/01/2012 9:47 AM

Re: D1 Sections 



statguy wrote: Disagree with reducing the number of teams in the Division I playoffs.

15 teams moved down from those that competed in D-I this past block.  Of those, only Buena and Cibola were in the playoffs in the 2012 season.  Don't penalize the rest of the teams in Division I just because others moved down.

Also, remember part of the reason the number dropped was due to the southern Arizona schools (Buena, Sunnyside, and Tucson) moving down.  This made sense because they would have been stuck being in a section (where they would have played every team) with either Ahwatukee/Tempe or SE Chandler teams.

The same thing happened with the Yuma area schools (Cibola, Kofa, and San Luis).  They will be together in a section in Division II.

Yes, we will probably see a couple of 4-6 teams (and maybe even a 3-7 team that plays a tough schedule) in the playoffs the next 2 years.  Maybe THAT will be the catalyst for a promotion/relegation system in 2015 with no appeals!
I know the reasons, but your last sentence actually only strengthens the argument for reducing the number of teams from 16 to 12 in D1.

Also, D6 has been doing the 12-team playoff for years due to the number of teams in their division hovering in the low 30's for basically ever, so there's precedent.
Check out the DKC Ratings
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/01/2012 10:46 AM

Re: D1 Sections 



ranchandkc wrote:
statguy wrote: Disagree with reducing the number of teams in the Division I playoffs.

15 teams moved down from those that competed in D-I this past block.  Of those, only Buena and Cibola were in the playoffs in the 2012 season.  Don't penalize the rest of the teams in Division I just because others moved down.

Also, remember part of the reason the number dropped was due to the southern Arizona schools (Buena, Sunnyside, and Tucson) moving down.  This made sense because they would have been stuck being in a section (where they would have played every team) with either Ahwatukee/Tempe or SE Chandler teams.

The same thing happened with the Yuma area schools (Cibola, Kofa, and San Luis).  They will be together in a section in Division II.

Yes, we will probably see a couple of 4-6 teams (and maybe even a 3-7 team that plays a tough schedule) in the playoffs the next 2 years.  Maybe THAT will be the catalyst for a promotion/relegation system in 2015 with no appeals!
I know the reasons, but your last sentence actually only strengthens the argument for reducing the number of teams from 16 to 12 in D1.

Also, D6 has been doing the 12-team playoff for years due to the number of teams in their division hovering in the low 30's for basically ever, so there's precedent.

Just in terms of costs it makes no sense to have 16 teams qualify out of 29 to play a playoff.  People can argue emotionally against it but only 12 teams in D1 should make playoffs logically.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/01/2012 1:30 PM

Re: D1 Sections 


I think AZ D1 should stay 16 teams.

In TX, 5A D1 has 64 team bracket:
#mce_temp_url#

Doubt every team thinks they can actually win it, but it's great to see so many teams get to live that dream and play an extra game at season's end.

Last edited 12/01/2012 1:40 PM by CBHS88

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >