If Minnesota had a 12 team “CFB Playoff” aka state tourney
The College Football playoff is right around the corner and this year is the first time they have expanded to a 12 team format. In my lifetime, this is the 4th way a national champion has been chosen for college football.
Version 1: Poll-Based System (pre-1998)
Every conference plays in their respective bowl games. Bowls are set up to have certain conferences play each other. For example, Rose Bowl was always the #1 Big 10 vs #1 Pac 10. Then #2 v #2 is another bowl, so on and so forth. Every week during the season there is a vote on rankings (just like they do now) - the two that usually matter the most are the Coaches Poll and the AP Poll (sportswriters, media, etc). At the end of the season after all the bowl games shake out, final polls were made and the team voted #1 was considered the “National Champion.”
The question some of our younger readers may be asking: What if two different teams were #1 in the various poll?
Ah. The elephant in the room. This is why this system was incredibly stupid way to determine a champion. Because that did happen multiple times and teams would be considered to have a “share of the national championship.” If the two top teams are undefeated but their conferences don’t match up in a bowl game, there is no way to let them play that gam out.
Version 2: The Bowl Championship Series (1998-2013)
In 1998, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was introduced. This created a system where voting was still in place, but, the #1 and #2 teams in the final regular season rankings were paired up to compete in the “BCS National Championship Game” - the winner of that game is the National Champion. Problem solved, right? Wrong.
Enter 2003. In the final games of the season, undefeated Oklahoma got blown out in the Big 12 Champ game by Kansas state. USC and LSU both won. Now we have 3 one loss teams. USC jumped to the top spot in the AP poll LSU was 2 and OU dropped to 3. But, Hawaii (the were pretty good back then, see: Colt Brennan) lost big to Boise St. and it affected USC strength of schedule just enough to have LSU and OU get into the BCS championship game, but USC was still voted #1 atop the AP poll. LSU won the champ game over OU. USC won the rose bowl vs Michigan. LSU won the BCS championship game. The AP Poll kept USC at #1 and called them champs.
Split decision. Share of national championship. The whole reason the BCS was created - and here we are.
While this was the only and final time there was a share of the championship during the BCS era (so, it did do its job aside from this one instance), it felt like every year there was always at least one really good team left out of the final game that maybe could have won it all given the chance.
Version 3: College Football Playoff (2014-2023)
Well, CFB players, coaches and fans got their wish in 2014 when it moved to a 4 team playoff format. Still based on a vote, but, the top 4 teams played out a semi-final/final to crown national champion. This surely isn't perfect, but, it felt a lot better to at least give a handful of teams a chance.
Well… in 2014, Ohio State, the #4 seed and last team in. Won it all. Proving that a simple vote is not a way to decide a champion. Any team can win on Any. Given. Saturday.
While this format worked better and I personally thought this kept regular season meaningful but also gave a real and fair way to crown a champion… there were still always teams left out. It just pushed the goalpost farther down the line. Now what about the #5 or #6 team? Really good teams from weaker conferences… or runner-ups in toughest conference championships.
Version 4: 12 Team Playoff (2024 - ?)
It brings us to today. The first year of the 12 team college football playoff. 4 power conference winners get bye’s. Non-power 4 conference winners get in but must play in first round. 4 teams get at large bids.
Certainly this system will be perfect? Alabama fans looking to abolish the 12 team and go to a 16 team right now.
I guess we will see how this shakes out. I feel like 12 team is as fair as it can be. Conference winners got in. A few top teams who played tough conference championship games got in too.
If we took the 12 team format to MN high school lacrosse….
Now that you have been given a brief history of college football post-season that you didn’t ask for, I thought it would be interesting to create a 12 team playoff for MN High School Lacrosse from the 2024 season. There are a couple ways to look at this and how a 12 team would be seeded
I am using lax numbers final 2024 rankings as a guide
Here is option 1 (based on performance in sections):
The winners of the four toughest sections (in our opinion) received byes.
Sections 1, 3, 5 & 6 had the most “ranked” teams
The next four section winners got to host play-in games. Ranked accordingly.
The four at large bids were the next 4 highest ranked “runner-ups” in sections
This version is okay. It probably changes the least about the current set up, but, still presents the current issue of one section being WAY tougher than everyone else. Section 6. Prior Lake and Jefferson get left out because they didn’t make their section final. But, even with the final updated poll, after state tournament, they were still the #2 and #6 ranked team in the state. If we did at-large bids, but left out the two best non-section winning teams, then it makes no sense.
—
Here is option 2 (based on rankings from Lax Numbers):
Section winners get AQ and top 8 seeds
At Large bids only based on final ranking, not how far a team went in sections
This feels better than option 1 I think. If they did a lax numbers poll right after section finals were complete. It would give teams a computer ranking before any state games got factored in. Probably a good indication of where teams land. Tough for Farmington and Edina who had a harder section/schedule than Centennial and Moorhead, but, this still values winning the section tournament and “geographic representation,”
Although my Tigers would have been “first out” in this scenario, this feels like it’s giving the best of both worlds (rewarding winning, not punishing outlier difficult sections and teams with strong SOS or ranked wins in the regular season could still fin a way in.
Here is option 3 (based on rankings from MN Lax Hub):
Section winners all get in
Four remaining at-Large bids go to highest ranked remaining teams (regardless of section finish)
Seeding 1-12 based on ranking/poll. AQ doesn’t automatically give you a home game/bye
Okay, this isn't terrible. It rewards SOS and playing in a tough section giving PL and Jefferson a chance, but, unless a final poll is done after sections, this wouldn’t work. I am looking at the final 2024 Lax Numbers which factors in state games, so, a final poll would need to be made right before to select your 12 teams and seed them.
Edina and Farmington still left out in this scenario because Minnetonka, Moorhead and Centennial get their AQs. Again, I think this is fine but Edina and Farmington are ranks #10, #11 respectively and the aforementioned 3 are #16, #21, #29. Rewarding winning weaker sections (probably still a good thing to reward wins) but are all three better teams those two. Not sure unless we played the game.
I do think this one gets a little bit closer to a true state tournament. I do think winning your section means something and should be rewarded. I don’t think an AQ deserves a top seed simply for winning a “pre-determined section”. Valuing a weak win more because it’s in the “playoffs” to me is silly. I think the section tournament should just be an extension of your overall resume. This is similar to how march madness works. They just have a lot more spots to give.
Here is option 4 (straight vote/opinion, no AQ):
NO AQ for winning section, but, wins in section playoffs add to your resume
Think of how conference games are treated towards section seeding. Winning your conference doesn’t give you anything special but it probably means you’ve won some big games against common opponents. This just pushes that philosophy one step farther
12 teams voted in/seeded after section tournaments are completed
This way seems like it puts the top 4 teams that were in the polls all year in, but, leaves two section winners out: Moorhead and Centennial. Not sure that is fair. Tried to base on ranked wins v ranked/unranked losses and then Head 2 Head for seeding once in.
Here was my analysis:
1 - BSM
Ranked wins #10 Edina, #3 Lakeville North, #4 Stillwater, #16 Chanhassen, #2 Prior Lake, #9 Wayzata in Sections
Ranked loss to #6 Jefferson
Unranked Losses - None
2- Prior Lake
Ranked wins vs #8 Eden Prairie, #6 Jefferson, #3 Lakeville North, #14 The Valley, #16 Chanhassen, #5 Eagan, #17 Rosemount, #11 Farmington, #4 Stillwater.
One goal ranked losses to #1 BSM and #8 EP (sections)
Unranked Losses - None
3 - Stillwater
Ranked wins vs #16 Minnetonka, #15 Chanhassen, #7 East Ridge, #20 CDH, #13 WBL, #12 Woodbury
Ranked losses to #1 BSM in OT, #2 Prior Lake.
Unranked Losses - None
4 - Eagan
Ranked wins #3 Lakeville North, #17 Rosemount, #14 The Valley, #12 Woodbury (Sections) #7 East Ridge (sections)
Ranked losses to #11 Farmington, #2 Prior Lake and #12 Woodbury
Unranked Losses - None
5 - Lakeville North
Ranked wins: #8 EP, #18 Maple Grove, #17 Rosemount, #11 Farmington (x2), #14 The Valley
Ranked losses: #10 Edina, #5 Eagan, #1 BSM, #2 Prior Lake
Unranked Losses - None
6 - Eden Prairie
Ranked Wins: #13 WBL, #16 Minnetonka, #10 Edina (x2), #2 PL (Sections)
Ranked Losses: #3 Lakevlle North, #2 Prior Lake (Reg season), #9 Wayzata
Unranked losses to Buffalo, Hopkins
7 - Wayzata
Ranked wins: #20 CDH, #17 Rosemount, #10 Edina,#8 EP
Ranked Losses: #16 Minnetonka and #1 BSM in sections
Unranked Losses: None
8 - Edina
Ranked wins: #3 Lakeville North, #18 Maple Grove, #16 Minnetonka, #14 Valley (sections), #6 Jefferson (Sections)
Ranked Losses: #1 BSM, #9 Wayzata, #8 EP (x2)
Unranked Losses: None
9 - Jefferson
Ranked Wins: #17 Rosemount, #14 The Valley, #1 BSM, #15 Chanhassen,
Ranked Losses: #2 Prior Lake, #10 Edina
Unranked Losses: None
10 - Farmington
Ranked wins: #5 Eagan, #17 Rosemount, #14 The Valley
Ranked losses: #3 Lakeville North (x2), #2 Prior Lake
Unranked Losses: None
11 - Eastridge
Ranked wins: #12 Woobury, #16 Minnetonka, #20 CDH
Ranked Losses: #4 Stillwater and #5 Eagan (Sections)
Unranked Losses: None
12 - Minnetonka
Ranked win: #9 Wayzata, #15 Chanhassen
Ranked losses: #4 Stillwater, #8 Eden Prairie, #10 Edina, #7 East Ridge.
Unranked losses: to STMA, St. Thomas Academy
Outside looking in
Woodbury
Ranked wins: #13 WBL, #5 Eagan (reg season)
Ranked losses: #7 East Ridge, #4 Stillwater, #20 CDH, #5 Eagan (sections)
Unranked Losses: None
Chanhassen
Ranked Wins: None
Ranked losses: #3 Stillwater, #18 Maple Grove, #6 Jefferson, #1 BSM, #16 Minnetonka
Unranked losses: None
White Bear Lake
Ranked Wins: #20 CDH
Ranked losses: #8 Eden Prairie, #12 Woodbury, #4 Stillwater (x2), #7 East Ridge, #5 Eagan
Unranked losses: Duluth
Centennial
Ranked Wins: None
Ranked losses: #1 BSM, #2 PL, #10 Edina, #18 Maple Grove, #15 Chanhassen
Unranked losses: Mahtomedi, Rogers
Moorhead
Ranked Wins: None
Ranked Losses: #12 Woodbury, #5 Eagan, #1 BSM
Unranked Losses: None
This final option looks like a great tournament… don’t get me wrong, but, doesn’t feel right leaving Centennial & Moorhead out. They won their sections. However, they lost all of their big games in the regular season, so, they could have had the opportunity if they won any of those. So maybe it is fair. Especially if we are putting less emphasis on something being coined a “playoff game”
I dunno. While I think that 4th option from a lacrosse perspective would be an epic tournament, when things come down to votes and subjectivity, it gets hard, especially in HS. At least the previous options gave AQs to section winners, so majority of the field was objective (win and you’re in) - but also pushes some other top teams in who play in harder sections.
At the end of the day, the best option is to win your games. Anyone can be beat. We saw it last year.