Although the recently announced changes to the prep football playoffs in Iowa will not take place until the 2016 season, the repercussions of shrinking the field from 32 to 16 teams in each class are already beginning to be felt.
The IHSAA will re-draw districts in early 2016 for the 2016-17 season, but it has not been decided exactly how the 16 qualifiers in each of the six classes will be determined.
“I am a member of the Iowa Football Coaches Association Board of Directors, and we met June 7 at Prairie Meadows,” Woodward-Granger head coach George Ashman said. “At that point, we (the coaches) had no idea that Boone (the IHSAA) was going to change the playoff system.”
“I can tell you I have dozens and dozens of emails from angry coaches from all over the state,” Ashman added. “No one saw this coming. We voted to maintain the nine-game schedule after discussing possibly moving to an eight-game schedule. I know I did not — and from the reaction I have received, almost no coach I know — ever thought the state was going to keep nine games as it is now and just cut 16 teams out of the playoffs.”
Perry head coach Jason Olejniczak said he was in the minority when voting among the coaches was done by survey.
“About 70 percent wanted to move up the start date (of practices and games) by a week, which would give more time to play the postseason while keeping 32 teams,” he said. “I didn’t like that idea because I felt it would crunch the available time for vacations for families who have boys playing baseball, but I was definitely in the minority.”
Olejniczak said he, too, was caught completely off-guard by the IHSAA decision to maintain the playoff start time for the season while trimming half of the qualifiers from the playoffs.
“I don’t think any of us (coaches) saw that coming,” he said. “I know for sure I was not asked for my opinion about it.”
IHSAA Alan Beste said in a widely reported press release, “The driving force behind this decision is player safety and keeping the best interest of our students at the forefront.”
The IHSAA Board of Control discussed the start date of football at their April 29 meeting and decided it would be prudent to gather input from the IHSAA members schools through three avenues: The IHSAA Representative Council, the IHSADA (athletic directors) and IFCA (coaches).
Concerns were voiced over the current playoff system, with some teams playing as often as three times in less than two weeks. Questions regarding player safety helped stir the conversation, the IHSSA noted.
A large-group collaborative discussion was held at the June 15 IHSAA Representative Council meeting. IHSADA and IFCA representatives studied the possible changes to the schedule, which the coaches insist did not include any discussion of postseason changes.
Following the meeting, the IHSAA Board of Control convened and voted unanimously to make the changes.
“I feel like they decided to go out on their own and do this,” Ashman said. “The real issue — and this was brought up at the IFCA meeting — is that the IHSAA is beholden to playing in the UNI-Dome, and that is what is compressing the end of the schedule.”
Olejniczak agreed, noting nearby states decide their state championships on the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving.
“As long as they refuse to leave the UNI-Dome, you won’t be able to do that, because UNI is not going to risk losing a possible playoff game,” he said. “I am sure they could find other sites. If other states can play outdoors, I think we can handle it, too.”
Adding an additional week onto the end of the schedule would allow the 32-team format to remain in place while not affecting the start of the season or generating the sudden concern over the compressed slate of games in the first three rounds.
Excluding Class 4A, the simplest formula would be to grant postseason slots to each district champion and runner-up, but even that move has its detractors.
“I am completely in favor of keeping 32 teams,” Ashman said. “You get better games at the end of the year because teams know they can still make it. You change this and a team goes out and loses two district games right off the bat, and what do they have to play for?”
“I understand the argument about a 5-4 team or even a 6-3 making it in, but you tell those kids they should not be in . . .” Ashman continued. “Going back to 16 is just going to create new problems. You can count on having some district with three 8-1 teams or a really good 7-2, and the district next door is not nearly as good, but their runner-up gets in automatically. How is that fair?”
A possibility would be to extend automatic bids to all district champions, then determine the remaining eight teams based on some form of mathematical points system.
“All that is going to do is create howls about protecting some teams or any other number of arguments,” Olejniczak said. “If I could do it myself, I would probably keep it at 32, but add on that week at the end.”
As both coaches noted, extending the season through the end of November would impact the wrestling and basketball programs at the schools involved.
“Remember that you are talking about 12 total schools, 24 if you count back to the semifinals (which would be played the third week of November)” Olejncizak said. “You think those schools will be upset about being in the football semifinals or championships?”
“Look at the other sports,” Ashman said. “Many of them are affected by how long another season lasts. Look at the impact soccer and track have on baseball and softball.”
While both coaches agreed emphasis needs to be placed on player safety, simply reducing the number of teams playing was not the path they — or, in their opinion, the majority of coaches across Iowa — would have chosen to take.
“It is what it is,” Ashman said. “There has been a lot of talk about making sure more kids get to have ‘the experience of playing in the postseason.’ I feel sorry for those kids two years from now who would have had that experience in 2015 but in 2016 will not.”
