The regular high school basketball season won’t begin for another week. But Twin Harbors fans can be excused for already wondering how changes in the state’s regional/state format will impact area teams.
Beset with complaints over the demise of 16-team state tournaments and seemingly unjust regional pairings, the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association scrapped its previous format of single-elimination regionals followed by eight-team state tournaments.
It was replaced by a complex model that will feature two-tiered regionals and 12-team state tournaments that will go into effect this season. My colleague Rob Burns thoroughly outlined the changes in a column that appeared Oct. 4.
In short, the state will use a Rating Computerized Index (RPI) to seed the top 16 teams in each classification. The top eight teams will square off (No. 1 vs. No. 8 seed, No. 2 vs. No. 7, etc.) in the double-elimination portion of regionals, with the winners earning state quarterfinal berths. The losers of those games also advance but must play loser-out first-round contests in four-day, 12-team state tourneys.
The 9-16 seeds in each class will meet in loser-out regional games, with the winners filling out the opening-round state brackets.
I’m cautiously optimistic that this will be a positive development. While it doesn’t match the 16-team tournament experience, it appears to be a better format than most of the proposed alternatives.
There are, however, several questions that probably won’t be answered until next March. Here are a few, with some answers — and the customary amount of opinions injected.
Q — Isn’t this the same format in which Aberdeen’s boys won the 1982 state championship?
A — Not quite. Seeded into a double-elimination bracket by virtue of their district championship, the Bobcats did survive a regional loss to North Kitsap (a defeat they avenged in the state semifinals) to go all the way that year.
The difference is that the Cats could have been eliminated at regionals had they lost to Gig Harbor the night after the North Kitsap defeat. Under the current format, they would have qualified for state without a second regional contest, but would have played one more game than North Kitsap at state.
Q — A previous, short-lived two-tiered regional format was confusing to fans. Won’t this be the same?
A — Perhaps. But one reason the previous format was baffling was that some teams played twice and others only once at regionals. Under this system, each qualifier will face only one regional test — although some games will be loser-out and others won’t.
Q — One proposed alternative was to create 16-team single-elimination state tournaments spread over two weeks. Wouldn’t this have been a better format?
A — Not in my book. One major philosophical difference I have with WIAA leadership is in the value of losers bracket state games — seen by state administrators as financially unfeasible but often satisfying to the players involved.
Lake Quinault’s boys, for example, decisively lost first-round state contests to high-ranked opponents in 2009 and 2010. The Elks won a pair of loser-out contests both years, however, to earn eighth-place state trophies. That in itself made the state appearances worthwhile.
Trekking across the mountains for one state contest — or for two consecutive weeks — doesn’t make much sense.
Q — An initial draft of the state draw created a strong possibility of the state quarterfinalists facing the same teams they played at regionals. Has that been fixed?
A — Yes. After that possibility was called to their attention, WIAA administrators tweaked the brackets to prevent such immediate rematches from transpiring.
Q — The RPI rankings will be administered by the MaxPreps national online service instead of a committee similar to that utilized for the college football playoffs. Why MaxPreps?
A — “It had to be a collecting agency to get all the data,” WIAA Executive Director Mike Colbrese said last week. “(MaxPreps) has a lot of state associations for which they do similar work.”
While Colbrese didn’t say it, a state committee making the rankings increases the possibility of regional bias. Such a committee was recently appointed, but only to oversee the process and recommend future changes. It will have no role, at least for the time being, in the RPI rankings.
One concern is that MaxPreps, an exceptionally accurate service for high school football, has historically been much less reliable in recording basketball scores.
For example, MaxPreps has already credited Montesano’s girls basketball team with a 49-0 victory over Elma (not coincidentally, the identical score of the Monte-Elma football game). Elma coaches and administrators might want to correct that entry as soon as possible.
Q — What’s the biggest potential flaw in the RPI rankings?
A — That there is no particular reward for playing higher-classification teams in non-league games. The rankings are based on each team’s record, plus the record of its opponent and its opponent’s opponents. Under this system, a Class 1A team is theoretically better off playing a 2B opponent with a 12-8 record rather than a 10-10 Class 4A team.
Colbrese defended this formula as placing a greater emphasis on league performance. It still appears to be something that needs to be addressed in the future.
Ironically, such highly regarded teams as Hoquiam’s boys and Montesano’s girls probably benefit from the formula. If classification credits were added to the equation, larger schools would be reluctant to schedule top 1A teams for non-leaguers.
Q — Any other significant concerns?
A — To be honest, I have little faith in the WIAA determining logical, equitable sites for regional games — particularly now that additional cross-state trips presumably will be added to the equation.
Last season, for example, Taholah’s girls faced Neah Bay at regionals in Chehalis — which represented a 4-hour round trip for the Chitwhins and their followers and a probable overnight stay for Neah Bay. Hoquiam would have been a far superior regional venue for all parties.
From a geographic standpoint, Renton was a reasonable site for last season’s Hoquiam-Seattle Christian boys regional. Except that Renton High School was difficult to find, offered little on-site parking and had a staff that seemed to be surprised anyone showed up to watch or cover the game. Grays Harbor Radio’s Daniel Hargrove broadcast the game from a jerry-rigged table situated behind the baseline in the gym’s balcony.
Q — Since postseason contests aren’t included in the RPI formula, a regional qualifier could be seeded below a team it beat at district. Isn’t that a shortcoming?
A — I don’t have a problem with it. One difficulty in the past is that not all district tournaments are created equally, which is one reason why an unbeaten Montesano girls team faced reigning state champion Lynden Christian in a loser-out regional game in 2015.
Under this system, regular-season performance will be rewarded. Teams that come out of nowhere to record a high district finish still have the opportunity to make it to state.
Q — What will be the weirdest facet of this format?
A — That not only supporters of winning teams in regional games will chant “On to state!,” but the backers of the losing teams in some contests might offer similar cheers.
