High school football: Strength of schedule unveiled

SALTLAKECITY— College football’s perennial villain has finally been put to rest. The BCS has fallen. Now, the only thing left on the to-do list is to find the biggest punch bucket and light some firecrackers. Let’s party hardy.

In the new four-team playoff format the selection committee will place a major emphasis on strength of schedule. This will encourage a more compelling non-conference schedule for teams vying for the coveted playoff spots.

Lucky us, right? That means fans won’t be encumbered with Oregon’s innocuous 2012 non-conference slate of Arkansas State, Fresno State and Tennessee Tech anymore. Phew! (Wiping sweat off forehead).

Thankfully high school football has never endured postseason controversy like its next-level counterpart. For high school teams, qualifying for the playoffs is elementary to figure out. Win enough games in region play and voila – welcome to the big show.

What if it did matter though? What if the UHSAA formed a selection committee and hand-picked programs that qualified for the postseason in each classification strictly based on win-loss records, strength of schedule and difficulty of in-region competition? In order to eliminate programs from participating with losing records, the playoff bracket would be trimmed down to eight.

Using the 2011 5A bracket as an example, the eight top teams, in no particular order, that qualified for postseason play were: Lone Peak, Bingham, Alta, Fremont, Jordan, Viewmont, Northridge and Syracuse. The eight programs combined for an overall record of 76-23.

Left on the outside looking in – West, Cottonwood, Brighton, Davis, Kearns, Hunter, American Fork and Riverton’s seasons would have ended early. Those eight programs tallied an overall record of 38-45 with four teams competing with losing records.

This format could potentially spare the embarrassment of high school athletes and at least lopsided outcomes would be less frequent. In the six games featuring one of the teams eliminated in the hypothetical format – the top eight went a perfect 6-0; outscoring their opponents 244-80. The only successful game featured West and Riverton; a game the Panthers won 21-10. Nonetheless, both teams were not eligible for postseason according to this structure.

That’s some pretty tasty brain food to think on.

***
The 2012 season is approaching quickly as the Deseret News is preparing to release the preseason analysis of all 102 Utah high school football programs in the coming weeks.

Relating back to the college-based playoff format – high school teams would be selected for postseason play primarily based on win-loss records. But, say nine teams are equally qualified simply based on wins and losses? And head-to-head competition isn’t available?

Therein lies the rub.

The first order of business to break this theoretical tiebreaker is to identify the preseason strength of schedule.

The NCAA uses two different methods for determining the SOS; one formula for preseason and one for after the season has concluded. In the preseason equation, the NCAA computes the record of every opponent from the previous season, divides the number of wins by the total games played for a percentage.

By loosely following the same criteria, considering the commonalities and differences in comparing high school and college schedules, the Deseret News ranked the 2012 schedules 1-100 (Note: Summit Academy will compete in its inaugural season this year, whereas Whitehorse has yet to submit an entire schedule. Monument Valley’s opponents’ statistics weren’t readily available; therefore the schedule was left off the list).

Various changes were implied to properly accentuate the high school game. The exact formula exercised was:
1. The records of each opponent in 2011 were computed. The number of wins was divided by the total games played for a percentage.

2. Extra percentage points were given to teams that were successful in the postseason, continuously increasing with the number of wins in the playoffs. (This applied to out of state opponents, too).

3. Percentage points were awarded to teams based on 2011 state rankings on Maxpreps.com. Programs rated in the Top 10 received the highest boost. Then, teams that occupied positions of 11-25; 26-50; 51-75 and 76-101 experienced a substantial decrease of bonus percentage points from group to group.

4. Strength of region play was taken into consideration after studying data stretching back to 2001. Six regions were determined to be notably more successful than the rest of the state: Region’s 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Programs with membership to those specific regions acquired a slim percentage increase.

5. Classification was emphasized – wins were weighted significantly more in 5A and 4A compared to 2A and 1A.

6. And lastly, location. Road games received a higher percent increase than running out of the home tunnel on Friday nights.

The results were typically expected. There were certain anomalies that occurred, however. Unlike college football were every program plays the same amount of regular season games, high school schedules are extremely sporadic. Teams in the lower classifications opponents’ generally played fewer games than those in the more populated schools. This greatly influenced the percentage from a win-loss standpoint.

Also, needing acknowledgement, teams either suffered or benefited from not having to play themselves. (Note – several programs scheduled JV opponents in 2012, therefore without any varsity statistics it greatly decreased the strength of schedule. Summit Academy also had the same effect).

***
The statistics have been crammed – the results are in. When observing the SOS, take into account – what if it played a considerable influence on postseason participation? What if the world of high school collided with college and SOS was a crucial element for unraveling tiebreakers?

Also, don’t forget it’s factually based on statistics and these are not definitive results. The schedules are still left up for interpretation because of the extensive turnover rate of high school athletics. Chase Hansen and DJ Nelson aren’t enrolled in school anymore, therefore Lone Peak and Logan might not be as threatening this season.

Try not to take it too seriously, peeps. It’s a preseason poll, right? Right. Now that we’ve got that out of the way – shall we?

The only two teams that surpassed the 70 percent plateau both ironically play in Region 3. Cottonwood topped the list for the hardest schedule in 2012 at 75.93 percent followed by Alta at 71.12 percent.

The Colts, whom have experienced a tumultuous off-season, will embark through a murderous schedule under new coach Greg Croshaw’s leadership. Cottonwood plays five teams that won nine or more games and opens up with road trips against defending 4A state champion Logan and Davis.

Then, intermittently scattered home games against Skyline, Washington, ex-BYU quarterback Jake Heaps Alma matter that finished 11-3 and ranked 53rd nationally, Bingham, Jordan and Alta make appearances on the hardest schedule in the state.

The Hawks have no opportunity for rest either with every week bringing yet another juggernaut. In the last year before Alta separates to form Draper High, the 5A power opens up at Timpview before the annual Black and Blue matchup against Bingham. Road games against Olympus and Jordan introduce the premier game in the state against the USA Today 2011 National Champion, Don Bosco, N.J. – winners of 46-consecutive games.

Layton (67.30%) and West Jordan (66.62%) follow suit before three straight 4A teams – Skyline (65.84%), Bountiful (65.79%) and Logan (65.50%) – check in at the fifth, sixth and seventh positions. Desert Hills (65.47%), at No. 8, has the most difficult schedule in 3A while Cedar (63.58%) ranks No. 10 on the list.

The highest ranking for 2A surprisingly crept up to No. 14 as North Summit (63.09%) travels to reigning 2A and 1A champions – Manti and Duchesne along with 2A runner-up Millard. Altamont (57.88%) tops the list for 1A schools – ranking 34th on the list.

The 5A dominated the landscape, controlling 56 percent of the top 25 spots. In total, 5A produced 21 out of the top 50 hardest schedules; followed by 4A (12), 3A (10), 2A (5) and 1A (2).

***
It’s bologna to believe the UHSAA would ever abandon the current playoff procedures – and in the case of high school athletics it’s the perfect approach. It gives leeway to teams like the 2011 Hunter squad, which towards the end of the season seemingly grew into its own shoes, the opportunity to play the best team in the state on the state’s biggest stage. It allows for conceivably maddening first round upsets.

Plus, underdogs are ticklishly fun.

But, on the other hand, it’s plausible that different formulas – similar to the college game and beyond – could possibly create more enticing, more discriminating systems for playoff worthy teams that would better serve the high school game.

The bottom line is strength of schedule doesn’t matter in high school – other than calibrating teams for the intensity of playoff atmospheres. Nonetheless, it’s not like anyone is complaining about it, either. The current status quo avoids controversy and the relaxation that comes with the system is quite refreshing. But, at the same time, it doesn’t hurt to think…

What if?

Email: tphibbs@desnews.com

2012 High School Strength of Schedule
State Ranking; Percentage

5A
1. Cottonwood; 75.93%
2. Alta; 71.12%
3. Layton; 67.30%
4. West Jordan; 66.62%
9. Fremont; 65.01%
11. Northridge; 63.36%
12. Bingham; 63.27%
13. Riverton; 63.22%
16. Jordan; 62.62%
18. West; 62.34%
19. Weber; 61.50%
21. Brighton; 60.56%
22. Lehi; 60.59%
25. American Fork; 59.37%
27. Lone Peak; 59.21%
28. Syracuse; 59.09%
36. Davis; 57.25%
46. Copper Hills; 54.95%
48. Pleasant Grove; 53.77%
49. Taylorsville; 53.32%
51. Kearns; 53.14%
71. Hunter; 47.57%
88. Viewmont; 44.15%
92. Granger; 43.29%

4A
5. Skyline; 65.84%
6. Bountiful; 65.79%
7. Logan; 65.50%
15. Highland; 62.81%
17. Mountain Crest; 62.38%
20. Woods Cross; 61.06%
26. East; 59.35%
30. Sky View; 58.80%
33. Clearfield; 58.03%
39. Springville: 57.05%
41. Roy; 56.33%
42. Westlake; 56.29%
45. Box Elder; 55.14%
53. Timpview; 52.72%
57. Salem Hills; 52.17%
59. Olympus; 51.20%
61. Murray; 50.03%
64. Mountain View; 49.54%
66. Cyprus; 49.20%
67. Provo; 48.46%
70. Herriman; 48.05%
73. Bonneville; 47.30%
79. Orem; 45.95%
94. Timpanogos; 42.92%
96. Maple Mountain; 41.69%
99. Hillcrest; 40.19%

3A
8. Desert Hills; 65.47%
10. Cedar; 63.58%
23. Pine View; 60.50%
24. Canyon View; 59.80%
31. Snow Canyon; 58.35%
32. Uintah; 58.09%
37. Park City; 57.23%
38. Delta; 57.09%
40. Spanish Fork; 56.50%
47. Dixie; 54.76%
52. Hurricane; 52.80%
62. Payson; 49.68%
65. Morgan; 49.20%
69. Juab; 48.22%
74. Bear River; 46.78%
75. Wasatch; 46.76%
76. Ogden; 46.31%
77. Stansbury; 46.15
81. North Sanpete; 45.52%
82. Juan Diego; 45.45%
83. Grantsville; 45.14%
87. Judge Memorial; 44.23%
89. Ben Lomond; 44.14%
91. Tooele; 43.58%
98. Carbon; 41.13%
100. Union; 40.01%

2A
14. North Summit; 63.09%
29. Manti; 59.07%
35. American Leadership; 57.34%
43. Gunnison; 55.78%
44. North Sevier; 55.68%
54. Millard; 52.52%
55. Emery; 52.50%
56. South Summit; 52.45%
60. Grand; 50.79%
63. Parowan; 49.57%
84. Enterprise; 44.78%
85. Richfield; 44.75%
86. South Sevier; 44.35%
90. Beaver; 44.07%
93. San Juan; 43.01%
95. Kanab; 42.11%

1A
34. Altamont; 57.88%
50. Milford; 53.31%
58. Summit Academy; 51.46%
68. Rich; 48.24%
72. Monticello; 47.52%
78. Diamond Ranch; 46.01%
80. Layton Christian; 45.62%
97. Duchesne; 41.16%