I would reduce the number of classes.

 

FB is the only hs sport in Ky that excludes any team from a playoff situation. Every team in every other sport starts anew at playoff time and gets a second chance.

But, you have to admit, those sports start the playoffs by all the district teams playing to see who makes it out of the district. Football starts it by traveling two hours. Not that I'm against it, but it is done differently with the district portion played in the regular season, not the post season.

Either #2 or #3, reason being that either would eliminate a very probable 1 vs. 4 blowout which imo doesn't help either team. The 1 seed gets basically nothing from the game other than another practice and the 4 seed usually gets blasted so bad it's humiliating/embarrassment to the kids. There are some possible exceptions but imo very few. Another thing is that should the #3 / two team playoff be chosen then imo it could possibly give teams the option to schedule another regular season game, imo weaker (4th place district) teams would still get another game in their season without what imo a game vs. a one seed that no one benefits from.

 

#2.... This would reward the district champion with a bye week, putting more meaning to a district championship.

#3.).... This would narrow the playoffs even further and would put the two best in each district advancing, putting even more emphasis on the district/regular season.

 

When the districts/playoff system was first put in place in 1975 (I believe that was the year) only the district champion advanced. I prefer 2 or 3 due to that would still give a very good team / district favorite a chance to redeem themselves from an upset/bad week costing them in the district season and involve another team or two to experience playoff competition.

I would prefer option #2 due to it rewards the district champion with a first round bye.

Here is the bottom line: Money. Even if a top seed such as Trinity, plays the four seed (Little Sisters of the Poor) in round one, they will still make money! In the end, thats all that matters, good or bad.

^ You nailed it my friend.....it's all about the $$.

Another opinion of mine that I didn't mention specifically is that with most if not all 4 team districts statewide, a 4 team playoff could and has put and 0-10/1-9 team in the playoffs. That's ridiculous, imo the kids on the 0-10 team know they will be even further embarrassed by getting humiliated in a first round playoff vs. a one seed/ probable state top 5-10 ranked team in that particular classification.

When the districts/playoff system was first put in place in 1975 (I believe that was the year) only the district champion advanced.

 

The playoff system started in 1959 with four regions per class. That quickly went to districts and there were almost always 8 districts per class, with only the district champion making the playoffs. During the early-80s there were sub-districts in some regions and those champions made the playoffs. It wasn't until 1987 that two teams made the playoffs from each district. It was that way for four years, with 1991 being the first year four teams made the playoffs from each district.

 

I find it interesting that most people pine for the good ol' days of two teams per district making the playoffs when in fact that time period was only four years.

Another opinion of mine that I didn't mention specifically is that with most if not all 4 team districts statewide, a 4 team playoff could and has put and 0-10/1-9 team in the playoffs. That's ridiculous, imo the kids on the 0-10 team know they will be even further embarrassed by getting humiliated in a first round playoff vs. a one seed/ probable state top 5-10 ranked team in that particular classification.

 

I've said for years that there should be a requirement that each district has at least five teams in them. By having five teams, you would HAVE to beat AT LEAST one district opponent to make the playoffs.

^ You nailed it my friend.....it's all about the $$.

 

Yes, it is because a lot of AD do not get any funding from their school districts outside of coach's salaries. So, it is how they pay for not only football but the majority of the other sports.

The playoff system started in 1959 with four regions per class. That quickly went to districts and there were almost always 8 districts per class, with only the district champion making the playoffs. During the early-80s there were sub-districts in some regions and those champions made the playoffs. It wasn't until 1987 that two teams made the playoffs from each district. It was that way for four years, with 1991 being the first year four teams made the playoffs from each district.

 

I find it interesting that most people pine for the good ol' days of two teams per district making the playoffs when in fact that time period was only four years.

:thumb: Thanks, I definitely misspoke in describing what I was trying to say. Of course there were playoffs before 75'. I remember when they went to the two teams advancing as well. I liked that format but if it were me I would go with three advancing, awarding the district champion with a first round bye. I have said that for years.

 

I've said for years that there should be a requirement that each district has at least five teams in them. By having five teams, you would HAVE to beat AT LEAST one district opponent to make the playoffs.

 

:thumb: Everyone advancing, to me anyway, is a joke.

Lots of interesting discussion here.

 

The 2012 KHSAA webpage with the results of the questions posed said the consensus is that there is no consensus. That was not really the case. There were patterns.

 

Coaches want 4 teams in - period. Most other positions also want 4 teams. So 4 teams is staying.

Everyone except coaches want in-district playoffs.

Coaches are very against in-district playoffs.

 

 

If you stay with 6 classes (and that seems to be set in stone currently) and you keep 8 districts in each class the question becomes do you want to:

 

a) Keep the current format

b) Go to a 4-week, 96 team format.

c) Go to a 5-week, 144 team format with the bye-week for the district champ.

 

The problem is that b and c both go against what most key positions favor and what coaches heavily favor - 4 teams.

 

The thing with the current system is that is very predictable and thus the pattern is set before the season even starts. The fact is - most programs keep their relative strength most years. And lesser programs are probably not pulling new talent and skills if they a) are one of the unlucky teams that do not make the playoffs in the current format (around 35 or so) and b) get beat the first round every year.

 

A twist on the current format may be to still do the cross districts but put the regular season district winners on either side of the bracket and then blind draw the other 6 slots. This would ensure you would not have the district winners playing each other in the first round but would add some variability. It is also a compromise between the 'in-district' vs. 'cross-district' question. The regular season district winner should get something for their district championship. And they would be guaranteed not to meet their paired counter part until the 3rd round.

 

This would at least provide some variability to the playoffs each year. And create some 'news' when the draws are done. It also provides some hope to the lesser programs that they may have a chance to at least win a playoff game if they do not get paired with the district champs the first round.

 

Just another idea to throw out...

But, you have to admit, those sports start the playoffs by all the district teams playing to see who makes it out of the district. Football starts it by traveling two hours. Not that I'm against it, but it is done differently with the district portion played in the regular season, not the post season.

 

I admit that, but isn't it just bb,baseball and soccer. It seems the other sports go straight to a "regional"

I don't think the number of teams getting in is the problem more so than the way they do the playoffs.

Why not have a district playoff for each district with the top 4 teams and then you will have a district playoff champion after 2 weeks and move on to regional playoffs from there?

 

They did what you just suggested for a few years in the mid 2000's. However I know most people like playing another district to start the playoffs, and that is why they went back to it instead of playing your own district first in the playoffs. I personally also love the fact of getting to see other teams in the playoffs first.

 

I do agree with you on that I would hate if they went to only 2 teams making it, I wouldn't like it all and your Cooper example is a great example of that. I really liked when they just had 4 football classes and 4 teams making it, because you still had to earn your way in and didn't automatically make it. I would rather them go back to 4 classes or at least down to 5 classes. If they stick to 6, then I think having only 3 teams make it would be good. This way you still have to earn you way in, and also even in Coopers case last year they still would have been in even with how the tiebreaker work. So no real top teams would be left out that way because of a tiebreaker.

Here is the bottom line: Money. Even if a top seed such as Trinity, plays the four seed (Little Sisters of the Poor) in round one, they will still make money! In the end, thats all that matters, good or bad.

On the surface, this sounds correct, but it has been my experience that it is not and here's why: We are normally a one or two seed and win the first playoff game by a large margin and it's expected by both teams. The visiting team, many times, brings a VERY small crowd and some of our normal fans go and watch another game that may be more competitive. This brings the gait money way down. The home team has to pay the travel for the visiting team. It has been my experience that we lose money on that first round game.

On the surface, this sounds correct, but it has been my experience that it is not and here's why: We are normally a one or two seed and win the first playoff game by a large margin and it's expected by both teams. The visiting team, many times, brings a VERY small crowd and some of our normal fans go and watch another game that may be more competitive. This brings the gait money way down. The home team has to pay the travel for the visiting team. It has been my experience that we lose money on that first round game.

 

:thumb: Very good points. I really like the idea of three teams advancing from each district. That format would a.) reward the district champion by a 1st round bye b.) eliminate that 1seed vs. 4seed / 1st round matchup that benefits no one.

JMO of course and that plus $1 will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonalds. :idunno:

The #1 vs #4 blowout is the worst argument to restrict teams getting in the playoffs, IMO.

 

There are blowouts in the first round of the playoffs in all HS sports, but no one gets up in arms over that.

 

No one as ever demonstrated that there are more injuries in these games, in cases of blow outs the winning teams call off the dogs pretty quick and start subbing in nearly all games that I've seen.

 

If we are going to use attendance as a measuring stick for playing these games, you better not go to 1st round baseball games. I've seen 1st round district games with less than 75 people at them.

 

Bottom line for me is what does it hurt to allow four teams per district in the playoffs? Nothing! I love HS football and the more football the better, I for the life of me don't know why anyone (except for those that cry about it cutting into basketball practice) would want less.