It may promote a more carefree attitude for districts that only have 4 teams, I can understand that point. But for districts that have more than 4 teams then you are punishing them by taking away 2 teams from entering the playoffs. Sure some districts that only have 4 teams could probably care less, but that doesn't mean the ones with more than 4 don't take their district games more serious because I know for a fact they do. district games mean everything to them because they know if they don't win a district game they will be out of the playoffs.

 

So maybe that is where the problem lies and you pointed it out to me and makes me understand a little better. I am in a district that doesn't have the luxury of every team making the playoffs and that is why my vision is so different than others. What the state needs to do is combine some districts or something to make each district have at least 5 teams or even 6. that would solve a lot of the problems I believe.

 

When there are districts out there that only have 4 teams and other districts that have 6 teams, well that is the problem.

 

A solution that wont happen is 5 classes. 1A 40 teams and 5A 40 teams, 5 per district. It would probably cause some travel problems but doable. This would leave about 47 teams for other 3 classes with 5-6 teams per district. Then all districts would have to win a game to get into playoffs.

It may promote a more carefree attitude for districts that only have 4 teams, I can understand that point. But for districts that have more than 4 teams then you are punishing them by taking away 2 teams from entering the playoffs. Sure some districts that only have 4 teams could probably care less, but that doesn't mean the ones with more than 4 don't take their district games more serious because I know for a fact they do. district games mean everything to them because they know if they don't win a district game they will be out of the playoffs.

 

So maybe that is where the problem lies and you pointed it out to me and makes me understand a little better. I am in a district that doesn't have the luxury of every team making the playoffs and that is why my vision is so different than others. What the state needs to do is combine some districts or something to make each district have at least 5 teams or even 6. that would solve a lot of the problems I believe.

 

When there are districts out there that only have 4 teams and other districts that have 6 teams, well that is the problem.

 

And that is why I have stated reduce the number Divisions to four and increase the size of the number of Districts to six!

 

No longer will teams have to worry about scheduling games, no longer will the District games mean nothing and more importantly fans will come to those first round games as they will be competitive!

And that is why I have stated reduce the number Divisions to four and increase the size of the number of Districts to six!

 

No longer will teams have to worry about scheduling games, no longer will the District games mean nothing and more importantly fans will come to those first round games as they will be competitive!

Now that I would be 110% behind.

 

I didn't even think about all the districts with only 4 teams in them and now understand why some are upset about 4 teams in the playoffs. If each district had 6 teams it would be much much better

A solution that wont happen is 5 classes. 1A 40 teams and 5A 40 teams, 5 per district. It would probably cause some travel problems but doable. This would leave about 47 teams for other 3 classes with 5-6 teams per district. Then all districts would have to win a game to get into playoffs.

 

I could live with that. Much better than the only 2 teams get in idea.

The big difference is there are only 15 teams in the National League. If there were only 15 teams in every class of football I would agree with you, but the fact that there are a lot more makes your point moot. Also another huge difference in Major League Baseball and the NFL go by overall record, not record in their individual division. If you went by overall record in high school football you may have more ammunition to back your idea of only 2 teams per district or more so 3 each district. But the fact that HS Football doesn't take into account the actual overall record at all makes any comparison to the major league sports null and void.

 

I didn't say National league. I said one of the best records in baseball (all teams) and they may have to sit out. Also, the numbers are irrelevant. Even if you have more teams in high school football, more teams make the playoffs in HS football than in the National league. So the example is still appliciable.

 

In the NFL, your conference record does have a say in if you make the playoffs at the end of the day. Overall record is the first criteria, but then it goes to inter conference record. So if you don't do well in your conference and tie in overall record, you'll be watching. Also, in the NFL, each team within a conference play the same teams in that year. That does allow them to use overall record because they are measured against the same team, which essentially is their district for that year. If they lose to one of the teams that another conference team beats, that could be their "must win" game and if they don't win (against the same competition), then they watch the playoffs.

 

The point, all sports are setup to have "must win" games and if you don't win them, you're out! It's that simple. If you're in a tough district, then you better figure out how to be better than the other teams in the district. Look at your district in bball, baseball, softball and other sports. Only two move out of district to region. Sometimes in your district, you have all very good teams that could make a run. But only two move on and the others watch. In softball, Boone, Conner and Ryle were 3 of the top four teams in the 9th region. Ryle lost in the district and was left to watch. Ryle was much better than a couple teams that competed for the region title, but never got a chance.

Most schools "need" the additional playoff games to financially support their overall athletic department budgets. Boys basketball and football cover all, or the majority of, the athletic costs of not only their sport but ALL the other sports.

 

 

Please, do not bring up "meaningful" district games when talking football...unless we are going to bring other sports into the mix and all the "meaningful" regular season district games they play.

I didn't say National league. I said one of the best records in baseball (all teams) and they may have to sit out. Also, the numbers are irrelevant. Even if you have more teams in high school football, more teams make the playoffs in HS football than in the National league. So the example is still appliciable.

 

In the NFL, your conference record does have a say in if you make the playoffs at the end of the day. Overall record is the first criteria, but then it goes to inter conference record. So if you don't do well in your conference and tie in overall record, you'll be watching. Also, in the NFL, each team within a conference play the same teams in that year. That does allow them to use overall record because they are measured against the same team, which essentially is their district for that year. If they lose to one of the teams that another conference team beats, that could be their "must win" game and if they don't win (against the same competition), then they watch the playoffs.

 

The point, all sports are setup to have "must win" games and if you don't win them, you're out! It's that simple. If you're in a tough district, then you better figure out how to be better than the other teams in the district. Look at your district in bball, baseball, softball and other sports. Only two move out of district to region. Sometimes in your district, you have all very good teams that could make a run. But only two move on and the others watch. In softball, Boone, Conner and Ryle were 3 of the top four teams in the 9th region. Ryle lost in the district and was left to watch. Ryle was much better than a couple teams that competed for the region title, but never got a chance.

 

 

But all those teams are in the playoffs, so yes those are must win games. The regular season games are not must win in any sport but football for those with more than 4 teams in a district.

I can see the argument against 6 classes. I just don't see the argument against 4 teams making it into the playoffs from each district, mainly because the same people who are against the 4 team rule say nothing when it comes to other high school sports in the state. In reality there are less football teams that make it to the playoffs than baseball teams and basketball teams.

 

So, you just voided your argument for playing as much football as possible. You just cut the number of kids getting to play "Extra Games" by 33%. I guess that wasn't that strong of an argument after all.

 

It's funny because my problem with your reasoning is just that, because it's silly reasoning. You say we use "fluke" examples and make it sound like it doesn't happen very often when in reality it happens a ton.

 

Just last year there were 4 districts in the state that had teams tied in district games records. 4A dist 1 had 3 teams tied with same record for 1st, 4A dist 4 had 2 teams tied for 2nd, 5A dist 5 had 3 teams tied for 1st, 6A dist 7 had 3 teams tied for 2nd. So for something you claim is a fluke actually happens a lot more than you even realize.

 

So out of 220 Teams, you found 5 teams last year that would have been kept out of a 2 team system. In statistics we still call those exceptions. I'm ok with saying tuff nuggets, if you tie your district play, then you you leave it up to a tie-breaker or even a coin flip. My main point is, and will always be, that District Games have consequences, so you should WIN them. Perhaps if the consequences were greater we wouldn't have even the few the ties we do. A passive attitude towards district play yields mediocrity.

 

I am selfish. The only reason I really want fewer teams is so we can get it back to Thanksgiving weekend. Being a supporter of a Class A school has always meant that we play early on Friday. As a result, we have a lot less fans that are able to make it to the Championships now that it is a week later. I just liked the tradition of it being on Thanksgiving weekend.

It may promote a more carefree attitude for districts that only have 4 teams, I can understand that point. But for districts that have more than 4 teams then you are punishing them by taking away 2 teams from entering the playoffs. Sure some districts that only have 4 teams could probably care less, but that doesn't mean the ones with more than 4 don't take their district games more serious because I know for a fact they do. district games mean everything to them because they know if they don't win a district game they will be out of the playoffs.

 

So maybe that is where the problem lies and you pointed it out to me and makes me understand a little better. I am in a district that doesn't have the luxury of every team making the playoffs and that is why my vision is so different than others. What the state needs to do is combine some districts or something to make each district have at least 5 teams or even 6. that would solve a lot of the problems I believe.

 

When there are districts out there that only have 4 teams and other districts that have 6 teams, well that is the problem.

 

I agree with this and this is why there are so many different opinions on this subject. If their weren't 6 classes and each district had more than 4 teams and the 4 teams that made the playoffs were competitive, we'd never have this conversation.

 

I'm all about giving kids an opportunity to "play another game" or continue their season if they earned it. But do you really think a kid from Pendleton really wants to travel to a Highlands or Lex Cath (or fill in the blank) to get to "play another game"? I don't think so. I'm sure there are exceptions like the Cooper example last year, but they are exceptions. You're never going to convince me that in 85% of the first round blowouts that the kids really wanted to play that game just to keep their season alive. No kid wants to get blown out. No kid wants to play just to play. They want to play to win and when they know (kids aren't stupid) they have 0 chance to win in most of these cases, they don't want any part of playing that game. Some may, but the majority of the team doesn't. It's reality.

I didn't say National league. I said one of the best records in baseball (all teams) and they may have to sit out. Also, the numbers are irrelevant. Even if you have more teams in high school football, more teams make the playoffs in HS football than in the National league. So the example is still appliciable.

 

In the NFL, your conference record does have a say in if you make the playoffs at the end of the day. Overall record is the first criteria, but then it goes to inter conference record. So if you don't do well in your conference and tie in overall record, you'll be watching. Also, in the NFL, each team within a conference play the same teams in that year. That does allow them to use overall record because they are measured against the same team, which essentially is their district for that year. If they lose to one of the teams that another conference team beats, that could be their "must win" game and if they don't win (against the same competition), then they watch the playoffs.

 

The point, all sports are setup to have "must win" games and if you don't win them, you're out! It's that simple. If you're in a tough district, then you better figure out how to be better than the other teams in the district. Look at your district in bball, baseball, softball and other sports. Only two move out of district to region. Sometimes in your district, you have all very good teams that could make a run. But only two move on and the others watch. In softball, Boone, Conner and Ryle were 3 of the top four teams in the 9th region. Ryle lost in the district and was left to watch. Ryle was much better than a couple teams that competed for the region title, but never got a chance.

 

The NFL as you said uses overall record as the 1st criteria. That was my point. In the 2 team playoff scenerio a team that has a record of 9-1 could be left out of the playoffs to 2 teams that have worse records, that was my point. You brought up professional sports so I used your scenario in the debate.

 

You mention baseball and softball etc. but you fail to realize that EVERY team makes the playoffs in those sports. Again another poor example to use as comparison.

But all those teams are in the playoffs, so yes those are must win games. The regular season games are not must win in any sport but football for those with more than 4 teams in a district.

 

They are must wins in regular season because they seed your district. When only two teams pass on to the region, seeding in the district becomes very important. That's what makes it so competitive. You can't afford to lose district games during the season or in the district tournament.

The NFL as you said uses overall record as the 1st criteria. That was my point. In the 2 team playoff scenerio a team that has a record of 9-1 could be left out of the playoffs to 2 teams that have worse records, that was my point. You brought up professional sports so I used your scenario in the debate.

 

You mention baseball and softball etc. but you fail to realize that EVERY team makes the playoffs in those sports. Again another poor example to use as comparison.

 

In baseball and softball, you're right, every team makes the district tournament and are seeded by what they did in the season against those district teams. However, they don't advance out of their district without being 1 or 2. In football, 4 teams advance out of their district. Just because the sports are set up a little different, we are still comparing "advancing out of your district". How the different sports determine that is irrelevant. It's about advancing out of your district. You can't play the number of games in football as you can the others sports. So yes, it's a little different, but same philosophy. Your district games in football are "must wins" just like softball and baseball. If you don't win them, you put yourself in a position to leave it to fate. Like all sports.

Most schools "need" the additional playoff games to financially support their overall athletic department budgets. Boys basketball and football cover all, or the majority of, the athletic costs of not only their sport but ALL the other sports.

 

 

Please, do not bring up "meaningful" district games when talking football...unless we are going to bring other sports into the mix and all the "meaningful" regular season district games they play.

 

I think what a lot of people are saying is that extra game isn't bringing in money. Or in some cases its costing money. If you are a team that is weak and have to travel to lets say Johnson Central to get beat 72-0, how is that cost benefitial to the weak team that had to pay to transport them all the way down their to play in front of none of their own fans and a depleted home fan base.

 

And even if you're the host team in that situation, you still have bills to pay and no one shows up. I'm not sure you make money and may even lose money in that case. I don't really know.

I think what a lot of people are saying is that extra game isn't bringing in money. Or in some cases its costing money. If you are a team that is weak and have to travel to lets say Johnson Central to get beat 72-0, how is that cost benefitial to the weak team that had to pay to transport them all the way down their to play in front of none of their own fans and a depleted home fan base.

 

And even if you're the host team in that situation, you still have bills to pay and no one shows up. I'm not sure you make money and may even lose money in that case. I don't really know.

Who cares about the money, the kids don't play for money. That is a horrible reason. As I said already, if you don't want to play in the playoffs then don't play or even better if you can't afford to play then why have a football team in the first place? Money shouldn't be the factor that determines the playoffs and as I already stated before then have a district playoffs the first 2 weeks to determine who goes to regionals.

In baseball and softball, you're right, every team makes the district tournament and are seeded by what they did in the season against those district teams. However, they don't advance out of their district without being 1 or 2. In football, 4 teams advance out of their district. Just because the sports are set up a little different, we are still comparing "advancing out of your district". How the different sports determine that is irrelevant. It's about advancing out of your district. You can't play the number of games in football as you can the others sports. So yes, it's a little different, but same philosophy. Your district games in football are "must wins" just like softball and baseball. If you don't win them, you put yourself in a position to leave it to fate. Like all sports.

 

The first games in football playoffs are called districts also, so I am not sure what is meant by advancing out of districts when comparing one sport to the other. My point was that in all the other sports but football every team is in the playoff if you have more than 4 teams in your district.