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.

 

There is no guarantee that only taking two team from each district would improve attendance in situations where you have to travel 4 hours for a game.

 

In some rare cases I am sure that a team may lose money on the first round game. The traveling team is reimbursed their travel costs for the playoff games from the gate of the host team. The only teams that would or could lose money are the home teams.

 

I am confident that if it was common for teams to be losing money on the first round games that they would find a way to eliminate them.

 

So out of 220 Teams, you found 5 teams last year that would have been kept out of a 2 team system.

 

 

No, I found 11 teams that were tied to get in the playoffs in a 2 team system which proved your so called "fluke" not a fluke when it happens every year.

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.

 

Correct they do not play for money but it costs money for them to play.

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.

 

Okay, let's use this for the NFL example of must win games. If your division is setup to play another division that is very weak. And my division is setup to play very strong division this year. At the end of the year, your team makes the playoffs with a 10-6 record and I miss the playoffs with a 9-7 record. Your out of division games are against very weak divisions this year and mine are against very tough divisions. Let's say that four of my losses were against the top teams in those top divisions. And 4 of your wins were 1 point victories against the cellar teams in the weak division. We could argue that my team is possibly way better than your team, but I will be watching next Sunday! I knew what I was up against and the games I needed to win and I didn't. Therefore I live with the consequences. If I knew or had a good feeling that I would make the playoffs because just about everyone does, then what incentive would i have to play the regular season.

Okay, let's use this for the NFL example of must win games. If your division is setup to play another division that is very weak. And my division is setup to play very strong division this year. At the end of the year, your team makes the playoffs with a 10-6 record and I miss the playoffs with a 9-7 record. Your out of division games are against very weak divisions this year and mine are against very tough divisions. Let's say that four of my losses were against the top teams in those top divisions. And 4 of your wins were 1 point victories against the cellar teams in the weak division. We could argue that my team is possibly way better than your team, but I will be watching next Sunday! I knew what I was up against and the games I needed to win and I didn't. Therefore I live with the consequences. If I knew or had a good feeling that I would make the playoffs because just about everyone does, then what incentive would i have to play the regular season.

 

The same reason your softball team does, seeding. The higher you finish in your district the lower the seed you play from the other district in the first round of districts. Plus, you have the opportunity to host if you finish first or second in your district.

Okay, let's use this for the NFL example of must win games. If your division is setup to play another division that is very weak. And my division is setup to play very strong division this year. At the end of the year, your team makes the playoffs with a 10-6 record and I miss the playoffs with a 9-7 record. Your out of division games are against very weak divisions this year and mine are against very tough divisions. Let's say that four of my losses were against the top teams in those top divisions. And 4 of your wins were 1 point victories against the cellar teams in the weak division. We could argue that my team is possibly way better than your team, but I will be watching next Sunday! I knew what I was up against and the games I needed to win and I didn't. Therefore I live with the consequences. If I knew or had a good feeling that I would make the playoffs because just about everyone does, then what incentive would i have to play the regular season.

 

There would be no incentive to play good teams out of district play but that is why you shouldn't limit to only 2 teams. You brought up the Propfessional sports and I showed you how they do it, now you are backpeddling finding excuses which make no sense. The NFL goes by overall record, you toss them out there and then say you shouldn't use the overall record.

 

You want 2 teams per district yet haven't come up with one good reason to limit it to that many teams.

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.

 

They may be called disticts, but they are not playing teams in their district. Their "district play" in football is during the regular season. Those district games determine who moves on in the playoffs. In the other sports, the district games that determine who moves on are at the end of the year, rather than during the year and the "district" is comprised of only district teams. So you can spin it anyway you want, but the fact of the matter is that in those sports, the district games determine who moves on. Just like in football, except the district games need to be played as part of the regular season because you can't play a tournament style like you can in other sports. Districts should be setup to be the first event of "weeding" out the lesser competition. Not move them all on to play out of district teams in week one and call it "districts".

The same reason your softball team does, seeding. The higher you finish in your district the lower the seed you play from the other district in the first round of districts. Plus, you have the opportunity to host if you finish first or second in your district.

 

Hosting is pre-determind and rotates.

 

As far as your comparison, we are fighting to get out of our local district. Not for an opportunity to play down state teams and advance to the state. In softball, you must win a lot more games to become a state champion than in football. Part of that is because of the different levels you must pass through to qualify to move on! If you are calling districts for football when all 4 teams are advancing and having an opportunity to play teams from around the state, then football is missing something and that is weeding out the weaker teams prior to getting to play in the playoffs! Once you make it to state playoffs in softball, there are no weaker teams left. Not the case in state football playoffs.

They may be called disticts, but they are not playing teams in their district. Their "district play" in football is during the regular season. Those district games determine who moves on in the playoffs. In the other sports, the district games that determine who moves on are at the end of the year, rather than during the year and the "district" is comprised of only district teams. So you can spin it anyway you want, but the fact of the matter is that in those sports, the district games determine who moves on. Just like in football, except the district games need to be played as part of the regular season because you can't play a tournament style like you can in other sports. Districts should be setup to be the first event of "weeding" out the lesser competition. Not move them all on to play out of district teams in week one and call it "districts".

You and I agree on one thing and that is Football should have district playoffs so teams can stay close to home the first 2 weeks. I'm all for that. That is a much better solution than just saying only 2 teams make the playoffs especially when you have districts that have 6 teams in them compared to the others with only 4 teams in them.

The same reason your softball team does, seeding. The higher you finish in your district the lower the seed you play from the other district in the first round of districts. Plus, you have the opportunity to host if you finish first or second in your district.

 

Another big difference. We do seeding to determine who we play within our own district, not who we play from other districts. We take the best from our district to play the best from other districts. All or 90% of our district does not advance to play other districts. That's exactly what I'm saying. In football, they have basically eliminated the district play. Everyone moves on to play other districts! We determine who we play from other districts by the results of our district tournament. It is earned. And only 1 and 2 move on.

They may be called disticts, but they are not playing teams in their district. Their "district play" in football is during the regular season. Those district games determine who moves on in the playoffs. In the other sports, the district games that determine who moves on are at the end of the year, rather than during the year and the "district" is comprised of only district teams. So you can spin it anyway you want, but the fact of the matter is that in those sports, the district games determine who moves on. Just like in football, except the district games need to be played as part of the regular season because you can't play a tournament style like you can in other sports. Districts should be setup to be the first event of "weeding" out the lesser competition. Not move them all on to play out of district teams in week one and call it "districts".

 

You are correct what ever you want to call the post season does not matter. Once the regular season is over, you move on to the first round of playoffs, just like all the other sports. Then round by round you are "weeding" out the teams as you go.

Another big difference. We do seeding to determine who we play within our own district, not who we play from other districts. We take the best from our district to play the best from other districts. All or 90% of our district does not advance to play other districts. That's exactly what I'm saying. In football, they have basically eliminated the district play. Everyone moves on to play other districts! We determine who we play from other districts by the results of our district tournament. It is earned. And only 1 and 2 move on.

 

Only 1 and 2 move on to the second round.

There would be no incentive to play good teams out of district play but that is why you shouldn't limit to only 2 teams. You brought up the Propfessional sports and I showed you how they do it, now you are backpeddling finding excuses which make no sense. The NFL goes by overall record, you toss them out there and then say you shouldn't use the overall record.

 

You want 2 teams per district yet haven't come up with one good reason to limit it to that many teams.

 

The good reason is sports are made to be competitive and teach life lessons. By allowing just about every team to move on (out of districts) does not teach a good life lesson. In fact, it teaches that you can be rewarded for mediocre work ethic, performance, desire or passion. Everyone moves on, so why work so hard? It doesn't teach that only the best survive in the real world and you must bust your tail everyday to maintain your advantage. That you must drive for perfection. It doesn't teach failure (that is a huge part of life). It doesn't teach how to deal with failure and how to move on. It's the everyone gets a trophy mentality that is absolutely killing our youth. Some are saying, everyone should have an opportunity to play in a playoff game. I say bull crap!!! You must earn things in life and sending teams with losing records and horrible results to a playoff game is not teaching those kids anything. In fact it's hurting them because they will grow used to things being handed to them. It's rediculous and I can't believe more and more people buy into this nonsense.

^When did the district tournament for baseball/softball/basketball stop being the playoffs?

Only 1 and 2 move on to the second round.

 

No, not the second round. You move on to an opportunity to compete against teams outside their district. If we don't finish one or two, we go not further and no opportunity to move on to compete against other in the state or state playoffs. What happens in football if you don't finish 1 or 2 in your district...you still move on! Rediculous! Why even have a district?