What would you rather have a Super Bowl ring where only 32 teams have a shot at winning or a BCS Championship ring where over 100 teams vie for?

 

Me, I'd rather have a Super Bowl ring. I guess you'd rather have the BCS ring since there are more teams competing for it.

 

Really, this is your best answer. You do realize these are two different levels of football, correct?

 

That's like asking if one would rather have a high school state championship ring or a BCS championship ring. Which would you choose if that's your option?

 

I'll ask you to do the math for me again. How does winning a High School tournament with as few as 32 teams of similar enrollment participating somehow mean more than winning a high school tournament with more than 100 teams of similar enrollment participating?

There isn't a problem with the All A championship, I never said there was a problem with it.

 

But if you are comparing basketball to football, there is a huge difference. As I already stated Football is more of a sport of attrition than any other sport. Huge difference. Also, last I checked there weren't 100 players on the sidelines in basketball.

 

As far as the cross country one, I have no idea. That one seems kind of silly to me. I don't follow cross country so I didn't even know there were 3 classes in that until this week.

 

Here's the thing. Every year when the football playoffs roll around, people post on here that the football playoffs aren't watered down, because everyone makes the post season in basketball and baseball.

 

Then, when defending the need for six classes, people post that football is different than other sports, and that's why they need all those classes.

 

Can't have it both ways.

Bishop Brossart is in 2A.

 

We are talking about private schools with football teams! :lol2:

Here's the thing. Every year when the football playoffs roll around, people post on here that the football playoffs aren't watered down, because everyone makes the post season in basketball and baseball.

 

Then, when defending the need for six classes, people post that football is different than other sports, and that's why they need all those classes.

 

Can't have it both ways.

Actually I don't come on here stating the playoffs aren't watered down. I come on simply stating why sending only 2 per district is wrong because unlike baseball and basketball there are only 10 games played in the regular season of football and in most cases only 3 or 4 games in district which is what is used to determine the seedings.

When you are only using 3 or 4 games to determine who should go to the post season you are leaving the probability of too many ties and because of that 2 teams are not enough and you are taking a very good chance if you only take 2 teams that you are not getting a pool of teams that may be the best in their class into the playoffs. Too easy to leave what very well could be the winning team out of the playoffs all together.

 

That has been my argument from day 1. 2 teams per district has the very real possibility of not taking the best team and allowing them to play for the title.

 

That has been my argument from day 1.

 

Are there too many teams in the postseason using 6 classes? Possibly, but that is the way it is right now so why continue to complain about blowouts, especially when blowouts happen at every level of the playoffs?!

 

I will bring up baseball abd basketball etc. only when the other side of the argument complains too many teams get into the playoffs in football and thjat is their argument to why there are blowouts, then I will mention the other sports because even though the sports are different, the other sports still allow EVERY team in the post season....I don't think they have the right to complain about too many teams getting in when they keep their mouths shut on the subject when it comes to other sports. Whether the other sports are different or not, it's still allowing everyone in.

Really, this is your best answer. You do realize these are two different levels of football, correct?

 

That's like asking if one would rather have a high school state championship ring or a BCS championship ring. Which would you choose if that's your option?

 

I'll ask you to do the math for me again. How does winning a High School tournament with as few as 32 teams of similar enrollment participating somehow mean more than winning a high school tournament with more than 100 teams of similar enrollment participating?

 

 

It's the same as your comparison, you compared 2 different sports. At least I stuck to the same sport. I was doing what you were doing and that is comparing a ring earned when you only had to compete against 32 teams or a ring you earn when you have to compete against 100 teams. All A 100 teams, State Football Title 32 teams.

 

To answer your question. 1 is a tournament that doesn't allow all the teams in the state to compete for. The other is a State championship. give me the State ring thank you.

I am sorry and I apologize. I should not have changed your reply in a quote where it might be misleading to someone quickly reading through a thread. I won't do it again.:thumb:

 

 

Lighten up Francis, if anyone didn't think it was a joke then they have more problems than I can get into on here. Since you are so sensitive let me say this about your post I quoted. You talking about misquoting etc. well your post was crap when you make blanket satements about what EVERYONE thinnks about the Football playoffs.

 

Do me a favor Francis, don't speak for me anymore on here and I won't have to change your posts.

 

Fixed it for you.:thumb:

Fixed it for you.:thumb:

Thanks, next time do it a little quicker :thumb:

 

Hang with me, I'll teach you the proper way of doing it. Timing is everything....usually at least the same day :clap:

It's the same as your comparison, you compared 2 different sports. At least I stuck to the same sport. I was doing what you were doing and that is comparing a ring earned when you only had to compete against 32 teams or a ring you earn when you have to compete against 100 teams. All A 100 teams, State Football Title 32 teams.

 

To answer your question. 1 is a tournament that doesn't allow all the teams in the state to compete for. The other is a State championship. give me the State ring thank you.

I'm sorry, but I'm still not comprehending to your level. Help a dumb man out here. You are saying it is better to win a tourney where only 32+ teams are allowed to compete (the other 5 classes are too large to play in the class A football tourney) versus winning a tourney that has half of all schools competing?

I agree with you on this front and that is why the first round drives me nuts. 95 percent of the games are blowouts. In basketball and baseball you get beat on the scoreboard in football you get beat up physically and on the scoreboard. I could do without all 4 making it but hey its not my decision.

 

Actually, only about 2/3rds of the first round games were blowouts, using a 21+ point spread as the definition of a blowout. In the first round, there were 27 games with a point spread of 21 points or less.

In 2006, 4 class era. There were 24 1st round games that were 34 point losses or greater. There were a couple 40+ point losses, and 1 or 2 50+ point losses. So why all the hype about 6 class blowouts. There are going to be blowouts. ie; Last year, 2 of the championship games were 47 point blowouts, 1 was a 54 point blowout. It's going to happen.

I think this why a 'Regional Title' is so much more special in basketball. Its a big deal to win that and just get to the famous Sweet 16. Regional titles in football....does anyone care?

 

I couldn't even tell you which round equals the regional champion! It's one big tournament to me. The goal is to win the tournament right? Not reach milestones within that tournament.

In 2006, 4 class era. There were 24 1st round games that were 34 point losses or greater. There were a couple 40+ point losses, and 1 or 2 50+ point losses. So why all the hype about 6 class blowouts. There are going to be blowouts. ie; Last year, 2 of the championship games were 47 point blowouts, 1 was a 54 point blowout. It's going to happen.

 

For me, it's not about blowouts. It's about earning your spot. Blowouts are just a result (sometimes) of teams not having earned their way in.

I couldn't even tell you which round equals the regional champion! It's one big tournament to me. The goal is to win the tournament right? Not reach milestones within that tournament.

 

And you are trying to tell us a better way to run the football post season? :idunno:

For me, it's not about blowouts. It's about earning your spot. Blowouts are just a result (sometimes) of teams not having earned their way in.

 

So your telling me that 2 teams that won their way in the playoffs to the state title game, but got "Blown Out" didnt earn their way?

So your telling me that 2 teams that won their way in the playoffs to the state title game, but got "Blown Out" didnt earn their way?

 

Not at all. Did you not see the "sometimes" in there and the other posts that said blowouts happen at all levels. My point...blowouts CAN be a measurement of overmatched teams. But not ALL blowouts are becuase of overmatched teams. Blowouts happen. I get it. I'm not arguing about blowouts. I'm saying if teams earned their way in, then it would feel more like they acheived something and as a result, possibly the blowouts in the first rounds happen less frequently. There is a difference in a 45-14 score and 77-0. Both blowouts, but much different in the make-ups. When you generalize the words "blowouts" and "upsets", you get a very wide range of what those two things mean. When you have a 0 win and 1 win teams getting beat 77-0, that's more than a blowout and they had no chance for an upset. We want to talk about "i want to go to battle with someone that wants it". "I wouldn't play with a team member like that" "Where is the heart". Every athlete wants to compete. But the key word is "compete". If there isn't a chance from the beginning, how do you expect a team to want to compete? Don't pretend we don't all know this. You can see by the other posts that even the kids are beaten before some of these games. And the fact that just a hand full of fans show up (which means even all the parents aren't traveling to see the game), then something is obviously wrong!

 

I'm all for the playoffs including the competitive teams. But the VAST MAJORITY of the 4 seeded teams are in over their heads. They didnt earn it and they know it. Go ahead and look over the last 10 years and tell me the handful of teams that "made a run". First I'd ask if they were actually 4 seeds and then tell me over what time period all these "runs" were made. When people talk about so and so making a run and so did someone else, they aren't in the same years. They are a group from over multiple years. And once a little investigation is done, they weren't 4 seeds. They were competitive 3's that came from strong district. When you look at the frequency that and "real underdog" actually made a run and compare it to the number of teams every year that have the feeling of several of the 4 seeds, you need to ask is their value or not. If one team out of 100 every couple years makes a run (and probably not a 4), is it worth all the other team's players and parents heartache?