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

 

Not trying to tell anyone how to run football. I'm saying there are too many teams in the playoffs that don't earn their way in. Period.

 

As for the regional, I've never heard anyone from Cov Cath, Beechwood, HHS, T, X, Boyle, NCC, say they are happy they made it or won the regioal. To them it's just something to name a step in the state bracket. I don't see banners at fields saying they were regional champs.

 

I'm 45 years old and have never once heard a coach, player or parent say "We won regionals in football". They may say we made it to the regional finals, which indicates which step on the bracket they made it to.

26 of the 46 1v4 games saw the 4s lose by 6 td's or more. (Friday night only)

 

If you go to 5 td's or more, it goes to 33 out of 46 games were lost by 5 or more td's.

 

2 four seeds won (Manual and Dunbar). Call them upsets if you really want to.

 

And 4 games were within 2 td's.

 

1 game was within single digits. (Gallatin and Holy Cross).

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?

 

No, I'm saying it's better to win a state tournament over just another tournament. It doesn't matter to me how many teams are in a tournament. The more prestigious title will always be a state championship.

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.

Most of this post is nonsense, but to the bolded.

 

So the other sports are different, but you use them for comparison sake when it is convenient for you to do so. Gotcha.

 

And, what gives you the right to decide who has the right to complain about anything?

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 compared two tournaments, not two sports. A tournament with 100 teams is more difficult to win than a tournament with 32 teams, agree or disagree?

 

You failed to answer the question because you apparently don't understand it. One tournament allows the 120ish smallest schools in the state to play, the other allows the 32 largest or smallest depending if we're talking 6A or A here. Which tournament excludes teams?

 

Let's face it, in this watered down format, football is far and away the easiest sport in the state to win a championship in. You don't even have to be very good to make the state finals in most instances, just have to avoid the right region long enough to get there.

I compared two tournaments, not two sports. A tournament with 100 teams is more difficult to win than a tournament with 32 teams, agree or disagree?

 

You failed to answer the question because you apparently don't understand it. One tournament allows the 120ish smallest schools in the state to play, the other allows the 32 largest or smallest depending if we're talking 6A or A here. Which tournament excludes teams?

 

Let's face it, in this watered down format, football is far and away the easiest sport in the state to win a championship in. You don't even have to be very good to make the state finals in most instances, just have to avoid the right region long enough to get there.

 

Actually I did answer it but you can't read.

 

I know the difference between a tourney with 100 teams and a tourney with 32 teams. I also know the difference between a state championship and a tournament that only allows certain schools to participate.

 

I will take a state title thank you. Could care less in number of schools competing in it and since you are so stuck on the number yet you brush off my comparison which is the exact same concept you are boasting about it tells me you lack reading comprehension. Big time.

 

 

Let's face it, in this watered down format, football is far and away the easiest sport in the state to win a championship in. You don't even have to be very good to make the state finals in most instances, just have to avoid the right region long enough to get there.

That may be the most ignorant corny ever made by you. That about sums up your thought process on the subject and is all I need to know.

 

Let me ask you this since you are so stuck on the All A tourney. How often does the winner of the All A tourney end up winning the state title in Basketball???????? Seems to me you don't have to be very good to win the All A tourney. Hmmmm funny when your own way of thinking comes back to bite you in the butt huh?

Actually I did answer it but you can't read.

 

I know the difference between a tourney with 100 teams and a tourney with 32 teams. I also know the difference between a state championship and a tournament that only allows certain schools to participate.

 

I will take a state title thank you. Could care less in number of schools competing in it and since you are so stuck on the number yet you brush off my comparison which is the exact same concept you are boasting about it tells me you lack reading comprehension. Big time.

 

I understand most of the positions you've taken in this thread and agree with some of them, but I'm confused on your position related to the bold in the above post. It would seem both the All A tournaments and State Football championships "only allow certain schools". Both formats use the size of the school as the basis for inclusion. It's reasonable to consider each football Class as having its own tournament.

 

Seems to me the accomplishment of winning one of the All A tournaments is comparable to winning a theoretical combined State Football championship made up of Classes A, AA, AAA, and AAAA. Approximately the same number of teams are involed in the discussion. I realize they're different sports, but as an athletic event made up of high schools in the same state ... I think they warrant some level of comparison. If that logic holds, then I also think its reasonable to have an opinion that winning an All A tournament is a better accomplishiment than winning a State Football Championship.

 

Only reason I can come up with to think otherwise is that the person holding the opinion simply likes football better than the other sports.

I understand most of the positions you've taken in this thread and agree with some of them, but I'm confused on your position related to the bold in the above post. It would seem both the All A tournaments and State Football championships "only allow certain schools". Both formats use the size of the school as the basis for inclusion. It's reasonable to consider each football Class as having its own tournament.

 

Seems to me the accomplishment of winning one of the All A tournaments is comparable to winning a theoretical combined State Football championship made up of Classes A, AA, AAA, and AAAA. Approximately the same number of teams are involed in the discussion. I realize they're different sports, but as an athletic event made up of high schools in the same state ... I think they warrant some level of comparison. If that logic holds, then I also think its reasonable to have an opinion that winning an All A tournament is a better accomplishiment than winning a State Football Championship.

 

Only reason I can come up with to think otherwise is that the person holding the opinion simply likes football better than the other sports.

 

You are wrong. In football every team has the opportunity of winning a state title. In the All A tourney only those teams invited to participate can win and again if you win it it still isn't a state title.

 

An all A tourney is just that, a tournament that isn't awarding the best team in the entire state at all. As I asked earlier, how often is the winner of the all A also the winner of the state title in basketball? Not very often so to me it doesn't mean much except you won a tournament. Not the biggest tournament or the most prestigious, just a tournament.

 

I'd rather have a state tourney title in football or basketball or baseball or whatever than an All A title.

That may be the most ignorant corny ever made by you. That about sums up your thought process on the subject and is all I need to know.

 

Let me ask you this since you are so stuck on the All A tourney. How often does the winner of the All A tourney end up winning the state title in Basketball???????? Seems to me you don't have to be very good to win the All A tourney. Hmmmm funny when your own way of thinking comes back to bite you in the butt huh?

 

I would tend to agree that Football (and Track and Cross Country) are the easiest sports to win a State championship in. A team only competes with a set number of like sized schools in those sports. Why do think that is an "ignorant corny" statement?

I would tend to agree that Football (and Track and Cross Country) are the easiest sports to win a State championship in. A team only competes with a set number of like sized schools in those sports. Why do think that is an "ignorant corny" statement?

I was referring to the ccomment that you don't have to be very good to make itt to the title game. That is just ignorant.

That may be the most ignorant corny ever made by you. That about sums up your thought process on the subject and is all I need to know.

 

Let me ask you this since you are so stuck on the All A tourney. How often does the winner of the All A tourney end up winning the state title in Basketball???????? Seems to me you don't have to be very good to win the All A tourney. Hmmmm funny when your own way of thinking comes back to bite you in the butt huh?

 

I was referring to the ccomment that you don't have to be very good to make itt to the title game. That is just ignorant.

 

You're like every bad girlfriend I've ever had. Ignore logic at all turns and turn the argument in 1,000 different directions while just digging deeper and deeper into a hole that you can't get out of. :lol2:

 

To the bolded. The winner of the all A doesn't win the overall state title very often, because basketball is ONE class in the postseason. How often would the winner of class A, or AA, or AAA even in football win the state championship if football were only one class?

 

So, to use the logic that "bit me in the butt," you don't have to be very good to win the A, AA, or AAA state football titles. Heck, I was giving all the state title winners in football the benefit of the doubt, but if you say they're not very good, who am I to argue? :banana:

 

As for the second quoted. I stand by it. Case in point, I think Cooper made the championship game in 5A last year, and they were like the sixth or seventh best team in NKY.

Actually I did answer it but you can't read.

I know the difference between a tourney with 100 teams and a tourney with 32 teams. I also know the difference between a state championship and a tournament that only allows certain schools to participate.

 

I will take a state title thank you. Could care less in number of schools competing in it and since you are so stuck on the number yet you brush off my comparison which is the exact same concept you are boasting about it tells me you lack reading comprehension. Big time.

 

Playing with house money at this point, so to the bolded.

 

1. Wow. That seems rather insulting. I just finished another book, and I thought I read it just fine. Was a little surprised when Jack came tumbling down. But what a cliffhanger.

 

2. Class A football tournament allows 32 schools to compete. Class A tournament in other sports allows roughly 120 schools to compete. Which tournament allows only certain schools to participate, and what schools are being excluded?

 

3. Was this the comparison in which you used pro football versus college football, while we were discussing high school football? Yeah, I did kind of brush that one off.

 

On a side note, I am working really hard to become a better reader, and I'm hoping you can help me. The last graph in the quoted was very difficult for me to read, because sometimes I expect there to be a comma.