Should we just give everyone a ring then?:confused:

 

I'm giving them a chance from where I stand. If they lose in the first round, then they had their chance.

I'm right with you. We agree...

Not sure what difference the talent level makes? We're talking about basically the same amound of schools competing against one another. If they all got better, then fine. It's a numbers thing.

Right...

I'm right with you. We agree...

 

Glad I convinced you. Boy that was easy.

Glad I convinced you. Boy that was easy.

I don't think our ideas are far off. I do think any situation with 4 teams out every year creates a bad deal for the bottom 2 of that 4 more often than not. At least that's what I've seen from 8 team districts...

I don't think our ideas are far off. I do think any situation with 4 teams out every year creates a bad deal for the bottom 2 of that 4 more often than not. At least that's what I've seen from 8 team districts...

 

I'm not sure how far apart we are on this one. I'm not much of a fan of six classes at all.

To me, its teaching the 14-18 year olds that if they can't get what they want in this world, then ignore or change the rules because you deserve to be a winner, even if you're not the best.

Can I assume then that you think the state wrestling tournament is watered down (since you are a great wrestling fan) and has too many kids in it who haven't been taught that in life, there are few winners and everyone else is a loser? Or is wrestling participation a good idea in postseason but football a bad idea?

See, the problem here is you're not giving more kids a CHANCE. They all have a chance now. You are just GIVING kids. Big difference.

No, that is incorrect. You are giving kids a chance at the playoffs, not necessarily at winning. A chance to, at an early age, feel some satisfaction that may further drive them to be prideful about their experience, and then make them prideful about what they do in the workplace as adults.

 

Same as you do employees in your workplace who are stuck in the doldrums of a boring task and you have to reward intrinsically to motivate them. You pat them on the back, you make them feel valuable. No, you don't make them CEO or give them things they don't deserve, but they are allowed to feel like they have accomplished something, albeit minor.

 

In my opinion, the winners in the new playoff system championship games will likely be the same, just in different classes. You can either play football or you can't. But it does shake up the pot a bit and give some kids a chance to be in the postseason that may otherwise have not gotten a shot. Just like their brethren in baseball and basketball who can get in with winless teams.

You are giving nothing more than a first round loss from where you stand. How is that bad? In weeks 7-10 are they not still trying to get better for the playoffs? In the old system, the tent is folded, and the bags are packed far more often than a KID should experience...

This is an argument in favor of adopting the Indiana system, which allows all teams in the playoffs. In this state, iteams like Indy Cathedral load their early season schedule with heavyweights and don't panic if the start the season 0-3 or 0-4. They spend the entire regular season developing young talent for the playoffs, knowing that blowing a lead or two will not knock them out of the state title picture.

 

If ensuring teams do not fold their tents in mid-season is the goal, four classes are plenty for a state having Kentucky's population. Adding classes and increasing the distance between district teams at a time of soaring gasoline prices was a bad idea.

Adding classes and increasing the distance between district teams at a time of soaring gasoline prices was a bad idea.

 

However, looking at first glance, it seems that cutting the # of district opponents will offset the increase. Maybe not for every district, but at least on average.

No, that is incorrect. You are giving kids a chance at the playoffs, not necessarily at winning. A chance to, at an early age, feel some satisfaction that may further drive them to be prideful about their experience, and then make them prideful about what they do in the workplace as adults.

 

Same as you do employees in your workplace who are stuck in the doldrums of a boring task and you have to reward intrinsically to motivate them. You pat them on the back, you make them feel valuable. No, you don't make them CEO or give them things they don't deserve, but they are allowed to feel like they have accomplished something, albeit minor.

 

You should gain pride from a job well done, not simply because someone is throwing you a bone by allowing you to play in a playoff game. Making the playoffs will no longer have the luster for struggling teams that it once had. You say that you don't givem them things they don't deserve. How does a 1-9 team "deserve" to make the playoffs? They don't.

 

Just because the other sports have all-inclusive playoffs doesn't mean that it's the way it should be done. Playoff inclusion should be a reward for a successful season, not a pitiful gift.

 

When we went from AAA to AAAA, we were adding 33% more champions. Now we're adding 50% more. My question to the people that think this is great and that more kids deserve a chance at a ring, why stop at 6 classes? If we went to 10 or 15, that would give even more kids a shot. Perhaps Balfour could offer a new ring to every team that makes the playoffs.

However, looking at first glance, it seems that cutting the # of district opponents will offset the increase. Maybe not for every district, but at least on average.

None of the positives cited by supporters of this change, except for the 50% increase in the number of Kentucky state football champions, could not have been accomplished without an increase in the number of classes. Indiana, with a much larger population than Kentucky, has only five classes, and the system seems to work okay.

 

The only good reason for increasing the number of classes, IMO, is to accomodate a state's population growth by keeping the number of playoff games managable.

Not sure what that has to do with my point on travel costs, Dino, but I agree with your first sentence in that the increase in the number of classes does accomplish some of the goals of those wanting a change.

Can I assume then that you think the state wrestling tournament is watered down (since you are a great wrestling fan) and has too many kids in it who haven't been taught that in life, there are few winners and everyone else is a loser? Or is wrestling participation a good idea in postseason but football a bad idea?

There is a huge difference between the two sports. And yes all my kids wrestled. If you want to divide schools up by weight class, I'm all for it. I don't feel that school size has the same bearing to football that weight does to wrestling. I'm also against dividing wrestling into two classes because IT WATERS DOWN THE SYSTEM!

There is a huge difference between the two sports. And yes all my kids wrestled. If you want to divide schools up by weight class, I'm all for it. I don't feel that school size has the same bearing to football that weight does to wrestling. I'm also against dividing wrestling into two classes because IT WATERS DOWN THE SYSTEM!

 

:confused: I would say that school size has as much of a bearing on football as weight does in wrestling. You seem to have forgotten what its like to be a part of a small school. Just my opinion though..Your the wrestling authority.

:confused: I would say that school size has as much of a bearing on football as weight does in wrestling. You seem to have forgotten what its like to be a part of a small school. Just my opinion though..Your the wrestling authority.

Beechwood is also a small school, but I would venture that they could beat Homes, a 4A school most years. It's unlikely that a 103 lb kid will beat the HWT more than a couple of times out of 100.