Throughout my years following High School Football I've run across fans who debate scheduling. Fans usually choose two sides. One group argues that they want their team to play the toughest of teams week in and week out while the other group argues back that they prefer their team to play competition more to their level, in turn, winning more often. What do you all prefer?

Play easier competition and win more games

or

Play tougher competition and lose more games

You play the competition that gets you ready for the playoffs. 10-0 means nothing if you finish 11-1.

You play the competition that gets you ready for the playoffs. 10-0 means nothing if you finish 11-1.

 

Or 10 and 1!!!

Depending on the strength of your district (which you can not control), I think you schedule a few games against teams that you will have to play your best to beat and a few games that you should win on 6 of 10 nights. I think that mix works well. If you play all top teams (depending on your district), it can set you up for mental and physical fatigue that you may or may not be able to handle.

 

Concerning your district, if it is weak for your team, you NEED to schedule top competition for the majority of out of district games. If your district is very tough, then you can throttle back on this.

 

Again just my opinion.

It depends on where your program is at. Are you trying to build it up and put together some wins or is it built and you are trying to win championships? (district, region, state)

You play the competition that gets you ready for the playoffs. 10-0 means nothing if you finish 11-1.

 

5-5 and losing in the second or 3rd round of the playoffs means nothing either.

 

Scheduling is a balancing act. Yes you need to have a few tough games in your schedule. But you also need some games that give you confidence, and allow you to work on things as well. It's physically and mentally demanding to play hammers week after week. The fact of the matter is many times, high school football comes down to who has the best players. You don't want a schedule full of cupcakes. It doesn't so much matter who you've played...it's more so who you are.

 

Scheduling is important, but it's not at the top of the list. Because if you don't have the horses, it doesn't matter who you schedule. And if you're building/rebuilding a program, a good record does matter.

I'm all for scheduling tough competition and better preparing yourself for the playoffs. I do agree I'd rather finish 10-1 than 5-5, though.

I would never schedule a "gimme" game. All teams would be equal or above.

 

You work on things in practice and execute them in games. If you can't execute against good teams, then playing a weaker team and executing it doesn't mean a thing! Playing good teams...f you don't execute it one week, you work on it practice and try it next week! And you make modification and fix what didn't work or creat options that makes a variation work if they stop the initial option. Gaining confidence by playing and executing against weaker teams is no indication how it will go when you face an equal or better. So it's almost like a false confidence that can landslide downward very quickly.

 

If you are very confident in option A, B and C and you play a team that can take those away and you haven't experienced that during your season, all of a sudden you aren't so confident and you spiral out of control. That can happen very quickly in a game and if you aren't tested adequately, then you lose earlier than you wanted or expected to. False confidence is way worse than confidence that was built and tested. I say make it a journey and build it over the course of a season. Don't run a bunch of sprints (easy games) and then finish poorly at the end.

 

SK is a prime example. And no, I'm not trying to beat them up at all. But they are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They have a ton of wins over the last couple years but no real run in the playoffs to get excited about. Everyone thinks they are good, but as soon as one real test comes, they fail. A friend of mine termed those type of teams as "banquet teams". Meaning their banquets are great as they celebrate another 11-1 season, but the big goal never comes close to being achieved because they didn't prepare for it. So in other words, he's saying they prepared for a great banquet.

 

Again, I'm not trying to bash SK at all. They just come to mind in that situation.

Some of your schedule is dictated with district games. My personal philosophy is to schedule the rest "reasonably tough". Tough enough to be tested but not necessarily tough enough to be completely worn out at the end of the regular season. Schedule a power running team; schedule an air-attack team. Schedule a traditional rival.

 

Beating a bunch of teams with a running clock does nothing but give false confidence come playoff time. You want to schedule a team or two early enough in the season that has the ability to exploit your potential weaknesses so you can work on them as the season progresses.

 

I echo the philosophy that a 10-0 regular season means very little if you're not playoff-ready.

Some of your schedule is dictated with district games. My personal philosophy is to schedule the rest "reasonably tough". Tough enough to be tested but not necessarily tough enough to be completely worn out at the end of the regular season. Schedule a power running team; schedule an air-attack team. Schedule a traditional rival.

 

Beating a bunch of teams with a running clock does nothing but give false confidence come playoff time. You want to schedule a team or two early enough in the season that has the ability to exploit your potential weaknesses so you can work on them as the season progresses.

 

I echo the philosophy that a 10-0 regular season means very little if you're not playoff-ready.

 

How easy/hard is this to do early in the preseason when you do not know what "level" your team is at? Games are scheduled well in advance of the season.

Out of district games need to be challenging but competitive. If you're going to drop down a class make sure you schedule a game that has fan interest as well as being a winnable game. Not a sure thing but winnable. There would be no point in Franklin-Simpson scheduling Trinity. That is a guaranteed loss and likely a bad loss. Does no good. On the other hand FS scheduling Todd Central does neither team any positives.

Rivalry games figure into the equation also. 4A FS and 1A Russellville always play. FS has won most of the games but they always have a crowd and the games are almost always competitive.

I would never schedule a "gimme" game. All teams would be equal or above.

 

You work on things in practice and execute them in games. If you can't execute against good teams, then playing a weaker team and executing it doesn't mean a thing! Playing good teams...f you don't execute it one week, you work on it practice and try it next week! And you make modification and fix what didn't work or creat options that makes a variation work if they stop the initial option. Gaining confidence by playing and executing against weaker teams is no indication how it will go when you face an equal or better. So it's almost like a false confidence that can landslide downward very quickly.

 

If you are very confident in option A, B and C and you play a team that can take those away and you haven't experienced that during your season, all of a sudden you aren't so confident and you spiral out of control. That can happen very quickly in a game and if you aren't tested adequately, then you lose earlier than you wanted or expected to. False confidence is way worse than confidence that was built and tested. I say make it a journey and build it over the course of a season. Don't run a bunch of sprints (easy games) and then finish poorly at the end.

 

SK is a prime example. And no, I'm not trying to beat them up at all. But they are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They have a ton of wins over the last couple years but no real run in the playoffs to get excited about. Everyone thinks they are good, but as soon as one real test comes, they fail. A friend of mine termed those type of teams as "banquet teams". Meaning their banquets are great as they celebrate another 11-1 season, but the big goal never comes close to being achieved because they didn't prepare for it. So in other words, he's saying they prepared for a great banquet.

 

Again, I'm not trying to bash SK at all. They just come to mind in that situation.

 

Sk has won at least 2 playoff games each of the last 5 years. I know they are a favorite team to bash about their schedule and that being the reason for "Lack of Playoff success". But they can count on 3 extra games almost every year. And quite honestly, filling their schedule with super tough teams, likely wouldn't have changed the outcome all that much, as they still would probably be without a state title.

 

Could they make their schedule a little tougher. Sure. Would it make a difference?? Probably not.

 

Again, not saying you should play all cupcakes, or any cupcakes at all. You need some challenges, but you don't need to kill yourself either.

Sk has won at least 2 playoff games each of the last 5 years. I know they are a favorite team to bash about their schedule and that being the reason for "Lack of Playoff success". But they can count on 3 extra games almost every year. And quite honestly, filling their schedule with super tough teams, likely wouldn't have changed the outcome all that much, as they still would probably be without a state title.

 

Could they make their schedule a little tougher. Sure. Would it make a difference?? Probably not.

 

Again, not saying you should play all cupcakes, or any cupcakes at all. You need some challenges, but you don't need to kill yourself either.

 

I'm not trying to bash SK. But you are correct, they have won two games in the playoffs. But if you dissect that, it really wasn't that challenging to do. They don't have a strong district, so they are good enough to win the district and play a seed that probably doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway! (another discussion). So that's one win. Then they have typically played a fairly local team...who they have already beaten or would be considered not a very tough game. Then they get to the third round that is not a cupcake or a familiar team and they lose. So yes, they have won two playoff games each year, but I would challenge how challenging those games actually were. In many cases, the team they lost to often loses their next game. So are they even losing to really good teams?

 

Again, I'm not trying to bash them. It's just my opinion that I would rather be completely tested so the game slows down against good team instead of speeding up. I don't think theirs and many other's schedule prepares them for that. It's not just them. There are teams like that in every high school sport.

Sk has won at least 2 playoff games each of the last 5 years. I know they are a favorite team to bash about their schedule and that being the reason for "Lack of Playoff success". But they can count on 3 extra games almost every year. And quite honestly, filling their schedule with super tough teams, likely wouldn't have changed the outcome all that much, as they still would probably be without a state title.

 

Could they make their schedule a little tougher. Sure. Would it make a difference?? Probably not.

 

Again, not saying you should play all cupcakes, or any cupcakes at all. You need some challenges, but you don't need to kill yourself either.

 

There's no way to know if a tougher schedule would help SK in the playoffs until they try it.

I think if you are a potential deep in the playoffs team, you need to schedule at least one travel game a year, IE more than 2 hours away.

There's no way to know if a tougher schedule would help SK in the playoffs until they try it.

 

True but when the schedule tougher teams, those teams need to hold up their end of the deal.