We get it. Are you going to beat us across the head with it for the entire playoffs???

:laugh:

 

No one said you have to read it ...

:laugh: :laugh:

 

What're you gonna do for your 5th week "what if" thread, westie ?!? :sssh:

After this week, it's a moot point, when teams are no longer playing strictly within their districts.

After this week, it's a moot point, when teams are no longer playing strictly within their districts.

 

Not really because in the old system, we could have had a Belfry/Prestonsburg or a Beechwood/NCC regional final, among others. But with the new crappy system, all that is down the drain.

Not really because in the old system, we could have had a Belfry/Prestonsburg or a Beechwood/NCC regional final, among others. But with the new crappy system, all that is down the drain.

I meant after next week, but you're right ...

I meant after next week, but you're right ...

 

:walk: :walk:

A serious question ... what the heck does that smilie mean, anyway?

Bell County and Johnson Central would have been a highly-anticipated matchup, and the winner (most likely) against Rockcastle would have been much the same.

 

Bottom line ... we've already seen JC/Ashland and Bell/Rockcastle this season. If one of those two sets of teams had worked their way back to a rematch next week, great. I would rather see the cross-district matchups this week to see how those teams fare with each other.

 

Your point makes no sense to me because this format allows for the toughest possible road in rounds 2 and 3. In this years format a 1 seed can play both the 2 seed from his own district and the 1 seed from the opposing district. In last years format it had to be an either or situation and not both. So the only people IMO that have a complaint about the new format are the people seeking an easier road to the state championship. You say on one hand we have seen this matchup before but then you say that if they win we will see them again anyway. I like the fact we have the opportunity to see two great games and not just one. Then again the Rock runs from no one.

A serious question ... what the heck does that smilie mean, anyway?

 

I have NO clue. I like to use it though.

Your point makes no sense to me because this format allows for the toughest possible road in rounds 2 and 3. In this years format a 1 seed can play both the 2 seed from his own district and the 1 seed from the opposing district. In last years format it had to be an either or situation and not both.

Your counterpoint makes no sense. In past years, a district champion could still play a #2 and a #1 seed in the playoffs ... it's just that the #2 seed was from the other district.

So the only people IMO that have a complaint about the new format are the people seeking an easier road to the state championship.

That's a crock. None of my complaints about this system have anything to do with specific teams and their roads through the playoffs. If anything, this system helps the strong teams from weaker districts because they might have one less tough game in the early rounds.

You say on one hand we have seen this matchup before but then you say that if they win we will see them again anyway.

Maybe we would, maybe we wouldn't ... but if there was a rematch, it was because both teams went through the best from another district.

 

This week, Bell County would play Johnson Central ... a great matchup, and there is no guarantee that Bell would get to a rematch with Rockcastle County.

I like the fact we have the opportunity to see two great games and not just one. Then again the Rock runs from no one.

Rockcastle County and Ashland wouldn't exactly be an unattractive matchup.

For a team like Lexington Catholic, the change has meant playing agianst a #3 (which is as good as a #2) in Franklin Co. from thier own district, and if they win, play a #1 or #2 that are about the same from the other district. Historically, LC's #2 has not been as strong as the #2 from the north. LC would basically have to play two #1's from round 2 to round 3. The two teams from up north now see the tough road LC had, as they have it themselves this year.

For a team like Lexington Catholic, the change has meant playing agianst a #3 (which is as good as a #2) in Franklin Co. from thier own district, and if they win, play a #1 or #2 that are about the same from the other district. Historically, LC's #2 has not been as strong as the #2 from the north. LC would basically have to play two #1's from round 2 to round 3. The two teams from up north now see the tough road LC had, as they have it themselves this year.

 

 

I've pointed out many times that in the attempt to penalize the X/Trinity success, LexCath benefits by not having to beat CovCath/Highlands back to back to just get out of the region.

I have NO clue. I like to use it though.

Per "Weakest District Competition".. I would like to say Let the Westsiding Begin!

 

It's sort of like MTV's Punkd... except on BGP it's "You've been Westsided"

I've pointed out many times that in the attempt to penalize the X/Trinity success, LexCath benefits by not having to beat CovCath/Highlands back to back to just get out of the region.

The extremely tough road to the championship was very sweet last year.

 

Not saying a relativley easier road to a championship wouldn't be.

That's a crock. None of my complaints about this system have anything to do with specific teams and their roads through the playoffs. If anything, this system helps the strong teams from weaker districts because they might have one less tough game in the early rounds.

 

I never said anything about you. I said IMO opinion the only people that have a true complaint was people who were seeking an easier road. So in english I was stating that I did not think your argument was valid not that you were looking for an easier rode. I thought I made that plain in the first sentence that said your argument makes no sense to me.

 

BTW I am not arguing for the new format I just think your argument against it does not hold up. IMO

I never said anything about you. I said IMO opinion the only people that have a true complaint was people who were seeking an easier road.

You left out the word "true," which changes the meaning quite a bit.

 

Nevertheless, I don't agree with your premise. There are other valid reasons not to like this system.

I thought I made that plain in the first sentence that said your argument makes no sense to me.

 

BTW I am not arguing for the new format I just think your argument against it does not hold up. IMO

You're entitled to your opinion.