Agree completely about the challenge of where to play the 32 team part of the tourney. Maybe some type of seeding with a regional emphasis like NCAA does?

 

As to your last thought about fair being subjective, I think what you mean is how to make things more fair is different to different people. Again, I agree. The current system is old and outdated. For the kids sake, maybe someone could try to use any of the solutions you suggest to help make the kids have a more fair and better experience.

 

What is your purpose? No matter how you structure a tournament there will almost surely be upsets and the best teams so to speak are going to get beat. Say your 32 Best teams tournament gets put in place and 3 of the top 5 teams lose in the 1st 2 rounds. Now you're looking at a final 8 with 3 low seeded teams. What's the difference between that and what's happening right now?

You obviously don't work in a school system. We can't just go to Home Depot and buy 1000 feet of wire and run a wire from the backboard across the gym. There are standards we have to follow and electricians we have to pay.

 

Additionally, we don't set our ticket prices so raising the prices isn't something we can just do.

 

I'm not ignorant to the fact the wiring needs to be code compliant. I'd be willing to bet the electrician cost would be minimal and the vast majority of schools have a booster, alum or parent that would do it free.

 

Who sets your ticket prices? If you can't raise the ticket prices raise the price of popcorn, the programs or pass the hat each game. Heck, let them put their logo on it and Coke or Pepsi would pay for it. The bottom line is that Cost is no reason not to have them.

 

I'm still against them.

I'm not ignorant to the fact the wiring needs to be code compliant. I'd be willing to bet the electrician cost would be minimal and the vast majority of schools have a booster, alum or parent that would do it free.

 

Who sets your ticket prices? If you can't raise the ticket prices raise the price of popcorn, the programs or pass the hat each game. Heck, let them put their logo on it and Coke or Pepsi would pay for it. The bottom line is that Cost is no reason not to have them.

 

I'm still against them.

 

Our board of ed. sets our ticket prices. There are multiple schools in our county and we have asked for a change to prices for years. That is a discussion for another post.

 

Our district also doesn't retain an electrician to do these things, so we would have to pay. The building doesn't belong to the booster club so a parent can't install electricity on their own and a team can't just hire any electrical company to do the job.

 

Pepsi and Coke are no longer real options and it is simply not true anymore that they donate to schools. They give almost nothing since soft drink machines aren't available to students.

 

The bottom line is cost is a huge factor. I work in a district where $0 go towards athletics other than the head coach stipend. Give us a few years to prepare and fundraise, then it would be possible.

 

These are just the realities of some districts. Your ideas may be perfectly possible in some places, but bigger districts doesn't mean more money of revenue.

 

I am for the shot clock too. I have seen too many OT games where the team that wins the jump ball just holds it for most of the period.

Our board of ed. sets our ticket prices. There are multiple schools in our county and we have asked for a change to prices for years. That is a discussion for another post.

 

Our district also doesn't retain an electrician to do these things, so we would have to pay. The building doesn't belong to the booster club so a parent can't install electricity on their own and a team can't just hire any electrical company to do the job.

 

Pepsi and Coke are no longer real options and it is simply not true anymore that they donate to schools. They give almost nothing since soft drink machines aren't available to students.

 

The bottom line is cost is a huge factor. I work in a district where $0 go towards athletics other than the head coach stipend. Give us a few years to prepare and fundraise, then it would be possible.

 

These are just the realities of some districts. Your ideas may be perfectly possible in some places, but bigger districts doesn't mean more money of revenue.

 

I am for the shot clock too. I have seen too many OT games where the team that wins the jump ball just holds it for most of the period.

 

So if it was mandated, the school board could raise the ticket price to offset the cost.

 

I wasn't talking about some parents running and extension cord, what I was talking about there is probably a parent, alum or booster that is a licensed electrician that would hook them up for free, if money is an issue. You can make excuses all day, but if they were mandated...the school/board would figure it out in about 15 minutes not a few years. Cost is not the reason there are no shot clocks, it's just an excuse.

 

That said, again I am AGAINST high school shot clocks at this point.

I feel the shot clock would be a mistake. I loved it the last 3 seasons when Walton and South Oldham got together.

 

On one hand you have South Oldham who wants to shoot about every 7 seconds and score in the 70's and 80's, and on the other Walton who wants to grind you down and would be perfectly happy playing a game in the 40's.

 

Watching one team try to speed the other up and watching the other try to slow them down is fun to watch.

 

Plus what has already been said about the lesser teams getting drilled by even more of a spread.

 

This would only benefit the teams that shoot well and have the ability to play up tempo.

 

But what do i know...

What is your purpose? No matter how you structure a tournament there will almost surely be upsets and the best teams so to speak are going to get beat. Say your 32 Best teams tournament gets put in place and 3 of the top 5 teams lose in the 1st 2 rounds. Now you're looking at a final 8 with 3 low seeded teams. What's the difference between that and what's happening right now?

 

Really? There is a HUGE difference. A huge difference for the kid! The player who has earned being a top team in the state. If you read what we were discussing, its about what good for the kids. Its all over twitter right now too because a Wyatt Foust, girls coach at Murray, commented about the "unfairness" of the current set up. I am fine with you wanting to keep it the way it is because you are a Sweet 16 purist/traditional guy, but you have to acknowledge the lack of fairness for the kids who work their tails off all year to be a top 10 team only to get to the Sweet 16 only and be punished by playing a top team. Its more fair for the second best team to be in the other side of the bracket than the best team. Thats why every single college or professional or AAU or anything non high school does seeding in tournaments. This is not rocket science.

Really? There is a HUGE difference. A huge difference for the kid! The player who has earned being a top team in the state. If you read what we were discussing, its about what good for the kids. Its all over twitter right now too because a Wyatt Foust, girls coach at Murray, commented about the "unfairness" of the current set up. I am fine with you wanting to keep it the way it is because you are a Sweet 16 purist/traditional guy, but you have to acknowledge the lack of fairness for the kids who work their tails off all year to be a top 10 team only to get to the Sweet 16 only and be punished by playing a top team. Its more fair for the second best team to be in the other side of the bracket than the best team. Thats why every single college or professional or AAU or anything non high school does seeding in tournaments. This is not rocket science.

 

Gotcha. I guess I missed some earlier comments. I am ok with seeding the Sweet 16. You already get some quasi seeding in the regionals.

The only fair way is to draw it out and let the teams play. When you have seeding you will get manipulation by biased people. If a team doesn't win because of a draw they obviously weren't the best team at that point in the season.

The only fair way is to draw it out and let the teams play. When you have seeding you will get manipulation by biased people. If a team doesn't win because of a draw they obviously weren't the best team at that point in the season.

 

If you seed purely on opinion, this is true. If you seed based on predetermined, set criteria, objective criteria, is really hard for someone to manipulate seeding.

If you seed purely on opinion, this is true. If you seed based on predetermined, set criteria, objective criteria, is really hard for someone to manipulate seeding.

 

Are you real sure about that?

Are you real sure about that?

 

Yes. I’ve seen seeding work literally hundreds of times. As long as there is set criteria, and it’s followed, you may not like all the results, but there isn’t any bias. Yes there may be a few debates and arguments over some spots. And it’s not always perfect. But it’s better than a random draw.

 

Now if, the criteria gets changed, or isn’t set prior to seeding, then everything I said goes out the window.

Yes. I’ve seen seeding work literally hundreds of times. As long as there is set criteria, and it’s followed, you may not like all the results, but there isn’t any bias. Yes there may be a few debates and arguments over some spots. And it’s not always perfect. But it’s better than a random draw.

 

Now if, the criteria gets changed, or isn’t set prior to seeding, then everything I said goes out the window.

Unless everyone in the state is playing the same caliber of schedule, it is going to be incredibly difficult to determine your "set criteria".

Unless everyone in the state is playing the same caliber of schedule, it is going to be incredibly difficult to determine your "set criteria".

 

You’re making it harder than it needs to be. Different sport, but I’ve seeded wrestling tournaments with 300+ wrestlers from 3 or 4 states, many of which I’ve never seen or even heard of. I could seed the state basketball tourney in less than an hour, and I don’t follow HS basketball that closely. I’m guessing the experts could do it in 10 or 15 minutes. The “it’s too hard” crowd is simply making excuses because they don’t want the tourney seeded.

You’re making it harder than it needs to be. Different sport, but I’ve seeded wrestling tournaments with 300+ wrestlers from 3 or 4 states, many of which I’ve never seen or even heard of. I could seed the state basketball tourney in less than an hour, and I don’t follow HS basketball that closely. I’m guessing the experts could do it in 10 or 15 minutes. The “it’s too hard” crowd is simply making excuses because they don’t want the tourney seeded.

 

Now you're making an assumption, because I'm 100% for seeding the Sweet 16. I just don't know how you make it fair unless you create a committee from around the state, lock them in the room with laptops and BGP subscriptions, and we all promise to accept their 1-16 findings. I can't imagine there is any chance that ever happens for a multitude of reasons (give the little guys a chance, being the largest reasons), but I'm 100% in support of finding an equitable way to seed the 16 region winners.

I don't think there would need to be an additional person to run the shot clock. A clock operator with the proper equipment should be able to do it and every game already has a clock operator.

That’s asking a lot from a clock operator. I don’t think that would work at majority of schools.

 

Coming from a small school, when I was AD it was difficult enough to find people to keeps the clock for every game. I had a couple of people who did it but sometimes neither were available and I had to scramble. I couldn’t imagine also having to worry about finding shot clock operators who knew what they were doing, too.

Not every school has the resources available that are found at Scott County and Trinity.