I would think the argument that a team just wants to go somewhere close and end a poor season wouldn’t be what I would be thinking. I would be thinking that maybe the other district is weaker and my 4th seed has a real chance to beat their one seed rather than play the same team that beat us 52-7 in the regular season.

16 hours ago, Tigerpride94 said:

One idea I heard brought up during KHSAA meeting was idea of playing another district that is geographically close. Which have 3 6A districts in Louisville so one district would be the odd one out. Probably better than intra-district play.

The 5 seed out of the western KY 6 A district is the odd one out right now.  It can’t be fun traveling 3 hours to get beat 60-0 by Trinity.  If that’s ok, then I don’t see a problem with other teams traveling a bit, especially a couple Louisville teams traveling an hour to the Lexington area & vice-versa.  Honestly they could just cluster it.  Take the 6A district in Western KY, Central KY & 2 6A districts in Louisville & rotate them yearly for inter-district play.  Do the same thing for the other four 6A districts in Eastern Louisville, NKY & the 2 in the Lexington area.  You could very easily do the same for the other 5 classes.  It would make it much more fun for the kids & even coaches.  

17 hours ago, Unrivaled97 said:

The 5 seed out of the western KY 6 A district is the odd one out right now.  It can’t be fun traveling 3 hours to get beat 60-0 by Trinity.  If that’s ok, then I don’t see a problem with other teams traveling a bit, especially a couple Louisville teams traveling an hour to the Lexington area & vice-versa.  Honestly they could just cluster it.  Take the 6A district in Western KY, Central KY & 2 6A districts in Louisville & rotate them yearly for inter-district play.  Do the same thing for the other four 6A districts in Eastern Louisville, NKY & the 2 in the Lexington area.  You could very easily do the same for the other 5 classes.  It would make it much more fun for the kids & even coaches.  

I agree with this idea, there’s always going to be blowouts in football that’s just how it is but if you rotate districts 1-4 and districts 5-8 so that the same team doesn’t have to travel to a team like Trinity every year that would be the best solution. I think this is what they were doing the last two years before the realignment and I thought it was really fun to watch.

Looking at 6A districts, just pair 1&2, 3&4,5&6,7&8. They are as close as can get based on geography. 1st round play a team from the other district so won't be playing team from your own district. 

7 hours ago, Tkinslow said:

I agree with this idea, there’s always going to be blowouts in football that’s just how it is but if you rotate districts 1-4 and districts 5-8 so that the same team doesn’t have to travel to a team like Trinity every year that would be the best solution. I think this is what they were doing the last two years before the realignment and I thought it was really fun to watch.

This is what the superintendents and from what I gather, most coaches do not want.  They don't want the possibility of having a 1st round game be over 3 hours away.  I think the only way this changes is that we go back to a set "sister district" like 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8.  

2 hours ago, Pick-six said:

This is what the superintendents and from what I gather, most coaches do not want.  They don't want the possibility of having a 1st round game be over 3 hours away.  I think the only way this changes is that we go back to a set "sister district" like 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8.  

I’ve never understood the whole 3 hour trip complaint football plays the least amount of games of any sport is it really that expensive to travel 3 hours for one game a season I just don’t get that complaint especially since I would imagine their are a lot of hour and a half two hour drives during the season is that extra hour one time a season really that big a deal.

It’s not just one game.  It could potentially lead to several long trips if you win.  In the current system, you are guaranteed short drives for the first 2 rounds.

Also, with football teams you typically require more buses than other sports.  Especially if the COVID rules do not change.  Most schools had to double the number of buses they normally used this year.

12 hours ago, Pick-six said:

It’s not just one game.  It could potentially lead to several long trips if you win.  In the current system, you are guaranteed short drives for the first 2 rounds.

Also, with football teams you typically require more buses than other sports.  Especially if the COVID rules do not change.  Most schools had to double the number of buses they normally used this year.

Just excuses if you’re winning you don’t mind the drive.

15 hours ago, Pick-six said:

This is what the superintendents and from what I gather, most coaches do not want.  They don't want the possibility of having a 1st round game be over 3 hours away.  I think the only way this changes is that we go back to a set "sister district" like 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8.  

Exactly what it will look like, I don't know. But, I do know that some Superintendents have shared their thoughts with some KFCA Elected Council members, which we appreciate. 

As @ChiefSmoke knows I've got my own proposal floating around. However, in keeping with a sister district plan, I've always thought this might work:

District 1-1st Place vs. District 1-4th Place

District 2-2nd Place vs. District 1-3rd Place

 

Follow the same pattern all the way through the bracket. If you want to stick with using the RPI (or some other formula) to re-seed the bracket after round 2 you could still do so because there would be 4 western teams and 4 eastern teams remaining.

Benefits:

• 4th place district finishers, likely to lose their first playoff game, wouldn't have to travel so far. Gate money for 1-4 games, in district or out, is typically small.
• 2nd and 3rd place finishers in the same district would avoid each other, eliminating potential early elimination games for contenders (Mercer/CAL/DeSales of late).
• 3rd place teams in tough districts wouldn't necessarily be punished by geography.
• 2nd place teams hosting a sister district opponent will likely mean decent gate money because it should be a competitive games.

Take care of your business in the regular season and play at home.

6 hours ago, gchs_uk9 said:

As @ChiefSmoke knows I've got my own proposal floating around. However, in keeping with a sister district plan, I've always thought this might work:

District 1-1st Place vs. District 1-4th Place

District 2-2nd Place vs. District 1-3rd Place

 

Follow the same pattern all the way through the bracket. If you want to stick with using the RPI (or some other formula) to re-seed the bracket after round 2 you could still do so because there would be 4 western teams and 4 eastern teams remaining.

Benefits:

• 4th place district finishers, likely to lose their first playoff game, wouldn't have to travel so far. Gate money for 1-4 games, in district or out, is typically small.
• 2nd and 3rd place finishers in the same district would avoid each other, eliminating potential early elimination games for contenders (Mercer/CAL/DeSales of late).
• 3rd place teams in tough districts wouldn't necessarily be punished by geography.
• 2nd place teams hosting a sister district opponent will likely mean decent gate money because it should be a competitive games.

I wouldn’t care for this system it almost seems like you’re protecting a couple districts that have three tough teams and just giving them a way for all three to get a little further in the playoffs.

55 minutes ago, Tkinslow said:

I wouldn’t care for this system it almost seems like you’re protecting a couple districts that have three tough teams and just giving them a way for all three to get a little further in the playoffs.

I don't see it that way. I see this more as a way of avoiding long district 1-4 games that we already know the result beforehand. 2-3 games tend to be much more competitive (either in-district or out-district) so mixing it up a little adds some spice to the playoffs instead of the same first round matchups every season.

4 hours ago, gchs_uk9 said:

I don't see it that way. I see this more as a way of avoiding long district 1-4 games that we already know the result beforehand. 2-3 games tend to be much more competitive (either in-district or out-district) so mixing it up a little adds some spice to the playoffs instead of the same first round matchups every season.

It all depends on how you look at it, what if you have a very competitive district and all four teams have tight competitive games. So the 4 seed gets to face the 1 seed in their district who they already played super tight in the regular season. But your reward for beating that same 4 seed is you get to play the 3 seed out of another district and what if that 3 seed is Cal, Desales or Mercer Co you are going to feel like you got screwed. Bottom line someone is going to feel like they got a raw deal so me personally as a fan likes seeing my team play different teams I don’t want to play the same teams twice a year every year unless it’s in the region championship.

I'd like to see it go back to cross district for the first two rounds. Then the region championship be based off winner from sister districts so it's a true 'region' championship. Round 4 be based off of RPI.