Jump to content

Annual Football Playoff Discussion


Recommended Posts

Come on now. We aren't going to let this year go by without complaining about the football playoffs are we? 

Personally, I like the football playoffs. I think we should get every team we can into the playoffs just like we do in every other sport. I know there are many who differ. You all have been a little quiet this year. Here is what we saw in round one.

One #4 seed won a first round game and a couple other #4 seeds were very close to winning.

There were 9 #3 seeds that won their games. 

Of the 70 games played this week in round one, by my count 28 of those looked like competitive games based on scores and what I know of the games. That is 40% of the games played were competitive games.

Yes, there were blow out games like what happens in every sport in the first round or two of the playoffs. But 40% of the games were competitive. That is a very strong argument for me against changing the current playoff eligibility rules. I like every team getting into the playoffs. I don't think teams that are competitive should be punished because of the few teams that are not competitive.

Here's your chance to try and argue against that.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This isn't an issue I'm super passionate about, as there are pros and cons to expanding and contracting the postseason format, but I don't love the current structure. If we have six classes, restrict

The good news is that there will be a slight improvement when they return to cross districting next year. The problem with the current structure is that you typically should not expect the lower seed

If we keep doing what we are doing... at least cross district.... which starts for 2022. If not... Daniel Hopkins plan is great.   Or..... a great alternative idea is that the 1 & 2 seed

I'd like to see top 2 in each district get in playoffs, but allow teams that don't get in an extra game so they could schedule another team that didn't get in which would be more competitive for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some numbers to chew on…

- The #1 seeds went 45-1 in the first round. The only upset was Harrison County over Rowan County in 4A. The average score for the 1v4 games was 46-8.5.

- The #2 seeds were 39-9 in round one. The average score of the 2v3 games was 36-17.7.

- There were 26 running clock (36 points or more) final margins in the 46 games involving 1 versus 4 seeds. That doesn't include any potential games where a running clock was achieved but isn't reflected in the final score. It's hard to say how many of those there were.

- There were nine running clock final margins in the 48 2v3 games. As I said above, it's hard to say how many total running clocks we had.

- Fifteen of the 48 2v3 games were decided by two scores or less.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Come on now. We aren't going to let this year go by without complaining about the football playoffs are we? 

Personally, I like the football playoffs. I think we should get every team we can into the playoffs just like we do in every other sport. I know there are many who differ. You all have been a little quiet this year. Here is what we saw in round one.

One #4 seed won a first round game and a couple other #4 seeds were very close to winning.

There were 9 #3 seeds that won their games. 

Of the 70 games played this week in round one, by my count 28 of those looked like competitive games based on scores and what I know of the games. That is 40% of the games played were competitive games.

Yes, there were blow out games like what happens in every sport in the first round or two of the playoffs. But 40% of the games were competitive. That is a very strong argument for me against changing the current playoff eligibility rules. I like every team getting into the playoffs. I don't think teams that are competitive should be punished because of the few teams that are not competitive.

Here's your chance to try and argue against that.

With as few teams as we have playing in KY four(4) classes is plenty. I am also in favor of just having district winners and runner-ups participate and playing cross district. By the way, I was sitting in the BOC meeting when the four district participants proposal was voted on and passed. In the restroom before the meeting started told a BOC member what was going to happen and why....it was a trade off for basketball redistricting. It happened...the look of astonishment on his face was like Mastercard.... priceless. And yes, NKY was really in favor of the move. That's all I'll say. Except to add my friend cracked up when I said "told you so" lol.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news is that there will be a slight improvement when they return to cross districting next year. The problem with the current structure is that you typically should not expect the lower seed to beat the higher seed within their own district - they already proved they were better and probably by a significant margin. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DragonFire said:

The good news is that there will be a slight improvement when they return to cross districting next year. The problem with the current structure is that you typically should not expect the lower seed to beat the higher seed within their own district - they already proved they were better and probably by a significant margin. 

I do agree with the return to cross district play.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 9068 said:

With as few teams as we have playing in KY four(4) classes is plenty. I am also in favor of just having district winners and runner-ups participate and playing cross district. By the way, I was sitting in the BOC meeting when the four district participants proposal was voted on and passed. In the restroom before the meeting started told a BOC member what was going to happen and why....it was a trade off for basketball redistricting. It happened...the look of astonishment on his face was like Mastercard.... priceless. And yes, NKY was really in favor of the move. That's all I'll say. Except to add my friend cracked up when I said "told you so" lol.

 

Why limit the playoffs to so few teams in football? You are in favor of only four classes and then only the district winner and runnerups? That would knock about two thirds of the teams out of the playoffs in football.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Why limit the playoffs to so few teams in football? You are in favor of only four classes and then only the district winner and runnerups? That would knock about two thirds of the teams out of the playoffs in football.

And about 2/3 of them don't need to be in the playoffs. Don't cite basketball, totally different animal. The data cited kind of implies that. Don't cite the "playoff experience" because quite often it's a BAD experience. Two scrimmages and a 14 game march to the State Finals is plenty! Other than a few places a first round game is a break even or losing proposition for most so that dog don't hunt either. Look at how Ohio does their playoffs....with over 700 schools as opposed to about 220 in KY. I also believe they have six classes, maybe seven now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't an issue I'm super passionate about, as there are pros and cons to expanding and contracting the postseason format, but I don't love the current structure. If we have six classes, restrict the teams that get in. Either take the top two seeds only, or give the one seeds a bye and have nothing but 2v3 for the first round. Every team has the regular season to prove they're worthy of a playoff spot. I preferred when it meant something just to make the postseason cut. 

Four teams getting in was good for the old four class system, but that ship has sailed. I don't see a return to those days.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DevilMayCare said:

This isn't an issue I'm super passionate about, as there are pros and cons to expanding and contracting the postseason format, but I don't love the current structure. If we have six classes, restrict the teams that get in. Either take the top two seeds only, or give the one seeds a bye and have nothing but 2v3 for the first round. Every team has the regular season to prove they're worthy of a playoff spot. I preferred when it meant something just to make the postseason cut. 

Four teams getting in was good for the old four class system, but that ship has sailed. I don't see a return to those days.

I would agree to the 1 seed getting bye and the 2/3 seeds playing. Data is clear that 4 and 5 seeds should be left out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 9068 said:

And about 2/3 of them don't need to be in the playoffs. Don't cite basketball, totally different animal. The data cited kind of implies that. Don't cite the "playoff experience" because quite often it's a BAD experience. Two scrimmages and a 14 game march to the State Finals is plenty! Other than a few places a first round game is a break even or losing proposition for most so that dog don't hunt either. Look at how Ohio does their playoffs....with over 700 schools as opposed to about 220 in KY. I also believe they have six classes, maybe seven now. 

Sorry. I disagree with almost every bit of this. 

And Ohio just expanded their playoffs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The playoff proposal that @gchs_uk9 came up with years ago might be my favorite one of all. It would even alter the regular season. I don't know what it would take to dig it up, but it was well thought out and would give Kentucky high school football a facelift.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DevilMayCare said:

The playoff proposal that @gchs_uk9 came up with years ago might be my favorite one of all. It would even alter the regular season. I don't know what it would take to dig it up, but it was well thought out and would give Kentucky high school football a facelift.

Found it. No format is perfect, but I'd like to see what this would actually look like in Kentucky. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.