Change My Mind

[theguru]

Bump.

[Ram]

"But......they get another week of practice and get the opportunity to play in the playoffs".

When we have this discussion, I always think back to when my son played his first round games each year.  The players from the other schools would say things to him like, "hey man, we don't have to work too hard here, we both know who is going to win" and "You tell me which way to go, and I'll go that way.  No need to get hurt, you have to play next week".   

I don't remember ever playing a game I didn't think we could win.  Yea, that was sometimes misconceived, but I never went into a game thinking we could not win.  Many of these kids are up against such insurmountable factors, that they can't even fathom winning.  It's sad to make them play the game.  And, don't give me that horse crap about, "they can opt to not play", they know they can't win, but they are strong enough to play the game anyway.  It's just sad that adults make them. 

[TheDeuce]

8 minutes ago, Ram said:

"But......they get another week of practice and get the opportunity to play in the playoffs".

When we have this discussion, I always think back to when my son played his first round games each year.  The players from the other schools would say things to him like, "hey man, we don't have to work too hard here, we both know who is going to win" and "You tell me which way to go, and I'll go that way.  No need to get hurt, you have to play next week".   

I don't remember ever playing a game I didn't think we could win.  Yea, that was sometimes misconceived, but I never went into a game thinking we could not win.  Many of these kids are up against such insurmountable factors, that they can't even fathom winning.  It's sad to make them play the game.  And, don't give me that horse crap about, "they can opt to not play", they know they can't win, but they are strong enough to play the game anyway.  It's just sad that adults make them. 

When you have those obvious blowout games, everyone knows it, especially the players on the field. I remember having very similar conversations in games I was a part of. 

[Ram]

4 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

When you have those obvious blowout games, everyone knows it, especially the players on the field. I remember having very similar conversations in games I was a part of. 

I remember a first round game, my son was getting recruited and some colleges were at the game.  My son is just putting hands on defenders and pushing them to one side, you know, going through the motions but they scored.  He comes trotting off the field and I'm yelling at him, "what are you doing?", "You have to play the game".  He's says, "Dad, he said to just tell him which way to go and he would go there".  What was I supposed to say? 

[Ram]

10 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

When you have those obvious blowout games, everyone knows it, especially the players on the field. I remember having very similar conversations in games I was a part of. 

And the game above is when I decided that I would advocate for those kids that went 0-10 and were forced to play an 11th game.  

[KYFootballFanz]

On 10/30/2022 at 7:20 PM, Bluegrasscard said:

 

I will reference these in my annual appeal on this topic. 

I will start with the basics. 

7 team pods - call them regions, districts, whatever.  Why 7?  Two reason but will start with the playoff reason. 

With 7 teams the playoff seeding can be on that avoids the issues with "blowout weekend". 

Seeding:

#1 Gets a bye week.  Reward for winning pod. 

#6 vs #7.  Usually the struggling teams.  But instead of being sacrificial lambs the first weekend.  They get a chance to get a victory and something build upon or end a short career with.  The winner gets #1 in week 2.  So the week 2 game may be running clock. 

#2 vs #5.  Probably a competitive game in some cases.  Some cases - maybe not. 

#3 vs. #4.  Now you have a likely competitive game in week 1.  Two mid-teams having to sort it out first week.  Winner faces winner of winner of 2/5 game in week 2. 

#1 gets a very easy path to the pod-chamipionship game.  But then would be in for a fight for 4 weeks. 

4 weeks?  Yes - six week playoff schedule.  If you have to shave a regular season game out of the schedule since everyone does make post season. 

To do that - the math says go back to 4 classes (I know...).   4 classes, 8 pods/class, 7 teams/pod.  This works for up to 224 (4 x 8 x 7) teams.  At one time there was slightly less than this in Kentucky. 

I know 4 classes is a non-starter.  But the 7 team bracketing has some interesting dynamics that could lead to more competitive games in the early weekends.  Doing the 6/7 game gives programs something to build on and the chance at two weekends in the post season. 

 

 

 

 

This here is a great idea. It’s similar to Ohio. And to be honest I wouldn’t mind seeing neutral sites come the 3rd round. 

[9068]

On 10/30/2022 at 12:26 PM, Voice of Reason said:

I can't state here how strongly I am opposed to restricting playoffs. I want opportunity for as many as possible. In football especially there is a huge problem of the top teams dominating year after year. Restrict access further to those top teams and the sports will keep losing participants. It is about the experience for all these athletes first and foremost above winning. Restricting the playoffs makes it more about winning and less about experience and opportunity for as many young people as possible.

That's interesting to me. When your Bluebirds were struggling for a few seasons it sure wasn't about the experience first and foremost lol. Most weaker teams are DONE when they get off the bus. Thank God for the running clock!

[rjs4470]

Here's the thing....most states there are huge arguments about teams being left out of the playoffs, or not getting a chance to play for a state title because they are in a super competitive district/conference/region. By letting everyone in, we don't have this argument and there are no what ifs, or complaints about teams not getting a chance. It's really a good thing that teams aren't getting punished for playing in a super tough district.

If you feel like your team doesn't belong, or is in way over their head, then you can opt out, and there are a few teams that choose to do that every year. People always talk about life lessons that can be learned in football...well, going on the road to play a team you have no chance in beating is just another one of those lessons. 

[#RockNation]

On 10/30/2022 at 6:26 PM, VF111 said:

It’s an important check for some schools.

For a team of young players with a future, it’s an important experience, and one more time to see live action.

It’s one last week of football for some seniors who play their hearts out for bad teams. 

Even for those teams headed to the inevitable running clock, it can be a good week of practice, team bonding, and closing up shop.

Its one final road trip (sometimes a long one) for teams to be together.

Obviously, there are a share of teams where they just want to be done, but for more teams than some think, it’s a good final week of HS football.  

 

This is a really good response, I think. Good or bad, the kids get to play one more meaningful game, win or lose, and in some cases, get to enjoy the bus ride and comraderie that goes with it. It is up to the coaches and administration to ensure that it is a meaningful and bonding experience for the kids and something they can fall back on in their lives. I remember there was a coach who was coming to play us from out in the state for a round 1 game and before their game, he drove to Cardinal Stadium and had his kids get off the bus and go take a look around. He said they had to actually see the place first if they were ever going to make it there. That kind of moment isn't for the Seniors, but it can be pretty impactful for the younger guys on the team.

[Ram]

43 minutes ago, rjs4470 said:

Here's the thing....most states there are huge arguments about teams being left out of the playoffs, or not getting a chance to play for a state title because they are in a super competitive district/conference/region. By letting everyone in, we don't have this argument and there are no what ifs, or complaints about teams not getting a chance. It's really a good thing that teams aren't getting punished for playing in a super tough district.

If you feel like your team doesn't belong, or is in way over their head, then you can opt out, and there are a few teams that choose to do that every year. People always talk about life lessons that can be learned in football...well, going on the road to play a team you have no chance in beating is just another one of those lessons. 

The "Opt-out" argument is a non-starter and only a way for proponents of everyone being in the playoffs to end a disagreement.  We all know, short of too few players to play, no one is going to opt out.

I think there are several distinct stances that are often placed in only two:  "let everyone in", or "don't let everyone in".  What most opponents of the "let everyone in" argument are really saying, "Don't let winless teams, or 1-9, or 2-8 teams in the playoffs".  It is demeaning to the players of those teams, don't believe me, ask them.  Sure, they will show up and they will play, that is what high school sports and social norms teach them, but they would be just fine without playing in the playoffs after going 0-10 for the season.  

Perhaps, a minimum wins should be used, like college football bowl eligibility.  Not saying 5 wins, don't throw me under that bus, but a number of some kind:  2, 3, 4; what ever.  

[rjs4470]

1 hour ago, Ram said:

The "Opt-out" argument is a non-starter and only a way for proponents of everyone being in the playoffs to end a disagreement.  We all know, short of too few players to play, no one is going to opt out.

I think there are several distinct stances that are often placed in only two:  "let everyone in", or "don't let everyone in".  What most opponents of the "let everyone in" argument are really saying, "Don't let winless teams, or 1-9, or 2-8 teams in the playoffs".  It is demeaning to the players of those teams, don't believe me, ask them.  Sure, they will show up and they will play, that is what high school sports and social norms teach them, but they would be just fine without playing in the playoffs after going 0-10 for the season.  

Perhaps, a minimum wins should be used, like college football bowl eligibility.  Not saying 5 wins, don't throw me under that bus, but a number of some kind:  2, 3, 4; what ever.  

Look, I know it's not an ideal situation for a winless team to go on the road for a few hours to get hammered. But I wouldn't call it demeaning. It's certainly no more demeaning than getting running clocked during the regular season. And no one is calling for those games to get cancelled or not happen. What's the different about it happening in game 11? Suddenly in November, we become worried about demeaning teams and them getting embarrassed. 

I will also tell you I was involved in one of these first round games that you want to do away with back in 2009, with a 2-8 team that had to make a 3.5 hour trip to Johnson Central to play in a game that they had no chance of winning, and while we did lose, it was one of the most memorable football experiences I ever witnessed in my 35+ years as a player or coach, and one I still share with people  all the time. There are positive, memorable experiences that can be had every single time you step on the field. 

[RockPride]

Can we just start the running clocks now?

I sure wish we'd go back to 4 classes. 

[TheDeuce]

Just now, RockPride said:

I sure wish we'd go back to 4 classes. 

Can you imagine the whining... LOL

[rjs4470]

19 minutes ago, RockPride said:

Can we just start the running clocks now?

I sure wish we'd go back to 4 classes. 

That Won’t get rid of running clocks. There are 20+ running clock games every week of the season.

[Brown]

Isn't going to 6 classes all about more teams winning titles?  More teams playing?  I think these are one in the same issue, or at least triggered by the same needs.  Please discuss...