I don't have info on how many running clocks there were, but removing the two 1-0 wins by forfeit (Bardstown over Western Hills and Central over Marion County), the average score in the 90 games played in Kentucky in the first round of the playoffs was 43.34 to 11.57.

26 of the 90 games played in Kentucky in the first round of the playoffs were shutouts. That's 29%...so basically a third of those games.

Of the 26 first round shutouts, the average margin of victory was 44.96 points, so they averaged a full touchdown more than a running clock win. Only 4 of the shutout games were not running clocks.

33 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

I don't have info on how many running clocks there were, but removing the two 1-0 wins by forfeit (Bardstown over Western Hills and Central over Marion County), the average score in the 90 games played in Kentucky in the first round of the playoffs was 43.34 to 11.57.

26 of the 90 games played in Kentucky in the first round of the playoffs were shutouts. That's 29%...so basically a third of those games.

Of the 26 first round shutouts, the average margin of victory was 44.96 points, so they averaged a full touchdown more than a running clock win. Only 4 of the shutout games were not running clocks.

2006 playoffs round 1 with teams excluded and only 4 classes ... average score 36.4 to 13.4 If there were a 36 point running clock in 2006, it looks to me like there were 23 of the 64 games that were running clocks. More than a third of the round one games were running clock games. More than half of the games (37 of 64) were decided by 21 points or more.

So I ask again, what is the goal? If you reduce the number of teams in the playoffs, there will still be a lot of running clock games. There will still be a lot of games that are won easily by one team.

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

2006 playoffs round 1 with teams excluded and only 4 classes ... average score 36.4 to 13.4 If there were a 36 point running clock in 2006, it looks to me like there were 23 of the 64 games that were running clocks. More than a third of the round one games were running clock games. More than half of the games (37 of 64) were decided by 21 points or more.

So I ask again, what is the goal? If you reduce the number of teams in the playoffs, there will still be a lot of running clock games. There will still be a lot of games that are won easily by one team.

I definitely think the answer is reducing the number of teams in the playoffs. That's definitely my stance on the matter.

It's not exactly scientific data, per se, but if you look at this year's second round, the average score in the 48 games played in Kentucky in the second round of the playoffs was 36.54 to 12.64 and there were only 8 shutouts, so 17% shutouts in the second round as compared to 29% in the first round. And the average margin of victory in the shutout games lowers from 44.96 points in the first round to 32.5 points in the second round.

That's pretty clear evidence that there was more parity in the second round than the first, as it should be. But also, if we effectively did away with the first round by reducing the number of teams qualifying for the playoffs, it means less money spent around the state on games that are essentially decided before the kids take the field, and frankly, fewer kids who have to end their football careers by taking a shellacking.

6 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

2006 playoffs round 1 with teams excluded and only 4 classes ... average score 36.4 to 13.4 If there were a 36 point running clock in 2006, it looks to me like there were 23 of the 64 games that were running clocks. More than a third of the round one games were running clock games. More than half of the games (37 of 64) were decided by 21 points or more.

So I ask again, what is the goal? If you reduce the number of teams in the playoffs, there will still be a lot of running clock games. There will still be a lot of games that are won easily by one team.

Turn it into the CFP, four teams make the playoffs for each class based on their body of work! Less football!

On 11/4/2022 at 8:55 PM, Killowatt59 said:

Can’t wait to see the total combined scores for the first round games this year.

Class 1A: 511-116 Average score 43-10

Class 2A: 678-220 Average Score 42-14

Class 3A: 649-176 Average Score 43-12

Class 4A: 646-139 Average Score 43-9

Class 5A: 714-154 Average Score 45-10

Class 6A: 695-236 Average Score 43-14

Part of me says leave it as it is.  You learn more about yourself from the losses than you do the wins.  
 

On the other hand, if limiting the number of teams will shorten the season by a week I’m all for it.  I miss the Turkey weekend finals.  Plus many of these players participate in winter sports and the later finish delays their start there.  

On 11/15/2022 at 9:45 AM, TheDeuce said:

Class 1A: 511-116 Average score 43-10

Class 2A: 678-220 Average Score 42-14

Class 3A: 649-176 Average Score 43-12

Class 4A: 646-139 Average Score 43-9

Class 5A: 714-154 Average Score 45-10

Class 6A: 695-236 Average Score 43-14

As I posted above, in 2006 with 4 classes the average for round 1 was 36-14. Not much of a difference.

Last night in round 3 the average margin was 34-14. There were at least 5 running clock games last night.

Let me beat this dead horse again, what problem are we trying to fix? It definitely is not blowout scores. 

Bump to the top.

I will now take the soap box.

First of all... I agree wholeheartedly. This week stinks.

Secondly, for all those wishing, hoping, and praying for us to go back to four classes.... just stop. Ain't never happening. Won't ever happen. I would say you have a more likely chance to see another class added more than the number of classes being reduced.

Now let me speak my mind. This can be salvaged. It can be salvaged in a very simple manner that adds even more value to regular season games and also helps eliminate multiple side effects we hate about the First Round. 

Three teams per district makes the playoff. 

1. The most common bad game is 1 vs. 4. You will still have some 2 vs. 3 snoozefests... but those are far less likely as the predicted 1 vs. 4 outcome.

2. We have a 4 team District problem. This means that when you have a 0-10 team in a 4-team District they earn the right to go get chain sawed by a good team just by simply existing in the world. They don't want to play this game, noone is going to attend this game, and if they are being honest the coaches of these 0-10 teams would rather have a week start on trying to make sure they aren't 0-10 the next year.

3. The teams who typically struggle the most financially are those #4 seeds, so when the complaint about travel in the playoffs come up.. it is these teams who know they are loading up diesel and paying for meals for a game they are destined to lose with a running clock after spending so much money from their budget to do it.

4. This would only ADD to the value of the regular season on two levels. This makes games all the more important for the teams competing just to make the playoffs and for the teams competing to win the District now it takes on a whole new role.

5. That first round BYE for the best teams is HUGE. An extra week to get healthy, an extra week to prepare, and even more importantly...

6. ....A pothole that doesn't have to be avoided. Every year we have a key injury to a State Title contender occur in a game where there is no competition. Most coaches have war stories about this round and the freak ankle sprain, the slip that leads to a broken collarbone, etc. One more week for injuries to happen, but even worse, a lot of injuries seem to occur when a player is not locked in. A linemen misses a block, a kid playing DE that takes the completely wrong line because he doesn't know what he is doing and hits someone who would have never been hit...

 

Cut it to three teams per district, give the 1-seed a bye... games get better, and the best teams stay healthier to have better games when it counts against good teams.

 

 

32 minutes ago, ATLCat said:

I will now take the soap box.

First of all... I agree wholeheartedly. This week stinks.

Secondly, for all those wishing, hoping, and praying for us to go back to four classes.... just stop. Ain't never happening. Won't ever happen. I would say you have a more likely chance to see another class added more than the number of classes being reduced.

Now let me speak my mind. This can be salvaged. It can be salvaged in a very simple manner that adds even more value to regular season games and also helps eliminate multiple side effects we hate about the First Round. 

Three teams per district makes the playoff. 

1. The most common bad game is 1 vs. 4. You will still have some 2 vs. 3 snoozefests... but those are far less likely as the predicted 1 vs. 4 outcome.

2. We have a 4 team District problem. This means that when you have a 0-10 team in a 4-team District they earn the right to go get chain sawed by a good team just by simply existing in the world. They don't want to play this game, noone is going to attend this game, and if they are being honest the coaches of these 0-10 teams would rather have a week start on trying to make sure they aren't 0-10 the next year.

3. The teams who typically struggle the most financially are those #4 seeds, so when the complaint about travel in the playoffs come up.. it is these teams who know they are loading up diesel and paying for meals for a game they are destined to lose with a running clock after spending so much money from their budget to do it.

4. This would only ADD to the value of the regular season on two levels. This makes games all the more important for the teams competing just to make the playoffs and for the teams competing to win the District now it takes on a whole new role.

5. That first round BYE for the best teams is HUGE. An extra week to get healthy, an extra week to prepare, and even more importantly...

6. ....A pothole that doesn't have to be avoided. Every year we have a key injury to a State Title contender occur in a game where there is no competition. Most coaches have war stories about this round and the freak ankle sprain, the slip that leads to a broken collarbone, etc. One more week for injuries to happen, but even worse, a lot of injuries seem to occur when a player is not locked in. A linemen misses a block, a kid playing DE that takes the completely wrong line because he doesn't know what he is doing and hits someone who would have never been hit...

 

Cut it to three teams per district, give the 1-seed a bye... games get better, and the best teams stay healthier to have better games when it counts against good teams.

 

 

I hate that football gets singled out when the same type of blowouts happen in basketball and baseball with no complaints.

I want kids to get the chance to play. A football game for the large majority of kids happens only in these high school years. I want every kid who wants to play to get the opportunity to play.

That said, here is my proposal. Make the football playoffs like college bowl game eligibility. Set a win threshold to qualify. My win threshold is 2. If you win 2 games you qualify. Teams with less than 2 wins who are also a 4 seed are out and their first round playoff opponent gets a bye in round 1.

Lastly, I  want the same type of wins rule set for baseball and basketball post season.

RC week.

Julian Tackett told me about Louisiana's Select & Non Select format. It is not public vs. private... I believe it is based on where the kids live that attend your school.

Marvin Dantzler(Central HS) played in the system when he coached in Louisiana and thought it was a good approach. 

First round games would be more competitive with that type of set up. 

I am all ears, please explain it to us, Coach!

43 minutes ago, theguru said:

I am all ears, please explain it to us, Coach!

I need to do more research. Marvin and I talked about it. It was new to him.... he had been in Oklahoma, previously. He said something to the effect that even though he played select teams regular season, he was surprised the postseason it was split.. and he was non select. 

Don't want to  put words in people's mouth, but I think Marvin thought it was a good idea... thought it was more equitable/fair way to do postseason.  

I would like to pursue the Louisiana Select/Non Select approach. It sounds like an idea that has some potential.