17 minutes ago, burreaux said:

Blowouts happen every week; this is high school football, not the NFL. I think the smoothest way to fix the issue without changing the number of classes is to give the 1st seed a bye.

It's not about "blowouts", it's about why are adults making teenagers who went 0-10 play another team that is going to beat them by 50?  Stop and think about that for a minute, it's basically saying, "hey I know you are embarrassed about the fact your team isn't good, but we want you to show us again". 

As a player, let me have a chance to compete regardless of what the out come may be.  Not all kids play other sports and this is their everything.  As a team, they may know what the inevitable result will be, but I would want to be able to play.  It’s a little more time on the field that I wouldn’t have gotten other wise.  

3 hours ago, Ram said:

It's not about "blowouts", it's about why are adults making teenagers who went 0-10 play another team that is going to beat them by 50?  Stop and think about that for a minute, it's basically saying, "hey I know you are embarrassed about the fact your team isn't good, but we want you to show us again". 

Where would you be ok with it, 1-9, 2-8, 3-7, 4-6, 5-5m

I know you've talked to kids that were embarrassed and wish no one made them play. But unlike every other sport, 99% of kids will never play tackle football in pads after the last game of their senior season. Most everyone I know that played HS football would have loved to line up one more time and it would have killed them to have that one last chance pulled away by adults who think they know what's best for them.

I know a guy that has a framed photo of himself sacking Tim Couch, Leslie County killed them but he has a memory forever. There are kids in every game that you wish didn't exist, that make a life long lasting memory against the "best team" they played all year. 

Maybe the answer IS a minimum number of wins against teams in your class or larger, but under the current system I say let them all play regardless of record. If the PLAYERS choose not to, then let them opt out, but I feel it should be decided at the teams level by each team and not mandated by admin or KHSAA.

3 hours ago, Ram said:

This is always the solution to the problem, "teams can opt out if they want".  It's a non-starter and just a way to end the argument.  It's not realistic and it's should not be up to a team to "opt out".  If I get arrested, do I get an option to "opt out" of jail?  If I'm bad at my job, do I get to "opt out" of getting fired? 

Come on man.  

You've talked for years about some players that you talked to that wish they didn't have to play another game just to get embarrassed. Why aren't you for letting them decide for themselves if they want to play or not?

Teams already have the option to “opt out” of the first round of the playoffs.  It’s called forfeiting and I believe a couple of teams did that this week.

 

if you want to help with the blowouts just give the higher seeds a bye.

7 hours ago, Ram said:

It's not about "blowouts", it's about why are adults making teenagers who went 0-10 play another team that is going to beat them by 50?  Stop and think about that for a minute, it's basically saying, "hey I know you are embarrassed about the fact your team isn't good, but we want you to show us again". 

I have always thought that the purpose of high school sports is to teach character just as much as it is learning how to play the sport. I see and agree with your point about it being potentially embarrassing to kids to have to drive 3 hours only to lose 63-7 and finish the year 0-11. However, there are things in our adult live's that may be embarrassing and uncomfortable but we are still expected to do them. As a parent, I would be upset with the message that forfeiting a game sends.

5 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

Where would you be ok with it, 1-9, 2-8, 3-7, 4-6, 5-5m 

4-6 at the least. I understand getting off to a bad start or having a tough distance. But if you can’t get 4 wins why should you have a chance to compete? You’ve had 10 games to compete and win.   
OR just make it like college. They have 12 games and have to win at least 6 (.500) to be bowl eligible.

16 hours ago, Tigerpride94 said:

I also would let teams eliminated to play extra game against eliminated team if they like. So would still get a post season game.

I don't think that helps anything at all. Meaningless games are just meaningless. Look at the pro bowl, and the majority of college bowl games now. I can see many if not most teams opting not to play a "bonus" game at the end of the season.

Has anyone thought about coaches not wanting a bye in the playoffs? I know bye weeks are tough and taking one at the end of the year especially if you are starting to peak can potentially disrupt your flow. 

No team should be able to "opt out" and no team should get a bye week.

Blowouts can (and will) always occur.

The problem is allowing too many teams in each class a chance in the playoffs.

To me, it's like the "participation" trophy.  Not every team has earned a trophy and not every team has earned the privilege of playing in November.

Quit allowing 2-8, 1-9 and 0-10 teams in playoffs.  IMO, the playoffs should begin in November and end in November. Fewer weeks in playoffs means fewer teams in playoffs. 

It's not that hard!

10 hours ago, Nuke LaLoosh said:

As a player, let me have a chance to compete regardless of what the out come may be.  Not all kids play other sports and this is their everything.  As a team, they may know what the inevitable result will be, but I would want to be able to play.  It’s a little more time on the field that I wouldn’t have gotten other wise.  

Thank you for your post! There are so many kids out there that just want to have the opportunity to play one more game and eventually that will come to an end but this is high school athletics. Let them play! There will always be teams that don’t have enough to compete whether by injuries or kids leaving the program and they can forfeit just like a few did this year but who are we to say every kid feels the same way a few do who don’t want to play. There is options for those kids to choose not to play. Football teaches kids lots of valuable lessons for life (toughness through adversity, teamwork, perseverance, etc.) let’s not make one of those how to quit when things get tough in life. KHSAA is just looking out for the whole and the not the few. 

9 hours ago, Killowatt59 said:

Teams already have the option to “opt out” of the first round of the playoffs.  It’s called forfeiting and I believe a couple of teams did that this week.

 

if you want to help with the blowouts just give the higher seeds a bye.

Look at round 3 of last year's playoffs in every class. Only a very few games were close. Should we just have a committee select the final four and go at it that way? But even then there are going to be lopsided games. There have been running clock games in the championships. I will say it again - stopping blowouts is impossible. 

1 hour ago, PurplesFan said:

No team should be able to "opt out" and no team should get a bye week.

Blowouts can (and will) always occur.

The problem is allowing too many teams in each class a chance in the playoffs.

To me, it's like the "participation" trophy.  Not every team has earned a trophy and not every team has earned the privilege of playing in November.

Quit allowing 2-8, 1-9 and 0-10 teams in playoffs.  IMO, the playoffs should begin in November and end in November. Fewer weeks in playoffs means fewer teams in playoffs. 

It's not that hard!

Why is that a problem for people in football but they don't care about the 2 win basketball team losing by 75 in the playoffs? Or the 1 win baseball team losing 25-0 in the playoffs? 

9 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

Where would you be ok with it, 1-9, 2-8, 3-7, 4-6, 5-5m

I know you've talked to kids that were embarrassed and wish no one made them play. But unlike every other sport, 99% of kids will never play tackle football in pads after the last game of their senior season. Most everyone I know that played HS football would have loved to line up one more time and it would have killed them to have that one last chance pulled away by adults who think they know what's best for them.

I know a guy that has a framed photo of himself sacking Tim Couch, Leslie County killed them but he has a memory forever. There are kids in every game that you wish didn't exist, that make a life long lasting memory against the "best team" they played all year. 

Maybe the answer IS a minimum number of wins against teams in your class or larger, but under the current system I say let them all play regardless of record. If the PLAYERS choose not to, then let them opt out, but I feel it should be decided at the teams level by each team and not mandated by admin or KHSAA.

To be honest, I personally, don't have a set number of wins in mind and would be open to to recommendations.  I do think zero wins would not be enough.

I too played football, and you are correct, once that last game is over in high school, 99% will of players will never play tackle football again.  And, for 1%, their last game will come in college.  Many of that 1% never play after their freshman year of college, with the rest playing that last game at the conclusion of their senior year of college.  I think for many, that last game, no matter when it comes, hurts a little.

Like I've said before, I'm all for teams, and players, playing as much as they can.  I want the players to have all those great experiences.  Are there players that want to play that last game, knowing they are going to get beat badly?  I'm sure there are.  But, as you said, I've seen players on opposing teams that did not, quite a few actually.  It was sad and something that was not fostering great memories.  Many of these players were in multiple sad situations.  Picture what I have seen:  players that had to play a game against a team that could easily score 100 points, if they wanted to, one fan for your team in the stands, the opposing team having 2,000+ fans in the stands and playing the one, or two, or three seed in your class when you have not won a single game and lost them all by, say, an average of 40 points.  Not the way many want to go out.

9 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

You've talked for years about some players that you talked to that wish they didn't have to play another game just to get embarrassed. Why aren't you for letting them decide for themselves if they want to play or not?

Because I think it is a bad option.  These players are proud and they are playing for the players beside of them, not for the wins.  They are tough.  They are not going to seemingly let their friends, coaches and school down by saying they don't want to play.  I wouldn't either.  I would walk on that field and take my butt kicking before I told my teammates I didn't want to play with them one more time.  Even, if all the players on the team are thinking the same thing, "I don't want to play this game".  

But, if that decision was made for them, they would gladly go along with the rules.  

Back in the day when not everyone made the playoffs, my team didn't make the playoffs one year.  It sucked, it was not fun, but going into that last regular season game, we knew that was the last game of the season for us.  I was not a senior, but the seniors on the team were upset. But, they went out and played that last game like it was the championship game and went out winning their last game.  It was sad, but it we all knew that was the way it went if you didn't win the games to get to the playoffs.  No one in the locker room was complaining saying, "everyone should be in the playoffs".