OK. I am going to tweak my plan. I don't want a team to have to vote to forfeit. That is what the opt out would be. One of the posts above talked about quitting and that is what the opt out is. I don't want anyone to have to request to opt out/quit. Here is my revision.

Any team with zero or one win must "vote" to play round one. They do not qualify for the playoffs unless they request it. The brackets stay the same. Teams bracketed to play a zero or one win team get a bye in round one unless the zero or one win team requests to play.

5 hours ago, burreaux said:

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.

Now, that we can agree on completely.  I have always said organized sports, particularly football in my opinion, teaches many more life lessons than sports lessons.  And, even if you are not winning, or go winless, you are becoming a better person and on the way to being a better adult as a result of playing the sport.  

But, there are lessons being learned by not playing in the playoffs.  A team that played 10 games and not won a single one has learned some lessons.  They have lost many games and continued to suit up and go out there every week in the hopes that they have gotten better and chasing that first win.  They didn't quit.  And, by not making the playoffs, there are lessons there as well, the lessons of, "if you want to succeed, you have to hit certain benchmarks".  Making them prove their team is as bad as expected is not a great life lesson. 

40 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

OK. I am going to tweak my plan. I don't want a team to have to vote to forfeit. That is what the opt out would be. One of the posts above talked about quitting and that is what the opt out is. I don't want anyone to have to request to opt out/quit. Here is my revision.

Any team with zero or one win must "vote" to play round one. They do not qualify for the playoffs unless they request it. The brackets stay the same. Teams bracketed to play a zero or one win team get a bye in round one unless the zero or one win team requests to play.

I'm not sure what the answer is, to me, personally, more football is better.  More teams, more games, more players.  Whatever accomplishes that, I'm in.  

Like I've said before, I am going to continue to speak up for the players I have known that feel one way or another.  Luckily, the team I have been associated with most of my life doesn't have much trouble justifying they should be in the playoffs.  So, my stance is unbiased and only for the kids that seemed to have a bad experience with playing in the playoffs. 

3 hours 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!

It’s this. Read it.

2 hours ago, Ram said:

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.

I understand the point that you're making and like you I'm not sure of the solution. 

I do wonder why we never see this as an issue for baseball, soccer or basketball teams that get blown out in the same manner as football teams.

8 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

I understand the point that you're making and like you I'm not sure of the solution. 

I do wonder why we never see this as an issue for baseball, soccer or basketball teams that get blown out in the same manner as football teams.

That truly is one of my biggest gripes is about this whole debate. People want football treated differently than the other sports by restricting who gets in the playoffs. It is not right to treat football differently.

1 minute ago, Jumper_Dad said:

I understand the point that you're making and like you I'm not sure of the solution. 

I do wonder why we never see this as an issue for baseball, soccer or basketball teams that get blown out in the same manner as football teams.

I think we see more parity in other sports.  Yes big losses happing in baseball and basketball, but it doesn't seem as bad, for one reason or another.  Maybe it's because one decent basketball player can score on a much better team.  Or, one good baseball player can score on a much better team.  But, in football, one player is probably not scoring on a good team.  

This week I watched a game with a pretty good football team.  Not world beaters, but pretty good, playing another team that had one really good running back.  That team handed the ball off to him, pitched it to him and eventually just started directly snapping the ball to him.  I don't know how many yards he had, but I would say it was in the neighborhood of 35 yards on about 40 carries.  He was their punter, their kicker, and their return guy.  I have no doubt he is probably a very good athlete, but a good team stopped him cold and his team never really threatened to score. 

7 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

That truly is one of my biggest gripes is about this whole debate. People want football treated differently than the other sports by restricting who gets in the playoffs. It is not right to treat football differently.

Football is different.  

Baseball and basketball play 20, maybe 30 games a season;  football plays 10, maybe 15 if you are on one of the best teams in the state.  

Baseball and basketball play 2, 3 maybe 4 games a week; football plays 1 game per week.

Baseball and basketball players can easily play 300 games in their high school career with summer ball, fall ball, spring leagues and so on; football players probably average 50 games in four years.  

 

18 minutes ago, Ram said:

I think we see more parity in other sports.  Yes big losses happing in baseball and basketball, but it doesn't seem as bad, for one reason or another.  Maybe it's because one decent basketball player can score on a much better team.  Or, one good baseball player can score on a much better team.  But, in football, one player is probably not scoring on a good team.  

This week I watched a game with a pretty good football team.  Not world beaters, but pretty good, playing another team that had one really good running back.  That team handed the ball off to him, pitched it to him and eventually just started directly snapping the ball to him.  I don't know how many yards he had, but I would say it was in the neighborhood of 35 yards on about 40 carries.  He was their punter, their kicker, and their return guy.  I have no doubt he is probably a very good athlete, but a good team stopped him cold and his team never really threatened to score. 

Football is unique in that one player can not dominate a better team by themselves like in other sports. That doesn't mean kids in other sports don't look at games the same way football players on bad teams do. Kids dread getting pounded in every sport, but no one cares if a basketball team gets beat by 50 or a baseball team gets run ruled down 15 to 0.

I think one reason it looks worse is the way scoring is done. I see 10-0 soccer, baseball and softball game scores all the time, if that score was 70-0 (the football equivalent) people would lose their minds. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ram said:

Football is different.  

Baseball and basketball play 20, maybe 30 games a season;  football plays 10, maybe 15 if you are on one of the best teams in the state.  

Baseball and basketball play 2, 3 maybe 4 games a week; football plays 1 game per week.

Baseball and basketball players can easily play 300 games in their high school career with summer ball, fall ball, spring leagues and so on; football players probably average 50 games in four years.  

 

Which all is even more of an argument in favor of as many football games as possible. 

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

That truly is one of my biggest gripes is about this whole debate. People want football treated differently than the other sports by restricting who gets in the playoffs. It is not right to treat football differently.

We treat football differently at every level besides high school. Youth league not every team makes the playoffs. Middle school not every team makes the playoffs. College and pro not every team makes the playoffs. Why is high school the only exception? As far as the other sports college does end of season conference tournaments so let’s leave that alone and fix football.

On 11/5/2022 at 2:54 PM, 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.

Why?

2 minutes ago, 9068 said:

Why?

Not really for it. Just floated as idea for those that think every team should be in playoffs.

2 hours ago, KYFootballFanz said:

We treat football differently at every level besides high school. Youth league not every team makes the playoffs. Middle school not every team makes the playoffs. College and pro not every team makes the playoffs. Why is high school the only exception? As far as the other sports college does end of season conference tournaments so let’s leave that alone and fix football.

Well first off, some youth leagues do have all inclusive playoffs, as have some middle school conferences in the past.

Every NBA and MLB team don't make the playoffs, yet those sports high school teams do.

So what is "The Fix" that you want for HS Football?

3 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Which all is even more of an argument in favor of as many football games as possible. 

I'm all for it.  

And my exposure is limited, I will admit it, but I did have some experiences that swayed my opinion on the matter. 

And, you and I have the luxury of being fans of teams that are normally not on the side of the ball that I am talking about.