Did your contact say if they were going back to the top two teams from each district making the playoffs? Just from this quote in the above article, it appears that two teams are going to the playoffs. "before a change was make two years ago", leads me to think they may be going back to the way it was then.

 

Two rounds means four teams. It has been four teams per district for a number of years.

I can't find the link, but I read an article that stated 1A-5A are probably going to change back to the old format for this upcoming season. They haven't decided exactly how 6A will be done (it might go back to normal like the other classes), so it is still in the open.

 

But from what I read, the changes will occur this fall.

 

How can they change every class but one?

When it comes to the playoffs, kids may have a preference of who they want to play based on past history or "playoff rivalries". But honestly, the kids would not care who they play, being in the playoffs and travelling to any away site is always exciting.

 

So I agree that playing other districts in the early rounds is best, but lets be reasonable: KEEP IT CLOSE TO HOME!!!

The way it was in the past was a joke! 2006 and 2007 have shown that other schools are successful given the opportunity within one's own district. If your district champ is better than our district champ, then great -- yours becomes regional champ. There is no need to prove a district's muster by having 4 teams in one district whoop on 4 teams from another district. Let each district have a playoff champ and then move on to the regionals for bragging rights.

In Ryan Ernst's blog on Enquirer internet site, he states that according to Julian Tackett, a KHSAA Asst Commissioner, attendance was up 20-25% for the first two rounds of the playoffs this year. I'd think that the proximity of the schools has to have a lot to do with that. Plus, travel costs would have have to been decreased. Better gate and less expenses would seem to mean that we're not going back I would think even if 100% of the coaches wanted it to happen. Schools aren't exactly flush with cash these days. Furthermore, isn't the way we do it in football now the way its done in most (all?) other high school sports?

Did your contact say if they were going back to the top two teams from each district making the playoffs? Just from this quote in the above article, it appears that two teams are going to the playoffs. "before a change was make two years ago", leads me to think they may be going back to the way it was then.

 

No he did not indicate that was going to happen. And I'd be really surprised if it did. From what I'm told, the mentality on the Board seems to be in favor of letting into the football playoffs as many teams as is possible; a position that I think makes sense. Not only is it consistent with what happens in the other team sports, any "devaluing" of making the playoffs is more than offset by letting kids play football another week in my opinion, although I'm sure many will disagree with me.

No he did not indicate that was going to happen. And I'd be really surprised if it did. From what I'm told, the mentality on the Board seems to be in favor of letting into the football playoffs as many teams as is possible; a position that I think makes sense. Not only is it consistent with what happens in the other team sports, any "devaluing" of making the playoffs is more than offset by letting kids play football another week in my opinion, although I'm sure many will disagree with me.

 

I agree. My only argument is if they are going to let 90% of the teams in, then just go ahead and add one week to the playoffs and let the other 10% in and make it a single elimination tournament. Then, like you said, all the teams get an additional game, and everyone has a mythical chance at advancement.

That's some of the data, the KHSAA is trying to collect from the last two years I believe. From the N. Ky districts perspective, the current system has probably worked better than the former system not only gate wise but expense wise. Thus from my perspective, I don't think its penny wise and pound foolish at all. If repeating games played a few weeks earlier involved close games between the 2 and 3 seeded teams, I'd think the first round district game between those two teams would be well attended (for example, I'm told the first round game this year between Dixie and CovCath was very well attended). The first round game between the 1 and 4 seeded teams probably isn't going to be a big gate, but it wasn't under the old system either (in fact, some of them were real dogs gate wise). Assuming the top seeded district teams win the first round, that means the second round is between the 1 and 2 seeded teams. Unless the first meeting between those two teams was a blow out, I'd have to believe that because of district rivalries and competition between nearby schools, that the gate would in most cases be larger than if one of the two teams had to travel far. I think we need to keep in mind that with gas being more and more expensive, the casual fan that might drive a couple of miles to watch a game is not going to drive and hour and a half or more to watch a game due to gas prices. Who knows the data may support your line of thinking, but I don't think it will.

 

It sure was unfair for McCreary Central, whom Bell had defeated two weeks earlier 63-0 on their own field to travel to Log Mountain to be defeated in their first ever playoff game 72-0. Bell did not play their starting QB in game and freshman and sophomores abounded the entire game along with running clock. McCreary did not bring very many fans considering it was their first EVER playoff game, I understand. Cross district play at least provides some variety in schedule.