Everyone that argues against the sub-par or winless teams always says the same things:

1.) Something about "cheap shots"- Could this not happen in week 2 - 5, also?

OR am I missing something and all sub-par teams are just looking to ruin someone's health/career?

2.) Something about Injuries- Can happen in any game at any time. Get rid of week ones bad teams and only play above .500 teams, and the chance for the same injury is still right there.

 

I really don't see either of these as a problem contained to "frustrated" bad teams. I also can't see an epidemic of 3-7 or 0-10 teams going out and saying "Well, we can't win, but do your best to break some legs!". The 0-fers will thin out fast, but if a team loses to one, they were not ready for a run, anyway.

 

You are correct, an injury can happen in practice, car accident, at home, etc. My point regarding injuries is, how would you like to lose your QB or star back in a game that you know you will win?

The only argument I see for the 3 and 4 seeds is IF they have more than 3 really good teams in a district. Look at our District 1-5, We (Raceland) are the #1 seed and curently #1 in the AP poll, LCA is the #2 seed and #3 in the AP poll and Fairview is the #3 seed and they are in the AP top ten. That would be sad to see Fairview miss out with a 7-3 record.

I don't have an answer, I do not like the current format, but until someone comes up with the RIGHT answer, we'll just have to accept what we have.

Ludlow went 2-2 in their district and 4-6 overall. They played NO 1A teams outside their district. According to some on here they don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I disagree.

Ludlow went 2-2 in their district and 4-6 overall. They played NO 1A teams outside their district. According to some on here they don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I disagree.

 

Another good point. Who and where is Ludlow suppose to play in order to play 1A football from the NKY area? Most of the teams in their area are larger or play up. As I just said in my previous post, surely there is a good solution without so many games and so many teams in the playoff scenario.

Ohio's system sucks because it leaves off too many deserving teams and it is too subjective to criteria out of your control.

 

Kentucky lets in too many underserving teams, but that problem solves itself in 1 week.

 

I'll take our system over theirs any day.

 

 

(btw, this topic didn't belong in the factoid thread, so I gave it its own thread)

 

I have thought overnight on your response. Again, I am not saying Ohio has it right, but let's think about this. Why does a 7-3 record or 8-2 record automatically mean you are good and deserve to play in the post season? Let's make a scenario up......

 

Sidelinedoc High is 8-2. Of their 8 wins, the combined record of the teams they beat are 10 wins and 70 losses. Of the 2 teams you lost to are 18 wins and 2 losses. Are you REALLY good enough to play for a title? Yes, our system weeds everything out in week one, usually. But why put undeserving teams in a rewarding situation? I guess my conservative political view is starting to bleed into my athletic opinions.:sssh:

I don't have any answers for that. I do know that Ludlow needs to come up with a more competitive schedule for next season. They played too tough a schedule this season for them. Playing Scott (5A), Grant County (5A), and Henry County (3A) is not in their best interest.

Class 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A Total

# Teams in Division 41 33 40 35 37 36 222

# Bids for Playoff Spots 32 32 32 32 32 32 192

# Teams Missing Bids 9 1 8 3 5 4 30

# Records

% Records

# Teams with 0 Wins 0 3 1 2 1 0 7

# Teams with 1 Win 2 1 0 1 1 2 7

 

I posted this breakdown on another thread, but it applies here also. Exactly half of all playoff teams are at or below .500.

 

In 2A only 1 team missed the playoffs, and they were 1-9. What good does leaving them home serve when 3 other 2A teams were 0-10?

 

In 6A Campbell Co is home with a 5-5 record, as good as or better than 13 other 6A schools in the playoffs.

 

The problem with this playoff system is it is too much of one, and not enough of the other. Only 30 team did not make the playoffs out of 222. If you're not going to include every team, then be a little more selective about who gets in. The problem is how to be more selective.

 

Ohio's Harbin System uses a point system. Each team get points for winning games, and additional points for games won by opponents they've beaten. D1 teams are worth more points than D2 and so on. This system accounts for strength of schedule. Ohio has over 700 football playing schools in state, and limits the berths to 8 per region. There are 4 regions, so they have 32 teams in each playoff bracket just like Kentucky does. It works good for Ohio.

 

I personally think that the KHSAA should require playoff eligible teams to have a minimum number of wins within or above your own class to qualify. This would encourage teams to schedule more closely matched opponents, and provide for more competitive football top to bottom. A 1A team that cannot win a game should not be in the playoffs. But, for example, a 2A team that plays 7 games against 2A or higher teams, must win at least 4 of those game to qualify. I suggest that each team win at laast 50% of games against teams in the same or higher class. If we work at it we can find a fair formula.

Class 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A Total

# Teams in Division 41 33 40 35 37 36 222

# Bids for Playoff Spots 32 32 32 32 32 32 192

# Teams Missing Bids 9 1 8 3 5 4 30

# Records

% Records

# Teams with 0 Wins 0 3 1 2 1 0 7

# Teams with 1 Win 2 1 0 1 1 2 7

 

I posted this breakdown on another thread, but it applies here also. Exactly half of all playoff teams are at or below .500.

 

In 2A only 1 team missed the playoffs, and they were 1-9. What good does leaving them home serve when 3 other 2A teams were 0-10?

 

In 6A Campbell Co is home with a 5-5 record, as good as or better than 13 other 6A schools in the playoffs.

 

The problem with this playoff system is it is too much of one, and not enough of the other. Only 30 team did not make the playoffs out of 222. If you're not going to include every team, then be a little more selective about who gets in. The problem is how to be more selective.

 

Ohio's Harbin System uses a point system. Each team get points for winning games, and additional points for games won by opponents they've beaten. D1 teams are worth more points than D2 and so on. This system accounts for strength of schedule. Ohio has over 700 football playing schools in state, and limits the berths to 8 per region. There are 4 regions, so they have 32 teams in each playoff bracket just like Kentucky does. It works good for Ohio.

 

I personally think that the KHSAA should require playoff eligible teams to have a minimum number of wins within or above your own class to qualify. This would encourage teams to schedule more closely matched opponents, and provide for more competitive football top to bottom. A 1A team that cannot win a game should not be in the playoffs. But, for example, a 2A team that plays 7 games against 2A or higher teams, must win at least 4 of those game to qualify. I suggest that each team win at laast 50% of games against teams in the same or higher class. If we work at it we can find a fair formula.

 

This goes with what I just posted. Nice post.:thumb:

Should I feel better about it if I lose my star QB in another game, against a "quality" opponent? I'm still out of the playoffs.

That is all part of the game.

 

In a way, are you are saying a team should also avoid these same inadequate "cupcake" teams in the regular season to avoid the same injury? You are running the same risk if you throw your well oiled, totally superior machine out against a garbage disposal during the regular part of your schedule.

 

Play only Bell Co., Highlands and St. X so you'll feel better that Timmy got his knee tore up against a GOOD team? He's still just as hurt. If it's to be, it will happen against Trinity as well as the School for the Poor. I don't buy into this argument.

 

Also, how can I KNOW that I will win?

I can win, I should win, I will probably win, but weird things happen. I can never KNOW that I will win. That would be pretty arrogant of me and it would probably catch up with me somewhere.

 

Why is this bothering people so much? It's extra practice for everyone involved, and is anyone ever good enough to not need a little more practice?

Scheduling closer to "your talent level" just ensures that many more of the "bad" teams you apparently have no need for get in. Good enough to get their wins against worse teams than themselves and Super Star QB Timmy still gets a limp for life from one of these teams when your superior team rolls up against them. If a bad 1A team went out and found a schedule full of perinial worse teams (who would schedule them because they felt they had a chance for a win themselves), you could have an 8-2 team that is really a 1-9 or 0-10 team in disguise.

There is not a good solution to be had right now.

If your team was 2-8, would you forfeit, sidelinedoc?

Would you offer your spot to someone else?

If you were 3-7, but had gotten everyone healthy and went on the 3 game winning streak, had all your horses and were ready to make a run, despite the rough start without your starters, do you think the team should still be in?

There are intangibles on many of these 3-7, 4-6 and 1-9 teams.

I don't think it bothers people. I know it doesn't bother me. I am just discussing an issue and trying to look at both sides. So far, we haven't really heard anything but leave it alone, include the other 30 some teams, cut it to 2 teams per district or go to a system like Ohio. I am just asking, how do you make a playoff system more of a reward rather than just a second season. As someone posted above, just because all other sports include all teams in the post season is not a valid reason. They only have 1 state champ, football has 6. I just want to hear some good reasons and some good alternatives.

If your team was 2-8, would you forfeit, sidelinedoc?

Would you offer your spot to someone else?

If you were 3-7, but had gotten everyone healthy and went on the 3 game winning streak, had all your horses and were ready to make a run, despite the rough start without your starters, do you think the team should still be in?

There are intangibles on many of these 3-7, 4-6 and 1-9 teams.

 

This is not arguable, this is not applicable. You as a coach and team play with the system you have and go out to win every game. I am asking how to reward good teams and weed out the undeserving teams.

There are none right now.

Just about anyway you cut it, you will get some bad teams in, just like the NCAA tourney. Won when they had to.

Even if you go to the district #1 and #2, some sub-.500's get in.

 

The only sure way is to make the 1st round of the playoffs the Regional Final with District A's champ against District B's Champ,C's against D's,E's vsF's and G vs H, then the next week play the semis and week 3 is the State Final. Some very good teams get left out, but you get your quality teams in and the one's that were close should have played harder, right?

Really don't know who would like this, other than the 8 teams that did make it.

All other sports send everyone and that's not a problem. Sending most of the teams in football should not be either.

 

Not only would you be taking an extra game or two away from the teams that may not make it under your system. You're also taking away a game or two from the teams that win state titles.

 

Personally, my senior year the experience wouldn't have been the same with a 13-0 record as it was with a 15-0 record; and only a couple of our games were close.

This is not arguable, this is not applicable. You as a coach and team play with the system you have and go out to win every game. I am asking how to reward good teams and weed out the undeserving teams.

 

So my argument is not applicable, yet everytime I argue for the other teams, you (figuratively) break my Superstar of the universe's QB or RB's leg with a winless team?

They are both hypothetical situations.

Ask about any coach, and there will be reasons why they feel they deserve to go, 9-1 or 1-9.

That is what I was getting at with the 7-3 team question.