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.

 

I mean there is no argument for forfeiting a playoff spot! As a coach and a team/school, you play every game to win. Noone should just give up. This is not a good point to argue because you have to play with what you are dealt, in this case the system we have. I am looking to debate alternatives to what we have. I am not discounting your opinions, they are good. I just can't argue for a forfeit.

Sad, sad, sad. I cannot believe that sub .500 teams are alowed to compete in the playoffs. Ohio football fans just scratch their heads. When Art Schlister was in High School, they were 40-0 and never played 1 playoff game. This is because the teams they played were not that good. They needed to beat quality teams to earn points to get in the playoffs. Maybe we can look at a similar system.

 

 

It's so bad I can not even think of these games as playoffs.

WHY NOT LET EVERY TEAM IN AT THIS RATE AND MAKE THE REGULAR SEASON MORE USELESS.

Why not just play the pernial powers in a BCS format and let everyone else just play bowl games?

Take the top 8, pre-season, throw them together (regardless of class, because if you are good, you are good) and let the fun begin.

Everyone else can play 2 scrimmages and a bowl game a year and then turn everything in. That way, everyone with the big programs will be happy, no one will lose a player to injury to a sub-par team and it can all become just about meaningless. We're done by late August, St. X or Trinity have another state title and we can just extend the basketball season, as long as those district winners win 87 1/2% of their games, average at least 80 points per game and never lose on a tuesday the whole season.

 

How many below .500, at .500 or winless teams have won a state title and knocked a "deserving" team out of the chance? If they beat them out, they were not deserving. None of the above group has ever made it to Louisville, either, and if they had, it was earned and they proved their worth. If everyone does not like the system, leave the playoffs like they are, cut the regular season to 8 games and then the season still ends earlier. You can always count the 0 fer or 1 or 2 win teams as the cupcakes (everyone does it) on your schedule. Instead of playing Sisters of the Poor in the regular season, you face them in the playoffs. Same difference then.

 

Who do these teams hurt by being in? Most times it would be the equivalent of being afraid of a blind, declawed kitten, but these bad teams sure shake up some people!

OR split the state into regions, like California does, play for a Regional Title and let there be no State champ.

NKY can play all the NKY teams, SKY the same, and EKY and WKY follow suit.

Let's shelf the whole system and make it really sterile and boring.

OR:

Any team under .500 in a given year could be put into a remedial football division, where there are other remedial teams, the next season and inelligible for district play the next year. They can play any team in the RD and be reinstated the following season. If they go under .500 again in a 2 year span, they go back for 2 years to the RD. If they return after that, have a bellow .500 season they disband their program for 5 years. We must punish these inadequacies, somehow.

Also, on the flip side, any team that goes to the state title game and loses does not have to play the next season. The spot is held for them and the other teams in that class play for the one spot that is left.

Any district winner gets one loss that does not count against them (of their choice, because they did win the district) the following year. Any undefeated season gets them 2 games of their choice as wins the next year. This rolls over until they lose or a 5 year cap is reached.

What's the worst record to win a state championship?

Don't know off the top of my head, but if they won it, they deserve it, even if they were 5-10. Won when they had to against who they had to. Won when it counted, you could say.

I guess we're done here. I thought we could hear people's ideas or ways to improve what we have. Now it is just sarcasm and disgust. I really thought we were starting to discuss some interesting ideas, but some choose to get chaffed by different thoughts.

 

I just think some schools would rather work for something instead of saying, "Well, we can't win but we are still in anyway." I want our team rewarded for being the good, and not just because they wear pads. When we have a bad year, we'll go watch some good teams play. But since we have what we have, we'll play it.

Do you really think that there is some team out there not putting out the effort just because? They are working at something...TRYING to win every week. Just because some 16, 17 or 18 year old gets to play an extra game in their career with the system that is in place and they are on a team that meets that criteria, but some judge them because of it is flawed. Is it really that big a deal to let them play their one playoff game? Yes, letting everyone in regardless seems unfair but so does telling a kid that he meets the standard, but we're writing you off anyway. YOU are not good enough registers wrong with some kids.

I'm just chaffed that many feel that the system is flawed just because some teams are perceived as undeserving just because someone says so, even though the powers that be say they are deserving.

On that note, I'll leave here, too, but I will tell you that there are near 4 or 5 other threads scattered on here dealing with the very same subject in different wording.

The only alternatives are what I said earlier, if you want to only reward the "good" teams. Go to a BCS style system, get the best 8 teams overall, regardless of class, and you have a true state champ and those that are unworthy or no good pay the price for not being an elite team.

The best teams are rewarded with this system and never have to play a down of football against a "bad" team.

The "BCS" option and the California options are legitimate, even if you are saying they are sarcastic. It helps to eliminate the unworthy teams and makes for the better teams to look even better.

#50 posting was sarcastic. The other 2 make a few teams happy and the rest sit down, but that seems to be the goal in this type of situation. #48 and #49 were legitimate thoughts before you wrote them off as "chaffing".

Football is the game of life. Life is not fair. We need to quit petting on everyone and telling them it is ok. I played for a sub .500 team in high school and we never made the playoffs and I am not bitter. I played when only the district champs advanced. Of course, there were several districts at that time in a 4A system. I enjoyed football just the same, even without someone handing us an extra game. I felt then the same as I do right now....earn what you get and get what you earn. I learned it through the game and that is how I got through 9 years of college and 2 degrees. I owe a lot to football.

 

I have never said that it is unfair that sub .500 teams get to play. Good for you. I am not mad at your opinion, you are entitled to it. I am saying that I feel that the current system could be 'corrected', and wanted to hear what others thought. You want it left alone, ok. You have spoken and everytime someone else posts an idea, you take it personally. Good luck to you in the playoffs, maybe if were lucky, we'll play in a week or two.:thumb:

No. I don't take it personally, but I don't like it when kids are talked down because the system is flawed. We won't meet. 2 different classes. It just really bothers me that kids that win in their districts, which they have to, unless they are in a 4 team district, are blown off because they had trouble outside that district. Maybe if the wording was for them to be above .500 IN district play it would not have bothered me so much, but many small teams have to play outside their class against teams 3 or 4 classes above them that they have trouble meeting the lofty numbers that everyone wants to go by. Many of these same sub-.500 teams may not be sub-.500 in their district, just having to play better OUT OF CLASS teams by necessity. Why punish them for that. I guess this is the first argument I should have used.

Does anybody else besides me think it would be a good idea to go down to 5A? I really think that would be a great scenerio!

Yes. 5 is enough.

Who cares what a team's overall record is???? The objective is to find the best team in each class.

The only criteria for making the playoffs is DISTRICT play and how your district is set up. A team only has to play 3 or 4 meaningful games in a year. Even if you only took the district champions and runners up, you'd still could have teams with losing records get it because of their non-district schedule (if those teams are playing a quality schedule).

 

'Giving' teams an extra game a season adds up in the long run. Teams and players are better for it, even if some bad teams get in and get blown out those players are better for it. The bottom line is they're still playing and getting practice and experience.