I don't see the six classes changing. It sounds more likely there could be fewer playoff teams.

 

I agree:thumb:

The more teams in the playoffs the better. Think about it. In the end, who is really hurt by this? No one is! The champion teams will win. Schools will get more revenue. Players will get more time to play the game they love. It's a Win Win situation. Yes you have blow outs, but you had that in the old system too.

 

:thumb::thumb:

I disagree with all who want to change the current system.

 

Here are the benefits derived from the "blowouts".

 

From winner's perspective, it allows the team to "fine-tune" their varsity; work on areas of weakness in a game situation. Then it allows the JV to play a big portion of the game. That will certainly pay dividends in future years (and maybe later in the playoffs)

 

From the loser's perspective, it gives the guys one more game. That is especially important for the underclassmen. It is almost like the start of next year's season. One more opportunity for the coaching staff to begin building next year's team.

 

And let's not forget what almost happened last night in the Highlands/Bryan Station game...!

Someone asked in another thread: Do we cut teams from end-of-year tournaments in other sports?

 

I don't know this for certain. Could someone who knows post an answer?

I like that idea Hearsay. I am not sure of the math and balancing the playoff format but your key point that district play means nothing is true except for maybe 1 or 2 districts. I like the idea of bigger districts. I HATE the idea of only the top 2 teams in a district being in the playoffs. Bigger more meaningful districts, top 4 are in and playoffs set up as is now - #1 from one district verus #4 from the other etc. If going to 5 classes makes that work better I am for that also. Make the top class smaller than the rest with its own playoff format if necessary.

I disagree with all who want to change the current system.

 

Here are the benefits derived from the "blowouts".

 

From winner's perspective, it allows the team to "fine-tune" their varsity; work on areas of weakness in a game situation. Then it allows the JV to play a big portion of the game. That will certainly pay dividends in future years (and maybe later in the playoffs)

 

From the loser's perspective, it gives the guys one more game. That is especially important for the underclassmen. It is almost like the start of next year's season. One more opportunity for the coaching staff to begin building next year's team.

 

And let's not forget what almost happened last night in the Highlands/Bryan Station game...!

 

 

Under this scenario, then every team should be in the playoffs. Don't exclude anyone. It's already been established that you don't even have to win a game all season and you get the honor of playing in a game that is not deserved.

 

Let'em All play I say.............

Someone asked in another thread: Do we cut teams from end-of-year tournaments in other sports?

 

I don't know this for certain. Could someone who knows post an answer?

 

I don't know for sure, so someone can correct me, but I believe every team in most every team sport makes the playoffs.

I don't know for sure, so someone can correct me, but I believe every team in most every team sport makes the playoffs.

 

But then again most other sports only have one state champion, not six like football.

 

I am for the top three move on and the #1's get a bye!

 

Then again, if you want to make the playoffs like baseball and basketball where everyone makes the tourney, then shorten the regular season by a game or two and go at it, the season is getting far to long as it is.....

But then again most other sports only have one state champion, not six like football.

 

I am for the top three move on and the #1's get a bye!

 

Then again, if you want to make the playoffs like baseball and basketball where everyone makes the tourney, then shorten the regular season by a game or two and go at it, the season is getting far to long as it is.....

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb: Great post Oldguy. I don't support shortening the season, just correcting the system. My point is that there are several teams from good conferences that don't make the playoffs, but 0-10, 1-9 teams who get the honor of playing one more game (or scrimmage that is).

To me any system that allows a 0-10,1-9,2-8,3-7 to get in the playoffs every year is not a good syatem. I will include 4-6 in that group to.

To me any system that allows a 0-10,1-9,2-8,3-7 to get in the playoffs every year is not a good syatem. I will include 4-6 in that group to.

 

What if a team is 4-0 in their district and all six losses were to teams not in their class, state, ect...

Personally I think 2 per district is too few. Too many good teams get left out.

 

IMO since 3 teams doesn't shorten the season any, you might as well have 4 teams. Yes most of the 1-4 games are blowouts, but going to 3 just to eliminate teams doesn't make sense to me.

What if a team is 4-0 in their district and all six losses were to teams not in their class, state, ect...

4-6 is 4-6 in my book.

How does the district not matter? I would much rather play at home than on the road.

How does the district not matter? I would much rather play at home than on the road.

 

 

So you win your district but you are still a losing team(record overall) to me that does say alot other than you are a 4-6 team.