Shorten the season to 9 games and let everybody into the playoffs.

 

It works in Indiana. It would work in Kentucky.

 

I really don't see the difference this makes. Either way, everyone is guaranteed a total of 10 games. It really has no effect one way or the other. After the 10th game, certain teams have their seasons ended. In an everyone-makes-it-scenario, there's no bragging rights to be had by "making the playoffs", so it really changes nothing for those teams who lose in week 10 of the Indiana system, as compared to the teams in KY that currently don't make the playoffs and see their season end after 10 games.

KHSAA playoff system is not very good in my opinion. This year 50% of teams making the playoffs were .500 or worse. The idea of going to 6 divisions was to make room for more schools to win championships. Look who won titles in the last 2 years, and tell me if the goal was accomplished or not. Also, look at first round margins of victory. Tell me those first round games are competitive and I'll eat my hat. There needs to be a better way of awarding playoff berths.

I really don't see the difference this makes. Either way, everyone is guaranteed a total of 10 games. It really has no effect one way or the other. After the 10th game, certain teams have their seasons ended. In an everyone-makes-it-scenario, there's no bragging rights to be had by "making the playoffs", so it really changes nothing for those teams who lose in week 10 of the Indiana system, as compared to the teams in KY that currently don't make the playoffs and see their season end after 10 games.

 

When 90% of the teams make the playoffs now, how much bragging are teams doing that make the playoffs? You would have to search pretty hard to find a team that didn't make the playoffs to listen to any bragging.

 

You're right, the season wouldn't be shortened under my proposal. It would just bring in the final 30 teams or so who were left at home for the postseason.

 

If we follow the Indiana model completely, there wouldn't even be a need for district games. Once week 9 is over, all the teams in the region are thrown into a hat and pairings are drawn. You may have the top two teams in the region matching up in the first round or you may not. If the top rated team is going to win the region, they would have to beat the second rated team sooner or later. The advantage being you can use the regular season to build/test your team accordingly. Also, it wouldn't matter how far flung regions are as those teams would only have to play in the post season, not the regular season. That would help teams like Ashland from having to travel to Lexington for regular season games.

Shorten the season to 9 games and let everybody into the playoffs.

 

It works in Indiana. It would work in Kentucky.

 

Seems logical. I agree.

You mean like it is in Baseball, Basketball, Cross Country, Golf, Soccer, Softball, Swimming, Tennis, Track, Volleyball, and Wrestling?:confused:

 

:thumb:

When 90% of the teams make the playoffs now, how much bragging are teams doing that make the playoffs? You would have to search pretty hard to find a team that didn't make the playoffs to listen to any bragging.

 

Agreed. My point in this regard, however, was to point out that there was nothing to be gained, from the standpoint of adding everyone to the playoffs either in terms of number of games guaranteed or in terms of bragging rights. And there isn't.

 

You're right, the season wouldn't be shortened under my proposal. It would just bring in the final 30 teams or so who were left at home for the postseason.

 

I don't have a quarrel at all with the idea of having everyone participate in the post-season. None whatsoever. And I guess your proposal does give everyone the opportunity to advance, when some teams are eliminated in our system (from participating in the playoffs), but I would prefer to do this by simply eliminating the "bye" week and then using the extra week that is opened up to have "play-in" games to get each classification's field down to 32. We already eliminated the 11th regular season game some years ago... Regular season games are when more players get a chance to play...

 

If we follow the Indiana model completely, there wouldn't even be a need for district games. Once week 9 is over, all the teams in the region are thrown into a hat and pairings are drawn. You may have the top two teams in the region matching up in the first round or you may not. If the top rated team is going to win the region, they would have to beat the second rated team sooner or later.

 

Can't say I really like a blind draw for the playoffs, regardless of the number of teams playing. Seeding at least provides some reward for the teams that did well in the regular season, and gives a better chance that the two best teams will battle for the region title. The better teams should at least have that reward...

 

The advantage being you can use the regular season to build/test your team accordingly. Also, it wouldn't matter how far flung regions are as those teams would only have to play in the post season, not the regular season. That would help teams like Ashland from having to travel to Lexington for regular season games.

 

I guess I'm missing your point here. Region teams don't have to play other region teams right now, just the district opponents.

I don't have a quarrel at all with the idea of having everyone participate in the post-season. None whatsoever. And I guess your proposal does give everyone the opportunity to advance, when some teams are eliminated in our system (from participating in the playoffs), but I would prefer to do this by simply eliminating the "bye" week and then using the extra week that is opened up to have "play-in" games to get each classification's field down to 32. We already eliminated the 11th regular season game some years ago... Regular season games are when more players get a chance to play...

 

Makes sense as well. How would you determine which teams are in the "play-in" game?

 

 

Can't say I really like a blind draw for the playoffs, regardless of the number of teams playing. Seeding at least provides some reward for the teams that did well in the regular season, and gives a better chance that the two best teams will battle for the region title. The better teams should at least have that reward...

 

I understand what you are saying about reward for the regular season, but we don't seed the state playoff bracket (see X/T). For the point of argument, why do we need to seed the regional playoff brackets? Don't may basketball districts still use a blind draw to determine the bracket (I'm talking to you Bellevue, Dayton, and Newport!)

 

I guess I'm missing your point here. Region teams don't have to play other region teams right now, just the district opponents.

 

By other region teams, I meant intra-regional teams. In a blind draw/elimination of districts scenario, you might draw a team from what previously was the other district or you might draw a team from that was previously a district foe.

Makes sense as well. How would you determine which teams are in the "play-in" game?

 

Lowest seeds in the region. You could easily set up a seeding protocol...

 

 

I understand what you are saying about reward for the regular season, but we don't seed the state playoff bracket (see X/T). For the point of argument, why do we need to seed the regional playoff brackets? Don't may basketball districts still use a blind draw to determine the bracket (I'm talking to you Bellevue, Dayton, and Newport!)

I'm not a big fan of blind draws in the basketball districts, either...but they didn't ask me! My reasoning is simple...I think it makes everyone feel more comfortable with the validity of the tournament when the best teams go the furthest. Nothing stinks more than feeling that you may have been the second-best team in the region - and played the best team in the first round. Now, of course, just being seeded higher has never guaranteed anyone a win, but history tells us that the highest seeds generally advance (the 1s & 2s). Hence, seeding the region is a reward for achievement in the regular season - a guarantee the first round doesn't feature X vs. T, or Highlands vs. CovCath, etc.

 

 

By other region teams, I meant intra-regional teams. In a blind draw/elimination of districts scenario, you might draw a team from what previously was the other district or you might draw a team from that was previously a district foe.

I understand now. Although I still like the idea with seeding.

A "losing" record isn't always indicative of the ability of a team. Let's say Manual loses to T, X, H, Bowling Green, and Highlands and has one game cancelled because of the wind. But they play everyone close and had a very tough schedule. They are 4-5 with only one district loss. They should HOST a playoff game. Now if the question were phrased, "Should winless teams make the playoffs..." well that would be another story.

It might depend on your schedule and injuries-but for the most part I say no one with a losing record needs to be in playoffs.

It might depend on your schedule and injuries-but for the most part I say no one with a losing record needs to be in playoffs.

 

For all sports or just football?

If a team is 0-10 then that team should not be allowed to play in the playoffs. I will say this though, if a district does have an 0-10 its hard for me to think they deserved to get in. I know Simon Kenton was not 0-10, but they were a #4 seed and went to the State Finals in 6A so the four team factor works. It is such a tough call to make. There are several 0-10 teams that made, but the arguement I'll make for them is that those kids got another week of practice to if nothing else keep working fundamentals of football.