Blowout City

[ColonelMike]

So, 15 lower seeded teams won. That's about a 16 percent winning percentage clip for the lower seeded teams. Is it really worth all the blowouts to deal with a 16 percent chance of winning for the lower seeded schools?

 

Absolutely, positively YES.

 

The bottom-line is this: these are HS teams. They develop at different rates. If the whole idea is to have the best teams playing at the end, you need the playoff berths for these teams. Granted, more often than not, the higher seeds win. And the instances of four seeds winning a single game are few and far between. But it does happen, and on occasion, that fourth seed is what gets a tremendous team in the playoffs. SK last year (four seed makes it to the 6A title game and defeats three #1 seeds in the process) is a perfect case in point and just the most recent example.

 

Having four playoff berths per district also keeps the excitement high...the fans are still coming out the ninth and tenth weeks of the season, because the games still mean something...

 

I've heard the argument that these extra games often result in blowouts. So what??? The point is sometimes made that this means additional risk of injury. My response is this: Most prudent coaches don't play their starters very long in those blowouts, so the chance for injury is minimized, and it also provides an opportunity (perhaps the only playoff opportunity) for the subs to play.

 

Another point put forth is that the worst teams - the 0-10 teams making the playoffs because they're in a four-team district - don't really care and don't really want to be there. I have a tremendous difficulty buying this. I'm not saying it doesn't occasionally happen, but I've been coaching kids ages 4-17 for the last dozen years in basketball and baseball. I've had my share of teams that couldn't buy a win - but I don't remember a single team of kids that ever wanted to skip a game because they didn't expect to win. Kids want to PLAY...

[WHO'S NEXT?]

I read an article from last year's 1st round game of a team (who played the same team in the 1st round again this year) who made so little money from the gate that they couldn't even pay the bus driver from their earnings that night. When fans of the 1 seed know they will win big and don't show, and the few fans/parents of the 4 seeds don't want to drive, sometimes over 3 hours, to see a lopsided game... I just don't see how this makes sense. Mind you, this article is about a 1A team that doesn't have a big, fat booster club that will soften the blow.

[jrjohnson]

Is it the playoff format where just about every team in the state goes to the playoff? Do we need to change it to take only the top 2 teams from each district?

 

Or is it a result of the six class system? Do we need to change it back to a 4 four class system, or maybe a 5 class and see how that weorks out?

[Voice of Reason]

Some of you are confusing the issue. I'm not against 4 seeds. However, when there are about 35 to 40 40+ point margins its obvious that the first round OVERALL is a problem. Some of you are the masters of the obvious by pointing out that there are "some" good games. No kidding.

 

I'm not sure if you get beat 70-7, 54-8, 49-0 if you're actually "enjoying" the experience or getting better for next season.

 

If you go to 4 classes or 5 classes, there will be many blowout games in round one. We know that. Just pull out the record books and you will see. If you only allow the top 2 teams from each district into the playoffs, there will be many blowout games in round one. If the problem is blowout games in round 1, the only way to avoid that is go to a computer system and only allow the top 8 teams into the playoffs. But even if you do that, IMO there will be plenty of blowout games in round one. You will never be able to have a system that eliminates these blowouts. Heck, we even see blowouts in the state championship games. Get over it. I like all teams getting an opportunity to dream a little and pursue goals, whether it be getting that first playoff win or getting to measure your team against other districts or finally putting it together after a challenging season for a run at a state championship. Let it all be decided on the field and that is what we have right now.

[Bluegrasscard]

Going to 6 team districts and taking the top 4 teams would be a good move. Schedule-wise 1/2 your schedule would then be district games leaving 5 games to schedule other opponents.

[Voice of Reason]

Going to 6 team districts and taking the top 4 teams would be a good move. Schedule-wise 1/2 your schedule would then be district games leaving 5 games to schedule other opponents.

 

That is not going to stop the first round blowout games. That is what has people's shorts in a bunch, right?

[jrjohnson]

And I hear a lot of people who only want the top 2 from each district in the playoffs. I wonder what they have to say about that stat.

 

I still say take the top two, if you want to compete in the playoffs, do better in the district games that will get you there.

[Voice of Reason]

Here is another way to look at this. Basketball - every team gets into the playoffs. Baseball - every team gets into the playoffs. Why shouldn't everyone get into the playoffs in football? Why should football be the only sport that doesn't allow everyone in?

[jrjohnson]

Having four playoff berths per district also keeps the excitement high...the fans are still coming out the ninth and tenth weeks of the season, because the games still mean something...

 

 

Although it may not reduce the blowouts, it theoretically should make most of the games better if only the top two teams from a district are taken.

 

If we are going to continue using 4 teams per district, make the districts bigger so not everyone makes it into the playoffs. 6-8 team districts would be much better, and then we do not get 'we made it to the playoffs' by just about every team in the state. If they can not learn to win in the regualr season, they really do not deserve a chance in the playoff in my opinion.

 

Do away with regions and create 8 districts in each class and take the top two or four from there based on their district records.

[Voice of Reason]

Although it may not reduce the blowouts, it theoretically should make most of the games better if only the top two teams from a district are taken.

 

If we are going to continue using 4 teams per district, make the districts bigger so not everyone makes it into the playoffs. 6-8 team districts would be much better, and then we do not get 'we made it to the playoffs' by just about every team in the state. If they can not learn to win in the regualr season, they really do not deserve a chance in the playoff in my opinion.

 

Do away with regions and create 8 districts in each class and take the top two or four from there based on their district records.

 

What about my question above...why should football be the only sport that doesn't allow all teams into the playoffs?

[some_guy]

I personally don't like this format either. I would love to see KY go to a points system like Ohio. It would discourage the 5A or 6A school vs 1A school matchups, which would give us a better idea of who a team is going into the playoffs. Cut the playoffs to 16 teams and take the best 16 using the points system. It would improve the cometition in every round and State champs would have to beat the best to get the title, no more cupcake games in the playoffs. The big hurdle is the participation generation bull, everyone should not get a chance at the title, period. This is football not soccer, forget the orange slices and juice boxes and teach the kids how to earn something and work for your reward. You should have to earn your spot, put some meaning back into the regular season and district title.

[Voice of Reason]

I personally don't like this format either. I would love to see KY go to a points system like Ohio. It would discourage the 5A or 6A school vs 1A school matchups, which would give us a better idea of who a team is going into the playoffs. Cut the playoffs to 16 teams and take the best 16 using the points system. It would improve the cometition in every round and State champs would have to beat the best to get the title, no more cupcake games in the playoffs. The big hurdle is the participation generation bull, everyone should not get a chance at the title, period. This is football not soccer, forget the orange slices and juice boxes and teach the kids how to earn something and work for your reward. You should have to earn your spot, put some meaning back into the regular season and district title.

 

Why should football be the only sport that does not allow everyone into the playoffs?

[NEXT]

What about my question above...why should football be the only sport that doesn't allow all teams into the playoffs?

 

 

Because you can't play 2-3football games in a week.

[Voice of Reason]

Because you can't play 2-3football games in a week.

 

Soooo....this is because you want football season to end on Thanksgiving instead of a week later? Sorry, I need to hear something better than that. Do I have the naysayers stumped? I am all ears. Tell me why football should be the only sport that doesn't allow everyone into the playoffs.

[jrjohnson]

What about my question above...why should football be the only sport that doesn't allow all teams into the playoffs?

 

No sport should allow this, if you can't secure a spot based on the regular season district, you shuoldn't represent the district inthe playoffs. I just can not understand why we have to let all of these kids know that they are all winners and playoff contenders when they in fact are not. High School as well as their sports programs are suppossed to help develop young men and women into adults. Teaching them that everyone wins or that no matter how poorly you do, you will always have a second chance is not the way to do it.