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?

 

Yes

Allowing teams into the play offs with losing records is very important for the lower seeds. It allows the extra week of practice and gives the younger players a taste of what it takes to win in play offs. Most kids will tell you they would rather travel for 2 hours and get beated badly than not get an opportunity to compete at all. High school athletics are supposed to be about the kids and competition, so allow them the opportunity to compete. I know that Western Hills was not a good team 2 years ago (1-9) and got beaten badly in first round of the play offs, however this experience allowed a Sop. dominated team the opportunity to experience the play offs. That extra practice and experience helped in their development and their first play off win in school history this season.

Why should every team be IN the playoffs? So everyone feels better about themselves? What is the benefit of a 60-0 butt kicking for an 0-10 team? Rewards should go to those that EARN them. How do coaches and parents prepare their kids for the real world when the "recognition for participation" philosophy does not apply? When these kids leave school they will have to compete for jobs, compete for promotions and provide for their families where there is no gold star for showing up. Moreover, success should be strived for and rewarded, mediocrity should not be acceptable. The whole point of playing and competing as as kid is to foster a strong work ethic, and learn how to strive for, achieve and accept success. These and other traits help these young people grow into solid and productive adults. If we do not have the courage to teach them these lessons as young adults, when do they learn it?

Of you guys that played HS football and had a poor season, would you like to play one last game? Even though you knew what the outcome would be? It may not be enjoyable to the average spectator, but the kids enjoy playing.

Before someone asks, we were 10-1 my senior year.

 

Let em' play, I say. The more football the better.

I say just let the rest of the teams in and play a single elimination tournament. I just can't understand only one team in 2A not getting in the playoffs. And before someone says something, it would only add one week onto the season. Either do away with the off week, or have a nine game regular season and start the playoffs, everyone would get at least 10 games anyway.

Good point Ram I say let them all play!

I would like to see the # 1 seed get a bye & let the #2 & # 3 play & eliminate the #4 seed altogether. It would eliminate a whole lot of blowouts & would reward the winner of the district.

Of you guys that played HS football and had a poor season, would you like to play one last game? Even though you knew what the outcome would be? It may not be enjoyable to the average spectator, but the kids enjoy playing.

 

Had good years and bad years when I was in high school, we new when the last regular season game came around if it was our last or not. If we did not place high enough in our district we were done, and only two teams went to the playoffs from the district. There was no need for one last game, if you get that one, why not ask for 'one more last game'.

I just can't understand only one team in 2A not getting in the playoffs.

 

That is the KHSAA set up: only 33 teams in 2A. This year Reidland (4-6) did not make it in, but there were five other 4-6 teams, five 3-7 teams, three 2-8 teams, one 1-9 team, and one 0-10 team that all made the playoffs.

 

Not only is that ridiculous, it is a waste of money to play the extra game. I still stand by the idea that if you can not be in the top 2 or 3 in your district, then you should not be going into the playoffs and that doesn't mean make a bunch of 2 or three team districts. Make the districts bigger and make these folks learn that they need to earn those things.

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?

 

Because when man come together as a team all they need is a opportunity for you to block that or anybody else is where the true crime lies.:irked:

Had good years and bad years when I was in high school, we new when the last regular season game came around if it was our last or not. If we did not place high enough in our district we were done, and only two teams went to the playoffs from the district. There was no need for one last game, if you get that one, why not ask for 'one more last game'.

 

Kids can have hope in what is called a upset even if you don't believe they can do it.

I would like to see the # 1 seed get a bye & let the #2 & # 3 play & eliminate the #4 seed altogether. It would eliminate a whole lot of blowouts & would reward the winner of the district.

 

Ya think about it if your team is a fourth seat and is 8-2 or 7-3 and had great year wanting a opprtunity to play in the playoffs, when they get nothing. It has been proven that a fourth seat can get to the state title game, then why limit the kids opprtunity make the upset or the run at the title.

I like Ram's idea best.

 

Let's be sure the team playing the best ball at the end of the year has a chance to win it...

Because when man come together as a team all they need is a opportunity for you to block that or anybody else is where the true crime lies.:irked:

 

Didn't said team already have 10 opportunities?

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by Sandman

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.

 

Because football is the only sport that has six classes.

 

Put all the football teams in one class and I agree, let them all in just like baseball, volleyball, soccer, and basketball. Until, then why should they be treated the same?

 

Seems the football coaches have developed a nice system of being able to have their cake (six state champions) and eat it too (almost everyone still gets to play in the playoffs).