Blowout City

[Sandman]

These are kids, it is your job as a coach to tell them why they should fight to the end, in the face of adversity. That's the problem, people let kids make the decisions

 

I understand your logic, I just disagree with it.

 

Seems to me an 0-10, 1-9, or 2-8 season would be a good ending point. Seems like a team would have fought through plenty of adversity by then.

 

It has to be hard for coaches to come up with compelling reasons to get excited about the playoffs for these teams. And, it's also your job as a coach to be honest with kids.

[Sandman]

If you think the blowouts are bad now then go ahead and put everyone in one class. How would Trinity vs. Atherton look in the first round? :idunno:

 

The current system hurts no one.

 

It's sports, of course it hurts no one. The BCS is stupid, but it hurts no one.

 

As for your first graph, it goes back to having your cake and eating it too. On one hand, supporters of this system want to play the card of everyone makes the playoffs in other sports why shouldn't all the football teams. Then, they also felt the need to create six classes. Every soccer player, volleyball player, baseball player, and basketball player in the state is playing for one championship. But, the football guys get to play for six.

[ft bronc]

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

 

With all do respect to the poster, I completely disagree with this statement. The champion of any sport should be the best team from among the group of teams that won consistantly throughout the season. IMO, the only reason for postseason playoffs at all is to help nuetralize somewhat the variation in diffuclty of schedules played by the better teams that could not be accounted for by a pure ranking system like we used to have in college football.

 

Getting hot in the playoffs should not negate 7 (or even 5) regular season losses. If you can't win throughout the regular season, you don't deserve the reward of the playoffs. The regular season should mean more that just your seeding in the playoffs!

[HIGHLANDS GUY]

With all do respect to the poster, I completely disagree with this statement. The champion of any sport should be the best team from among the group of teams that won consistantly throughout the season. IMO, the only reason for postseason playoffs at all is to help nuetralize somewhat the variation in diffuclty of schedules played by the better teams that could not be accounted for by a pure ranking system like we used to have in college football.

 

Getting hot in the playoffs should not negate 7 (or even 5) regular season losses. If you can't win throughout the regular season, you don't deserve the reward of the playoffs. The regular season should mean more that just your seeding in the playoffs!

 

So you don't like the NCAA basketball tourney?

[ft bronc]

So you don't like the NCAA basketball tourney?

 

I'm not much of a basketball fan, so...

 

But if I were a fan concerned with crowning the best college basketball team in the nation, I'd say no, I don't like it. Personally, I think the NCAA tourney is more about entertainment & money than anything else.

[futurecoach]

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.

 

I think the playoff system in place is a good system. There always seems to be at least one 3 or 4 seed that makes a run in the playoffs gets to State or close to it. That right there makes it worth it. A team might have injury problems early in the year, or just played in a tough district for why they were a 3 or 4 seed. However in the playoffs we get to see that they really are a good team. I think the problem is having 6 classes. It needs to go back down to 4 classes, or at most 5 classes. This should help solve the problem of some teams making the playoffs without even winning a game.

[Guest Bluto]

Then, they also felt the need to create six classes. Every soccer player, volleyball player, baseball player, and basketball player in the state is playing for one championship. But, the football guys get to play for six.

 

Ever heard of wrestling? Multiple weight classes; multiple titles.

 

Why don't we just put them in one big weight class and have one state champion?

[Guest Bluto]

There were tons of games this season where a ton of points were scored. Should we stop playing the regular season games as well?

I agree with this thinking.

 

I think we should eliminate district play, because there are so many blowouts.

[Freebird23]

Let's reduce the classes to 5. Increase the size of districts to at least 6. Won't be perfect... but allows for COMPETITIVE play.

 

In the meantime, I am somewhat familiar with the Ohio rating system. It has been around for a while. I do not hear too many rumblings from our Buckeye friends up north. Anyone take a look at their first round games? Are the 1 vs. 4 blowouts?

[ColonelMike]

With all do respect to the poster, I completely disagree with this statement. The champion of any sport should be the best team from among the group of teams that won consistantly throughout the season. IMO, the only reason for postseason playoffs at all is to help nuetralize somewhat the variation in diffuclty of schedules played by the better teams that could not be accounted for by a pure ranking system like we used to have in college football.

 

Getting hot in the playoffs should not negate 7 (or even 5) regular season losses. If you can't win throughout the regular season, you don't deserve the reward of the playoffs. The regular season should mean more that just your seeding in the playoffs!

 

Baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, cross-country, wrestling, volleyball, field hockey...in all those sports, everyone plays in the post-season. Why should football be any different for HS? This isn't the pros.

 

You see a lot more improvement from the start of the season to the end of the season among HS athletes...and the basic premise of the post-season is always the same in any sport - crown the team playing the BEST BALL.

 

I'm not saying we don't reward the teams for better play during the regular season. That's what seeding is for.

[ColonelMike]

I'm not really sure where you were going with your last graph, but I do think the record matters. I think most kids that are at the end of any season with a .000, .100,. or .200 winning percentage are pretty well ready to be finished. Suppose a coach in any sport would ask those kids to go play in one more tournament, but they'll have to play one of the best teams in the tournament right off the bat. Would you really expect a lot of enthusiasm after getting beat up for 10 weeks?

 

But I really have a hard time coming to grips with the bolded. It is a state playoff game, but you are basically conceding many teams will plan to and play their subs liberally. How can this be an argument FOR the current system?[/QUOTE]

 

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that - should a first-round game be a blowout - that the subs will get plenty of opportunity to play. I'm not saying any coach "plans" it.

 

As for kids not wanting to play, I think this: 1) coaches should be motivating kids to challenge the odds, to try to overcome obstacles, and to never give up. Your point emphasizes the opposite by encouraging the athletes give up in the face of long odds. 2) And after coaching baseball and basketball for the last dozen years - including one basketball team that never won a game - I can tell you I've never had a group of kids who weren't eager for the next game - regardless.

[Sandman]

I'm not really sure where you were going with your last graph, but I do think the record matters. I think most kids that are at the end of any season with a .000, .100,. or .200 winning percentage are pretty well ready to be finished. Suppose a coach in any sport would ask those kids to go play in one more tournament, but they'll have to play one of the best teams in the tournament right off the bat. Would you really expect a lot of enthusiasm after getting beat up for 10 weeks?

 

But I really have a hard time coming to grips with the bolded. It is a state playoff game, but you are basically conceding many teams will plan to and play their subs liberally. How can this be an argument FOR the current system?[/QUOTE]

 

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that - should a first-round game be a blowout - that the subs will get plenty of opportunity to play. I'm not saying any coach "plans" it.

 

As for kids not wanting to play, I think this: 1) coaches should be motivating kids to challenge the odds, to try to overcome obstacles, and to never give up. Your point emphasizes the opposite by encouraging the athletes give up in the face of long odds. 2) And after coaching baseball and basketball for the last dozen years - including one basketball team that never won a game - I can tell you I've never had a group of kids who weren't eager for the next game - regardless.

 

 

As for the first graph, I personally know a couple of coaches who absolutely do "plan" for it, because they are smart enough to see the inevitable.

 

As for the second, again, haven't all those lessons of overcoming obstacles, and overcoming adversity already been taught after 10 weeks of mostly losing? At what point are you just :deadhorse:.

 

At some point reality does have to enter into the equation, or you aren't teaching kids life lessons, you are simply blowing smoke.

[Sandman]

Ever heard of wrestling? Multiple weight classes; multiple titles.

 

Why don't we just put them in one big weight class and have one state champion?

 

Really? This is your argument. To take individual state title contenders and try to make that circle fit into the square of team sports?

 

How many TEAM wrestling championships are awarded? If the answer is six, then you are on to something. Somehow, I doubt it is.

[mcpapa]

Baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, cross-country, wrestling, volleyball, field hockey...in all those sports, everyone plays in the post-season. Why should football be any different for HS? This isn't the pros.

 

You see a lot more improvement from the start of the season to the end of the season among HS athletes...and the basic premise of the post-season is always the same in any sport - crown the team playing the BEST BALL.

 

I'm not saying we don't reward the teams for better play during the regular season. That's what seeding is for.

 

Hit the nail on the head times three.

[Hey-Ref]

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 understand teams playing tough non-district opponents and getting beat, but I do not believe losing teams should generally be in the playoffs.

 

Suggestions for improving quality of playoffs:

1. top 4 in each region qualify, forget districts

2. top 6 in each region, forget districts, or top 3 in each district,(include byes for 1 & 2 seeds and play 3v6 and 4v5 provides better round 1 matchups, more lower seeds with chance to advance

3. realign to force more district/regional games during the season placing more emphasis on playoff qualifying games (no 4-5 team districts, make them all 6-7 teams)

4. Minimum number of wins to qualify (like college bowl games)