I'm just curious as to why the Lexington and other districts have not switched over to a seeding method for district play. It seems like every year the #1 and #2 team in that region will play eachother in the first game of district, guaranteeing that one of them won't even make it to regionals, and you leave the potential of a team that has no business being in the regionals make it because they played a team of lesser caliber. I've always thought that playing each team twice a year and going off of the district record to seed a district just made more sense.

I believe part of the reason Lexington hasn't seeded in recent years was due to the boycott against Lexington Catholic. Without playing one team in the district it would be impossible to seed. I believe the boycott ends next year, although there may be no guarantee that teams will choose to play Lexington Catholic. But it wouldn't surprise me to see the 43rd District seeded in basketball and baseball next year.

Simple answer: Because they don't have to.

 

This debate will never end until the KHSAA mandates that all districts seed.

I just see it as hurting the districts, because often times their two best teams don't make it into the regional becasue they have already had to play eachother.

I just see it as hurting the districts, because often times their two best teams don't make it into the regional becasue they have already had to play eachother.

 

Mandatory seeding would be the first step toward classification in baseball and basketball. The option allows small schools to be able to better compete for a place in the regional tournament. By eliminating seeding, in my opinion, you hear a much louder push toward classification.

Mandatory seeding would be the first step toward classification in baseball and basketball. The option allows small schools to be able to better compete for a place in the regional tournament. By eliminating seeding, in my opinion, you hear a much louder push toward classification.

 

I disagree strongly. I don't think most small schools want to win an overall state title or even a regional tourney appearance based on a "handout." A small school that would prefer to make it to the regional tournament on luck rather than ability is setting a poor example for its students AND cheapening the achievement earned by other schools OR by the same school in a different year. For example, in the 36th district on MON the #1 seed will play the #2 seed in the "play in" game to see who gets to meet the #3 seed. Meanwhile, the #4 and #5 teams (both with significantly sub .500 records) will play for the right to go to the regional tournament.

 

If, for example, a miracle occurred and 1 of the 3 teams in the 36th district voted to seed next year AND the #5 team got on a great roll and beat the #4 team in the "play in" game, and the #1 team in the next game, which District Champ or Runner Up patch would mean more on a jacket -- the one EARNED by beating the #4 and #1 teams to get to the Championship game or the one GIVEN to them by the luck of the draw?

 

Another aspect, particularly important in baseball, is the imbalance created by a #4 or #5 district seed in the regional tournament. Some #1 seed is going to get to hold back their pitching ace in a first round game where another #1 seed is going to have to use theirs against a legitimate #2 seed. If they both win, Team #1 now sends their #1 pitcher against Team #2's #2 pitcher. Granted, this same scenario can occur based on upsets and/or the different strengths or depth of a particular district. At least in that instance it is not built into the system.

Another aspect, particularly important in baseball, is the imbalance created by a #4 or #5 district seed in the regional tournament. Some #1 seed is going to get to hold back their pitching ace in a first round game where another #1 seed is going to have to use theirs against a legitimate #2 seed. If they both win, Team #1 now sends their #1 pitcher against Team #2's #2 pitcher. Granted, this same scenario can occur based on upsets and/or the different strengths or depth of a particular district. At least in that instance it is not built into the system.

 

A very good point I hadn't thought of.

 

I know this is a seeded/non-seeded discussion, but I don't think you can talk about this issue in isolation from the issue of classification, or lack there of. If baseball were classified like football (but with a smaller # of classes), seeding wouldn't be such a big issue as the teams in each district would be much more equal in level of competitiveness than they are currently. Without classification, I don't think the smaller schools in Dist. 36 will ever vote for seeding.

 

Why hasn't the state mandated seeding? IMO because they know it would increase the push for classification, something they have always resisted. Why have they always resisted classification? That's a debate for another thread.