Look at how Indiana does playoffs. Its a much better approach.

The problem I have is the regular season doesn't mean anything. If this the junior football league or even the freshman, fine, let everyone in the playoffs. But we are going back to little league and giving everyone trophies for participating. Why bother with the playoffs, let everyone play 14 games so everyone gets a chance to play more. But if this is about rewarding teams for winning in the regular season, we need to stop watering down the playoffs. Sure you are going to have 4's and 3's win, then what incentive was there to win in the regular season (homefield advantage is all I can think of). The playoffs are a reward for doing well in the regular season. When I played, if I didn't think I had a chance to win the state championship, I would rather of not made the playoffs (which happened a few times).

Raw Data: Out of 90 games surveyed (3 not reported, one being played tomorrow), the average difference between the winning and losing scores in the 1st round was 29.9 points. The extremes were Prestonsburg over Knott Co. Central 66 to 0 and Monroe Co. over Washington Co. 36 to 35/ Campbell Co. over GRC 35 to 34. There were sixteen "upsets" which represents roughly 18% of all games played. Fifteen games were decided by seven touchdowns or more which represents roughly one percent less than "upsets" at 17%. Twenty one games were decided by two touchdowns or less which represents roughly 23% of the games. That means that roughly 77% of the games were decided by more than two touchdowns.

 

Interpretation: It's a lesser of two evils situation: keep it the way it is and have 3/4 of the games be non-competitive in the first round or limit the number of teams in to 2 per district and keep out potentially sixteen teams that would pull off upsets (with no certainty that they would win another game). You're either losing out on a higher quality of 1st round football or great games like West Jessamine over Holmes, Monroe Co. over Washington Co., and Campbell Co. over GRC.

How about eliminating the bye week and have 3 teams get in with the #1 seed getting a bye. That way you'd get rid of the #1 vs. #4 blowouts. The regular season games really mean something then.

I should change the title of this thread to "It's time for our annual debate to go back to 2 teams per district to the playoffs."

 

Where is the dead horse. I can't find Flicka! Here boy. Carrots. Somebody get the carrots .........:deadhorse:

 

It does get tiresome, doesn't it swampy? I wanted to stay out but I'll put in my two cents because no one has mentioned it in this thread. Why should football be different than ever other sport? Don't we have many district basketball games that are 80-20? Yet no one says eliminate district tournaments and put the top two teams from each district into the regional. Basketball regular season is worthless, right? Heck at least in football you are fighting for home field advantage in district play. You don't even get that in basketball district play. Maybe I should start a thread in basketball and title it "Eliminate District Tournaments". I wonder how everyone would respond to that thread. And no, it isn't different. So you play an extra week in the current football set up. Whoop tee do, my life is coming to an end because I have to watch an extra week of high school football.

I liked the old 4 class system with top 2 teams from each district going. But if the number of playoff teams is reduced, the KHSAA can't do this ridiculous district stacking like they did for next year (X, T, H, M in same 6A district).

I feel bad for teams who have to travel several hours, lose by 50 in bad weather, then not get back home until the wee hours of the morning. At least in the other sports, district play is local so if you get beat up, you at least usually don't have a 3 hour bus ride home. If you're going to keep this, play the first two rounds within your district.

But then the KHSAA would miss out on the gate and everything that goes along with two additional state final games and that's not going to happen. It's all about the GREEN$$$$$$.

What needs to happen is to keep the four teams from each district, but go back to the more logical, four-class system.

I think so even with 4 seeds beating 1 seeds. I think that it would be better 1st round games but it will never happen.$$$$$$$$$$$$

I should change the title of this thread to "It's time for our annual debate to go back to 2 teams per district to the playoffs."

 

Where is the dead horse. I can't find Flicka! Here boy. Carrots. Somebody get the carrots .........:deadhorse:

 

My exact thoughts as soon as I saw the thread title.

No. Way too many great 2-3 games; and sometimes a 3 seed had an obstacle or two to overcome during the regular season (key injuries, etc.)

 

It's probably been said before, but to me an acceptable compromise would be to have 3 teams from each district qualify for the post-season. Let the 1 have a bye, then play the winner of the 2-3 game.

Proposal to consider

 

4 Classes

7 - 8 team regions (eliminate districts as they are meaningless anyway).

No bye week

Blind draw for regional brackets (sweet 16 style) - However, give Region #1 a bye in week 1, since the brackets will have 7 teams vs 8. This makes winning regular season region a worthy goal with material benefit.

3 week Regional tournament - 32 true Regional Champions

32 Regional Champions go into State Tournament. Blind draw or use East-West alignment to keep travel low.

3 week State tournament - 4 State Champions.

 

Cons - Adds another week to the Championship/playoff schedule (3 + 3)

 

Pros:

1) ALL teams are in post season.

2) 7-8 team regions keep rivalries together and local and keep travel (and cost!) down.

3) Give teams a reason to win regular season region - a bye week.

4) No pre-determined seeding (other than #1 getting bye) - so good games can happen in any week of regional playoff and down schools are not forced into a blowout automatically - this will keep interest up in the school and community.

5) 6-7 automatically scheduled games - less scheduling hassles for coaches and ADs.

6) For those that care - big rivals likely will be in same region so they compete at region level vs. state level. Not only you-know-who in current 6A but the 3A traditional powers would like be grouped in same 7-8 team regions.

 

 

What I dislike about the current setup:

1) 6 classes is just too many

2) We will leave a very small percentage of schools out of the post-season. If we are going to give 192 out of 220 a shot. Lets get the other 30 or so teams and 1,500 kids another week of football.

3) Too many holes in schedule with chopped up classes and micro-small districts

4) Lack of local - physically close - rivals for a lot of schools

5) 6 Champions and 216 or so 'losers' with this 5 week 'Survivor'-type play off system.

Edited November 6, 201015 yr by Bluegrasscard
added title

Are there not some games like this in regular season also??

Play the JV players and make it closer.

Yes... do some of these teams really enjoy their last game being a 50 point+ loss?

 

In my opinion, any Friday night with a football game is better than any Friday night without a football game.

With only 2 teams making the post season Last season's 3A champion would not have made the playoffs.