You all are both obviously correct, but with the option given to coaches, the bye week will still be there. Not necessarily because they want a bye week but because there are always concessions for games. If the bye week was completely taken away there would be no other option. Until that happens, the bye week will be part of the sport.

 

What does it hurt if the option is still there? The intent was to have the regular season be a week shorter. It is.

What does it hurt if the option is still there? The intent was to have the regular season be a week shorter. It is.

 

I don't mind it being there, I just prefer to not have it, and if we have to have it that it be in the week prior to the playoffs. I don't think it shortened the season, it's tomatoes and tomatoes - start a week early or not it's still 11 weeks.

So what happens if we go back to the top two teams making the playoffs and there are blowouts. Then, do we go to just the #1 team making it.

 

I remember in my high school days we were the #4 seed from Northern Kentucky and had to play Raceland the #1 seed and we beat them. So, I don't mind the current playoff set-up.

I have heard there has been some polling done to get some feedback on the present playoff format in the state of Kentucky, regarding the football playoffs. I think we may soon be on the verge of going back to where only the top two teams in a district make the playoffs. I think this is best.

 

There is no greater ridiculousness in all of KY high sports than the opening week of the high school playoffs. What sense does it make to have teams travel two and three hours only to get pummeled by 60 points? It serves no purpose other than prolonging the season. I think you could find something for some schools to continue playing without having to get beaten badly by superior teams.

 

I believe the current format is too last at least 4 years and this is only the first year of that cycle.

 

But as to the merits of altering the current format and configuration here it goes:

 

- Teams travel longer distances not only for playoffs but just to play district games now with the 6 class system. The 6 classes has chopped up the schools that even home districts are spread out far more than they were. The 'squeeze' of 1A and 6A made this only worse. So kids are on buses longer. Also fuel and driver cost have gone up. The playoffs only make that even worse with the cross district approach. This is all a negative that is rarely brought up with the current set-up.

 

- Though not discussed openly it seems obvious that the current setup was take pressure off coaches who are in tough districts and may end up being a perennial 3rd or 4th place. The positive of the current format is that it provides playoff experience to kids that may not get that opportunity. That may be good. But as noted, traveling a long distance to get beat in a running clock game, especially if it is an annual event, may not be a positive.

 

- The current system isolates around 30 or so teams as the small group of did not make its. This just seems wrong. Now with the new configuration where 1A and 6A teams are guaranteed to make the playoffs and the formation of 6 team districts you have 0-10 teams making playoffs and teams that are 6-4 (Woodford) NOT making the playoffs. How screwy is that? It just seems wrong. Either take around 50% of the schools in the playoffs so that the 30+ schools, especially ones with winning seasons are not arbitrarily left out due to class make-up configurations or get all the schools in the playoffs. The current set-up seems very bad in this area.

 

- The current system has diminished the function of a district to almost nothing. And no one really cares about the pair regional approach. Neither are celebrated or acknowledged as their own competition. So 'the tournament' is just 5 weeks of 'survivor style' playoffs with 6 winners and 220 losers.

 

 

 

I usually suggest people look to the Indiana system as a model. It is a 5 class system where all the schools participate in Sectional playoffs (7-8 team brackets) and the winners of those go on to the 'State Tournament'. Both rounds are classic 8 team, 3 week brackets. But it creates 2 distinct levels of Championships without 'watering down' the state level championship. For Kentucky to do this it would need to back into 4 classes evenly divided.

 

The positives of this system are that schools are grouped by size and geography into 7-8 team Sections and so more of their regular season is pre-determined and they are geographically close and not stretched out like the current districts are in Kentucky. More games verses close rival schools and less travel on buses during regular season and playoffs. They also do not seed - its blind draw. I know many do not like. But in Kentucky using evenly split 4 classes most 'Sections' would be 7 teams. So maybe the regular season winner of a 7 team section is rewarded with a bye in the first round of the Sectional playoffs. I believe the State level is also blind draw. So you get a mix of brackets each year.

 

The negative of the Indiana system - 6 weeks of playoffs. I believe they play only a 9 game regular season with no silly 'off week' so they still get their playoffs done before we do. And with a guaranteed playoff game teams get at least 10 games anyway. As note above the use of the blind draw is a negative to those that want some type of reward for the regular season. As noted - give the regular season Sectional winner a bye for 7 team sections and maybe pre-seed 1 vs. 8 for 8 team sections. Then blind draw the rest to mix it up and create some different patterns in the playoffs each year.

 

After looking at Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee systems the Indiana system seems to fit Kentucky the best. No way can Ohio take all the teams into the playoffs with over 800 schools playing football (vs. 226 or so in Kentucky) so they have to limit those that go into the playoff rounds.

 

So here is the recommendation

 

- Get back to 4 evenly split classes.

- Go to size/geographic based sections

- Go to a two tier tournament to give each meaning.

- If you want 10 games in the regular season but a two tier 6 week playoff - just drop the bye week. Or go to 9 games AND drop the bye week and get two weeks back and finish the playoffs one week sooner than now.

 

I know many disagree...so let 'er rip on this recommendation. But lets keep up the dialog. The current system is simply broken at so many levels.

I believe the current format is too last at least 4 years and this is only the first year of that cycle.

 

But as to the merits of altering the current format and configuration here it goes:

 

- Teams travel longer distances not only for playoffs but just to play district games now with the 6 class system. The 6 classes has chopped up the schools that even home districts are spread out far more than they were. The 'squeeze' of 1A and 6A made this only worse. So kids are on buses longer. Also fuel and driver cost have gone up. The playoffs only make that even worse with the cross district approach. This is all a negative that is rarely brought up with the current set-up.

 

- Though not discussed openly it seems obvious that the current setup was take pressure off coaches who are in tough districts and may end up being a perennial 3rd or 4th place. The positive of the current format is that it provides playoff experience to kids that may not get that opportunity. That may be good. But as noted, traveling a long distance to get beat in a running clock game, especially if it is an annual event, may not be a positive.

 

- The current system isolates around 30 or so teams as the small group of did not make its. This just seems wrong. Now with the new configuration where 1A and 6A teams are guaranteed to make the playoffs and the formation of 6 team districts you have 0-10 teams making playoffs and teams that are 6-4 (Woodford) NOT making the playoffs. How screwy is that? It just seems wrong. Either take around 50% of the schools in the playoffs so that the 30+ schools, especially ones with winning seasons are not arbitrarily left out due to class make-up configurations or get all the schools in the playoffs. The current set-up seems very bad in this area.

 

- The current system has diminished the function of a district to almost nothing. And no one really cares about the pair regional approach. Neither are celebrated or acknowledged as their own competition. So 'the tournament' is just 5 weeks of 'survivor style' playoffs with 6 winners and 220 losers.

 

 

 

I usually suggest people look to the Indiana system as a model. It is a 5 class system where all the schools participate in Sectional playoffs (7-8 team brackets) and the winners of those go on to the 'State Tournament'. Both rounds are classic 8 team, 3 week brackets. But it creates 2 distinct levels of Championships without 'watering down' the state level championship. For Kentucky to do this it would need to back into 4 classes evenly divided.

 

The positives of this system are that schools are grouped by size and geography into 7-8 team Sections and so more of their regular season is pre-determined and they are geographically close and not stretched out like the current districts are in Kentucky. More games verses close rival schools and less travel on buses during regular season and playoffs. They also do not seed - its blind draw. I know many do not like. But in Kentucky using evenly split 4 classes most 'Sections' would be 7 teams. So maybe the regular season winner of a 7 team section is rewarded with a bye in the first round of the Sectional playoffs. I believe the State level is also blind draw. So you get a mix of brackets each year.

 

The negative of the Indiana system - 6 weeks of playoffs. I believe they play only a 9 game regular season with no silly 'off week' so they still get their playoffs done before we do. And with a guaranteed playoff game teams get at least 10 games anyway. As note above the use of the blind draw is a negative to those that want some type of reward for the regular season. As noted - give the regular season Sectional winner a bye for 7 team sections and maybe pre-seed 1 vs. 8 for 8 team sections. Then blind draw the rest to mix it up and create some different patterns in the playoffs each year.

 

After looking at Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee systems the Indiana system seems to fit Kentucky the best. No way can Ohio take all the teams into the playoffs with over 800 schools playing football (vs. 226 or so in Kentucky) so they have to limit those that go into the playoff rounds.

 

So here is the recommendation

 

- Get back to 4 evenly split classes.

- Go to size/geographic based sections

- Go to a two tier tournament to give each meaning.

- If you want 10 games in the regular season but a two tier 6 week playoff - just drop the bye week. Or go to 9 games AND drop the bye week and get two weeks back and finish the playoffs one week sooner than now.

 

I know many disagree...so let 'er rip on this recommendation. But lets keep up the dialog. The current system is simply broken at so many levels.

 

We need a new BGP Rule: A response that requires a bathroom break before it can be completely read is not allowed.

Let us use tiny old Phelps for example.

 

26 players to start the year, due to injuries aned blowouts that THEY ARE MADE(other than 1 game)to schedule, down to18 last Friday.

 

They have to travel to Fairview to play a 1st round game, who has already beaten them 61-14. Coach is having a hard time getting players out just to make the trip. 6 classes is a joke, period.

Every team makes it into the district tournament in basketball and baseball, and then on top of that the winner and runner up move on to regionals, I honestly don't see the big deal, sure, it's disheartening to some teams, but it's the mentality of our society where every kid deserves a chance. I don't know, just my two cents...

Then why is it OK for every other athlete in every other sport in the state to automatically be in the playoffs? Yes, you will have a lot of lopsided scores but you might have a few 4 seeds win and one may even make a state final. Just ask Simon Kenton. I am sure there are some first round matchups in district play in basketball that are lopsidied as well, but they still play or some cross country runners who have no chance in their regional meet but they still get to run. Are there too many classes in football? Yes. Does it hurt anyone to have more teams in the playoffs? No

 

You really think Simon Kenton wants to play Trinity?

Every team makes it into the district tournament in basketball and baseball, and then on top of that the winner and runner up move on to regionals, I honestly don't see the big deal, sure, it's disheartening to some teams, but it's the mentality of our society where every kid deserves a chance. I don't know, just my two cents...

 

Yes, but as I stated previously, the difference is travel. Nobody travels too far for district or regional baseball and basketball tourneys.

Every team makes it into the district tournament in basketball and baseball, and then on top of that the winner and runner up move on to regionals, I honestly don't see the big deal, sure, it's disheartening to some teams, but it's the mentality of our society where every kid deserves a chance. I don't know, just my two cents...

Football is the only KHSAA sport (team or individual) in which you have to qualify for the postseason. And while I think it cheapens the regular season in those other team sports to have everyone in the postseason, that ship has sailed. So if you must qualify for football, then it shouldn't be so easy that 80 to 85 percent of the participating schools can do it. If you're not making the playoffs in this system, you're not trying very hard. (And some of those who are making the playoffs don't seem to be trying very hard, either.)

Anything that could be done to make it more difficult to get in would add value to the season. I like the idea of going to the two-team qualifying system, but that will NEVER happen. I even like the three-team qualifier proposed earlier in the thread. At the very least, they should instill this rule: any team going 0-10 doesn't get in. Period. Just write in a bye where they would've played.

As it is, we might as well go to the Indiana system Bluegrasscard discussed: Just let everyone into the playoffs and lop off one regular-season game. With all of that said, however, I don't think anything will be done now, later or probably ever to reduce the number of teams that get to make the playoffs.

 

On a related note, I still have not read or heard an explanation as to why the KHSAA capped 1A and 6A at 32 teams. While many teams in 2A through 5A have to fight it out to be among that 80 or 85 percent in the playoffs, no one in 1A or 6A has to lift a finger, and that couldn't be more unfair. Why should it be easier for those schools to qualify (and easier to advance because you're going to get weaker No. 4 seeds)? If I were a coach or AD in one of the middle classes, I would have been screaming from the rooftop about this, but I didn't really hear anyone doing that.

What might make this better is having the first two rounds of the playoffs between district opponents. At least that way a team wouldn't have to travel 100 miles to get beat by 60.

 

Making the playoffs in Kentucky is a joke anyways...

Does it really hurt anything to have 4 teams make it in? Maybe ones vs. 4s isn't that exciting but I can see benefits for both. I would do away with the 4 team district though. No one should get an automatic playoff bid IMO.

What might make this better is having the first two rounds of the playoffs between district opponents. At least that way a team wouldn't have to travel 100 miles to get beat by 60.

They tried that 4 or 5 years ago in an effort to cut the early-round travel, and coaches (and most of the rest of us) pretty much hated it across the board.

They tried that 4 or 5 years ago in an effort to cut the early-round travel, and coaches (and most of the rest of us) pretty much hated it across the board.

 

I remember Sam Harp saying something to the effect of "we beat X County by 40 points in week 9, why in the world do they want to come back here and play again in two weeks. Neither side wants that." He had a good point.

I remember Sam Harp saying something to the effect of "we beat X County by 40 points in week 9, why in the world do they want to come back here and play again in two weeks. Neither side wants that." He had a good point.

I remember that, too. I think X=Fort Knox in that equation.