Thread Rating:
08-19-2009, 10:08 PM
Do you think winless football teams should be allowed to go to the playoffs while some teams in bigger districts do not although they may have a better record.
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
08-20-2009, 12:55 AM
LOL And everyone gets a trophy
08-20-2009, 05:42 AM
DEVIL89 Wrote:I think they should go back to the old system of district champions and runner-ups make the playoffs. It seemed to work then why not now!!!!
They should, but there are other con$ideration$ at hand.
08-20-2009, 11:53 AM
No way should a winless team get the honor of making the playoffs.
08-20-2009, 12:16 PM
DEVIL89 Wrote:I think they should go back to the old system of district champions and runner-ups make the playoffs. It seemed to work then why not now!!!!
I think this is the best solution and it would cut down on the length of the season. A basketball coach at a good football school is put at a disadvantage because if their team goes deep in the playoffs, many of the kids will not be out for basketball until after the season has started. It also would take mediocre teams out of the playoffs and provide for good first round matchups.
08-20-2009, 01:12 PM
cj2561 Wrote:KHSAA should do something. A winless team shouldn't be able to make the playsoffs. Make the season down to 13 games. The top two from each district make the playoffs.
agree, agree, agree......just crazy this happens
08-20-2009, 02:31 PM
Money is a good thing.
08-20-2009, 04:33 PM
OrangenowBlue Wrote:I think this is the best solution and it would cut down on the length of the season. A basketball coach at a good football school is put at a disadvantage because if their team goes deep in the playoffs, many of the kids will not be out for basketball until after the season has started. It also would take mediocre teams out of the playoffs and provide for good first round matchups.
I hear this often (usually from basketball coaches and basketball fans). Is there any empirical evidence supporting the position however?
While they may be an aberration, Lou Central's basketball team made it to the championship game in basketball, in spite of Wilson and Patterson playing football through and including the second weekend in December. Admittedly, Central struggled early without those two, but when the games really mattered (the tournament), Central's basketball team didn't seemed harmed at all by those two playing football so late. Can anyone know for certain that a basketball team would have had greater tournament success if the football season had ended one or two weeks earlier? Does one or two weeks of practice at the beginning of the season really make that much of a difference by the time the tournament begins 2.5 to 3 months later?
And how many football players actually play basketball and vice versa any more? I know at the smaller schools more kids play multiple sports, but it seems at the larger schools, its becoming rarer and rarer. Whether we agree with it or not, it seems like more and more kids are picking one sport and working on it almost year round.
Some corollary questions are: Is a football coach at a good basketball school put at a disadvantage by high school kids being permitted to play AAU basketball all summer long? Or is a football coach at a good baseball coach put at a disadvantage when the kids don't come out for spring football and instead play baseball? My point being that coaches of sports that aren't the dominant sport at a school are always behind the 8 ball to some extent or the other.
And since no one (I think) answered my question about who financially benefits from the extra rounds of playoffs created by the top 4 in each district making the playoffs, the answer is the schools do. The KHSAA does not. So if folks were thinking the KHSAA went with this system to line their pockets with green, they are mistaken. The KHSAA does not get a penny from any playoff game until the State game.
One final observation: do the people complaining about the winless football teams making the playoffs likewise complain when a basketball team with few victories makes the basketball district tournament? Or when the baseball team with the terrible record gets to participate in the baseball tournament? Don't most other sports allow every team regardless of record to make the playoffs? Why should football be different?
08-21-2009, 12:15 AM
charlie22 Wrote:I hear this often (usually from basketball coaches and basketball fans). Is there any empirical evidence supporting the position however?
While they may be an aberration, Lou Central's basketball team made it to the championship game in basketball, in spite of Wilson and Patterson playing football through and including the second weekend in December. Admittedly, Central struggled early without those two, but when the games really mattered (the tournament), Central's basketball team didn't seemed harmed at all by those two playing football so late. Can anyone know for certain that a basketball team would have had greater tournament success if the football season had ended one or two weeks earlier? Does one or two weeks of practice at the beginning of the season really make that much of a difference by the time the tournament begins 2.5 to 3 months later?
And how many football players actually play basketball and vice versa any more? I know at the smaller schools more kids play multiple sports, but it seems at the larger schools, its becoming rarer and rarer. Whether we agree with it or not, it seems like more and more kids are picking one sport and working on it almost year round.
Some corollary questions are: Is a football coach at a good basketball school put at a disadvantage by high school kids being permitted to play AAU basketball all summer long? Or is a football coach at a good baseball coach put at a disadvantage when the kids don't come out for spring football and instead play baseball? My point being that coaches of sports that aren't the dominant sport at a school are always behind the 8 ball to some extent or the other.
And since no one (I think) answered my question about who financially benefits from the extra rounds of playoffs created by the top 4 in each district making the playoffs, the answer is the schools do. The KHSAA does not. So if folks were thinking the KHSAA went with this system to line their pockets with green, they are mistaken. The KHSAA does not get a penny from any playoff game until the State game.
One final observation: do the people complaining about the winless football teams making the playoffs likewise complain when a basketball team with few victories makes the basketball district tournament? Or when the baseball team with the terrible record gets to participate in the baseball tournament? Don't most other sports allow every team regardless of record to make the playoffs? Why should football be different?
Because football doesn't allow every team to play in the playoffs. Only the teams that are in the four team districts automatically make the playoffs no matter what their record is. Is it fair for a team in a five team or six team district not to make the playoffs and they have won 3 or 4 games while a team can go to the playoffs winless. They need to do away with four team districts or let everyone make the playoffs like basketball and baseball.
08-21-2009, 12:16 AM
charlie22 Wrote:I hear this often (usually from basketball coaches and basketball fans). Is there any empirical evidence supporting the position however?
While they may be an aberration, Lou Central's basketball team made it to the championship game in basketball, in spite of Wilson and Patterson playing football through and including the second weekend in December. Admittedly, Central struggled early without those two, but when the games really mattered (the tournament), Central's basketball team didn't seemed harmed at all by those two playing football so late. Can anyone know for certain that a basketball team would have had greater tournament success if the football season had ended one or two weeks earlier? Does one or two weeks of practice at the beginning of the season really make that much of a difference by the time the tournament begins 2.5 to 3 months later?
And how many football players actually play basketball and vice versa any more? I know at the smaller schools more kids play multiple sports, but it seems at the larger schools, its becoming rarer and rarer. Whether we agree with it or not, it seems like more and more kids are picking one sport and working on it almost year round.
Some corollary questions are: Is a football coach at a good basketball school put at a disadvantage by high school kids being permitted to play AAU basketball all summer long? Or is a football coach at a good baseball coach put at a disadvantage when the kids don't come out for spring football and instead play baseball? My point being that coaches of sports that aren't the dominant sport at a school are always behind the 8 ball to some extent or the other.
And since no one (I think) answered my question about who financially benefits from the extra rounds of playoffs created by the top 4 in each district making the playoffs, the answer is the schools do. The KHSAA does not. So if folks were thinking the KHSAA went with this system to line their pockets with green, they are mistaken. The KHSAA does not get a penny from any playoff game until the State game.
One final observation: do the people complaining about the winless football teams making the playoffs likewise complain when a basketball team with few victories makes the basketball district tournament? Or when the baseball team with the terrible record gets to participate in the baseball tournament? Don't most other sports allow every team regardless of record to make the playoffs? Why should football be different?
Because football doesn't allow every team to play in the playoffs. Only the teams that are in the four team districts automatically make the playoffs no matter what their record is. Is it fair for a team in a five team or six team district not to make the playoffs and they have won 3 or 4 games while a team can go to the playoffs winless. They need to do away with four team districts or let everyone make the playoffs like basketball and baseball.
08-21-2009, 06:37 AM
OrangenowBlue Wrote:Because football doesn't allow every team to play in the playoffs. Only the teams that are in the four team districts automatically make the playoffs no matter what their record is. Is it fair for a team in a five team or six team district not to make the playoffs and they have won 3 or 4 games while a team can go to the playoffs winless. They need to do away with four team districts or let everyone make the playoffs like basketball and baseball.
I agree its unfair, they should let everyone in and just lengthen the playoffs a week or two. Basketball can wait.
08-21-2009, 11:30 AM
Then if we are going to do that, lets do away with the class system and have everyone play each other like they do in basketball and baseball. I am just being sarcastic as I know that is not realistic due to the nature of football. When the football playoffs start, the first part of the playoffs is to see who will win the region. Let only the district champion and runner-up advance to the playoffs the same as basketball and baseball does in the regional tournaments. If we let everyone play it will extend the football season into January and that will make the football season last almost six months. Basketball will be in mid season by then as their districts start at the end of February. When you talk about money, basketball is the breadwinner for the KHSAA as the Sweet Sixteen is what pays the bills.
08-21-2009, 11:42 AM
It gives every team an opportunity to get one win, if they are winless. That's a good thing, I think.
08-21-2009, 12:03 PM
Top 2 in the district should go. It makes district games meaningful, and it eliminates the 1 vs. 4 which is ridiculous and pointless in almost every instince. Playoff football should be quality football. A 1 vs. 2 first round game, with a 1vs. 1/2 or 2 vs. 2 is a lot more fun to watch and talk about. Give the 3 and 4s participation trophies and save everybody the trouble of having to travel to a number one seed just to get beat.
08-21-2009, 12:20 PM
Panther Thunder Wrote:Top 2 in the district should go. It makes district games meaningful, and it eliminates the 1 vs. 4 which is ridiculous and pointless in almost every instince. Playoff football should be quality football. A 1 vs. 2 first round game, with a 1vs. 1/2 or 2 vs. 2 is a lot more fun to watch and talk about. Give the 3 and 4s participation trophies and save everybody the trouble of having to travel to a number one seed just to get beat.
I agree.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
