[Hoot Gibson]

The bottom line is that Indiana allows every team into the playoffs and crowned state champions in 6 classes. Kentucky crowned state champions in 6 classes, and those state champions would have been the same whether or not only half as many teams had been eligible for the playoff and they probably would have been the same if Kentucky had used the same system as Indiana uses.

I really do not understand why it bothers some people so much that 0-10 teams make the playoffs. Does anybody believe that the players on those teams are proud to be in the playoffs, despite their winless records? How is allowing more football players play more games a bad thing?

The important thing is that the best team in each class at the end of the season has a fair chance to claim the state title in their respective class. Indiana's system works and Kentucky's system works. Once you start excluding more teams from the playoffs, you run the risk of excluding the best team in a class at the end of the regular season. More importantly, you are widening the gap between the amount of football that good teams play versus the football that players on bad teams get to play. In restrictive playoff systems, the rich get richer because their young players enjoy a big edge in experience.

I like systems like Indiana has because a team like Indianapolis Cathedral can schedule bigger, better teams early, start their season 0-4 and still win state titles if they have the best team at the end of the season.