Playoffs back to 16 qualifiers
- Thread starter B-K_Teach
- Start date
Wow, I can't believe it. I, for one, am here to eat my crow on this decision. I stated multiple times that the state would never go back. That's a good amount of revenue they'll miss out on. But IMO, a great decision made by the state!!
Next shoe to drop will be an increase in playoff ticket prices.
I like this decision. Having three games in 12 days, or whatever it was is just not reasonable and safe for football. I'm glad they made this call. Surprised, but glad.
Fairly certain this won't be the only change impacting the football playoffs (and I'm not talking about just a rise in ticket prices to offset dropping 1 game).
I'm guessing the seven figure award to a family over a head injury will have people wondering what they can do to prevent being caught up in a similar lawsuit. Only a matter of time till someone gets hurt in the playoffs and an attorney approaches the family and decides to go for the deep pockets which, "condensed the playoff season to line their pockets and contributed to my clients injury".
This move is still all about the money and when Boone is done with their changes they won't be looking at a drop in their revenue from this move.
Hmm...well this is more or less what the people wanted. I suppose most coaches support this as well. Meanwhile, the players will continue to not mind either way, although some will probably miss getting that extra game or two in. They will always just want to play. But at the end of the day, the people have spoken, and the State listened.
It'll be interesting to see if they continue with the format they put in place last year, where the 2nd round (Qtrs) is reshuffled geographically rather than having set district vs district matchups, or like with the old way of district champ vs runner-up and then paired with the winner of a similar First Round game.
Here's my attempt at what last year's 1A playoffs might've looked like under the current seeding format, with just 16 teams (which will now be the First Round).
IKM-Manning vs Hinton
St. Edmond vs A-H-S-T
West Lyon vs Emmetsburg
Saint Ansgar vs South Central Calhoun
West Branch vs Dike-New Hartford
Van Meter vs Pella Christian
Regina vs Panorama
South Winneshiek vs North Cedar
The only team from this class that would've really been left out was Central Decatur, who was a 3-seed that reached the Qtrs.
It'll be interesting to see if they continue with the format they put in place last year, where the 2nd round (Qtrs) is reshuffled geographically rather than having set district vs district matchups, or like with the old way of district champ vs runner-up and then paired with the winner of a similar First Round game.
Here's my attempt at what last year's 1A playoffs might've looked like under the current seeding format, with just 16 teams (which will now be the First Round).
IKM-Manning vs Hinton
St. Edmond vs A-H-S-T
West Lyon vs Emmetsburg
Saint Ansgar vs South Central Calhoun
West Branch vs Dike-New Hartford
Van Meter vs Pella Christian
Regina vs Panorama
South Winneshiek vs North Cedar
The only team from this class that would've really been left out was Central Decatur, who was a 3-seed that reached the Qtrs.
Here's the problem with today's world. Take a topic, have a handful (or big group even) of people bark about it and all of a sudden they represent "the people." Was a survey taken? A vote? Maybe a majority of people would be in favor of this, but we don't know unless these steps are taken. And just because a majority of people want something doesn't mean it should happen. Funny how only 8 years ago the "people" wanted to expand to 32 teams.
And ask the 2009 State runner-up Pella team what they thought of the expanded playoffs.
I doubt that'll happen, screwloose, but I suppose it's possible.
Today's CR Gazette article remarked how there are still questions about how playoff qualifiers will be decided. I think it's pretty obvious - the top two teams in each district make it, everybody else is out. Now, might there be a possibility they go back to a point system? I believe that's incredibly remote. For one thing, the point penalty for playing a team from a lower classification is a huge sticking point. Schools are going to be very, very reluctant to schedule an opponent from a lower class, which is going to increase the problems for travel/scheduling like we had back in the pre-district days. For another, if you're not using district records/finishes for playoff purposes, what would be the point of having districts at all? Does anybody really think the state will scrap the district format and tell every school, "You guys go back and form your own conferences again. Have fun!"
In my opinion, I wouldn't mind a system that selects the eight district champions and then the next eight best qualifiers, based on some sort of point system (so a third-place 8-1 team might get in ahead of a second-place 6-3 team, for example). But that point-penalty thing is a big hurdle. Maybe if they only calculated points from district games ... I guess that might be one possibility.
Today's CR Gazette article remarked how there are still questions about how playoff qualifiers will be decided. I think it's pretty obvious - the top two teams in each district make it, everybody else is out. Now, might there be a possibility they go back to a point system? I believe that's incredibly remote. For one thing, the point penalty for playing a team from a lower classification is a huge sticking point. Schools are going to be very, very reluctant to schedule an opponent from a lower class, which is going to increase the problems for travel/scheduling like we had back in the pre-district days. For another, if you're not using district records/finishes for playoff purposes, what would be the point of having districts at all? Does anybody really think the state will scrap the district format and tell every school, "You guys go back and form your own conferences again. Have fun!"
In my opinion, I wouldn't mind a system that selects the eight district champions and then the next eight best qualifiers, based on some sort of point system (so a third-place 8-1 team might get in ahead of a second-place 6-3 team, for example). But that point-penalty thing is a big hurdle. Maybe if they only calculated points from district games ... I guess that might be one possibility.
Conference play would be really difficult to start up again. In the 80's, schools had real issues with playing within the conference as scheduling became an issue, but more so because it made playoff qualifying a real problem every year. For example a 2A school in a 1A conference could be very good, but would almost never qualify based on the old point system qualifying process because they had to play smaller schools that are in their conference. I know it wasn't that uncommon for an undefeated team to not qualify for the playoffs.
With that being said, there are almost half the number of schools out there in comparison to when district play started (late 80's?).
With that being said, there are almost half the number of schools out there in comparison to when district play started (late 80's?).
As someone who has seen conferences fall apart in Illinois and teams really struggle to fill a 9 game schedule, I think the district format is a great strength of the Iowa system.
First off 8 years ago the injury debate was not even on our minds. The issues of kids getting head injuries was not on our minds. We have learned just as we do with everything in time. In the future they could realize that 8 district qualifiers go to the dome...they could decide 64 teams will work. You change with the times and what you know.
It doesn't matter that everyone wasn't asked...everyone wasn't given an opportunity to state their opinions. The people that do know were given the information and went back to their constituents and they came up with a decision that they felt was best for everyone involved. From my understanding cutting back to 16 wasn't even a real consideration until the coaches got together and it was discussed.
As for 2009 Pella.....if you don't finish in the top two next year....tough. Don't finish third
I completely disagree. I've been very vocal against the playoff structure for years. The Wednesday/Monday/Friday set-up is not new to the last eight years...it was that way before. It's just another round earlier now. Granted, I wasn't calling out specifically about head injuries, but four games in fifteen days, eight years ago or next year, is too damn many without sufficient recuperation time.
Getting to Kid's thoughts about teams taking that lower class penalty, you're probably right. However, I think that could be alleviated if the state allowed a one game exemption for a local, lower class, non-district opponent. I know in 4A, there are a plethora of lower opponents that could be kept on schedules with this type of scenario. Examples...
Sioux City East & Sioux City North vs. Sioux City Heelan
Sioux City West vs. Sergeant Bluff-Luton
Council Bluffs Lincoln vs. Harlan
Council Bluffs Lewis Central vs. Glenwood
Council Bluffs Jefferson vs. Council Bluffs St. Albert
Mason City vs. Clear Lake
Marshalltown vs. Newton
Burlington vs. Fort Madison
Ottumwa vs. Oskaloosa
Clinton vs. Central Clinton
Bettendorf vs. Davenport Assumption
Dubuque Hempstead & Dubuque Senior vs. Dubuque Wahlert
Take the eight district champions and the top eight by the old point system, or split it four and four, east/west in 4A if there's still that squabble. I wanna crunch some real numbers, not just this rank-and-file qualification garbage.
Considering I am u$ually skeptical of the boy$ in Boone (Beste with the 'I didn't know our playoff schedule was different from everybody else') I am going with the Coaches complained about the playoff schedule and so we cut the number of teams in half so a lot of coaches won't be in the playoffs, football will still be very profitable, the boy$ will still get paid and a bunch of coaches will have to look at their AD and explain why they don't make the playoffs as much. Now if a certain school in eastern Iowa doesn't make it at 8-1 or 7-2 look for changes to be made again 
With 4A currently split 24 West and 22 East, if they take eight teams per side, it's going to be damn near impossible for a 7-2 team in the East to missed the playoffs. It would be more likely if they did take the top two from each district, but still, remote.
Actually looking back there have been 3 state runner ups that wouldn't have had the chance in a 16 team format. And that's only in 7 years! And don't give me the "don't finish 3rd" crap. The playoffs were not expanded because of teams finishing 3rd, but rather because districts were having 1st and 2nd place ties settled with stupid, arbitrary factors like point differential and alphabetical order (and yes Cid, only a coincidence that one particular team had this happen the season before that decision
). And I realize that this wasn't the case for the '09 Pella team as they finished 4th outright, but I believe they had some injured kids make it back for the playoffs or something like that.And, I guess I still don't see the issue with playing games in a shorter period of time. It isn't ideal, but not a huge issue everybody makes it out to be. Basically, instead of having hard practices on Tuesday and Wednesday you are playing a game on Wednesday. Eh, not that big of an issue. Heck, technically there's nothing stopping a coach from going full-blown live just 3 days after a game if he chooses to. And head injuries shouldn't have a bearing in this discussion. If a kid has a head injury, he sits. Period. Are you insinuating that you are at greater risk for a head injury playing 3 games in 10 days as opposed to 3 games in 15 days? I'd like to see some statistics/research supporting that one. Maybe this format is worse for head injuries as it gives coaches a couple more days between games to push a kid to get cleared whereas in the current format he definitely sits the next game.
To me, it's another CYA knee jerk emotional reaction. "Hey, this sounds like it should be better for head injuries, so it must be better for head injuries, so let's do it!" Whatever...
It's all in response to the Des Moines Register going on a mission last fall and writing several articles about how bad it was that Iowa kids play frequent games over a short time frame. Heck, the NFL has teams play Monday night - Sunday - Thursday night. That's 3 games in 11 days. There is your research sample. What % of the athletes get injured in that 3rd game compared to the % of athletes injured in a regular 3 games in 15 days by going Sunday-Sunday-Sunday.
State soccer plays 3 games in 3 days and those games stretch 90 minutes with overtimes. During regular season, they never play on 3 consecutive days.
Volleyball teams will play 6 matches in a single Saturday tournament over an 8+ hour stretch. That's a grind and some teams do this 6 Saturdays in a row with a conference dual on either Tues/Thurs or both.
State golf plays 36 holes in 2 days despite never playing more than 18 holes in 2 days during any other stretch of the season.
At that point of the season, practices are far less intense. I'm far more concerned about a kid suffering heat exhaustion in August or having severe muscle cramps/kidney failure in a first or second week game than I am about injuries in November.
Now, if they want to talk about the change being due to lost academic time due to early outs on Wednesday and Monday for travel followed by an entire night in which studying cannot occur on each of those, then they may find a sympathetic ear.
Having some interaction with kids who have done the 14 game schedule multiple times I will say they love the games and hate the schedule, didn't like the recovery time, didn't like not feeling the best and that is on a team that didn't play very many full or close games. In my opinion based on their feedback I like the switch but would have been good if they kept 32 and played thanksgiving weekend and spread the games out better. I am interested to know how many teams go hard and live on Tuesday-Wednesday later in the season? The team I follow doesn't really go full pads much after they get into game week.
wow....never thought this would happen either, boone must have been held up at gun point. i have mixed feelings about the decision to go back to 16. the 16 members would actually be teams that deserve to be in the playoffs, and more likely would be there even if they still had the 32 team format. i had started to somewhat enjoy the 32 team format, give teams another game or 2 in the season and what football player does not like that. if one evaluates the 32 team format, the top 2 teams in each district would in all reality be there in the end anyhow.
The whole "don't finish third" thing is bad. I mostly follow 4A. I went through last year's numbers. The top two teams from Districts 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 all would have qualified using the old point system. Districts 1 & 4 would have only qualified their champions. District 2 would have qualified their top four.
There's no way of knowing who's going to be the best when they align the districts. They cannot use the rigid rank-and-file, top two qualify rule. It's not fair overall. For one, as noted above, one District could be loaded and two deserving teams could be sitting at home while a team they may have beaten in non-district play go to the playoffs because they're in an easier district. For two, it would make ALL the games on a team' schedule count, not just four to six district match-ups with three to five glorified exhibitions.
There's no way of knowing who's going to be the best when they align the districts. They cannot use the rigid rank-and-file, top two qualify rule. It's not fair overall. For one, as noted above, one District could be loaded and two deserving teams could be sitting at home while a team they may have beaten in non-district play go to the playoffs because they're in an easier district. For two, it would make ALL the games on a team' schedule count, not just four to six district match-ups with three to five glorified exhibitions.
Those first 3 or so are non-district games for a reason. That way, any athlete academically ineligible only hurts himself by not playing but does not hurt his teammates by not playing in games that "count"
I understand that most athletes in Iowa are multiple sport athletes but I really don't get the hold up of not being able to have the title games after thanksgiving other than UNI possibly having a playoff game of their own. Personally I think the entire calendar needs to be looked at.
UNI securing the Dome for a potential playoff game is the sole reason for the schedule. The only possible alternative would be moving the Championship outdoors or go to an 8 game season with week 9 set up for playoff qualifiers. Then, the non qualifying teams would probably play a sister district game for the 9th game.
I could see changes down the road as it will only take a couple years of a 7-2 Des Moines burb team being left out of the playoffs to get something adjusted. I'm not saying that in any type of negative manor....its just that if you only go back a couple years, there would have been some of that. In looking at only the West side of the state....if you have eight teams making the playoffs....those teams not named Dowling, Valley, Waukee, are going to battle mightily for five spots. When you think of SEP, Johnston, Urbandale, Both Ankeney's, Ames and even Sioux City East......a couple good teams are going to be left out of the playoffs. And if SEP gets back to where they have recently been.....now you are looking at four spots.
Personally, I think I'm going to need a year or two to see how this all shakes out. I can see both sides of the argument: Playoffs should be something very prestigious..something honorable. But on the other hand a 1-29 basketball team has the opportunity to try and get to the state tournament, a horrible wrestler gets to go to sectionals (or Districts at 3A), and bad soccer and baseball teams play for state as well. I know these teams don't go far......but they have a chance...one in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance...I get it.
If the state continues to play district football and put one of the "Big Boys" in each district........the reality of the year is that your whole season might come down to one or two games as you have to finish second to have a shot at the playoffs......and each district has one or two really bad teams that everyone beats, and few people beat Valley, Dowling, or Waukee that are not named Valley, Dowling or Waukee....so your whole season could come down to one or two games.
Think about the "Districts" if they were based on geography: Dowling, Valley, Waukee, and Urbandale being four of six in one district?????? The Ankeneys, SEP, Johnston in another......no one would ever do that because of equity.
I follow SC East. Last year, they lost in OT to CBLC....LC scored a TD with under 40 seconds left to send it into OT. Had East won, Johnston, East, and LC would all have finished with 7-2 records behind Dowling. I know it didn't turn out like that, but you had better believe those situations come up a lot. I just guess I'm old school enough to think that a 7-2 record should get you into the playoffs....but under this new system....two and maybe all three get left out.
In thinking about the smaller schools........they are going to have a lot of teams left out. I just don't see the new system lasting a long time. And let's address the elephant in the room.....the Boone is going to miss out on a lot of playoff money and I can't see them sitting still on that for very long. They can talk all they want about player safety......but money speaks to them more than anything.
I'm just throwing this out there....why is football different?
I could see changes down the road as it will only take a couple years of a 7-2 Des Moines burb team being left out of the playoffs to get something adjusted. I'm not saying that in any type of negative manor....its just that if you only go back a couple years, there would have been some of that. In looking at only the West side of the state....if you have eight teams making the playoffs....those teams not named Dowling, Valley, Waukee, are going to battle mightily for five spots. When you think of SEP, Johnston, Urbandale, Both Ankeney's, Ames and even Sioux City East......a couple good teams are going to be left out of the playoffs. And if SEP gets back to where they have recently been.....now you are looking at four spots.
Personally, I think I'm going to need a year or two to see how this all shakes out. I can see both sides of the argument: Playoffs should be something very prestigious..something honorable. But on the other hand a 1-29 basketball team has the opportunity to try and get to the state tournament, a horrible wrestler gets to go to sectionals (or Districts at 3A), and bad soccer and baseball teams play for state as well. I know these teams don't go far......but they have a chance...one in a million....so you are telling me there is a chance...I get it.
If the state continues to play district football and put one of the "Big Boys" in each district........the reality of the year is that your whole season might come down to one or two games as you have to finish second to have a shot at the playoffs......and each district has one or two really bad teams that everyone beats, and few people beat Valley, Dowling, or Waukee that are not named Valley, Dowling or Waukee....so your whole season could come down to one or two games.
Think about the "Districts" if they were based on geography: Dowling, Valley, Waukee, and Urbandale being four of six in one district?????? The Ankeneys, SEP, Johnston in another......no one would ever do that because of equity.
I follow SC East. Last year, they lost in OT to CBLC....LC scored a TD with under 40 seconds left to send it into OT. Had East won, Johnston, East, and LC would all have finished with 7-2 records behind Dowling. I know it didn't turn out like that, but you had better believe those situations come up a lot. I just guess I'm old school enough to think that a 7-2 record should get you into the playoffs....but under this new system....two and maybe all three get left out.
In thinking about the smaller schools........they are going to have a lot of teams left out. I just don't see the new system lasting a long time. And let's address the elephant in the room.....the Boone is going to miss out on a lot of playoff money and I can't see them sitting still on that for very long. They can talk all they want about player safety......but money speaks to them more than anything.
I'm just throwing this out there....why is football different?
'Player Safety?' the guy in charge of the process didn't even know the playoff schedule was vastly different than other states. He had to be told at a national conference about it. Head down, ca$h check$.
This was not what 75% of the coaches wanted or expected. The football coaches assoc heads presented that we start one week early , keep nine game sched and have the same amount of teams qualify and still have the playoffs all on Fridays. The state did not make the decision it was the Iowa Board of control, because believe me the IHSAA does not want to lose money like they will by missing half the playoff games. This was a shock to the football coaches assoc as it was never a option presented to them. Don't be surprised to see $10 ticket prices and down the road possibly adding a class in football to make of for the lost teams.
This was a big 'up yours' by somebody. Willing to lose the revenue just to show who is in charge and to stifle feedback. This decision will be used as leverage against coaches for quite awhile the 'be careful of what you say, remember what happened with the play off qualifiers'
I don't see how they go to another class unless they add another 8man class. I do see them doing something to recoup the revenue loss.
Just for grins, I took a quick look at last year in 4A and 3A to see the difference if the 2014 playoffs had been limited to 16, with the top two district finishers qualifying.
In 4A, four teams with 6 wins would not have made the playoffs (Johnston, Sioux City East, Fort Dodge and Dubuque Hempstead). On the other hand, limiting to sixteen would have kept three 2014 qualifiers out with three or fewer wins (Des Moines Lincoln, Cedar Rapids Kennedy and Clinton).
In 3A, there were five teams with at least 6 wins that would have stayed home, including 7-2 Gilbert (plus Indianola, Western Dubuque, Fairfield, and Newton). Only one team with 3 wins that made the 2014 playoffs would have missed (Dubuque Wahlert), although four other teams with 4-5 records would not have qualified for the field of 16 (Spencer, Greene County, Webster City and Knoxville).
In 4A, four teams with 6 wins would not have made the playoffs (Johnston, Sioux City East, Fort Dodge and Dubuque Hempstead). On the other hand, limiting to sixteen would have kept three 2014 qualifiers out with three or fewer wins (Des Moines Lincoln, Cedar Rapids Kennedy and Clinton).
In 3A, there were five teams with at least 6 wins that would have stayed home, including 7-2 Gilbert (plus Indianola, Western Dubuque, Fairfield, and Newton). Only one team with 3 wins that made the 2014 playoffs would have missed (Dubuque Wahlert), although four other teams with 4-5 records would not have qualified for the field of 16 (Spencer, Greene County, Webster City and Knoxville).
I agree with your observation TroutStamp,
This move is surprising if not shocking to me. The era of the suburban teams "only" in the 4A playoffs will start in 2016.. 4A football has added Waukee, a second Ankeny high school, soon a Iowa City team, and if Waukee keeps growing... a second school there. However as someone pointed out some solid suburban teams will be left out every year.
I think they have to use the two top team format in Districts in 4A to be consistent with the other classes. The IHSAA did standardize their classification system as a result of the 32 team playoff system with the addition of districts in 4A football.
The IHSAA needs to immediately add two teams in 4A to eliminate the 2- 5 member districts. If the IHSAA could build districts using the tier system the Western teams used it could help with some parity. But I agree with just 5 district games and meaningless non district games the emphasis will be on preparing for just one or two crucial games.
I don't think you will see teams from the isolated 4A large towns in the playoffs anymore unless they have some years of exceptional talent. You won't see DM or Davenport city schools involved in the playoffs either.
The only benefit or compromise I see is the continuation of the 9 game schedule. States with 10 game regular seasons routinely have 15 game seasons for champions with Friday only games. I still can't see the negatives of Iowa kids getting that 10th game experience with 32 teams. The Iowa players are already at a disadvantage with game experience and this returns the majority of the players to just 9 games per year .
This move is surprising if not shocking to me. The era of the suburban teams "only" in the 4A playoffs will start in 2016.. 4A football has added Waukee, a second Ankeny high school, soon a Iowa City team, and if Waukee keeps growing... a second school there. However as someone pointed out some solid suburban teams will be left out every year.
I think they have to use the two top team format in Districts in 4A to be consistent with the other classes. The IHSAA did standardize their classification system as a result of the 32 team playoff system with the addition of districts in 4A football.
The IHSAA needs to immediately add two teams in 4A to eliminate the 2- 5 member districts. If the IHSAA could build districts using the tier system the Western teams used it could help with some parity. But I agree with just 5 district games and meaningless non district games the emphasis will be on preparing for just one or two crucial games.
I don't think you will see teams from the isolated 4A large towns in the playoffs anymore unless they have some years of exceptional talent. You won't see DM or Davenport city schools involved in the playoffs either.
The only benefit or compromise I see is the continuation of the 9 game schedule. States with 10 game regular seasons routinely have 15 game seasons for champions with Friday only games. I still can't see the negatives of Iowa kids getting that 10th game experience with 32 teams. The Iowa players are already at a disadvantage with game experience and this returns the majority of the players to just 9 games per year .
Last edited:
Good move, especially with the increasing number of kids playing both ways who rarely leave the field. That number has increased across all classes in the 8 years of the expanded playoffs and with fewer players actually playing and more minutes for those who do.....the kids really do need the additional rest.
When you are physically fatigued you are more prone to injury. That applied to sports, work, and any physical activity. If you can't find a way to add a week to the playoffs the smart move was to eliminate an often meaningless round.
As far as the 3 and 4 seeds who occasionally make a deep run? Too bad. This is about the whole season.....as someone else said. If injuries, ineligibility, or anything else caused a team to be weaker in the first part of the season than they were at the last too bad. Think big picture.
It has been hardly mentioned but I do believe academics played a roll. The state leaving themselves the option to shift teams last season to reduce excessive travel had nothing to do with injures and I believe only partially to do with their mileage payouts. Too many times where excessive travel botched up 2 school days. I do know for fact that the state has heard complaints about excessive travel on a school night. Having the bulk of the games on Fridays returns the academics to basically the same situation as the regular season.
When you are physically fatigued you are more prone to injury. That applied to sports, work, and any physical activity. If you can't find a way to add a week to the playoffs the smart move was to eliminate an often meaningless round.
As far as the 3 and 4 seeds who occasionally make a deep run? Too bad. This is about the whole season.....as someone else said. If injuries, ineligibility, or anything else caused a team to be weaker in the first part of the season than they were at the last too bad. Think big picture.
It has been hardly mentioned but I do believe academics played a roll. The state leaving themselves the option to shift teams last season to reduce excessive travel had nothing to do with injures and I believe only partially to do with their mileage payouts. Too many times where excessive travel botched up 2 school days. I do know for fact that the state has heard complaints about excessive travel on a school night. Having the bulk of the games on Fridays returns the academics to basically the same situation as the regular season.
Last edited:
how bout we keep the number of games and reduce the number of contact practices???? work on drills and fundamentals.
Ok first the NFL is elite level athletes that are also very controlled at the practice level so you can't compare.
And trying to compare any sport like soccer, volleyball or golf....did you say golf?
This was not even brought up at the original meeting to the coaches. It was not brought up to the coaches by the Register. This option was not even on the table until coaches brought it into the mix.
STOP already
WHAT? Yeah, that's exactly why they play non district games.....They aren't to get tuned up? They aren't to get in shape? They aren't to learn the play book? They aren't to gel as a team? They aren't to get the right players in the right spots? It's about getting the stupid kids ready for district play? I didn't know that. Thanks for your wisdom
Whoa there SC East fan. You are looking at the LC game? Yeah that was great if the season ended in week 6. Are you saying that because East lost to LC at the end put them where they should be equal to Johnston and LC? Wait a minute....let's look at this....East lost to LC - granted good game and close but East LOST! Johnston A$$ whooping. So saying that East would have been as deserving as LC or Johnston because they were all 7 - 2 is insane. All 3 were 7 - 2 and East was obviously the weakest of the 3 so things would have worked out perfect. East would have been buying tickets.
I can see you totally missed the point of the post, so either you have an axe to grind or you suffer from not being able to see the forest through the trees. I'm guessing it's both. So if east was the weakest..LC had to have a miracle TD to tie the game...but that makes east the weakest...then I guess both east and LC were weak. And you don't see east crowing about beating Johnston in the playoffs from the year before...and east did it with their third QB....so there is your axe I guess
Point being...and I'll slow it down for you....some decent teams are going to be left out of the playoffs....and I think things like playoffs offer kids a good experience and more opportunities to play football.....and that should be a consideration. As I mentioned...but you didn't comprehend it....football is the only athletic endeavor that has become exclusive. No one complains when bad teams or individuals compete in other sports at tournament time...but football has become an exclusive sport. What you could not understand is...why?
Nothing exclusive at all about it. Name one of the other high school sports where the teams only play 9 regular season games and the nature of the sport only allows 1 game to be played a week? There is no problem at all allowing everyone to play in the playoffs BUT it would obviously require either:
A. Starting Earlier
B. Playing fewer than 9 regular season games
C. Playing later in the season
D. Using another venue (probably outdoors) instead of the UNI Dome.
E. A combination of the above.
This situation is hardly about exclusivity. It's about timing and practicality.
Similar threads
