How do you feel overall about the quick playoff turnaround/lack of recovery
- Thread starter LukeFeddersen
- Start date
Cut the number of teams back, so it means something when you make the playoffs. Even if you take the top 2 in each district, that cuts one round out, and several of those 1st round games will be blowouts, so that gets us back to the real reason its done.....more games = more money
I haven't looked that closely at this years standings, but I would guess there will be some teams at .500 or below playing in the 1st round, and those schools will get the playoff qualifier banner, do they really deserve it....no
I haven't looked that closely at this years standings, but I would guess there will be some teams at .500 or below playing in the 1st round, and those schools will get the playoff qualifier banner, do they really deserve it....no
I think taking the top 3 would be alright. There are usually quite a few districts where the third best team is better than some district champions (I'm talking about all classes, not just 8-man), and 2/3 games are usually pretty good. Pit the 2/3 seeds from a district against each other and give the champions a bye. Then mix it up like they do now, and go (for example) with District 1 champ vs. District 2 2/3 winner and vice versa. That still gives the state an extra round of games when compared to the old format, it cuts it down to where it does still mean something to make the playoffs, and it gives district champions a more fitting advantage for having come out on top in the regular season.
This is a terrible solution as well. There were too many very good 3rd place not getting a chance.
Why don't the pros or college play 4 games in 14 days? Because it is absurd football is not a sport where you can recover in a short period of time. It should be changed how many 3rd or 4 seeds have won a state championship. The state preaches safety with its lips but, with actions does the opposite. It should be changed.
I don't think any 3 seed has actually won the title, but Hinton was a 3 seed in Class A last year and made it to the title game. Harlan made it to the Dome as a 3 seed in 2011. There are a lot more that lost competitive games in the quarterfinals.
I have no problem letting in three teams. There is always a fair share of 3 seeds who would have an excellent shot at making it to the Dome if they played in a weaker substate.
People are missing the obvious solution....move the start of the season to Week 0. Then you could play the first three playoff rounds on Friday nights. Week Zero is mainly for 8-man teams to make up games lost when district opponents consolidate/close. An eight-game season for teams in that boat would not be the end of the world.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Win the games in your district finish 1st(or 2nd, depending on how many teams qualify). It's the luck of the draw for how strong districts are from year to year. Should the NFL let more teams in playoffs because a team finshed 2nd in the division? If division 1aa or whatever its called in college now add more playoff games because a 2nd or 3rd place team might be better.
We're not talking about one or two teams a year. There are a lot of 3 seeds in the six classes that make noise. The 4 seeds rarely do, unless it's one very strong district against an embarrassingly weak one.
The strength of 3 seeds might fluctuate within individual districts, but there are always more than enough good ones to justify letting three teams in.
The strength of 3 seeds might fluctuate within individual districts, but there are always more than enough good ones to justify letting three teams in.
Similar threads
