IHSAA: Decision Makers or Money Takers?

[DarkThunder#61]

Originally posted by BlameIt:

Originally posted by DarkThunder#61:
That wasn't my point though, was it Blame.......

My point was questioning your assumption that players from 20-30 years ago are still living productive lifestyles. How do you know some of them didn't....well, die? After all you didn't say anything about how football affected their health over that time period, you just said they're still living productive lifestyles, so my question was how do you know?......

And yeah we can all probably assume the majority of these groups of people are healthy, productive members of society. But it's still an assumption.

My point being that why is the IAHSAA all of the sudden worried about safety? I don't think they're alone in this issue.

They didn't say a word back in the 80's or 90's or 2000's when kids were in 2-a-days for a week. Now, all of the sudden, all of these people are talking about concussions like they are a new thing. Well it kind of is, with all the new stuff they're finding out about the effects of concussions in the last few years. Technology is also different today (and better). This includes medical advances. It's easier to come back from an ACL in 2014 than it was in 1974. In fact in several cases in those days you were basically done if that happened. The Adrian Peterson-type stories (as an example) were much rarer in those days.

However, with concussions it's a little different because there is no absolute cure or 100% surefire method of prevention, outside of abstinence from sports (and all other contact to the head........)

Football is a tough game that is played by tough people. That is what my football coach told me. Of course you are going to feel effects of it later. Wrestling is just as trying on the body, for those that continue in college. I am guessing a lot of those guys are feeling more than are the football guys. Just ask Dan Gable.

i still do not think you get the gist of my point here. But that is OK. No, I do get it. I didn't think it was necessary of the State to do away with these practices, either. I played football all the way from flag in 4th grade to my senior year. I know what it's like and what it does. But you can't say that nobody who played 20-30 years ago ever suffered effects down the road from concussions, or even knee injuries or back injuries, etc etc. I know a guy who had to have surgery due to massive scar tissue build-up from a football injury that doctors misdiagnosed years ago. His knees just progressively got worse the older he got, despite not doing anything as taxing as football since his high school days. (Of course it's worth mentioning that things like diet, family health history, and lifestyle habits also play a big factor in how some of these issues either manifest or not at all.)

With all that said, I also can understand how some people are upset with the idea that football is no longer a safe sport to play. There's always risks, and people make the choice to play sports because they can and they want to despite those risks. That's fine by me.

Where are you from, by the way? Just curious. Not judging.

Fort Dodge.

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Originally posted by cidhawkeye:
Well you told me. I guess I will keep my opinions to myself. You are right, I was wrong, if 32 in the playoffs is good 48 would be better but then we would have worry about the 8 that didn't make it. Take em all, the other sports do it. I will wait to read what you type next so I can know what to think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It-IuKPJk0c

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Originally posted by cidhawkeye:
Grown up debate? "Sounds like a personal problem" . There are many different opinions on this. Don't worry, not taking my ball and going home.

Ha, you took exception to me telling you that not wanting a playoff banner hung because of a 4-5 record sounds like a personal problem?

Well, then what is it?

There's really only three opinions on that. You either are happy with the achievement and take pride it in, you don't care, or you don't like it (in your case you express borderline shame for such a mockery of a system that should only reward the elite........yes I over-exaggerated.)

 

[BlameIt]

Originally posted by rkhemp:




My point was that the state tables several suggestions from the coaches meetings because they said they only had a month to collect info. Maybe it was a little more, maybe it was a little less, who cares. My point was once all the BEDS data is collected, it shouldn't take that long to make the districts. I am sure it didn't take Pax that long to make his mock districts.

I also question why you think a West Branch vs Regina rematch would hurt gate sales in the playoffs. If my team is in the playoffs, I am attending that game. If they are not I am attending another game, either way the gates are about the same. The high school football fanatic will attend a game, whether it's one game or another. Now, if Regina and West Branch want regular season gate sales, I am sure they will request to the state to play a non-district game. The ball is really in West Branch and Regina's court if they really want to meet up.
This post was edited on 1/23 7:25 PM by rkhemp

a) Sir/Ma'am - where do you get this idea that these topics have only been on the table for 1 month's time? That is one of the most ridiculous claims I've read since my return to this website. Well, other than....

b) ... show me where I said anything about gate sales for Regina vs WB. Are you that freaking hard up to try and stump me or corner me that you are now pulling things out of thin air? Regina v WB is about as good of a gate as you can get for two Class 1A teams.

My contention with postseason gate is that the IAHSAA makes 90%+ of the gate while the host school can only make money if the concession sales are high. Where does that benefit the member school if we have 32 flipping teams (or 3 possible home games) in the postseason?

It doesn't.

 

[rkhemp]

a) I heard that from an interview from Xavier head coach Duane Schulte. Several items were tabled because he said the state only has around a month to make a final decision. Maybe that was an excuse from the state. Maybe it was a few months, not sure why it matters and why you think that is the most ridiculous thing you have heard. I guess I should stop listening to coaches as much and get my info from message boards.

b) Are you so hard up that you think every response is directed at you? Check again. I was responding to CID. I am sure a regular season West Branch vs Regina would be great gate. I do however disagree that a West Branch Regina post season matchup would make the state that much more than let's say was at Regina vs Maq Valley last year. I could be wrong, but we are yet to see a Regina vs West Branch The only thing that may affect gate sales is teams that have to travel more than 2 hours on a Wed night.

A West Branch vs Regina non district game would bring West Branch more dough than a Lisbon matchup I am sure. Regina on the other hand has the opportunity for even bigger gates than a West Branch matchup. Regina vs Xavier would be huge and a game that many people would love to see. They also have their rivalry with Solon. I would be interested in seeing what is on both schools non district preference list. It should be a fun season.

 

[SASF]

IHSAA Missed the Boat

More data is needed. That's what the Board of Control said is needed before any changes will be considered to the current (brutal) playoff system. The Board of Control has managed to cram 4 Playoff games into a 15 day span, normally 4 high school football games would be spread out over the course of 28 days. Why hasn't the Board of Control been collecting data prior to now? So by ignoring the obvious for the last 4 years and not looking at the data the Board of Control has potentially put some athletes at risk. To miss the boat means that one doesn't understand what is going on.



The Board of Control will have a difficult time in retroactively getting accurate data, and exactly what data will they be looking at? There is an old saying in statistics, "Garbage in_ Garbage out" I would recommend that they look at more than just the total number of injuries. To be honest with you I have to question if playing 4 games in 15 is actually more dangerous.



Is Football more physical than Hockey, or Rugby? Some would argue no. Heck a rugby team can play as many as 4 games in a weekend tournament, and get up and go to work on Monday morning. So as "Football guy" I would like to know if football truly is a more physically taxing sport than Hockey or Rugby, that it should be played only once a week, and why is 7 days the magic number? If Football is so physically demanding maybe there should be a 10 to 14 day rest period in between games.



I think most would agree that preparation for a football game plays a part in the one game a week, I think it is nice but necessary, I don't know. I also believe that logistics play a big part in how often Football is played. But is it really more dangerous?



We should already have this data! The Board of Control should have done this research before they made the decision to expand the playoff format that makes the teams that reach the Finals play 4 games in 15 days.



What if the data suggests that there is no increase risk for serious injury playing 4 games in two weeks, how could that change the way we watch football. Imagine if you will football every night of the week? Does it get any better than that?



So let's get this ball rolling Board of Control! If the data (that you should have been collecting the last 4 years) suggests that football can be played more often than once a week then why not look at expanding the season to 16 games. Can you say Cha-Ching$$$

 

[NoJustice]

Originally posted by Anonymous2002:
Why not cut the qualifying teams to 24 teams and give all the District Winners a 1st round bye for that Wednesday game... since essentially they are taking away the home field (seed) advantage by not bracketing for the next 2 years... this way, all of the necessary teams WILL make the playoffs and will cut out the 3-6 to 5-4 teams...

I should have trademarked that format. That was my idea years ago and never saw it in print prior to posting it on the Iowa Preps board.

 

[pribs36]

I really think 32 teams is way too many for the playoffs, but I also am not a fan of the 24 team format either. A bye game for the first round doesn't sound fun at all, I would rather just play/watch the game even if it is lopsided. To be honest I don't think its that big of an issue, yeah some may say the layover in between games is too short but I don't think it bothers the players, especially when it means two more days of practicing in the freezing cold weather. Others probably disagree I just don't think the current format bothers many people besides the outsiders looking in. I mean you ask almost any player and I don't think they will complain about playing an extra game, whether they are the #1 ranked team in the state or a team that barely made it in.

 

[rkhemp]

I completely agree with Pribs. Keep it at 32 or go to 16.