Why not neutral sites?

[atomic87]

Trying to understand anything the IHSAA does is futile, but is there any good reason they don't use neutral sites for football like they do in other sports?

Compared to other sports, last night's 2nd round games would be like substate championships (almost always at a neutral site). The quarterfinals are essentially a "first round" state tournament game.

The first round could still be hosted by district champs and second place teams (using the 120 mile limit for pairings), then go to neutral sites for the second and third round if the distance is greater than 120 miles.

 

[Pinehawk]

It would take away the home field advantage that the District Champs have earned. Also, while the State keeps the gate, the home teams are able to make additional money on concessions, apparel, etc...

 

[BlameIt]

so, it would be fair to allow 3 seed CD Leon a neutral site - say, Oskaloosa - against Regina, a district champ?

No. Not in the slightest.

 

[VanderHoops]

I've always figured it would make the most sense for Round 3.



By then, most of the teams still alive already have had 2 extra home games.Teams still alive are going to be far apart (neutral site in between the 2)More 3rd party interest (football fans that just want to see a good match-up w/o going to the dome)
Problems:

Best location can't be determine until Round 2 has been played (short notice for host)Best facilities are more likely to have their team still alive (and want to go to their own game instead of working at the gate/concessions for someone else's game)Field conditions in November
Solution? Maybe limit Round 3 to college fields (who are in charge of hosting duties) or fields with artificial turf?

 

[PNation]

Regina vs. Central Decatur at Oskaloosa
DNH vs. SW at Wartburg or Upper Iowa
IKM-M vs. West Lyon at Morningside
SCC vs. St. Eds at Fort Dodge

These would make sense to me especially IKM at West Lyon considering the only reason West Lyon gets to host over IKM is because of the alphabet .

 

[DarkThunder#61]

I think it should be a case by case basis, though I can understand in some situations why they would want a neutral site if the distance is so great.

The obvious example would be IKM and West Lyon. Both teams really deserve a home game and it's quite the drive for IKM (or any one of the teams remaining on that side), and there wouldn't be any complaints by either side if a neutral site is selected (and to be honest, I think the State can still step in and do something about it, but they probably won't just because of the short notice of trying to set up a host).

But the other issue is that (and while you can make your own arguments about the schedule) it's an 11-0 team traveling to a 10-1 team. And that may not seem like a big deal, but it's a matter of precedent within the rule. West Lyon would've hosted even if they were 8-3 as long as those 3 losses came in non-district play. Should an 8-3 team really get to host an 11-0 team in the Quarterfinals? That's the precedent established within the rule for this round of the playoffs.

You don't want to punish teams for playing tougher schedules, but at the same time, having the option to go to a neutral site would help to eliminate some issues.

I do still think there should be home games for higher seeds, better district record, etc. Those teams have earned that opportunity to host, IMHO. Not to mention, it makes for a much better story when you get a team like D-NH or Central Decatur making a nice run while winning on the road.

And regarding Regina and Central Decatur, like I said I think it has to be a case by case thing. On one hand it is a very long road trip for the 3-seed and at this point in the playoffs, it's understandable to want to cut down on that distance. On the other hand.....they are a 3 seed. Not to come off as harsh, but they really only have themselves to blame for this situation, which is really unique to begin with since they're so far south and away from everyone else (similar to West Lyon up north). If you're the lowest seed remaining in the playoffs, you're not likely to be given any favors.

 

[80wolves]

I agree that higher seeded teams should be able to host - they've earned that privilege. It is the "alphabetical" games that should probably be at a neutral site, especially if the schools are far apart. Fourth game in 2 weeks and throw in 3 hours on an old yellow dog, and the home team potentially has a pretty big advantage.

 

[dirtyhawks00]

I like the idea that if it's determined by alphabet then they can consider nuetral sites. It would be fun for kids to get an oppurtunity to play on some of artificial stuff that the big schools get to play on. Also, why put weighting in to a seeding if the state doesn't even follow a bracket. Seems dumb to me but again I'm against the idea of doubling the teams in the play off. There are alot of cons to the way they structure things and it really has done nothing but increase their bottom dollar. I wish they'd put kids and education first.