1 more week playoff, one less week reg season? Why not.

WX Dude

Member
Before the chorus of nay-sayers jump in, please consider the following,

The OHSAA has often stated that football is the only sport in which all teams who want to be part of a tournament cannot compete. This was one of the reasons one of the OHSAA commissioners told me they wanted to add the 7th division.

So, why not have a 9 week season and a 6 week playoff season thereby doubling the number of teams in the tournament? This would allow nearly every D1 team to be in the playoffs, and 16 teams per region, or around 60% of all football programs could participate in the first round.

There is also the issue of the number of schools that have to play short schedules. Looking at the standings, there's a couple of dozens schools that couldn't fill out a 10 week schedule. There's also a ton of schools/leagues that simply play the same teams twice a season to fill out their schedules. Dropping a game from the regular season would even that playing field as well.

If 100% participation is what the OHSAA is looking for, wouldn't this be a way to accomplish it? Most teams would play the same number of games in the season, week 10 would just be week 1 of the tourney. Each regular season game would mean a little more.
 

EastYoungstown

Active member
Yup. Been on this for a few years.

you could even give the highest teams byes in some regions.

the naysayers want to compare it to participation trophies, soccer and communism.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Playoffs are already 50% as long as the regular season.

This is coming from a person whom HS has been fairly successful in recent memory, but was horrible when I played.

When you are bad..the last thing you want to do is go out and get beat up on by the great teams.

I wouldnt really be a proponent of letting everyone in for football. At most, go top 12, and top 4 teams get a bye the first round and then go from there.
 

vamp2syd

Well-known member
The playoffs is already watered down enough. Not everyone making it is what makes Football special and the teams that qualify special. Until we have a situation where a 10-0 team does not qualify every team controls their own destiny from week 1.

Go back to 6 divisions....
 

thavoice

Well-known member
I know some say they playoffs are too watered down as they are....but do you realize that since it was expanded to 8 teams per region just a tick of over 10% of the state champions came from seeds 5-8?
 

EastYoungstown

Active member
The playoffs is already watered down enough. Not everyone making it is what makes Football special and the teams that qualify special. Until we have a situation where a 10-0 team does not qualify every team controls their own destiny from week 1.

Go back to 6 divisions....
Is it watered down if seeds 1-8 get a bye and 9-16 host 17-24 in the 1st round during week 10?

I can't imagine some of the 9 v 24 games will be any worse than some of the running clock fiascos we see this week. And you'd probably get some excellent 16/17 matchups.

Sure that would leave about 10% of teams still out but those teams would almost all be 1-8 or 0-9 and as mentioned above by THAVOICE do they wanna go out and get beat yet another time?

Also, what about the team that goes 4-5 or 5-4 and doesn't get in because no one will play them? Or how about a team that maybe misses out because some school folded their program or didn't make the trip from out of state or out of country. It's silly that their chances of getting in are reduced because of the actions or non-actions of other schools.

Finally, I don't see what is so 'special' about not letting as many teams in as possible.

Be the state that finds a way to get everyone into their postseason football tourney. THAT would be 'special'.
 

cjb56

Well-known member
The playoffs is already watered down enough. Not everyone making it is what makes Football special and the teams that qualify special. Until we have a situation where a 10-0 team does not qualify every team controls their own destiny from week 1.

Go back to 6 divisions....
^^^^^^^^^
This.
 

vamp2syd

Well-known member
Is it watered down if seeds 1-8 get a bye and 9-16 host 17-24 in the 1st round during week 10?

I can't imagine some of the 9 v 24 games will be any worse than some of the running clock fiascos we see this week. And you'd probably get some excellent 16/17 matchups.

Sure that would leave about 10% of teams still out but those teams would almost all be 1-8 or 0-9 and as mentioned above by THAVOICE do they wanna go out and get beat yet another time?

Also, what about the team that goes 4-5 or 5-4 and doesn't get in because no one will play them? Or how about a team that maybe misses out because some school folded their program or didn't make the trip from out of state or out of country. It's silly that their chances of getting in are reduced because of the actions or non-actions of other schools.

Finally, I don't see what is so 'special' about not letting as many teams in as possible.

Be the state that finds a way to get everyone into their postseason football tourney. THAT would be 'special'.
Why does everyone have to qualify?

St.Ignatius? Beat Moeller and you are in the playoffs... Beat Mentor and you are in the playoffs... beat St. Joes and you are in the playoffs, beat St. Ed and you are in the playoffs. Iggy had chances to qualify... I do not like the Harbin system but it is what it is... Iggy can only blame themselves.

Everyone one in is not special.... there is nothing special about this. This is not PeeWee. There are winners and there are losers. There is a reason why we have a regular season and that is to weed out those who should not be in the post season.

Wouldn't it be special if we had 726 or so leagues with only 1 team in each league so they all can be league champions!!!! :shrug:
 

adselder09

Well-known member
I'm with vamps. Go back to 6 divisions (i'd really prefer 4 divisions over 6) and leave everything as is. D1 is terrible. Completely watered down.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
So, why not have a 9 week season and a 6 week playoff season thereby doubling the number of teams in the tournament?
Because for every team you make week 10 a playoff game, most of which will be running clock blowouts, you turn it into a nine-game season for even more schools.

That a game is a playoff game doesn't somehow automatically yield a playoff atmosphere.
 

vamp2syd

Well-known member
I'm with vamps. Go back to 6 divisions (i'd really prefer 4 divisions over 6) and leave everything as is. D1 is terrible. Completely watered down.
I think they should leave D1 as is but also have it as an open division where any team with enrollment numbers less than the D1 minimum can choose to move up.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
zero... the idea makes no sense really.

the only way any team would play up is if you made them.
ONLY way I would see it is maybe like last year if a team was DVII and knowing that Marion Local was going to win it all and thought they could move up to DVI and have a better chance at winning it.
 

Stark Born & Bred

Active member
This is coming from a person whom HS has been fairly successful in recent memory, but was horrible when I played.
QUOTE]

When you played or because you played? ;) Just joking . . . couldn't resist. I just debated this on another thread and, while my mind is not made up, I lean toward expanding the playoffs and shortening the regular season.
 

EastYoungstown

Active member
Because for every team you make week 10 a playoff game, most of which will be running clock blowouts, you turn it into a nine-game season for even more schools.

That a game is a playoff game doesn't somehow automatically yield a playoff atmosphere.
You could easily build in byes for the top teams. This would give the best teams a 'carrot' to shoot for and also cut down on some blowouts.

Also, how many running clock games do you think there will be this week? 20? 30? 40?

It's not like it doesn't happen.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
A concern of mine is that a shorter season may limit the chance for a team in a conference to schedule an out of conference opponent. If you are committed to a full slate of conference games, then taking away regular season games limits your scheduling options even further; which could hurt a program trying to increase its regional or state-wide exposure.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
This is coming from a person whom HS has been fairly successful in recent memory, but was horrible when I played.
QUOTE]

When you played or because you played? ;) Just joking . . . couldn't resist. I just debated this on another thread and, while my mind is not made up, I lean toward expanding the playoffs and shortening the regular season.
Ha! good one! 3 coaches in 4 years didnt help matters, but what has happened when they did find the right coach is something I would never want to take away from the program.

If I had a choice to decide on having that horrible time when I was there and now what is going on or having good years and playoffs when I was there and average teams since then..I would choose the former every time.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
No expansion. The greatest thing about making the playoffs is the fact it is rare! If everyone is in, there is no sense of accomplishment in that.

Personally I do not care if my team gets drilled in round one, they accomplished something. Watering it down will leave fans with an "I could care less" attitude about their local team making the playoffs.

In a way it would also lessen the accomplishment of past teams who achieved that honor, as once the honor is removed young people will not perceive the honor that once was associated with making the playoffs.

At the smallest schools, I would like to see a method other than Harbins used to determine the top 8, but a coach told me last week a power method could be dangerous as coaches would feel compelled to keep the hammer down even on games already well decided. Just know some fancy scheduling goes on to give opportunity to reach playoffs for some very weak teams, hence the first round 70-7 games.
 

EastYoungstown

Active member
By my poor math 61 of 196 games were a running clock in the regional portion of last years playoffs

30% overall

7 of the 21 semifinals and finals had a running clock.

33%

So you're telling how all these early games have the blowouts right? Ok.....
 

y2h

Well-known member
Before the chorus of nay-sayers jump in, please consider the following,

The OHSAA has often stated that football is the only sport in which all teams who want to be part of a tournament cannot compete. This was one of the reasons one of the OHSAA commissioners told me they wanted to add the 7th division.

So, why not have a 9 week season and a 6 week playoff season thereby doubling the number of teams in the tournament? This would allow nearly every D1 team to be in the playoffs, and 16 teams per region, or around 60% of all football programs could participate in the first round.

There is also the issue of the number of schools that have to play short schedules. Looking at the standings, there's a couple of dozens schools that couldn't fill out a 10 week schedule. There's also a ton of schools/leagues that simply play the same teams twice a season to fill out their schedules. Dropping a game from the regular season would even that playing field as well.

If 100% participation is what the OHSAA is looking for, wouldn't this be a way to accomplish it? Most teams would play the same number of games in the season, week 10 would just be week 1 of the tourney. Each regular season game would mean a little more.
If they want to participate in the tournament pit a winner on the field...pretty simple.

Not only would you water down the playoffs you would water down the regular season. Where is the urgency to win if you know you are in the playoffs regardless?
 

y2h

Well-known member
Is it watered down if seeds 1-8 get a bye and 9-16 host 17-24 in the 1st round during week 10?

I can't imagine some of the 9 v 24 games will be any worse than some of the running clock fiascos we see this week. And you'd probably get some excellent 16/17 matchups.

Sure that would leave about 10% of teams still out but those teams would almost all be 1-8 or 0-9 and as mentioned above by THAVOICE do they wanna go out and get beat yet another time?

Also, what about the team that goes 4-5 or 5-4 and doesn't get in because no one will play them? Or how about a team that maybe misses out because some school folded their program or didn't make the trip from out of state or out of country. It's silly that their chances of getting in are reduced because of the actions or non-actions of other schools.

Finally, I don't see what is so 'special' about not letting as many teams in as possible.

Be the state that finds a way to get everyone into their postseason football tourney. THAT would be 'special'.
That's not special...that's mediocrity. You win 4 or 5 games and don't get in...too bad. You didn't earn it.
 

y2h

Well-known member
By my poor math 61 of 196 games were a running clock in the regional portion of last years playoffs

30% overall

7 of the 21 semifinals and finals had a running clock.

33%

So you're telling how all these early games have the blowouts right? Ok.....
We've had blowouts in the Super Bowl before...guess all 32 should make the playoffs :shrug:
 

EastYoungstown

Active member
We've had blowouts in the Super Bowl before...guess all 32 should make the playoffs :shrug:
I post that because the first thing you hear when you say everyone should be in is that there will be all these blowouts early on.

As you point out, there are blowouts at even the highest level.

So that excuse is total BS.
 

vamp2syd

Well-known member
You could easily build in byes for the top teams. This would give the best teams a 'carrot' to shoot for and also cut down on some blowouts.

Also, how many running clock games do you think there will be this week? 20? 30? 40?

It's not like it doesn't happen.
Many coaches choose not to take a bye in the basketball playoffs so I doubt many coaches would be happy with a bye in the football playoffs.

The problem right now is too many teams are making the playoffs... In my opinion there are 32 too many teams but others think it is much more than that. Top 32 in each division is plenty.
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Many coaches choose not to take a bye in the basketball playoffs so I doubt many coaches would be happy with a bye in the football playoffs.

The problem right now is too many teams are making the playoffs... In my opinion there are 32 too many teams but others think it is much more than that. Top 32 in each division is plenty.
Maybe.


Maybe not.


If we look at it now, adding the 7th division besides the point, compared to when it was just the top 4 teams do you realize that 10% of state champions since 1999 are from teams who would not have even made it into the playoffs under the old format?

To me, that is significant enough of teams who proved to be extremely good that have won it all to say it was a great move to go from 4 to 8 per division.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Maybe.


Maybe not.


If we look at it now, adding the 7th division besides the point, compared to when it was just the top 4 teams do you realize that 10% of state champions since 1999 are from teams who would not have even made it into the playoffs under the old format?

To me, that is significant enough of teams who proved to be extremely good that have won it all to say it was a great move to go from 4 to 8 per division.
How many of that 10% were from the MAC? I remember an 8 seed ML doing it . Great conferences are the ones most likely to be hurt by reduced opportunities. I think this year St Henry is way better than some that made it in. If we went to 4 per region some excellent teams would be at home while their inferior counterparts were hoisting the hardware.
 

vamp2syd

Well-known member
Maybe.


Maybe not.


If we look at it now, adding the 7th division besides the point, compared to when it was just the top 4 teams do you realize that 10% of state champions since 1999 are from teams who would not have even made it into the playoffs under the old format?

To me, that is significant enough of teams who proved to be extremely good that have won it all to say it was a great move to go from 4 to 8 per division.
I like it 8 teams per region (16 in D1) I just like 6 divisions instead of 7. I had always thought that 4 per region was way too low. I also think that teams with losing records should not qualify....
 
.
Top