Is it time to get rid of Neutral site games in playoffs?

BirdDog10 said:
This thread is stupid. Anyone who thinks we should go back to playing on beat up grass fields for regional semi and regional championship games needs their head checked. Also, players, coaches, and fans all enjoy seeing and playing at the different stadiums that host these games. If the issue is not enough places willing to host then there's a very easy fix for that - put pressure on the OHSAA to pay the host sites enough to make it worth it.
Click to expand...
BirdDog, I am having issues remembering but was it Grove vs Hardin Northern or Grove vs McComb some years back before turf at Donnel Stadium, that was a complete mud fest? I have been trying to find some pictures of that game but no luck
 
*67 said:
it absolutely doesn't and to suggest otherwise is being a loser. no winning coach has ever said "we overcame adversity tonight. their bus ride was 15 minutes shorter than ours, but we fought through it to grab the victory tonight."
Click to expand...
For the 3rd time my suggestion was to have higher seed host until the semis. That puts meaning in seeding. Not having the lower seed essentially host in a stadium 5 minutes down the road. That is simply idiotic.
 
adog said:
BirdDog, I am having issues remembering but was it Grove vs Hardin Northern or Grove vs McComb some years back before turf at Donnel Stadium, that was a complete mud fest? I have been trying to find some pictures of that game but no luck
Click to expand...
I believe it was 2002 with Columbus Grove & Hardin Northern on a Sunday afternoon. Heavy snowfall on Friday across the state. Moved most of, if not not all games to Saturday & Sunday that weekend. If I remember correctly Findlay really only shoveled the 5 yard lines off & hash marks.
Kenton played Kettering Alter at Pique on Saturday Night. Pique used a 4x4 drove the snow off the field & peeled the crown off the middle. Used sawdust and straw I think to deal with the mud. Kenton still beat Alter with the 5 wide air attack.
 
cincifbfan said:
For the 3rd time my suggestion was to have higher seed host until the semis. That puts meaning in seeding. Not having the lower seed essentially host in a stadium 5 minutes down the road. That is simply idiotic.
Click to expand...
And if the higher seed has a sloppy mud field, or inadequate facilities?
 
Dirteater said:
I believe it was 2002 with Columbus Grove & Hardin Northern on a Sunday afternoon. Heavy snowfall on Friday across the state. Moved most of, if not not all games to Saturday & Sunday that weekend. If I remember correctly Findlay really only shoveled the 5 yard lines off & hash marks.
Kenton played Kettering Alter at Pique on Saturday Night. Pique used a 4x4 drove the snow off the field & peeled the crown off the middle. Used sawdust and straw I think to deal with the mud. Kenton still beat Alter with the 5 wide air attack.
Click to expand...
Your memory is spot on. I went to that Hardin Northern- Grove game. Quite a weird feeling to be at a HS game on a Sunday afternoon.
 
Sykotyk said:
Require the host to find an adequate field? It's not a gotcha question.
Click to expand...
I think this is one reason why the OHSAA likes neutral sites. What kind of leverage would School A have in asking School B to use their facilities, workers, etc? And who determines what’s adequate? Then you’re back to the OHSAA getting involved.
 
Dirteater said:
I believe it was 2002 with Columbus Grove & Hardin Northern on a Sunday afternoon. Heavy snowfall on Friday across the state. Moved most of, if not not all games to Saturday & Sunday that weekend. If I remember correctly Findlay really only shoveled the 5 yard lines off & hash marks.
Kenton played Kettering Alter at Pique on Saturday Night. Pique used a 4x4 drove the snow off the field & peeled the crown off the middle. Used sawdust and straw I think to deal with the mud. Kenton still beat Alter with the 5 wide air attack.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
eastisbest said:
You didn't suggest solution, but I suppose giving the teams playing an option of neutral or home team would address that scenario in which the schools are close. I suppose they could for whatever reason choose it even if not close.
Click to expand...
They use a point system, similar to Harbins. However they also have district scheduling, no conferences.
 
I was reading an article a few weeks ago and it mentioned that in one state that the higher seed hosts until the state finals or semifinals can't remember which with the caveat that a team forfeits the right to host if they don't have lights, don't have a suitable playing surface, don't have adequate seating, don't have adequate facilities (including locker rooms, press box, scoreboard, etc). Then the lower seed is given the option to host with the same constraints. And if neither school has an adequate site the state makes arrangements for a neutral site and the schools split the costs to rent the neutral site.
 
No. This question creates a debate over something that likely will not change. Nor should it.
Michael Keaton No GIF
 
cincifbfan said:
For the 3rd time my suggestion was to have higher seed host until the semis. That puts meaning in seeding. Not having the lower seed essentially host in a stadium 5 minutes down the road. That is simply idiotic.,
Click to expand...
So your solution is to have one of the two teams that already has to travel a "significantly further" distance (your assessment) by traveling further to the home field of the opponent and the other team being required to travel further than their opponent had to travel? 🤷‍♂️

You may want to re-think that
 
AllSports12 said:
So your solution is to have one of the two teams that already has to travel a "significantly further" distance (your assessment) by traveling further to the home field of the opponent and the other team being required to travel further than their opponent had to travel? 🤷‍♂️

You may want to re-think that
Click to expand...
Rethink what? The home field advantage piece? Making seeding actually worth something? Having higher seed not have to go to the opposition's backyard for a "neutral" site? Saving money by having only one team travel?

I'm really confused why anyone would be opposed to any of this.
 
Last edited:
adog said:
BirdDog, I am having issues remembering but was it Grove vs Hardin Northern or Grove vs McComb some years back before turf at Donnel Stadium, that was a complete mud fest? I have been trying to find some pictures of that game but no luck
Click to expand...
Grove vs. Hardin Northern State Semifinal 2002 - Grove had an unbelievably fast team, QB, RB's, Wide Receiver and several others from that team were on the track squad that won state later that spring. They were anticipating huge amounts of snow Saturday so they pushed the game back to Sunday, which just resulted in more snowfall through Saturday night and Sunday morning, so when they played the game Sunday afternoon there was half a foot of snow on the field. The snow was only shoveled off to see the yard lines and hash marks, so it was an absolute mess from start to finish. The snow/mud took away all of Grove's speed and played to Hardin Northern's strength, they ended up winning 20-0. It would have been a heck of a game on a clean field. The next year the state said that all semi-final games had to be played on turf, so obviously the rumor around town forever was that the Hardin Northern game caused the OHSAA to make that rule. It obviously wasn't the soul cause, but definitely contributed.

Anyway, anyone who thinks we should go back to that for more playoff games is an idiot. Games across Northwest Ohio last Saturday would have been a complete mess if they were played on beat up grass fields, instead you saw several great games because the turf took the field condition out of the equation.
 
This whole dumb argument is also relying on harbin points as the deciding factor in who gets to host - which is an awful idea. Neutral sites take away some of the "advantage" the flawed harbin points give to the higher seeds.
 
cincifbfan said:
Rethink what? The home field advantage piece? Making seeding actually worth something? Having higher seed not have to go to the opposition's backyard for a "neutral" site? Saving money by having only one team travel?

I'm really confused why anyone would be opposed to any of this.
Click to expand...
You complained about the long bus ride. Now you want to make the bus rides longer.

The teams have 11-12 weeks to play at home. (some playing 8 games at home total) Neutral sites for the Regional Semi's makes perfect sense.
 
AllSports12 said:
You complained about the long bus ride. Now you want to make the bus rides longer.

The teams have 11-12 weeks to play at home. (some playing 8 games at home total) Neutral sites for the Regional Semi's makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
My point which you obviously didn't get was these neutral sights weren't actually neutral. Kings playing at Mason is a home game. Lakota West playing at Princeton is a home game. If we are going to have neutral sights, then have them actually be neutral.
 
BirdDog10 said:
This whole dumb argument is also relying on harbin points as the deciding factor in who gets to host - which is an awful idea. Neutral sites take away some of the "advantage" the flawed harbin points give to the higher seeds.
Click to expand...
Here we go again with the whole "Harbins are flawed" argument. It is by-far the best way to determine playoff qualifiers and seeding because it takes away the human element.

So, you talk about taking away an advantage of hosting a game, yet teams pretty much get home games in regional finals as they are playing 5 minutes down the road. That's fair? Especially when they are the lower seed? What's the point of seeding then?
 
cincifbfan said:
My point which you obviously didn't get was these neutral sights weren't actually neutral. Kings playing at Mason is a home game. Lakota West playing at Princeton is a home game. If we are going to have neutral sights, then have them actually be neutral.
Click to expand...
And again.....

What site that's equidistant to both schools offered their facility?

The OHSAA has always made it clear in their tournament manager's manual that "neutral" does not mean the same travel. (impossible to pull off throughout the state) It's defined as either team playing more than half their home games at that site.

They also make it clear that equal travel is not in the mix. (again, impossible to execute) A shorter distance to travel does not make it a home game.
 
cincifbfan said:
Here we go again with the whole "Harbins are flawed" argument. It is by-far the best way to determine playoff qualifiers and seeding because it takes away the human element.
Click to expand...
There's countless of pages of comments on here, Twitter, Facebook, everywhere you look of people complaining about Harbin's every year, so whether or not you or I agree that they're the best system, your argument for home games later in the playoffs relies on a system that tons of people already do not like, to give teams a bigger advantage or disadvantage later in the playoffs. Before you even start to consider natural field conditions in mid-November, it's a dumb idea and it isn't happening any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top