raider2bearcat
Active member
I don't think it's a factual reason, but it certainly, to many, feels wrong that teams with 4-6 or even 3-7 records can compete for a state championship.
Last edited:
Opinion: Ohio should rethink long football season (Vindicator)
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
cincifbfan
Well-known member
The season is too long these days. 7 on 7 s all summer, scrimmages, 10 games and 6 rounds of playoffs for state teams.
So you go from the beginning June through the first week of December potentially.
That's pretty absurd when you think about it.
So you go from the beginning June through the first week of December potentially.
That's pretty absurd when you think about it.
Crimson and Black
Well-known member
The 19th can’t come fast enough
queencitybuckeye
Well-known member
Since the playoffs began, somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of football-playing schools have won a state title. 20% is a LONG way off.
thePITman
Well-known member
The awwwwful - often embarrassing - first round match-ups.
BirdDog10
Well-known member
I misread. Thought it was saying 20% of schools DON'T have a chance at winning a championship. I would've guessed around 20-30% had won a title before
cincifbfan
Well-known member
Not to mention the 3 win teams making playoffs. Those players and coaches know they shouldn't be there, but they have to fake it like they aren't going to get blown out. It's like kicking someone when they are already down.
queencitybuckeye
Well-known member
When my high school team went 2-8 (pre-playoffs), the very last thing I would have wanted to do is to be "rewarded" with a game against Coach Faust and Moeller.
Oil Filter
Well-known member
That would be because football (and frankly, most sports) has gone from being an activity to being a lifestyle. For a whole lot of players, it is the defining experience of adolescence. And for too many adults, they're fine with that.
Almost Prideful
Well-known member
I agree with a lot of what's being said here. To add to why 16 teams is a bad format, on top of the safety issues of having a Sebring-type team playing against a JFK type team, nobody wants to see the first two rounds of the playoffs if your team is expected to compete for the region or better. The attendance is weak and most people are more excited to see 4 or 5 of their regular season matchups than they are to see the first couple rounds of the postseason.
We can argue about what drives attendance or what kills attendance until the season starts, but I think it's glaringly obvious that terrible, almost dangerous playoff pairings is something nobody wants to see. It's easy to stay home when you know your team is going to embarrass the other team, or get embarrassed.
And not lose by 4 touchdowns embarrassed:
Running clock, getting thumped by the other team's freshmen and sophomores embarrassed. It's no wonder why so many schools' numbers have been down with the dog and pony show the OHSAA is intent on displaying.
I'm not in charge and never will be. However, if the next move makes things less competitive instead of more competitive, something needs to be done to hold the OHSAA "accountable".
We can argue about what drives attendance or what kills attendance until the season starts, but I think it's glaringly obvious that terrible, almost dangerous playoff pairings is something nobody wants to see. It's easy to stay home when you know your team is going to embarrass the other team, or get embarrassed.
And not lose by 4 touchdowns embarrassed:
Running clock, getting thumped by the other team's freshmen and sophomores embarrassed. It's no wonder why so many schools' numbers have been down with the dog and pony show the OHSAA is intent on displaying.
I'm not in charge and never will be. However, if the next move makes things less competitive instead of more competitive, something needs to be done to hold the OHSAA "accountable".
NewOldBlood
Well-known member
A lot of good points on both sides. I can see the positive and negatives of the longer season. The only thing I will say is the overwhelming majority of kids who play football get somewhere between 10-32 meaningful football games in their lives. Most will never step on a college campus as a football player. The majority of kids never get a real opportunity at meaningful playing time until they are a junior in high school. Others might not play much until they are seniors. Giving kids one more opportunity to play one more game is never a bad thing, especially in today's world of running clocks and shortened games.
Fumblerooski
Well-known member
But we’ve also seen 16 seeds beat 1 seeds. Sure there will be some mismatches, but the better teams can play their reserves once the game is in control. The losing teams probably are still thankful for one more time out there.
Fumblerooski
Well-known member
I will say that D1 is a different animal. There are fewer teams, so maybe 16 teams per region doesn’t make sense there, but I think it’s great for D2-D7.
I'd like to see 6 Divisions, top 32 teams in the division make the playoffs and determine the regions after week 10, make it less likely for one region to have 9-1 or 8-2 teams miss the post season while the neighboring region has 6-4 or 5-5 teams making the playoffs. Just a thought. On the extreme end, I'd be interested to see what a district like system that Tx has would look like in OH, it would scrap the conferences in football entirely, and there would be no cross division games, but could be interesting.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
That 1 more game is negative if there is a genuine safety risk, which there often is when a 16 plays a 1 or a 15 plays a 2.
Oil Filter
Well-known member
No. This completely undermines the rationale for having regions to begin with.
queencitybuckeye
Well-known member
They might say that, but they would mostly rather be off to winter sports or a break.
NewOldBlood
Well-known member
Not much different than say an undefeated Lakota West playing an 0-10 Middletown or Oak Hills during the regular season. Top teams play bad teams in league play all the time and it's not considered a safety risk. What makes it a safety risk because it's a post-season game?
cincifbfan
Well-known member
That's fair.
simkon
Well-known member
Oftentimes the 6-4 or 5-5 teams making the playoffs in region 9 are better than the 9-1 or 8-2 teams in the other regions. Case and point SV-SM and East a couple years ago. And if I looked I couls probably cite several more examples.
raider2bearcat
Active member
Agreed. I've never understood the safety argument when this topic gets brought up.
I just think it's largely uncompetitive and a pretty unnecessary week of football.
It was nice when your school earned their playoff spot.
doubtme
Go outside nerd.
I wonder what the percentage of people in America that pays for $15 dollar or less purchases with cash is...
I know I do, but I don't feel like many do.
I also don't think non cash sales is hurting attendance. I think there are way more options for entertainment than ever before, and more people who have little to no connection to the school anymore and therefore don't go.
Plus I think for some... they don't wanna pay when there are streaming options to watch their schools play. Such as paying 12 bucks to stream the game at home and it would cost them more to pay for their family to get in and watch it at the stadium
All great points and most of the complaining comes from the teams that are always top 10. A few 9-16's won last year and the kids get another shot. I agree with every point you made here. Lets be honest, only 14 teams out 700+ played a 16 games season last year. Persepective.
reganaustinjames
Well-known member
Agree that the 7 on 7 and scrimmages bleeding further into the summer has been an issue, but that was only allowed to shut the "We need spring football!!!" internet cry-babies up.
But I agree with many here that 6 divisions, 8 per region was perfect. Season started the weekend before Labor Day, and ended the week after Thanksgiving; didn't start too too early as it does now, and it didn't drag on to where bad weather was a near-certainty. Unfortunately, I believe the ship has sailed on going back to that, though
Almost Prideful
Well-known member
I pay cash also. The streaming of high school games is a net positive IMHO. It helps out families that wouldn't be able to go under normal circumstances. But it makes me wonder, why pay hundreds of dollars to take your family to a Browns/Steelers/Bengals game when you could watch it for free at home? Cheap beer, cheap snacks, and enjoying that perfectly wore-in seat your wife keeps trying to get you to throw away..
*Another beer honey, I'm on a Yappi binge!!
Almost Prideful
Well-known member
Don't give up. Have ye the faith of a mustard seed?
Fumblerooski
Well-known member
When I played there were 6 divisions and 8 per region, so I’m ok with that as well (as that’s what I was used to), but after giving the 16 per region a chance, I like it (one change I really didn’t like were those few years of only 2 D1 regions, while everyone else had 4. It threw off all the Region numbering!).
One side note about Thanksgiving- when I was in college, one of my friends (had played at St. Ignatius) talked about how Thanksgiving day practice was a tradition. I thought it was weird, but then I realized he basically made the final 4 every year, and I’ll admit it made me a little jealous. Now I’m bummed I never got to experience Thanksgiving day practice.
commodore20
Active member
I don't think 8 is enough, but 16 is too many. I'm in favor of a 12 team playoff where the top 4 seeds get a bye. Then, the debate comes up as to if teams want a bye for fear of being rusty. I would gladly take the bye to rest legs and injuries.
Oil Filter
Well-known member
Sounds like a quote from Sleepless in Seattle.