How many games do 9-16 teams need to win to validate 16 teams?

B

BelowTheLine

Well-known member
We all know the expansion of the playoffs to 16 teams has been seen by most as a money grab by the OHSAA. This expansion will lead to 8 extra games per region this weekend and with 28 regions that means there will be an additional 224 games played this weekend that weren't played under the 8 team playoffs.

Now, we all know there will be some huge mismatches and lopsided scores but I have two questions I would like to hear everyone's opinion on and I'm not sure I personally have a solid opinion on these.

#1 - How many games do the 9-16 teams have to win to validate the expansion? How many teams who normally wouldn't have gotten in the playoffs need to win to make the other mismatches and beatings worth it?

#2 - Hypothetically, if one 9-16 seed makes a deep run into the playoffs (regional finals, state semis, state finals or even state champion) would the change be validated in your mind knowing these schools wouldn't have gotten the shot in the 8 team playoff format?

Just interested in everyone's opinions.
 
 
I think 12 made sense, but 16 is too many especially for D1. Should be 8 for D1 and 12 for everyone else, which lets in just under half of all teams. IMO the right number of teams should be whatever allows as many teams with winning records as possible while keeping out as many teams with losing records as possible.
 
7 divisions, 4 regions per division, and 16 playoff teams per region seems, to me at least, be watering down the value of the regular season and the value of earning a playoff spot. Seems to me that going to 16 playoff teams per region would've been a good counter to the expansion from 5 to 7 divisions a while back. Now we have both. If 16 playoff teams are mandatory, then have fewer divisions.
 
Caleb said:
Eight teams is plenty or whatever number gets high schools football starting after Sept 1st like it did for 150 years. lol
Click to expand...
Being an oldtimer, when I was in high school, practically most schools started Labor Day week. (Ours was Monday off, Tuesday- Teacher's Day, Wednesday first day of school, Friday was the first game, at Alliance) You could count on this every year.

Next season starts 18-20 August, which to me seems awfully early. Still haven't adjusted to playing games in the extreme heat of August. No wonder teams play like ?? the beginning of the season.
 
BelowTheLine said:
We all know the expansion of the playoffs to 16 teams has been seen by most as a money grab by the OHSAA. This expansion will lead to 8 extra games per region this weekend and with 28 regions that means there will be an additional 224 games played this weekend that weren't played under the 8 team playoffs.

Now, we all know there will be some huge mismatches and lopsided scores but I have two questions I would like to hear everyone's opinion on and I'm not sure I personally have a solid opinion on these.

#1 - How many games do the 9-16 teams have to win to validate the expansion? How many teams who normally wouldn't have gotten in the playoffs need to win to make the other mismatches and beatings worth it?

#2 - Hypothetically, if one 9-16 seed makes a deep run into the playoffs (regional finals, state semis, state finals or even state champion) would the change be validated in your mind knowing these schools wouldn't have gotten the shot in the 8 team playoff format?

Just interested in everyone's opinions.
Click to expand...

The only validation in my mind comes from the difference it allows in yearly schedule. Teams who have depth that want to challenge and develop them with comparable competition can do that without fear of Harbins.

This will also allow conferences to dynamically tier division to reduce blow-outs and increase competition and player development, something discussed on our local threads for sometime.
 
Struthersfan said:
Being an oldtimer, when I was in high school, practically most schools started Labor Day week. (Ours was Monday off, Tuesday- Teacher's Day, Wednesday first day of school, Friday was the first game, at Alliance) You could count on this every year.

Next season starts 18-20 August, which to me seems awfully early. Still haven't adjusted to playing games in the extreme heat of August. No wonder teams play like ?? the beginning of the season.
Click to expand...

It's actually been like this for a while. The first year the season started in August was all the way back in 1989, and the season started after September 1st only 6 times since then, the most recent being 1998. While starting the season August 19-20 does feel a little weird (my senior year, we started, I think, on 8/23, and the papers made a BIG deal about how early THAT felt), late August starts feel pretty normal now.
 
eastisbest said:
The only validation in my mind comes from the difference it allows in yearly schedule. Teams who have depth that want to challenge and develop them with comparable competition can do that without fear of Harbins.

This will also allow conferences to dynamically tier division to reduce blow-outs and increase competition and player development, something discussed on our local threads for sometime.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it's a catch-22. I prefer playing a tough schedule to make you better and have a more interesting season. But now teams know they can get in the playoffs while still playing a weak schedule if they amass 3-4 lackluster victories.

If I understand correctly, SOS will be factored in next season which should make seedings fairer.
 
radroby said:
I agree, but it's a catch-22. I prefer playing a tough schedule to make you better and have a more interesting season. But now teams know they can get in the playoffs while still playing a weak schedule if they amass 3-4 lackluster victories.

If I understand correctly, SOS will be factored in next season which should make seedings fairer.
Click to expand...
And they are probably not preparing anyone for further football careers. No middling team is going to weaken their schedule to guarantee what is already guaranteed. They're going to be free to go for revenue.

The weakest teams, some are already playing down in the schedule just to give their kids games. There was no plan for play-offs. It just happened. Other weaker teams, particularly city league teams with a chance at being the cow, will still schedule for payment but with that need gone for cows by teams that can pay, they'll have to schedule teams having problems filling schedules or weaker teams to also provide their teams competitive.

We'll see. If ADs schedule with 16 teams in mind as the pay-off, I think we'll see fewer blow-outs in season. Anyways, that is the measuring stick if they keep the 16 teams for a couple more seasons. See how the ADs adjust scheduling. See how that results in-season.
 
I would support sticking with 16, but cutting regular season to 8. Schools can increase ticket prices by 20% to offset the lost home game. Conferences can switch to 6 game schedules.
 
I think teams if they're smart could really test themselves in an out of conference game, since now you could probably lose 1.5-2 more games on average and there's almost no need to ever play a team from Canada ever again
 
EagleFan said:
I would support sticking with 16, but cutting regular season to 8. Schools can increase ticket prices by 20% to offset the lost home game. Conferences can switch to 6 game schedules.
Click to expand...
Not a chance this will happen, nor should it. The season is already short enough as it is, particularly for those programs who more often than not are not in contention for the postseason. Those kids deserve to have a 10-game season.
 
The 16 team format has taken away the suspense and intrigue that a regular season has historically brought. Yes, If you do well you will get a better seed, but with 16 teams, everybody who wants in, gets in. So in my opinion, the regular season means nothing more than developing your team, moving people around, see what works on what doesn't, and if we win we win. (sounds like a scrimmage doesn't it?) Instead of the regular season meaning something it has become about getting your team ready for the real season that starts with week one of the playoffs. Anyway, just my 2 cents
 
What also stinks about this is this decision hasn't got one thing to do with kids, or football. OHSAA needs the money so everybody pays for one more week of the playoffs. If money is the only issue, go to 8 or 12 teams in and increase ticket prices.. At some point decisions have to be more than the Benjamins.
 
I didn’t like the 16 game format until week six when my team had six starters who played both ways including three quarterbacks miss the next three games (all losses) with injuries. By week nine, most we’re back and they finished strong with a 10th game blowout. a new starting QB and a #12 spot in the final seeding They aren’t state champ strong but they’re good enough to go a few games deep so for this year, for me and mine, 16 teams was a good thing.
 
thedudeabides said:
What also stinks about this is this decision hasn't got one thing to do with kids, or football. OHSAA needs the money so everybody pays for one more week of the playoffs. If money is the only issue, go to 8 or 12 teams in and increase ticket prices.. At some point decisions have to be more than the Benjamins.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure the majority of those seniors on seeds 9-16 are super bummed their HS football careers get extended by at least one additional game.
 
zebrastripes said:
Given how much complaining I see on this forum about driving distances, it seems like keeping the regions geographic makes a lot of sense for high school football.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have noticed that as well. Regions are definitely a sacred cow for some here. It also tells me that some people just like to complain about nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top