4GX
Well-known member
I'd agree-- trying to limit the ability of all football players (and ONLY football players) to play in OHSAA-sanctioned state playoffs, when NO other Ohio HS sport does that IS "moronic".
#15, 2-6, "Control Own Destiny"...THE PLAYOFFS KINDA SUCK.
- Thread starter CMH FB
- Start date
4GX
Well-known member
This idea that there is this VAST array of low-skilled, low-performing, lowly-motivated HS football players on these lesser teams that would NOT like (and embrace) having the chance to play in an OHSAA-sanctioned state playoff game, regardless of the opponent, is the absurd, obtuse viewpoint-- which should STOP being given credence and reiteration on this forum.
4GX
Well-known member
Your level of juvenile repartee continues to sink to new lows.
You ignore so many facets of this issue.
Yes, some individual players do not get to suit up for the playoffs as a 16 (or apparently 30th) seed in the playoffs. So what. Does it matter that basketball has an "all in" tournament? - it's only been that way almost for forever. On the other hand football went with NO PLAYOFFS for most of the 20th century, then when playoffs were adopted in the 1970's, only one team per region made it, with gradual expansion since then. Part of the issue with football is that only 1 game per week is getting played.
There is a practical reason why other sports can (and maybe should) be all inclusive for state championship tournaments. Basketball could conceivably play 3 games per week - and they don't get physically dominated if the 1st round game is a mismatch. The local district track meets are full of teams that may have only 1 athlete who can move on to regionals, whereas the rest of the team finishes 39th in their heats. Great, that one athlete got a chance, but you want the one athlete on a football team to get to experience that when his teammates get physically pounded into the ground?
Your proposal to reduce the number of regular season games so that 30th seeded team gets to play a playoff game doesn't jive with any other sport. Ohio HS basketball used to be 18 regular season games, then 20, now 22. Yes, every team still gets in...so we have expanded opportunities to play basketball games. But you want to shorten the regular season in football - which reduces the opportunity for teams (especially weaker teams) to play meaningful, competitive games. Because getting running-clocked 70-0 is not a meaningful game for anyone, especially for the kids on the field. But if that 0-10 team voted to not play, they'd be rung up the flagpole with names not appropriate for typing here.
I'm done. You should be.
The Dock
Persona Non Grata
reganaustinjames
Well-known member
All your inherently contradictory responses have proven is that you have absolutely NO understanding of this topic; you certainly have no idea of the logistics, the impact on the schools and either don't know or don't care how it would impact the kids. What's the old Abe Lincoln saying? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Sykotyk
Well-known member
I've lost track of where this debate has gone over the past few pages. But let me just interject:
The biggest issue AGAINST everyone making it to the playoffs (or even 16 in the tournament) is that football is played sparingly through the calendar. The entire season takes 4 months and even the largest playing team will total 16 games. Every other sport could squeeze 16 games in a couple of weeks if needed.
That's the biggest drawback to the play for another round. And you can't take away weeks from the regular season. Regardless the idea that 'oh, it costs the schools money to play'... the players want to play game. They're not signing up for a season if it's 7-8 games long and a first round exit.
The other big argument AGAINST everyone making it is that football is the most 'violent' sport that high schools plays. Followed in a distance 2nd would be Hockey and maybe Wrestling. The worst that happens in every other sport is you lose. Football is much more dangerous for a good team to be pitted against a bad team. We've all seen where a huge mismatch happens and the losing team is basically just trying to survive. They're not even playing to succeed. They're playing to avoid any catastrophic injury. It's why Richmond Heights walked off a few years ago. The mismatch was dangerous to continue. Argue for why games like that happen or why it is or isn't dangerous to continue. Either way, it's still an issue.
The only state that I know fhat has everyone making the playoffs is Indiana. And it's a true tournament. The entire regular season has no bearing on the playoffs. The entire tournament is a blind draw and no advantage based on regular season performance.
You can be 0-9 playing 1-8 and host the game. You could be 1-8 hosting a 9-0 team. You could be 1-8 playing at a 5-4 team. You just don't know because it's a random draw. There's also much fewer teams and Indiana can squeeze all their teams into six classifications and make it happen. For Ohio to do a similar tournament would need about 12 classifications.
Which isn't happening.
There's nothing wrong with limiting participation to the playoffs to teams that qualify for it given how long the playoffs take. The players of an 1-7 team would rather two more regular season games to close out the year with a senior night, etc than dumped into a playoff facing an 8-0 powerhouse at their place just to be annihilated. And then what? Their season is over? Last game is a loss unless you're a state champion.
If you can't figure out why football only plays once a week and not understand that by the end of a season of playing that sport that can only be played once a week, it's not best to foist the 0-10 team against the 10-0 team, I can't help you.
The biggest issue AGAINST everyone making it to the playoffs (or even 16 in the tournament) is that football is played sparingly through the calendar. The entire season takes 4 months and even the largest playing team will total 16 games. Every other sport could squeeze 16 games in a couple of weeks if needed.
That's the biggest drawback to the play for another round. And you can't take away weeks from the regular season. Regardless the idea that 'oh, it costs the schools money to play'... the players want to play game. They're not signing up for a season if it's 7-8 games long and a first round exit.
The other big argument AGAINST everyone making it is that football is the most 'violent' sport that high schools plays. Followed in a distance 2nd would be Hockey and maybe Wrestling. The worst that happens in every other sport is you lose. Football is much more dangerous for a good team to be pitted against a bad team. We've all seen where a huge mismatch happens and the losing team is basically just trying to survive. They're not even playing to succeed. They're playing to avoid any catastrophic injury. It's why Richmond Heights walked off a few years ago. The mismatch was dangerous to continue. Argue for why games like that happen or why it is or isn't dangerous to continue. Either way, it's still an issue.
The only state that I know fhat has everyone making the playoffs is Indiana. And it's a true tournament. The entire regular season has no bearing on the playoffs. The entire tournament is a blind draw and no advantage based on regular season performance.
You can be 0-9 playing 1-8 and host the game. You could be 1-8 hosting a 9-0 team. You could be 1-8 playing at a 5-4 team. You just don't know because it's a random draw. There's also much fewer teams and Indiana can squeeze all their teams into six classifications and make it happen. For Ohio to do a similar tournament would need about 12 classifications.
Which isn't happening.
There's nothing wrong with limiting participation to the playoffs to teams that qualify for it given how long the playoffs take. The players of an 1-7 team would rather two more regular season games to close out the year with a senior night, etc than dumped into a playoff facing an 8-0 powerhouse at their place just to be annihilated. And then what? Their season is over? Last game is a loss unless you're a state champion.
If you can't figure out why football only plays once a week and not understand that by the end of a season of playing that sport that can only be played once a week, it's not best to foist the 0-10 team against the 10-0 team, I can't help you.
simkon
Well-known member
@Sykotyk you better not tell a certain infamous school they aren't supposed to play 2 varsity games in back to back days.
Although I have seen a few times a team have a Saturday game followed by a Monday or Tuesday game or a Sunday game followed by a Tuesday or Wednesday game.
Are you certain they would be able or rules would permit every other sport to play 16 contests in 2 weeks? I would think some sports only allow one varsity contest per day.
Although I have seen a few times a team have a Saturday game followed by a Monday or Tuesday game or a Sunday game followed by a Tuesday or Wednesday game.
Are you certain they would be able or rules would permit every other sport to play 16 contests in 2 weeks? I would think some sports only allow one varsity contest per day.
So many people seem to know what the kids want, whether it’s wanting to play more games or wanting to be done. I suspect they’re projecting based on what they want to see, or, more charitably, what one kid they know wants and extrapolating it to all kids. My guess is that the kids’ opinions are all over the map.
Sykotyk
Well-known member
I've never seen someone play a Saturday game followed by a Monday or Tuesday game. I believe NFHS rules is, i believe, 4th day after a game can play another game. So, a Saturday game could be followed by a Wednesday games. Some states 'condense' playoffs so that 3 games are played over two weeks. One week will have Thursday games, then on Tuesday, and then Saturday.
As for 16 in a couple of weeks, I was being more offhand, otherwise I would've said two weeks. Several might have been more important for someone wanting to argue semantics.
As for Bishop Sycamore. They still claim no
I don't post over here at all because I don't know much about football. But I always loved reading the threads around this time where people were doing the math and talking scenarios to see if their team has a chance at the playoffs. OHSAA killed that for cash.
Posters here must not have been involved with a 1-9 team. By week 11 everyone is done with season and ready to go play other sports. Why waste the time of everyone involved to have a 1-16 match up in d-1. So Eds gets to destroy a winless team so the OHSAA can get some more money to go to Hawaii for their conferences. Its a joke. I am fine with 1-16 in normal sized divisions. 8 still is best but 12 and 16 are ok if you have large regions. By the way, in soccer and basketball...if you get beat 90-0 nobody is being carried off the field . In football mismatches, the losing outmatched teams usually has injuries.
Wow! I tell kids and some adults to think before you talk. Or even before you post!
Crimson and Black
Well-known member
I would even say it's worse for 1-9 team to play a high seed in the lower divisions (4-7) in the rural communities. Most rural communities aren't highly populated and in the middle of nowhere so you're all in or you're not. Those schools share athletes, most kids playing football are playing basketball or wrestling then the same kids are participating in whatever spring sport that's offered. So small schools don't have the numbers. If you're 1-9 and still have to play another game trust me, those kids are thinking about there winter sport they could care less about week 11.
Knights Watch
Active member
16 is dumb, and so are the money changers destroying this sport to swell Columbus coffers even more.
Burreaux
Mr. SEO
going to get flack for my comment but I don’t care. I think 12 should be the number of teams.
4 is way too small of a number basically just saying forget most of you teams who have to play in a conference that takes up 7~ games on the schedule and now have to find a way to schedule 3 teams that are good and somehow get into the playoffs.
16 is too many as everyone else has said don’t need to repeat reasons
8 has worked in the past yes but some regions are not the same as others and some good teams have been left out with winning records
4 is way too small of a number basically just saying forget most of you teams who have to play in a conference that takes up 7~ games on the schedule and now have to find a way to schedule 3 teams that are good and somehow get into the playoffs.
16 is too many as everyone else has said don’t need to repeat reasons
8 has worked in the past yes but some regions are not the same as others and some good teams have been left out with winning records
Basement Bias
Well-known member
How many 11 man teams play in Ohio? How many divisions if you went 128 team brackets of an all in tournament? How many divisions for a 64 team bracket with all in? I've always been a fan of Ohio's seeding for the tournament and hater of the qualification. Likewise I've been a fan of Indiana's all in and hater they have no seeding at all but all random draw. Perfection is all in and seeded for me. Ohio also does great with neutral sites. Indiana needs to do neutral site playoff games for their regional & semi state rounds.
The Dock
Persona Non Grata
There’s 706 11-man teams currently. 512 is the nearest power of 2 (^9), which means you have four brackets each with 128. What you do with the remaining 194, who knows. It won’t neatly fit a bell curve, because one end is going to have way more teams and size disparities than the other end.
11, lol.
Basement Bias
Well-known member
Thanks, thought I saw 701 on OHSAA's website. D1 top 64 in enrollment leaves you with 637 teams. Divide that by 5 remaining divisions and you get 127.4 teams per division. If 706 then do 66 or 68 teams in D1 & do the same thing. Make the regular season 9 games with the all in for D2 to D5. D1 could go 10 unless you're one of the play in teams. Guessing most would just take a bye in week 10 instead.
4GX
Well-known member
I can handle a differing opinion fine-- when you resort to childish name-calling, and scatological references, I stop being respectful of you and your lack of maturity and intellect.
4GX
Well-known member
You do a better job than some others on here, of supporting your argument-- but, you still don't make a persuasive case. The fact that there is a mismatch in a physical sport is NOT a reason to say "We shouldn't let these players or this team participate in the state playoffs."-- the OHSAA does NOT do that in wrestling (which has the potential for FAR more direct, physical violence and domination than a football game does--and the wrestling tournaments are set up, BY DEFAULT, to match the lowest seeded wrestlers in the first round with the top, most dominant wrestler-- I know the sport intimately-- and getting pulverized by a far more powerful, dominant wrestler for 6 straight minutes of pain and agony is NO fun-- but the loser gets over it, and moves on with life), or in ice hockey (which has MORE concussions, per participant, than football does) or rugby (I know-- not an OHSAA-sanctioned sport yet-- but the principle still holds-- in a physical sport every bit as rough as football)...
And trying to say that "we had LOTS of teams/participants excluded from OHSAAA playoffs forever in football" is NOT a good reason to keep doing something unfair and stupid-- we should be trying to END that practice-- NOT HONORING it. Even with only one game per week, it EASILY is possible to include ALL of the teams in the state, by shortening the season a TINY amount-- and 9 weeks WAS a full season for a LOOONG time in the 20th Century, if you want to go that route of citing history-- HONOR THAT tradition, then.
As for players (allegedly-- but really, NOT REALLY) getting "physically pounded into the ground"-- that is risk in ANY football game-- if you don't want to take that risk-- DON'T play football-- in ANY given game, you (as a defensive lineman facing a dominant offensive lineman, or vice-versa) could be facing a similar mismatch, even if the rest of your team is not overmatched-- or, as a QB, you could risk being pounded into the ground multiple times by the second coming of Lawrence Taylor on the opposing team, even though your team as a whole is not totally overmatched-- playing football carries inherent risk, at all times-- a poor, weak, slow player can get knocked backward into the running back or QB, and cause him to blow out a knee, or ankle AT ANY TIME, on ANY PLAY-- there is no way to prevent that.
And if the only issue is that poor teams/players do NOT want to play a top team in the playoffs-- then DON'T PLAY! There is no rule against forfeiting-- and (a very small number of) teams chose to forfeit rather than participate in the all-teams inclusive playoff that the OHSAA held at the end of the 2020 season-- and there were NO recriminations for or public abuse of those teams (or anybody "rung up on the flagpole) for doing so-- so that is another red herring rationale for not offering every team a spot in the playoffs-- it did not happen.
Last edited:
4GX
Well-known member
Then they can opt out-- that's what it's there for. End of problem.
4GX
Well-known member
I say the same about you-- you have no idea or understanding of this topic. It's obvious that the OHSAA is moving in the direction that I am advocating (they even held an all-teams inclusive playoff, already in 2020)-- and it's also obvious that they have people whose job it is to study this topic and know as much about it as they possibly can-- I'll take the OHSAA as more knowledgable and expert in this topic than you--and they keep adding more and more teams to the playoffs, in every move that they have made since they introduced playoffs in football.
I care that the KIDS get to play playoff games-- if THEY want to. I DON'T care that hangers-on and wannabe pundits on Yappi get more competitive games that they think they are entitled to. All of the alleged damage or alleged negative "impact" to kids is being trumpeted by people on this site-- who should have NO SAY in the matter. If the kids want to be in the playoffs (even on BAD teams) and the OHSAA can accommodate them, then the OHSAA SHOULD DO SO-- and, when the OHSAA offered EVERY team an entry to the playoffs (and choosing NOT to participate was an explicit option provided to ALL teams), the VAST MAJORITY of teams chose to PLAY-- so the proof is in the pudding-- what you (and others who think like you) are claiming was NOT substantiated by the actions of the players and coaches on these poor performing teams in 2020. I've already WON this argument, by virtue of the test case that was run in 2020!
It wasn't Abe Lincoln who said that quote (at least he did NOT originate it)-- but you ought to take your own advice.
4GX
Well-known member
As I noted in another post-- wrestling is/can be just as violent as football (or more so)-- and the state tournament ALWAYS starts out with severely overmatched wrestlers getting totally dominated by the best wrestlers in their weight class-- there is no effort to prevent that--nor SHOULD there be-- nor should there be in football... The same happens in hockey-- which features more serious head injuries per participant than football.
As for how many games it takes to make players want to play the sport-- this idea that 10 regular season games is some magical Golden Rule is absurd-- it is NOT-- Ohio had teams playing only 9 regular season games in Ohio HS for DECADES-- 10 is NOT MAGIC-- in fact, some of the good teams in Ohio (St. X being one of them) have often had to resort to scheduling a virtual exhibition against a Canadian team of older players or just playing 9 games for a season-- and X STILL had well more than 125 players out for those teams (in fact, the VAST majority of the players on those teams NEVER saw the field even ONCE in a season-- so playing in games AT ALL, let alone playing in 10 regular season games was NOT the deciding factor in whether players chose to go out for the football team). Indiana or Kentucky only playing 8 or 9 regular season games and putting EVERYBODY in the playoffs has NOT caused kids top decide NOT to go out for football-- this is a completely false claim.
Whether one 1-7 team (in your estimation) would rather play two more weak opponents in the regular season than play an 8-0 team and get dominated in a playoff game is beside the point-- that ONE (alleged-- by you) team should not determine the outcomes for ALL of the other teams and players in the state who WOULD like to be in the playoffs-- and when the OHSAA gave EVERYBODY in Ohio an entry into the state playoffs in 2020, or said that teams could decline, and instead choose to go on scheduling additional regular season games-- VERY FEW TEAMS CHOSE THAT ROUTE-- most teams said "We want to be in the state playoffs"-- so that puts the lie to that claim.
4GX
Well-known member
Not true.