#15, 2-6, "Control Own Destiny"...THE PLAYOFFS KINDA SUCK.

[4GX]

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.

This is such a ludicrous claim.

 

[Findy15]

It’s never about anyone on here! In every other HS sport every team gets a chance at the tournament. Football arguably requires the biggest commitment. Why shouldn’t the kids get the experience?

Because in every other sport you don't have the risk of injury that you do in football. A 10-0 football team playing a 1-9 football team is far superior to a 10-0 baseball team playing a 1-9 baseball team. The hardest sport of all, there are 3, wrestling, hockey, & swimming. I know you'll laugh at swimming being harder than football. Practice for a good swim team is swimming mile after mile continuously. Try it you'll be surprised at how difficult it is. Wrestling speaks for itself. Hockey is brutal. A 10-0 wrestler, wrestling against a 1-9 wrestler in most cases, pins their opponent in the first period. Usually in the first 30-40 seconds. Hockey the person that gets all off the fun is the goalie. But he cannot be hit by another player & is extra padded to survive being struck by the puck. In football lineman are too close to avoid contact. Running backs for the 1-9 team still have to endure the beating. In many cases a 1-9 team does not have the Jimmy's & Joes to compete with a 10-0 team. Why should they have to take this beating for 4 quarters. For the experience? To be humiliated 50-0. Akron Hoban beats 7-0 teams by 50. Should they play the JV team to avoid embarrassing a 1-9 opponent? 8 teams should be the number of teams in each region.

 

[Sykotyk]

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.

Never said it was the golden rule. Don't speak for me.

When a player sees 10 games on the schedule, and by week 8 they're beaten, bruised, sitting at 0-8 or 1-7, they just want those last two to come and go. Not throw in another game just for people like you. If the schedule is 9 games, the same would happen around Week 7 or 8. You can't understand that?

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.

I would interject, but this is one entire sentence.

So, let's piece this apart:

1. I'm not describing ONE team where the rest are counter to that argument. You're not speaking for the rest of the schools while telling me that I AM NOT.

2. Players wanted to play in the playoffs because that meant they EARNED a spot in the playoffs. Same reason they'd want to date the pretty girl in school. Not so fun when everyone gets to do it, is it?

3. The Covid season was 6 games. OF COURSE PLAYERS WANTED MORE GAMES.... even those six-games were constantly befuddled with cancellations, rescheduling, new teams, opponents, last minute changes. And also a completely lopsided schedule that Ohio's harbin system was completely ill-equipped to handle. So, a last second, ad hoc solution was just to let everyone into a quick playoff based on the fact that no one came close to playing a full schedule.

4. Very few teams, coaches, players, staffs, administrations would take the route of calling it quits when they're put on the spot to make that call. You, hopefully, get this, right? Spent months talking about 'don't quit', 'fight through the pain', etc... and then have to make the call to end things early? But schools will gladly take the team to the offseason while muttering about how they would love just 'one more game'... yeah, one more game they could possibly win. #9-#12, sure, would love another game. #16? No.

You realize that there's a difference between what people say, and what people will do, right?

 

[4GX]

Never said it was the golden rule. Don't speak for me.

When a player sees 10 games on the schedule, and by week 8 they're beaten, bruised, sitting at 0-8 or 1-7, they just want those last two to come and go. Not throw in another game just for people like you. If the schedule is 9 games, the same would happen around Week 7 or 8. You can't understand that?


I would interject, but this is one entire sentence.

So, let's piece this apart:

1. I'm not describing ONE team where the rest are counter to that argument. You're not speaking for the rest of the schools while telling me that I AM NOT.

2. Players wanted to play in the playoffs because that meant they EARNED a spot in the playoffs. Same reason they'd want to date the pretty girl in school. Not so fun when everyone gets to do it, is it?

3. The Covid season was 6 games. OF COURSE PLAYERS WANTED MORE GAMES.... even those six-games were constantly befuddled with cancellations, rescheduling, new teams, opponents, last minute changes. And also a completely lopsided schedule that Ohio's harbin system was completely ill-equipped to handle. So, a last second, ad hoc solution was just to let everyone into a quick playoff based on the fact that no one came close to playing a full schedule.

4. Very few teams, coaches, players, staffs, administrations would take the route of calling it quits when they're put on the spot to make that call. You, hopefully, get this, right? Spent months talking about 'don't quit', 'fight through the pain', etc... and then have to make the call to end things early? But schools will gladly take the team to the offseason while muttering about how they would love just 'one more game'... yeah, one more game they could possibly win. #9-#12, sure, would love another game. #16? No.

You realize that there's a difference between what people say, and what people will do, right?

I never purported to speak for you.

But, it seems like you've now contradicted yourself with these consecutive posts: either players on a 1-7 team just want to play two more (regular season) games, and get a full season in-- or they don't-- which is it? If they want the season to just be over-- well, a playoff game that they will almost certainly lose means IT WILL BE OVER-- after 9 games (or 10, if they are 1-8)... and, with the 9-game regular season, it ends with EXACTLY as many games as that team had before, with a 10-game regular season, and no playoffs-- NOT "another game thrown in to please people like me"... you can't keep trying to have it both ways.

You don't have any proof that there are these teams that don't want to play that playoff game that they will be overmatched in-- and I DO have proof that teams, when given the chance to play playoff games-- even if overmatched-- WILL (by and large) CHOOSE TO PLAY THAT GAME.

Yes, very few teams, coaches, players, staffs, administrations will choose to call it quits--even when given a READY out/option to do so!-- EXACTLY MY POINT-- this argument that players and teams DON'T want to play a playoff game, if they are going to be overmatched is specious-- these teams JUST DON'T BEHAVE in the way that people on this site keep saying that they will-- it's a false argument-- people on this site should stop making this false argument.

The fact that people will say one thing and do another is human nature-- it does NOT prove the claim that these kids don't want to play in the playoffs-- when they were given the option to do one thing or another-- the players and teams "walked the talk"-- they almost universally chose to participate in the playoffs, when they were offered it. In this case, you and/or others here making similar arguments seem to be implying (without supporting data) that kids were saying (I presume, behind the scenes, on practice fields and in locker rooms) "I don't want to be in the playoffs against a team that will dominate us"-- and yet, when it came time for action, the kids/teams (by and large) chose to play the games-- and ACTIONS speak louder than words!

 

[SWOHHoops]

Not true.

We can agree to disagree, but the evidence supporting my statement is pretty overwhelming.

 

[NEOfan]

Covid year data as a slam dunk argument. Gotta love Yappi

 

[Sykotyk]

I never purported to speak for you.

But, it seems like you've now contradicted yourself with these consecutive posts: either players on a 1-7 team just want to play two more (regular season) games, and get a full season in-- or they don't-- which is it?

It's both when you're smart enough to realize the current setup is a ten game season. You're just arguing to argue.

If they want the season to just be over-- well, a playoff game that they will almost certainly lose means IT WILL BE OVER-- after 9 games (or 10, if they are 1-8)... and, with the 9-game regular season, it ends with EXACTLY as many games as that team had before, with a 10-game regular season, and no playoffs-- NOT "another game thrown in to please people like me"... you can't keep trying to have it both ways.

The first round of the playoffs don't mean anything when everyone gets in. One is a game they know they're playing, the other is a crap shoot guaranteed to be a great team that's going to thump them. You can't be this dense.

You don't have any proof that there are these teams that don't want to play that playoff game that they will be overmatched in-- and I DO have proof that teams, when given the chance to play playoff games-- even if overmatched-- WILL (by and large) CHOOSE TO PLAY THAT GAME.

You're not getting it. But it's okay because most everyone else has already.

Yes, very few teams, coaches, players, staffs, administrations will choose to call it quits--even when given a READY out/option to do so!-- EXACTLY MY POINT-- this argument that players and teams DON'T want to play a playoff game, if they are going to be overmatched is specious-- these teams JUST DON'T BEHAVE in the way that people on this site keep saying that they will-- it's a false argument-- people on this site should stop making this false argument.

Because it's not a choice.

The fact that people will say one thing and do another is human nature-- it does NOT prove the claim that these kids don't want to play in the playoffs-- when they were given the option to do one thing or another-- the players and teams "walked the talk"-- they almost universally chose to participate in the playoffs, when they were offered it. In this case, you and/or others here making similar arguments seem to be implying (without supporting data) that kids were saying (I presume, behind the scenes, on practice fields and in locker rooms) "I don't want to be in the playoffs against a team that will dominate us"-- and yet, when it came time for action, the kids/teams (by and large) chose to play the games-- and ACTIONS speak louder than words!

So let's play 52 games. Obviously since the players will play an extra game they'll keep just continuing to play another game and another game.


Right?

Take your argument to the logical extreme and your position falls apart.