We didn't mind it...sure we didn't get that far this past year (made it to the Regional Semis), but having been in the Regional Finals recently, it felt no "longer" than any other post season.
Plus, I'd argue making a true state tournament would allow for better OOC matchups because teams don't have to worry about convoluted computer points where playing a 4-6 D1 team nets you more points than a 9-1 D4 team. Instantly brings some fun games back into the fold that otherwise wouldn't happen while also allowing for teams to be able to work towards something in the end. I guess I just don't think there are any rational arguments against going to a full playoff or expansion like what they've done outside of the "aww shucks, everyone getting a trophy now?!" comments when literally the same amount of teams will get trophies.
And if your argument is, "but the blowouts!?" then why the hell aren't you complaining about literally every other sport's playoff setup? The fact of the matter is that 12 is probably the sweet spot here, with the 1st four seeds getting buys...but that won't happen because the coaches already complained about byes being disadvantageous (even though some of us would argue vehemently to the contrary).
12 is the sweet spot, I was in favor of that and thought they should let it go for a few years before re-evaluating. It would have solved almost every problem that people had with the previous playoff system. (For the record every coach I heard from that had a bye talked about how it helped them reset before the playoffs and heal up, so I don't know where the idea is coming from that coaches were against the bye for 1-4 seeds)
We're now playing 6 postseason games to win the state championship, which is 60% of the regular season. That is insane. In basketball where everyone makes it, you have 8 post season games compared to 20+ regular season games. There's lots of issues with that.
The longer you go into a post season, the tougher each game gets which means more kids naturally get banged up. This wears on schools in a normal season, and everyone I know that's close to a program seemed in agreement that it was even worse last year. Plus when you're in the playoffs, your schedule and routines change, making it harder to focus on JV and freshmen practice and games. This might not be an issue with the bigger Toledo schools but at small schools with coaching staffs already stretched thin, you're pretty much guaranteeing that the JV kids will either A) not compete for the second half of the season or B) get a last minute game thrown together with the few teams that want to keep playing after they're knocked out of the playoffs. Either way it's bad for developing kids to play varsity in the future. Our school's JV team last year already played 2 different teams twice because of low numbers in other programs, and went through the last 5 weeks of the season without a single chance to compete because all of the area schools stopped playing when they were knocked out.
You also mentioned how letting everyone in would make for better OOC games. How could that be even possible if you're reducing the regular season?? Many teams in the state only have 1-2 OOC games to begin with, and shortening the regular season would reduce that. Lots of those schools already have an out of conference rivalry that they will continue with, so where is the room for better games?
Having 16 teams in is already a bad idea, letting everyone in is even worse. Football is a unique sport. It's not basketball or baseball where you can easily play 2 games each week without worrying about injuries, or wrestling where a competitor can have 5 matches in a day. The more you expand the playoffs, the more you hurt the regular season, and you will only see the talent gap between traditionally good and bad schools grow more rapidly.