OHSAA To Announce Possible Football Playoff Change, From 16 To 12 Teams In A Region

 
dhsdog06 said:
I don't hate the change, but politicians need to stay out of it. They do a good enough job messing up everything else.
Click to expand...
I don't agree here. This is the state sanctioning body for all taxpayer funded high schools in the state. They unilaterally gave those schools the middle finger, who else is going to step in?
 
Tough one. From a pure football standpoint, less is more. But from a look at the bigger picture - taking away the opportunity for kids to get to play in the state playoffs doesn't sit well with me. Also, gives a chance for bottom of the roster kids a chance to play if there are blowouts.

Plus, what does it really give you?

A look at my favorite region, R5 shows that dropping to 12 teams wouldn't have improved the quality of football one bit. With the exception of Hudson crushing Boardman (example of the seeding being imperfect), the bottom seeds were not competitive at all. But I bet every single player from Hay, Riverside and Hoover all appreciated the opportunity to play in those games. I looked at a few other regions. My other favorite region R1 was basically the same story. Very few competitive 5-8 vs 9-12 match ups.

So what would we really be accomplishing here?

I'd be hesitant to change.
 
David Wooderson said:
Tough one. From a pure football standpoint, less is more. But from a look at the bigger picture - taking away the opportunity for kids to get to play in the state playoffs doesn't sit well with me. Also, gives a chance for bottom of the roster kids a chance to play if there are blowouts.

Plus, what does it really give you?

A look at my favorite region, R5 shows that dropping to 12 teams wouldn't have improved the quality of football one bit. With the exception of Hudson crushing Boardman (example of the seeding being imperfect), the bottom seeds were not competitive at all. But I bet every single player from Hay, Riverside and Hoover all appreciated the opportunity to play in those games. I looked at a few other regions. My other favorite region R1 was basically the same story. Very few competitive 5-8 vs 9-12 match ups.

So what would we really be accomplishing here?

I'd be hesitant to change.
Click to expand...
you don't get as much playing time as you think for younger players because of the running clock rule to be honest.

can we move game times back to 7:30 as well!
 
Live Look at Doug Ute during his interview with the media on this topic


1747401235836.png
 
doubtme said:
you don't get as much playing time as you think for younger players because of the running clock rule to be honest.

can we move game times back to 7:30 as well!
Click to expand...
Agree. But I'm thinking that even getting in for a couple of plays means something. Not just the young players, but also seniors that don't get to play much too.

I don't really care about the start time. Frankly, the extra 30 minutes of pregaming would probably impair my ability to focus on the game. 🤣
 
David Wooderson said:
Tough one. From a pure football standpoint, less is more. But from a look at the bigger picture - taking away the opportunity for kids to get to play in the state playoffs doesn't sit well with me. Also, gives a chance for bottom of the roster kids a chance to play if there are blowouts.

Plus, what does it really give you?

A look at my favorite region, R5 shows that dropping to 12 teams wouldn't have improved the quality of football one bit. With the exception of Hudson crushing Boardman (example of the seeding being imperfect), the bottom seeds were not competitive at all. But I bet every single player from Hay, Riverside and Hoover all appreciated the opportunity to play in those games. I looked at a few other regions. My other favorite region R1 was basically the same story. Very few competitive 5-8 vs 9-12 match ups.

So what would we really be accomplishing here?

I'd be hesitant to change.
Click to expand...
I think you are underestimating how kids on these teams see the situation. In the example of a John Hay, Maybe because for one week they get to play in an actual HS football setting and not a Friday afternoon at 3 pm with no one there anyways. But the majority…..these kids aren’t naive. Most of them know they have no chance and their last game will certainly being a meaningless blowout. Lowering the number of playoff teams gives more kids the chance to have a meaningful last game and the shot to go out with a win.
 
KeyBoardCoach said:
I think you are underestimating how kids on these teams see the situation. In the example of a John Hay, Maybe because for one week they get to play in an actual HS football setting and not a Friday afternoon at 3 pm with no one there anyways. But the majority…..these kids aren’t naive. Most of them know they have no chance and their last game will certainly being a meaningless blowout. Lowering the number of playoff teams gives more kids the chance to have a meaningful last game and the shot to go out with a win.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But outside of a few exceptions, most 5-8 vs 9-12 games aren't that meaningful either. So why not just reduce it to 8 if meaning is the goal?

I hear and understand your argument, but respectfully disagree. Give them a chance to experience something. Let them decide if they liked it or not.
 
StateChampion2012 said:
I still say keep it at 16 and eliminate a division. I hate the idea of byes
Click to expand...
I love the idea of 1-4 getting a bye, it is a reward for hard work and dedication and allows some players to heal. It will also make it an incentive for teams to schedule their OOC games correctly like they used to do to make sure they get the correct number of points to earn the bye. The 6 rounds was a money grab from the OHSAA who made millions off of 1 extra round.
 
If they reduce the number of qualifiers from 16 to some number above 8 (I kind of like 14 myself), it will be to keep teams from getting destroyed by a mega power in the opening round. They can call it the Marion Local rule.
 
Obviously go to 1 division, and the top 2 teams as decided by a secret ballot of secret electors that the OHSAA decides will play for the state title. All teams beside the state champ are required to wear shirts that say I AM A FAILURE every day until the following football season begins.
 
CedarBuck92 said:
Obviously go to 1 division, and the top 2 teams as decided by a secret ballot of secret electors that the OHSAA decides will play for the state title. All teams beside the state champ are required to wear shirts that say I AM A FAILURE every day until the following football season begins.
Click to expand...
Yes, 2nd place is 1st place of all the losers...🤡
 
If they are going to 12 teams for competitive reasons, then do not allow the 1st-4th seeds to take a first round game.

I know that this is putting the cart before the horse but I also know that some coaches will be upset by having to take a week off and will complain about losing reps. They will argue that they won a top seed and should be able to decide if they want a bye or not.

If the reason really is about avoiding lopsided games, do not let a 1 seed choose to pound a team by avoiding a bye. It is frustrating watching it in other sports where the #1 seed plays the two lowest seeds in their district in the first two rounds.
 
If they do this 112 schools will miss out on a week 11 game and for what?
Are there blowouts? Yes just like in the state championship games. But in the 3 years it has been in place a 16 has already beaten a 1 and a 15 played for a regional championship, seems like giving kids a chance to play has been fine.
 
Coach1304 said:
I love the idea of 1-4 getting a bye, it is a reward for hard work and dedication and allows some players to heal. It will also make it an incentive for teams to schedule their OOC games correctly like they used to do to make sure they get the correct number of points to earn the bye. The 6 rounds was a money grab from the OHSAA who made millions off of 1 extra round.
Click to expand...
Did #4 really work harder and are more dedicated than #5, or is it more likely someone #4 beat defeated a D3 team and somebody #5 beat defeated a D4 team?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top