|
Post by penguin on Nov 7, 2009 13:03:56 GMT -5
I'm not trying to make excuses. If a higher seeded team gets upset, they have only themselves to blame and shouldn't point fingers at the system. But I guess I was speaking in a general sense about a system that potentially waters down the playoff pool. As I originally stated, the teams need to beat whomever they are playing. But by adding more playoff teams, I believe you diminish the regular season to a degree and it increases the chances of the best teams not advancing. And I don't just feel this way about the new expanded playoffs in high school sports, but all sports. I think it's important to keep the regular season relevant and to reward those teams who have success.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't see or appreciate the other side of the argument. There's no doubt it's a good thing for the kids who's teams wouldn't have gotten into the playoffs. But I guess I'm just a little old school in my playoff philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by primetime on Nov 7, 2009 16:16:41 GMT -5
Tell me this people. Is it fair 4 the teams with less players to have to play extra games now? Why should a .500 team get in? There is an advantage now here. Bad decision I think by the sellout NCS.
|
|
tjm378
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by tjm378 on Nov 7, 2009 17:11:38 GMT -5
Agreed and the top 4 teams are not getting rewarded for having great seasons. They deserve to have a bye. Just another money scheme
|
|
|
Post by hsfbfan on Nov 7, 2009 17:13:33 GMT -5
Have to play extra games? Bet you anything, players would say, to a man, GET to play extra games...these KIDS have only a very limited time and finite number of football games that they get the opportunity to play in their whole lives. The higher ranked teams who now "have to play" extra games will probably win anyhow and the lower ranked teams who would not otherwise have gotten in now also get to play another game...so what if it's about revenue for the NCS? The 300 kids, give or take, who comprise the 8 teams from the 4 additional games all get to play another game of high school football...can't see what's bad about this in any way.
When you say the "teams with less players", just who are you referring to? Is there some team of note at the top who, I guess you are saying, who could use the week of rest? Whatever...they're young...they can deal with it. Let as many kids play as many games as possible - THAT'S the real bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Nov 7, 2009 17:50:53 GMT -5
Let as many kids play as many games as possible - THAT'S the real bottom line. I think this is where we disagree. I believe the real bottom line is money. I don't think the NCS got together and came up with an expanded playoff idea because they truly felt it benefited and was in the best interest of the kids or the schools. The did it because they knew it would increase revenues. And as I don't think there's anything wrong with looking to help schools financialy in this economic climate, why not just come out and say it's the reason behind the change? And when they don't, I think they open themsevles up for some warranted criticism.
|
|
|
Post by hsfbfan on Nov 7, 2009 19:32:59 GMT -5
That could very well be...and it very well might be warranted criticism...but it is a bottom line that more kids will get to play more games this way than less. And if you're a fan of a team that would otherwise have had a bye, and let's say especially if your son is on one of those teams, would you rather they have that bye, or get to watch your son/your son's team play another game? And yes, even at some minimal risk of getting upset and knocked out early. I personally would prefer to see more games, period, even if it means my preferred team could be one of the bye teams...and I think the players feel the same way - and if it is only as a result of the NCS wanting to increase revenue, so be it...it thus has a dual benefit.
|
|
|
Post by primetime on Nov 7, 2009 20:54:52 GMT -5
U win hsfban......
|
|
|
Post by bella on Nov 7, 2009 23:47:45 GMT -5
Why should a .500 team get in. Seriously, and people wonder why this country is going the direction it is. Reward medicority, strive for 50%, because that is the new 100%. I think it is great if there are more teams, but I think it needs to be earned and with certain criteria, not just to give "Johnny" an extra game.
If done for the right reasons (not $$) and the quality would not go down, then yes I am for it. But to make some kids happy to play an extra game that they didn't even earn/deserve to be in, well then, No, I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by hsfbfan on Nov 8, 2009 0:12:18 GMT -5
The criteria for playoff qualification, with either 12 or 16 teams, does not change...they are just adding 4 more playoff eligible teams to the equation. Teams must either have a .500 record in either: league play, division play, or overall record, and this criteria has been the same for years. If you think that the criteria needs to be higher than this, then the beef is not with the expansion to 16 teams but with the criteria as a whole. If there are not enough qualifying teams within a division, then there could be less than 16 teams. Kids not deserving it? How about kids that play their asses off and do manage to win enough games to qualify according to the rules? These are "not deserving"? They did not earn it? (because, apparently according to bella, they have to be better than the tournament rules require?).
Do you really think teams are only striving for 50%? This is just silly...they all do the best that they can, and if this is enough according to the rules to allow them to play on, good for them!
|
|
|
Post by bella on Nov 9, 2009 19:11:16 GMT -5
Yes overall it is the criteria that needs to be changed as a whole. But by adding 4 more teams you are increasing the chances of more teams around .500 or below getting into the playoffs. Just by the shear math of the expansion you are increasing those numbers. NBA playoffs, NHL playoffs are a joke, it seems like 75% of the teams are in, doesn't neccesarily make for a better product.
And no I don't think teams are striving for 50%. Yet the NCS is saying that is all you need. hsfbfan you make a good point about the rules set to be qualified, and no team shouldn't be punished for following within those guidlines. I'm just saying those guidlines should be a little higher and with the addition of more teams that would only be more difficult.
As far as more games and byes depends on different factors and there are probably different opinions. An extra game could be nice for top seeded teams, (more reps, keep things cohesive, kids do get to play another game). But also teams might like the idea of being rewarded for playng well durign the season and getting a bye. A team with some injuries might want the extra week off (someone like Casa might like the idea of having an extra week off to get Keys totally healthy for the playoff run).
I don't like the idea, because we all know the NCS is only looking at it from a reveune standpoint. They are not doing it for the teams, schools, players, coaches, parents or fans, they are doing it for the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by hsfbfan on Nov 9, 2009 21:01:25 GMT -5
Bella - on this we agree, that the standard should be higher, but this is highly subjective too...if you look at the NCS Div.II, specifically, there are a number of teams on the bubble of the .500 criteria, in one or more of the areas that comprise the criteria. So where would you cut it off, or create a higher criteria...not just .500 but over .500 across the board? What if a team has played only 2 games in its' division, and split them, and both were to higher ranked opponents...do they not get in because they did not get OVER .500? You could go on and on with this...either you set the bar a lot higher, or limit it to league champs and 2nd place teams only (or something like that), or you open it up as it is now to a "minimum", albeit, not very high standard, and let a whole bunch of teams have at it. I kind of like it on the face of it...you know for the most part, like the NCAA basketball tournament, that 99% of the time the favorite wins but sometimes not, and often times the highest vs. lowest seeded games are not very competitive, but sometimes there are surprises. The better teams get to stay sharp by keeping on playing, there's no extra weeks, etc. For years, it was the Redwood Empire only, with 8 teams (and often times some not very deserving) so with the East Bay now thrown into the mix, 12 teams seems a minimal amount that should be there, and 16 does not seem out of the question. You could make it really elite by having the best 4 from each area only, but that does not appear to be on the horizon any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by dynomite on Nov 9, 2009 22:05:35 GMT -5
I agree with Bella and Penguin. Society is getting comfortable rewarding mediocrity. Teams have three chances to be .500 or better to qualify. Which IS 50%. Yes, I think teams should strive to be BETTER than deserving. We should not be satisfied with "good enough". If there is 12 spots and 16 teams qualify. Then the best 12 should get in and the other 4 need to do better than just qualifying next year.
Where in the real world will these kids be offered the same exceptions? Not in a job interview. Not in the work place. So what message are we sending?
A bye week is also a very coveted reward for doing well during the season. Most teams are like Casa, and after a 10 game season, would appreciate a week off to heal. Kids may THINK they would want another game but as of now, Div. II is a 4 game bracket. That is a 14 week season. Thats a lot for a high school kid. I, for one, would rather see my child play in a Championship game than an extra play-off game.
I dont envy Div. III teams that have to play all 14 games. I'm sure if you asked Encinal, they'd say they benefited from their round one bye last year. Do we really think Novato or Drake benefited from playing each other AGAIN in the first round? Did Drake really want that extra play-off game against a team they lost to earlier 62-7? Drake Seniors could have ended their high school careers with a win, but instead finished with a one-sided loss.
Also, we need to remember participating schools dont see ANY of the actual revenue brought in from these game with the exception of concessions.
|
|
|
Post by hsfbfan on Nov 9, 2009 22:22:45 GMT -5
How is it that you conclude that teams do anything in their striving that is any less than winning ALL of their games...I seriously doubt that any teams simply strive to be nothing better than qualifying, but some cannot do any better than they do. Don't you think they are doing the best that they can? If you find the result of their effort less than satisfactory and not deserving of the playoff spot, then your beef is with the NCS...don't lay it on the teams and the KIDS (they are kids...15, 16 and 17 year olds are still just kids) as if they are doing anything other than the best that they can do. And it is a real stretch to conclude that because a .500 team makes the playoffs that this thus becomes a life lesson that mediocrity is all that it takes in life to succeed - I think instead they will take away from the experience and opportunity that high school football was a chance to do something most of them will never get to do again, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by mustang on Nov 9, 2009 23:44:46 GMT -5
hsfbfan- Well put. I totally agree. Let the kids play and have fun.
|
|
|
Post by hsfbfan on Nov 10, 2009 0:03:20 GMT -5
Thanks...one more voice of reason...was beginning to wonder if anybody else saw it this way other than just me...
|
|