Back to the blowouts thread
- Thread starter lurker74
- Start date
7A has 1-32. Closest game this weekend was 45-28
On paper, CG v Geneva was a great matchup. Both 9-2 with tough conferences. Sometimes it’s one team’s day and not the other’s but that was not a mismatch.
As I said on that thread.
The gap between team competency is widest at the high school level, then narrows in college and further narrows at the pros. There is nothing you can do about lobsided high schools scores…it is the nature of the game. Embrace the close matchups when the teams who have been clobbering the rest of the field collide.
The gap between team competency is widest at the high school level, then narrows in college and further narrows at the pros. There is nothing you can do about lobsided high schools scores…it is the nature of the game. Embrace the close matchups when the teams who have been clobbering the rest of the field collide.
How would this solve the problem?
The logic behind 1-32 seeding is to reward higher seeds. In theory you are isolating the top seeds (numerically) from each other as much as possible.
It gets rid of the lower seeds who might get a break by playing a weak team with a great record. Such is the case as when SHG played Rochester last year in the semis. That was the title game. Or the other seasons you can recall when a team gets blown out in the title game after the victor won a close semifinal.
1 thru 32 quickly eliminates the weak low seeds and the weak middle seeds with good records. It also mixes up the matchups and makes the games more interesting as you find a coal city, playing a Carterville or maybe some of these CPS schools can play a sacred Heart Griffin.
I am also a fan of reseeding with each round, just as they do in the NFL. After all. if getting a top seed is to mean something, that team should have the easiest route to the final and the lower performing team should have a harder route. This will allow the number one and number two seed to meet in the final as they should.
Yea I guess that makes sense. I'm certainly not against 1-32.
I think it would probably have the effect of more competitive games in the later rounds, and probably the same or more blowouts in R1/maybe R2, but that seems like a decent tradeoff.
Not to be rude but many schools who used to be very competitive have changed.After they tore down many housing projects those people moved to various suburbs & downstate communities & others left so the makeup changed. That basically turned a lot into glorified CPS teams with more resources but similar results. It even effected CPS teams like Curie,Bogan & others
Also back in the day most schools got the athletes out on the football field.Back in the day Rich East beat Joliet Catholic in a hell of a game.In it's dying years no way that was happening.Tinley Park 26 kids beating 2 Private schools & winning state will never happen again. Rich South & Central playing toe to toe with & beating Providence Catholic was a norm but not in their dying days. You can go to Thornwood,Thornridge,Thornton,Urbana,Joliet Central,etc & find kids who have the athleticism but yell at them or correct them once & they quit. They are more interested & being a stud playing Madden 24 & being on Tic Toc. So then you get a bunch of schools grouped into the same Conference like that & they get into the playoffs & get destroyed. It seems like many schools just want to play 3 cupcakes each year & go 5-4 & hang their hats on getting running clocked each year in the playoffs & go 5-5. Every now & again they might go 6-3 & win a playoff game
My amateur guesses...
1. Fewer teams overall.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I've seen them posted here (someone help). 256 teams making the playoffs is a set number. If it's 256 out of 500 in 2023, and 256 out of 530 in 2003, the overall field depth in 2003 will be better.
2. Specialization in youth sports overall.
Just my gut feeling, but the "year around" nature of a single sport for many kids, leads to a world where the gap between the very serious, "best of the best" programs widens versus the "average teams".
That said, part of the "back in my day" romance is also that since the beginning of time, everyone thinks things were better "before". Looked up 2001 thru 2003, and in 96 quarterfinal games, 43 were at least 3 scores (45%). So better than this weekend, but even back then it was a basically a coin flip that any given quarterfinal game was going to be competitive.
I think yesterday was expected score wise except for the 1A game. Today should be close in two of the 4.
Similar threads
