For those of you who think that no playoff blowout is bad or that all teams should make the playoffs...
10-0 vs 1-9 playoff game
10-0 vs 1-9 playoff game
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was 84-0 at halftime. Says a lot about the coach.I never understand this. If the clock is running in the second half, you are only running fullback dives once you are up 50-60. And then beyond that, the clock is running and the officials will surely look the other way as you use up 50-60 seconds on the play clock between each play. There are only 24 minutes of the second half with the clock running.
Unless the losing team is Bad News Bearsing it and literally fumbling the ball into scoop and scores for the defense, it should never get to that if the winning coaching staff has any knowledge of how to run out a clock.
I never understand this. If the clock is running in the second half, you are only running fullback dives once you are up 50-60. And then beyond that, the clock is running and the officials will surely look the other way as you use up 50-60 seconds on the play clock between each play. There are only 24 minutes of the second half with the clock running.
Unless the losing team is Bad News Bearsing it and literally fumbling the ball into scoop and scores for the defense, it should never get to that if the winning coaching staff has any knowledge of how to run out a clock.
Nobody has argued that blowouts are good. What keeps being stated is that blowouts are inevitable (insert Thanos pic here).For those of you who think that no playoff blowout is bad or that all teams should make the playoffs...
10-0 vs 1-9 playoff game
IMO, no matter the score (and esp in the playoffs) you have to give your team atleast 1 half of playing football. They obviously let off the gas in the 2nd half. And if the other team was like Normal West, for example, and came out throwing a bunch and got picked off a few times, its pretty easy to put up 100 points.I never understand this. If the clock is running in the second half, you are only running fullback dives once you are up 50-60. And then beyond that, the clock is running and the officials will surely look the other way as you use up 50-60 seconds on the play clock between each play. There are only 24 minutes of the second half with the clock running.
Unless the losing team is Bad News Bearsing it and literally fumbling the ball into scoop and scores for the defense, it should never get to that if the winning coaching staff has any knowledge of how to run out a clock.
Nobody has argued that blowouts are good.
Again, in the quarterfinals this weekend, 22 out of 32 games were at least 3 score difference.
What is the motivation behind eliminating or reducing the number of blowouts in the playoffs?But people have argued that they have no limit on their tolerance for blowouts.
No surprise there. All that does is further prove my point that enrollment is a crappy indicator of competitive level. You know damn well that ESL could be winning quarterfinals or better in 7A, Montini in 4A, Le-Win in 2A, etc.
What is the motivation behind eliminating or reducing the number of blowouts in the playoffs?
Again, if reducing them with a new classification system is a stated goal, whats the motivation for that? If we really wanted to reduce the number of blowouts, why not just pick the top 2 teams in each class after week 9 and let them play. That system would have, at most, only 8 blowouts for the entire playoffs!I'm not trying to eliminate them, but what is the motivation to keep the same number of them if we could reduce them with a new classification system?
Surely this is more of an issue of letting every team into the playoffs and not districts themselves?It was 14-0 12 seconds in. 56-0 at the end of the first quarter.
Before we talk about districts, this is an example in Virginia why districts are a very bad idea.
Again, if reducing them with a new classification system is a stated goal, whats the motivation for that? If we really wanted to reduce the number of blowouts, why not just pick the top 2 teams in each class after week 9 and let them play. That system would have, at most, only 8 blowouts for the entire playoffs!
So why not propose adopting the old BCS format in high school and picking the top 2 ranked teams in each class and have them compete for the state title. The number of blowouts would decrease dramatically, and immediately.The motivation is to create more competitively balanced classes top to bottom. The by-product of that is going to be fewer blowouts.
Again, I'm not thinking we can eliminate blowouts.Is it possible to make an 8A 32 team bracket that wouldn’t have blowouts?
I feel the top handful of teams would blow out the rest of the field, even if you used all the best 5A-7A teams to help bolster it.
So why not propose adopting the old BCS format in high school and picking the top 2 ranked teams in each class and have them compete for the state title. The number of blowouts would decrease dramatically, and immediately.
Maybe the more important questions are how many blowouts are too many?
And at what point in the playoffs would you consider a blowout victory unacceptable?
1st or 2nd rd? We had more than half of the state championship games last year decided by 3 scores or more.
By doing that, you are essentially invalidating state championships from teams like L-W, Rochester, JCA, IC, etc. I don't think that would be ideal for HS football.Again, I'm not thinking we can eliminate blowouts.
Can we lessen them? You betcha.
Imagine for a second if you could identify the top 18 teams from 8A, the top 9 teams from 7A and the top 5 teams from 6A and create a new 8A with them. Would that eliminate the blowouts? No. Would it lessen their number and decrease their margins of victory? Probably. Would it improve the competitive balance top to bottom in that class? Absolutely.
Why is it unreasonable? Because too few teams would have the opportunity to compete for a championship??Because that isn't a reasonable solution and I suspect you know that.
I tend to agree.I think what we have now are too many. There are others on this board that have flat out state that no number of blowouts is too many for them.
Slightly different argument there.I don't think it matters when. What matters is that the way that the classes are classified now according to enrollment is a crappy way to create competitively balanced classes.
Again, what number are you trying to get to? You keep saying "too many" but what is too many and when should this competitive balance kick in where a blowout past a certain round should essentially be eliminated.State champions are state champions for a reason. They are true outliers. I'm talking about the overall number of blowouts that could be lessened substantially if the classes were more competitively balanced.
Because if entering the playoffs, you tell the entire state that we are taking the best 32 teams and placing them in their own bracket, you are telling everyone else they are playing in the Idaho Potato Bowl while the FBS playoffs are going on.How is that invalidating anything?
And please explain how the huge competitive level gulf from top tier to bottom tier that we currently have in each class is more deal for HS football?
That's another cog in this whole "reduce blowouts" discussion.I don’t necessarily think that a 3 score differential is a blowout. Obviously, it’s technically 17 points. You can have many one score games going into the 4th that end up 3,score games with the backbreaker score and the insurance score to take the quick score-onside kick out of the equation.
I understand that, but had to use something. I’m sure there are also many games where the losing team scored a late garbage time TD to get it to under 17 points too.I don’t necessarily think that a 3 score differential is a blowout. Obviously, it’s technically 17 points. You can have many one score games going into the 4th that end up 3,score games with the backbreaker score and the insurance score to take the quick score-onside kick out of the equation.
Of the goal was to win by 100, I'm sure they could have scored more before the last play of the game. 🤷My guess is the goal was to win by 100.
All..... This ^ RatsyLike Jha618, I'm of the opinion that the organizing metrics of the playoffs have to be rooted in something tangible to make it meaningful. If Loyola wins, they get to say they are the best team in the state larger than 2,300 kids. If Byron wins, they get to say they are the best team in the state between 400-550 kids. You're the king of YOUR hill. I realize multipliers fudge this a bit, but this is still what "4A Champion" means to most.
I think that has already been explained by another poster. I dont think you have elaborated on how you are going to explain to the other 224 playoff participants, and the 7 other state champions that they are no longer needed and their state titles have been effectively reduced to consolation prizes.And please explain how the huge competitive level gulf from top tier to bottom tier that we currently have in each class is more deal for HS football?
Again, what number are you trying to get to? You keep saying "too many" but what is too many and when should this competitive balance kick in where a blowout past a certain round should essentially be eliminated.
I understand your point, but I don't agree with it.I think that has already been explained by another poster. I dont think you have elaborated on how you are going to explain to the other 224 playoff participants, and the 7 other state champions that they are no longer needed and their state titles have been effectively reduced to consolation prizes.
There's something that never really gets brought up during this annual conundrum.Go back and read my annual rant. What we have now in the first round is too many. What we see in subesequent rounds is too many.
My God, man, what do you and others have against more competitive playoff games?
And in your idea of playoff nirvana, we all pretend that the champs of the smallest classes are world beaters, even though everyone knows the largest classes are stronger. By compiling classes based on enrollment, we silently pretend that the smallest classes are actually something other than the weakest classes relative to the larger classes when, in fact, that is simply not the case. And, the price we pay for buying into that pretense is playoff blowouts.Because if entering the playoffs, you tell the entire state that we are taking the best 32 teams and placing them in their own bracket, you are telling everyone else they are playing in the Idaho Potato Bowl while the FBS playoffs are going on.
How many times are you going to reference "too many" before you actually tell everyone what that actually means. Number of games, % of games played? I feel like that is a very easy and straightforward question to answer for someone who has disdain for blowouts.Go back and read my annual rant. What we have now in the first round is too many. What we see in subesequent rounds is too many.
My God, man, what do you and others have against more competitive playoff games?
No one has ever, that i have seen, tried to claim L-W or Byron is as good as Loyola or LWE. But they all deserve to be able to compete for a state championship and it is non-sensical to try and push for a system where L-W is forced to play Loyola in a playoff game.And in your idea of playoff nirvana, we all pretend that the champs of the smallest classes are world beaters, even though everyone knows the largest classes are stronger. By compiling classes based on enrollment, we silently pretend that the smallest classes are actually something other than the weakest classes relative to the larger classes when, in fact, that is simply not the case. And, the price we pay for buying into that pretense is playoff blowouts.
How many times are you going to reference "too many" before you actually tell everyone what that actually means. Number of games, % of games played?
I feel like that is a very easy and straightforward question to answer for someone who has disdain for blowouts.
For the bazillionth time, neither do I. That method of arguing you just used is especially irksome since I have NEVER claimed I want blowout free playoffs, and I have stated that I realize that is unattainable on numerous occasions.I have nothing against more competition, but i dont think every round of the playoffs need to be void of blowouts.
Hey man, you are the one on the rants about too many blowouts. Seems like common sense to me that the one complaining about the blowout would atleast be able to expand on that number a little bit more than you have.I will tell you later as I am in an uber heading to the airport and don't have the time to research my former rant posts and give you the answer that you can't seem to do without.
The only thing you have claimed is that there are "too many" blowouts. No one knows what that means except you.For the bazillionth time, neither do I. That method of arguing you just used is especially irksome since I have NEVER claimed I want blowout free playoffs, and I have stated that I realize that is unattainable on numerous occasions.