12 or 16?
- Thread starter kqtiger05
- Start date
it is totally stupid to have 12 teams. That means some teams will get a bye. No team should ever get a bye in high school football playoffs. 16 is the only way to go.
No they aren't. Look at the bottom half of the east. The 13 seed will be lucky to win 4 games. The 16 seed maybe two and those will come against the other bottom teams.
Is the west still 16? If so does this give the top seed east teams an advantage over the top seed west teams. The top seed east teams would have a week off to get healthy and prepare. I think it should be same for everyone in all divisions. Just my opinion.
I don't think the top seed teams in the west will be at much of a disadvantage if they have to play an extra game against 2 or 3 win teams. They will have their starters on the sidelines by the end of the first qtr.
Not really, if the east has fewer teams. The number of playoff qualifiers should be somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 of the total. Truth be told, 12 teams represents 1/4 of all 1A teams. No one is getting screwed.
One thing I have noticed, is I never hear 1A or 2A schools complaining about current format, it's always the bigger schools, or so it seems. D5 seems to be worst followed by D4.
HR6, it's odd that the two sides of the same playoff bracket are handled differently. I think the rarity of a 16 over a 1 just proves the point of less teams making it to playoffs. In that scenario, a 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, and an 8/9 matchup would be the same as now where most "upsets" occur. Most people want the two best teams to make it to Salem and frankly none have come out of the last four in. I know this is sacrilege to the VHSL due to the loss of revenue from the 4 byes at potentially the biggest draw in each side of the bracket. I know some won't like this but every advantage the top seeded teams get that gets those teams that had the best year to the championships are what I want to see. Going 6-4 against average teams and getting hot is still possible in this case but 10 or 9 win teams have a slight advantage cause they took care of business every week. Just my .02
I like to see underdogs make it to championship game, because the deck is stacked against lower seeds from the start of playoffs.
My favorite year since new format came about was 2011, when Gretna was seeded 5th if my memory is correct. We had to beat Giles, Riverheads, Amelia and Goochland to win it all, plus one team in first round who I cannot recall, but I think it was John Battle.
But still, no one deserves a bye. that's giving them an unfair advantage. Playoffs should be a level field.
My favorite year since new format came about was 2011, when Gretna was seeded 5th if my memory is correct. We had to beat Giles, Riverheads, Amelia and Goochland to win it all, plus one team in first round who I cannot recall, but I think it was John Battle.
But still, no one deserves a bye. that's giving them an unfair advantage. Playoffs should be a level field.
I like to see underdogs make it to championship game, because the deck is stacked against lower seeds from the start of playoffs.
My favorite year since new format came about was 2011, when Gretna was seeded 5th if my memory is correct. We had to beat Giles, Riverheads, Amelia and Goochland to win it all, plus one team in first round who I cannot recall, but I think it was John Battle.
But still, no one deserves a bye. that's giving them an unfair advantage. Playoffs should be a level field.
My favorite year since new format came about was 2011, when Gretna was seeded 5th if my memory is correct. We had to beat Giles, Riverheads, Amelia and Goochland to win it all, plus one team in first round who I cannot recall, but I think it was John Battle.
But still, no one deserves a bye. that's giving them an unfair advantage. Playoffs should be a level field.
Oh I remember a very good 5 seed Gretna coming to Greenvile and beating Riverheads by two scores. I just think the probability of an 8 seed or lower winning the whole thing is so low it's not an issue. Number of teams in is debatable, but the regular season has to mean something also. I do not care to see the pendulum swing to a format that rewards mediocrity just for the sake of "fairness". That's as bad as participation trophies in my opinion. I think back in the 80's Stuart's Draft had a few very good 7win teams not make it, so while that system had its drawbacks, a .500 team didn't get in and have one phenomenal game to take out a team that showed up all but one game. Underdog stories are great and seeing Waynesboro make a decent run from 16 was great. Thing is it is so rare that is it really worth having a team travel 3 hours to be destroyed? It's not an easy answer to somewhat satisfy all the different scenarios that potentially come about. At least we can discuss our thoughts and throw options out to get a better system than we currently have.
As for regular season, I got spoiled during Gretna's run from 2003 until 2011. I got to the point that I thought regular season was boring, in that championships are won in the playoffs. Still feel that way. Use regular season for seeding and make hay in post season.
See UVA baseball: They Hoos barely made it into ACC tournament and NCAA tournament. But once NCAA tournament started, the Hoos brought home the trophy from Omaha.
Same for William Campbell baseball last spring: won 6 games in regular season. Won state 1A championship.
See UVA baseball: They Hoos barely made it into ACC tournament and NCAA tournament. But once NCAA tournament started, the Hoos brought home the trophy from Omaha.
Same for William Campbell baseball last spring: won 6 games in regular season. Won state 1A championship.
Say the west has a contender , they are in that extra game and their best player gets banged up ! Say they lose the next game due to his injury . Now a team not nearly as good represents the west . The east will turn a deaf ear to all the crying and what ifs . All I am saying is to win it all , it all has to go your way . An extra game could lead to the early exit of any team . Something to think about !
That's why East and West should play under same rules. In any sport when everyone is shooting for same trophy, everyone should use same rules.
VHSL needs to stop caving in to the few schools that whine. 1A and 2A schools probably travel more and greater distances, yet they complain the less.
VHSL needs to stop caving in to the few schools that whine. 1A and 2A schools probably travel more and greater distances, yet they complain the less.
That's why East and West should play under same rules. In any sport when everyone is shooting for same trophy, everyone should use same rules.
VHSL needs to stop caving in to the few schools that whine. 1A and 2A schools probably travel more and greater distances, yet they complain the less.
VHSL needs to stop caving in to the few schools that whine. 1A and 2A schools probably travel more and greater distances, yet they complain the less.
I agree Xcross, anything can happen in a ballgame. No guarantee it will be a blowout and the starters will be resting early in the game. Teams have Injures, turnovers, penalties and some times a team just has a bad game. But if you get a bye week you don't have to worry about any of that and if you have injuries you get an extra week to heal up. So yes I do think it would be an advantage to get a bye week when your competition in the west who earned their top seeds as well have to play one more game than the top seeds from the east. It should be same amount of teams from the east and the west. Nobody should be awarded with a bye week and have a easier road to Salem.
I cannot believe anyone would even think about having different rules, much less actually put them into play. Every school in VHSL should play by same rules.
VHSL got it wrong then, it should be the same for everyone. It's unfair for the east teams to get a bye and the west teams have to play an extra game to get to Salem. It's ridiculous and it should be 16 for both sides of the state.
Thanks for the props everyone, I posted this in July but no one believed it. Sorry, just wanted to pat myself on the back, because it's so rare.
Everyone who voted for 12 teams should be removed from their position. It's evident their elevator doesn't go to top floor.
You're ridiculous. If we had everybody that you deem removed from office we wouldn't have anyone running anything. AD's and principals come up with rules, suggestions etc. and then principals must vote. In this case, we would need almost all of the ADs and principals in 1A east to start looking for work. Get real.
It needs to be 12 on both sides. 32 teams out of about 45-50 is way to damn many. The flaw in the current system is that the east and west can operate independently so to speak. The east did what the west should have done. The AD's and principals are the ones to complain to, they are the ones who vote on these things. Sending 2-8 or 3-7 teams to play 10-0 teams is not good for the future of your football program.
What's the biggest travel for a west team 90 minutes -- 2 hours "maybe"
1A East you might be 4-5 hours.... for a beatdown
12 is the correct number for 1A ---- possibly 2A
16 is the correct number for 3A 4A 5A 6A
1A East you might be 4-5 hours.... for a beatdown
12 is the correct number for 1A ---- possibly 2A
16 is the correct number for 3A 4A 5A 6A
I wish we still had that map pinned that showed the state and the line and all the schools as dots
Common sense says it should be same for both sides. and it should be 16. Having 12 teams forces some teams into a bye, that screws their future opponent. They get to rest a week, allow injuries to heal and allow coaches chance to scout. This gives bye teams an unfair advantage. Why Principals/ADs cannot see this is beyond me. The playing field come playoff time should be level.
I like playoffs as much as the next guy but in our case (Riverheads) we have some teams come into our place in the opening round that had to travel as much as 5 hours (Arcadia) and they were so overmatched it was pitiful. So for that reason, I think the bye is a good idea because the most lopsided match you could have in the next round would be teams separated by 8 places (1 vs. 9 or 4 vs. 12.) But at the same time, I agree that the East and West should have the same format.
I agree 100% both east and west should play same format. I don't know what happened that the west did not implement the same format. But it had to be the member schools AD and or principals who made the decision to change, or in this situation not make a change. They either did not think it through or did not think the east having less games and a buy would be an advantage. Does anyone know if the east and west communicate with each other in these matters? Is it possible the west did not know what the east was doing?
