Why don't we go to 32 teams in all classes and play a 10th regular season game?

[MacAttack53]

43 minutes ago, Punttheball said:

Just going to throw Phil Garnett out with the trash?

I think even PG4 would concede that! Now combo football/basketball/track/golf manager? Nobody will ever touch Phil in that regard...

[foxbat]

1 hour ago, JustRules said:

I think the reason the all-in only works with a random draw is the teams at the bottom are very unlikely to be competitive in the first round. With a random draw they have the hope they'll draw another team at the bottom so they have a competitive game. That's what helps keep them motivated once they are out of conference title contention. The argument many make against a qualifier is once a team loses 3 or 4 early games they have nothing to play for. That's one of the key reasons I think there are some coaches opposed to seeding. They know they could always be that lower team praying for a lucky draw. 

I'm not sure that's the only thing as there are still bragging rights games, traditional rivalries, etc., but there's some truth to that.  Coming out of Texas where the rankings are done based on standings in a district, you could be in a 10-team district and see your season ended by the 3rd game unless you pull an inside straight.  There were still rivalry games and "sister school" games that motivated teams to play on later in the season, but sometimes you were already looking a year into the future before that stench started to rise in the locker room.

In Texas, we never thought much about districts because they were already set for you.  The state put you in, somewhat, geographic proximity with other same-size schools.  Think of the sectionals for Indiana at 1A-4A.  I'd conjecture that while everyone's talking about seeding/qualifiers, the one thing that I think Indiana's missing is "How will it impact conference structure?"  If random draw goes away and that supposedly automatically brings about qualifiers, then I'd also expect the a number of conferences to go away or completely realign from their current forms ... especially those that are mixed class ... and not through an organic process that we see now.

[JustRules]

16 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm not sure that's the only thing as there are still bragging rights games, traditional rivalries, etc., but there's some truth to that.  Coming out of Texas where the rankings are done based on standings in a district, you could be in a 10-team district and see your season ended by the 3rd game unless you pull an inside straight.  There were still rivalry games and "sister school" games that motivated teams to play on later in the season, but sometimes you were already looking a year into the future before that stench started to rise in the locker room.

In Texas, we never thought much about districts because they were already set for you.  The state put you in, somewhat, geographic proximity with other same-size schools.  Think of the sectionals for Indiana at 1A-4A.  I'd conjecture that while everyone's talking about seeding/qualifiers, the one thing that I think Indiana's missing is "How will it impact conference structure?"  If random draw goes away and that supposedly automatically brings about qualifiers, then I'd also expect the a number of conferences to go away or completely realign from their current forms ... especially those that are mixed class ... and not through an organic process that we see now.

I think a lot of states do it that way. My home state does. There isn't much variability year to year in the districts like we may have in Indiana, but even then they probably wouldn't change much more than they do already. That is probably the the most logical approach though because then you have your schedule set for you most of the season and you are determine seeding entirely based on the results on the field. Some will argue against it because some sectionals will have travel issues, but that's only for a couple games each year and the road trips are fun for the students. They were some of my favorite memories competing in high school. Every conference road game for us was a 2-3 hour drive. I remember getting home from basketball games at 12:30am! That would be a much bigger change I think would be hard for people to accept, but there are many states that do it without thinking about it. And it still leaves 3-4 non-conference games for traditional rivals that aren't in your district.

[JustRules]

2 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

That's literally the only reason why. The IHSAA can sit back and justify a 71-6 drubbing in a "postseason" game, citing the luck of the draw. They no longer can however if/when the sectionals are seeding appropriately. And be doing it the way they have been, they screw deserving teams in the process. It's a joke honestly. 

I agree. Random draw with all-in does still determine the ultimate champion. It's just a very odd way to do it. Nobody would ever come up with this system if they were creating a new system from scratch. We just have too many people who grew up in this system and feel it's the only logical way to do it. People are inherently resistant to change regardless of how crazy the current system is.

[oldtimeqb]

2 hours ago, JQWL said:

Do those that believe a qualifier is or at least should be coming think that will apply to all IHSAA sports or just football?

I'm perfectly fine with football being different.  It's the only sport with 6 classes (as opposed to 3 or 4).  I also think it's the only team sport tournament that is only one game per week.  Soccer, basketball, volleyball, baseball, and softball will all play a mid-week or Saturday morning/night en route to the championship. 

And I would want the qualifier to a minimum standard.  Something like 2 wins out of a 9 or 10 game season.  The easy answer is to not force football to be done by Thanksgiving so basketball can start... but I know this is Indiana.  

[First_Backer_Inside]

2 hours ago, MacAttack53 said:

I think even PG4 would concede that! Now combo football/basketball/track/golf manager? Nobody will ever touch Phil in that regard...

Mike Otto "hold my beer"

[Muda69]

13 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

Mike Otto "hold my beer"

I attended Mac closer to the Steve Shine era.

 

[PDB26]

6 hours ago, JustRules said:

That's what helps keep them motivated once they are out of conference title contention. The argument many make against a qualifier is once a team loses 3 or 4 early games they have nothing to play for. That's one of the key reasons I think there are some coaches opposed to seeding.

I'm agnostic so far as the tournament's format is concerned, but nobody should indulge this type of thinking––especially not from coaches. The idea that there is nothing to play for once you cannot win any type of championship is shameful. 

[foxbat]

4 hours ago, JustRules said:

I agree. Random draw with all-in does still determine the ultimate champion. It's just a very odd way to do it. Nobody would ever come up with this system if they were creating a new system from scratch. We just have too many people who grew up in this system and feel it's the only logical way to do it. People are inherently resistant to change regardless of how crazy the current system is.

I'm kind of the opposite.  Coming from large school, Texas football ... my alma mater boasts some 3,000+ students in a school district that has like 10 6A schools ... I admit I had a big school bias in football and was very used to the idea of qualifiers and split p/p and public leagues.  Coming to Indiana over a couple of decades ago, this small school ball, 1A/2A, has quite grown on me as well as the all-in.  I still like watching big school games every once in a while; especially since my kids have attended Jeff and my sons play or will play at Harrison, but I still go and take in 1A/2A games each season just for the fun of it.

[Rodney]

11 hours ago, BTF said:

Why do you feel they lost that one game? There's flaws all over the place with these polls. Indy Lutheran isn't beating Carroll, sorry. They aren't beating Merrillville or Valpo either. No way no how. 

Side note: I do appreciate the polls and what they have to offer, we just have to acknowledge them for what they are. They're computers that process numbers. They've never seen a game. 

they lost a close one in OT i didn't say theyd smash them, but if they played 3 more times i'd throw my money behind westfield all three times, even if i got to make that bet after the first game was played

[Plymouthfan91]

5 hours ago, foxbat said:

I'm not sure that's the only thing as there are still bragging rights games, traditional rivalries, etc., but there's some truth to that.  Coming out of Texas where the rankings are done based on standings in a district, you could be in a 10-team district and see your season ended by the 3rd game unless you pull an inside straight.  There were still rivalry games and "sister school" games that motivated teams to play on later in the season, but sometimes you were already looking a year into the future before that stench started to rise in the locker room.

In Texas, we never thought much about districts because they were already set for you.  The state put you in, somewhat, geographic proximity with other same-size schools.  Think of the sectionals for Indiana at 1A-4A.  I'd conjecture that while everyone's talking about seeding/qualifiers, the one thing that I think Indiana's missing is "How will it impact conference structure?"  If random draw goes away and that supposedly automatically brings about qualifiers, then I'd also expect the a number of conferences to go away or completely realign from their current forms ... especially those that are mixed class ... and not through an organic process that we see now.

I like the Texas model just because it is settled on the field.  Your typical 4A-1A sectional would play round robin for 7 games then they would get 2 non-sectional games.  I would take the top 4 from each sectional and take the top 4 from say section 17 and Sectional 18 and play an 8 team tournament.  Where the #1 from 17 would play the #4 from 18.  And so on.  Then the tourney would go from there. 

The bottom four from the sectionals would play a "bowl" game for week 10.  Where the #5's from sectional 17 and 18 play and so on. 

While the tourney teams get a bye week to prepare for their tourney and also they would get to still play on Thanksgiving. 

At least it would be settled on the field where it should be not by a computer or some weird algorithm that no one would be able to understand.

As for the 5A and 6A.  They could make it the top two in each sectional but then they would need to have two bye weeks in the tourney to play on Thanksgiving.  I say let all the big schools in and give them one bye week.  But still play the top team in sectional 1 vs the bottom team in sectional 2 and so on to begin the tourney. 

[BTF]

50 minutes ago, Rodney said:

they lost a close one in OT i didn't say theyd smash them, but if they played 3 more times i'd throw my money behind westfield all three times, even if i got to make that bet after the first game was played

Fair. 

[Coach Nowlin]

7 hours ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

Mike Otto "hold my beer"

I am a big Brian Otto guy 

[Punttheball]

10 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said:

I am a big Brian Otto guy 

Tough dude.  Brother, Mike, was a basketball guy.  Didn't think football was his sport.  He played be never thought that was going to be where he went at the next level.  Then, no basketball scholarships were coming.  Purdue offered in football.  I think at one time he held the record for most starts in a career.  Went on to have a nice career with the Titans in the NFL.

[MacAttack53]

I never thought we'd get to the point where late 90s/early-mid 00s Maconaquah football would derail a thread, yet here we are.

I've never been more proud.

The Otto Brothers (and their dad/uncle) would probably be considered one of the first families of Maconaquah sports, up there with Betzners, Maples, and Hevezis.