Footballking16

Done. Thanks for all you guys do at the GID to keep things running.

So does that completely change your stance?

In my opinion, seeding and the all-in simply isn’t compatible, even if you were to seed the top 2 teams In its current format, the IHSAA can justify unnecessary postseason blowouts citing a “blind draw” as the reason. On average in any given year statewide, I would say there’s one dominant team (sometimes 2) and maybe another team or two that would at least be “competitive”. You separate the top two teams until the sectional final by seeding them, the IHSAA is going to have to answer to unnecessary blowouts in rounds 1 and 2. The only logical solution would then be to go to a qualifying format or back the fundamentally flawed format of an all-in, blind draw.

Ya but does he have wings as well?

Football, an outdoor sport. I'm sure both Chatard and West Lafayette would like to see each other in adverse conditions. Slows down each teams offensive attack.

I've seen firsthand the difference between playing a game where playoff implications are on the line. In 2007 on our senior night, we played Cincinnati Moeller. We were 7-1 and our sectional draw had already been released. We were playing a .500 Moeller team who was in with a win, out with a loss. We didn't game plan any differently or do anything out of normal the week leading up to the game, but our sense of urgency simply didn't match that of Moeller's. All the seniors played in a game that we eventually lost, while Moeller pulled out all the stops; trick plays, going for it for 4th down on certain parts of the field that you would never do so, etc. It's a game they could ill-afford to lose and a game for us that had zero postseason implications.

I have another suggestion: DON'T READ THE THREAD. This is the second time today you've voluntarily read and even chose to reply in a thread you've voiced your disdain for.

Yes. Eliminate half the field after the conclusion of a 10 week regular season. Take the 16 northern most teams and 16 southern most teams in 1A-4A ( 8 teams for 5A-6A) and seed them 1-16 or 1-8. High seed hosts sectional and regional, semi-state neutral site, championships played at LOS Thanksgiving weekend. In some cases, sure, but there's already lengthy travel in some sectionals as well as regionals. Wouldn't have to travel all the way for a semi-state game + you already cut out a round. I think it evens itself out. I think a team that has generally earned their way to this post season would generate more excitement from the fan base don't you? I can assure you there aren't poor attendance in the later rounds of every other state that has figured out a qualification system. Probably not, still doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed, especially when the current format sucks. It took forever to push for alcohol sales on Sunday in the state of Indiana and legalization of marijuana and sports gambling on a federal level. Just a matter of gaining enough traction. The GID is the perfect place for that. Sorry for wasting your time on a thread that you voluntarily not only chose to read but reply too.

I'd like to see both teams seeded appropriate to their regular season success. This is a game that at a minimum should be played at the regional level, if not semi-state or the state finals.

But back to the discussion, I think Chatard has the definite advantage in this one. They have a virtual bye round 2 (assuming they beat Brebeuf a second time) while West Lafayette is going to likely face a very solid Guerin team.

Seeding would lead to a qualification system. The IHSAA under the all-in format can justify first round blowouts because of the "luck of the draw". They no longer could if sectionals were seeded appropriately. I've done this exercise the last 3 or 4 years and and you need but 1 or 2 fingers to count the number of upsets that occur where a bottom half rated Sagarin team beats a top half Sagarin team. This theory where every team should be included because "every team starts 0-0 with new life come week 10 has a chance" simply doesn't exist.

The proponents of seeding AND a qualifying format would likely get to watch a Chatard/Yorktown and Guerin/Brebeuf first round match-up and West Lafayette (and North Mont) would likely be in a completely different bracket and would get to face the winner of this group at the semi-state or state finals where it should rightfully take place. Crawfordsville wouldn't even be in the picture. Things to ponder....

How is a virtual play-in game not better than a game where the final outcome means absolutely nothing? Under my proposed system Lawrence North is literally playing for their playoff lives while Pike has a chance to play spoiler.

You get an additional home game essentially every other year where you get to keep ALL the gate revenue. In a qualifying system, every single game whether it be home or away now has actual value or real meaning. That alone should boost gate revenue. Keeping the current system because of shared gate revenue while completely watering down the entire postseason isn't right.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you one thing though; Week 9 along with the first 8 weeks has actual value under a qualification system. Under the current system it's nothing more than a 9th exhibition game.

So literally the system(s) that the other 49 ststes + DC use? Why should our postseason cater to the teams that don't deserve be anywhere near a postseason? That makes zero sense. A split gate revenue under the all-in format doesn't make my top 100 reasons as to why Indiana should go a qualifier. It's irrelevant.

You don't think the same discussions would occur only to the tune of "who should be in" or "who should be out"? Not really one of your brightest points.

He played Saturday and laid some absolute wood on a kick off although it was ultimately called back due to an offsides. Not sure if he's still in the running to redshirt with the new 4 game rule but he has seen the field in at least more than 1 game. That I'm sure of.

Any system that pits the literal two best teams in the entire state against each other in the opening round in which the winner gets either a soon to be 1-8 team or a 3-6 team for the sectional title is absolute failure. It's not just broken, it's fundamentally flawed.

Add a tenth regular season game and everything stays the same. Our current week 10 is the first round of sectionals for 1A-4A and a few 5A schools.

In a qualifier system that eliminates half the field at the conclusion of the regular season, not that hard to seed teams 1-8 in a North bracket and 1-8 in a South bracket once the field has been established.

Can't imagine there's much envy when 49 other states + DC have a qualifying/seeding format. Indiana isn't the one that "gets it".

There's where I disagree. A qualifier makes regular season games meaningful. More meaningful games equals more incentive to attend. It yields more interest. For an example, under my proposal that eliminates half the field after the conclusion of the regular (using Sagarin) Lawrence North at 2-6 who is in the top half of Sagarin is currently out of the playoff picture because they haven't accumulated the necessary 3 wins to earn qualification status. Lawrence North hosts Pike this Friday and it's essentially a play-in game. On the surface, a 2-6 team playing a 1-7 team isn't a huge draw especially since both teams are automatically in the playoffs with their opponents already determined. But under a qualifying system, this games now has actually interest and something to be played for.

I don't know as I haven't polled the 4+ million Kentuckian's for their opinion. I can't imagine they'd be thrilled with the two best teams playing each other in the first round.

I know, and they somehow have managed to go to a seeding/qualifier format. That's my point.