Footballking16

Why would that matter? If you're in an all 4A conference and go 2-8 in the regular season against 4A competition you likely aren't nor should you qualify for the postseason. If you're a 2A school playing in a predominantly 4A-6A conference and go .500 you're still likely one of the top half 2A teams. I'm not sure why you would think conference memberships would fall apart? Raw W-L record would almost never be the sole criteria used in a qualifier and a 4A school looking to game the system by joining a 1A/2A conference would likely suffer the consequences.

How can anyone look at a conference title under the current format and say it means a thing? There are literally teams every year who win their conference and get a harder playoff draw than a team who finishes dead last. It doesn't make any sense. I've never seen at any other level of athletic competition where winning you conference/league/division/etc doesn't give you the best possible outcome to succeed in the postseason over your peers.

What about qualifying for the postseason? Would certainly spice up the regular season for those team who don’t have a shot at a state or conference title.

Seeding the sectionals is the next logical step to a qualifier. How many straight years of Ben Davis beating Avon by 40-50 points on one side of the bracket and Brownsburg beating Pike by 40-50 points on the other side does it take for common sense to prevail and say it’s pointless to call these first round games the “postseason”? The all-in can only exist with the blind draw. It’s the only way to justify blowouts against teams who have no business playing in a postseason tournament to begin with. And it’s usually at the expense of a top team getting taken out early by another top team. It’s laughable.

Brownsburg went undefeated in the toughest conference in the state yet drew a road playoff game against the #2 team in the state, in the first round no less. Should tell you everything you need to know about the value of a conference championship under the current format. 2-7 Avon who finished dead last in said conference and also a 4 TD loser to Brownsburg drew another 2-7 team IN THE SAME SECTIONAL. Make it make sense.

How does proposing a qualifier equal eliminating teams from playing games? In a proposed qualifier that eliminates half the field at the conclusion of the regular season with an added 10th game, every team is guaranteed the same number of games as the old system. Nothing changes other than the amount of unnecessary blowouts in the opening round of the playoffs from teams who have no business playing in the postseason to begin with.

North Newton went 0-9 in the regular season last year. Average margin of defeat was 50 points on the head. Shut out in 5 of 9 regular season games. Lost 71-6 in opening round of sectionals likely at the expense of a North Judson/Pioneer first round match-up that pitted at the time two top 15 Sagarin teams in 1A against each other. Why should every kid be able to play in a sectional game? A postseason berth should be earned, not the other way around. Every team making the postseason under the guise of the blind draw and really screwing with dynamicity and the competitiveness of the tournament has never really made sense to me. It's a watered down tournament.

The all-in only works under the mirage of the blind draw. Take away the blind draw and the need to allow every team into the postseason after being sold on some fairy tale dream of a new season disappears.

Agreed. Been saying this for years. It’s the only reason why seeding hasn’t been implemented. And that’s to delay the inevitable.

Are 100 something schools just going to drop football then? How can you go to six 32 team classes given the number of participating schools?

I'd argue there's too many classes to begin with. Make the top 32 enrollment schools 5A and the bottom 32 enrollment schools 1A and then divide the remaining schools into 3 classes.

Sure you do, you give actual meaning to the regular season. Why should every team be entitled to play a sectional game? I've never heard of another postseason format that entitles an 0-9 team who loses every game by 50 points the opportunity to play for a state championship.

There wouldn't be a "good" team left out of a system that cut a 64 team class to 32 at the conclusion of the regular season using a rating system/formula that calculated W-L record, opponent W-L, SOS, and opponent SOS. That I'm sure of. I am a huge proponent of adding a 10th regular season game.

Ya at the expense of #1 and #2 beating each other in the 1st round. That’s the only way to justify 70-0 running clocks; “that’s the way the ping pong balls fall” aka the All-In blind draw. If seeded appropriately, the IHSAA can no longer hide between CG or Ben Davis beating Tech 80-0 every year. Multiply that by 40 some sectionals and you get what’s called redundancy. It’s the only reason why seeding hasn’t yet been implemented because we all know what the next step.

If seeded appropriately 1-8? I think 50% is low but for argument sake say it is 50%, do we really need 70-80 something “playoff” games with a running clock? Precisely why cutting the field in half at the conclusion of a new 10 game regular season is the next step.

St. Frances typically has about 7-9 high level FBS recruits.

Ok Calpreps, Massey, create your own formula.... Literally every other state has some kind of rating or qualification system that seeds the postseason or counts for inclusion. That's the next step. Once you appropriately seed the sectionals, the need for what is now considered the first round becomes redundant. There will be running clocks in 75-80% of games if and when they seed appropriately. We're getting there....slowly but surely.

And the Falcons as well

Jim Harbaugh reportedly meeting with Chargers.

Who's going to tell him that Lutheran isn't a Catholic high school?

Where'd he go?

Harbaugh and Carroll are certainly the exceptions.

Seconded. Ask Belichick about that reality. Most coaches are only as good as their players. Frank Vogel went 54-110 in two years in Orlando, was fired, hired by the Lakers and won a championship the next year. Monty Williams went from winning 60 games a year in Phoenix to coaching the Pistons and went two entire months without recording a win.

If he didn't report (like he said he didn't) there's no reason to report the number on the assumption that he's reporting, especially when you have someone in front of your face reporting eligible.

What video are you guys watching? 68 is at white hat reporting before 70 even gets into the picture. White hat looks and acknowledges 68 (there’s video). 70 never reported because 70 was never going to line up in an eligible position.