ADVERTISEMENT

Why should 6-3 teams make the playoffs

atlanta_ace

Freshman
Oct 18, 2010
223
11
18
I wonder this everytime someone posts it? "These 6-3 teams should make the playoffs. It's not fair they get left out." Really? I can't believe it, personally. First, the state football playoffs take more teams to the "state tournament" than any other. Do we need to guarantee every 14-8 basketball team a spot in the district finals? I hope not. Now, if 8-man will get their act together we'd be in good shape. And, it sounds like they may after this cycle.
 
Originally posted by atlanta_ace:

I wonder this everytime someone posts it? "These 6-3 teams should make the playoffs. It's not fair they get left out." Really? I can't believe it, personally. First, the state football playoffs take more teams to the "state tournament" than any other. Do we need to guarantee every 14-8 basketball team a spot in the district finals? I hope not. Now, if 8-man will get their act together we'd be in good shape. And, it sounds like they may after this cycle.
I agree. 16 teams is enough, the only 6-3 team that got left out of C1 was Raymond Central. They lost to two good teams and one not so good team in Lincoln Christian. Take care of business against LC, and they are in. They beat one team with a winning record (Boys Town). They were the only 6-3 team to be left out.

In C2 there were four 6-3 teams left out, Yutan, West Holt, Kimball and Arcadia Loup City.
-Arcadia-Loup City was in the worst district in the state for 11 man football. They had their chance against Gibbon and blew it. Their only other win against a team over .500 team was Ravenna, who finished 5-4. Not good enough.

-Kimball beat a 5-4 Hershey, their best win of the year, that is not going to get it done.

-West Holt needed to beat LHNE and they would have been in, take care of business and you are in. Their only other win against a team over .500 was Arcadia-Loup City.

-Yutan I feel for, they lost to Freeman, Aquinas and Bergan, all great teams. I think if they would have gotten in they may have won a game.

But you don't need to double the amount of teams in the playoffs because one team got left out. Win the games you are supposed to win, and try and pull an upset, and you get in.

Also I would be fine if 8 man went to a 16 team format as well. In my opinion, a 2-6, 3-5, 4-4 team doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs.
 
Originally posted by atlanta_ace:

I wonder this everytime someone posts it? "These 6-3 teams should make the playoffs. It's not fair they get left out." Really? I can't believe it, personally. First, the state football playoffs take more teams to the "state tournament" than any other. Do we need to guarantee every 14-8 basketball team a spot in the district finals? I hope not. Now, if 8-man will get their act together we'd be in good shape. And, it sounds like they may after this cycle.
Doesn't every team in basketball play in districts? At least they do in class A. Thought it was that way in every class.

If so, every team in basketball makes the playoffs.
 
Not what I said. I said do we need to guarantee them a spot in the DISTRICT FINALS. And, if you are going to look at it that way, then, every football team plays in the playoffs, too. Win your district and you are in.
 
Originally posted by srakinch:
Whats wrong with having 6-3 teams in the playoffs???
Nothing if they have enough playoff points. That wasn't my point. My point was you should NOT (edited, sorry) have all 6-3 teams in the playoffs. Doesn't make sense.
This post was edited on 10/27 2:52 PM by atlanta_ace
 
I think the problem is the fact that some districts are a lot weaker than other districts. West Holt for example lost to three teams that are ranked in the top 10 in their class. Arcadia-Loup City on the other hand is in probably the weakest district in the state. West Holt is probably better than Gibbon who made it into the playoffs.
 
Close....the problem is that the nsaa cut the playoff teams from 32 to 16. They did this for two reasons. 1. Is to keep teams with losing records out of the playoffs. 2. Was to avoid first round blowouts because of those teams. However, on friday, the first round of blowouts will begin. It will continue through out the playoffs until the championship. And usually there are at least two blowouts in the finals every year. So it is all for not......totally pointless to cut the teams down from 32 to 16. Class A usually has a 4-5 team or two in the playoffs. .
 
Originally posted by srakinch:
Close....the problem is that the nsaa cut the playoff teams from 32 to 16. They did this for two reasons. 1. Is to keep teams with losing records out of the playoffs. 2. Was to avoid first round blowouts because of those teams. However, on friday, the first round of blowouts will begin. It will continue through out the playoffs until the championship. And usually there are at least two blowouts in the finals every year. So it is all for not......totally pointless to cut the teams down from 32 to 16. Class A usually has a 4-5 team or two in the playoffs. .
Actually, I think the main reason was to guarantee everybody a ninth game. And, they didn't even do that with the western-most district. That's too bad. Class A has 4-5 win teams because they have fewer teams in the class. I'd be for A adopting a 10-game regular season and sending eight teams to the playoffs.

You can't please everybody, I guess.
 
It should the same for all classes

Class A 16 out of 24 66% make playoffs
Class B 16 out of 32 50%
Class C1 16 out of 48 33%
Class C2 16 out of 48 33%
Class D1 32 out of 46 69%
Class D2 32 out of 54 59%


CLass B has it about right
Class D-1 and Class A is just stupid
Class C1 and C2 is the hardest in the state to make playoffs

This post was edited on 10/27 3:23 PM by highschoolfootballnut
 
I've been up in the air about the change from 32 to 16 for several reasons. One I like getting away from the East/West split which 16 team playoff does. Two I like the top number 1 seed playing the bottom number 16 seed. But I don't think 16 teams is enough in C1 and C2. That being said what I would like to see is:

1 - take the top three teams from each district into the playoffs which gives you 24 teams even if they were not the top 24 power point winners.

2 - using power points take the top 8 and give them a bye so the first week you have 9 playing 24, 10 playing 23, etc. They (9 & 24) would be slotted where number 9 would be if it was a 16 team bracket so even if 24 beat 9 they would still be playing number 8 when it's down to 16 teams.

3- Higher seeds get home field until the semi's then they play on a Saturday in one of two regionals places like maybe Norfolk, Kearny, Grand Island etc. Someplace with a nice big stadium and have all four classes in two different spots. Think about the interest that would generate regionally and probably carry over to the next week and the finals.

4- Then the finals in Lincoln as normal.
 
I was at a game last week that involved a 1-7 team. The 1-7 team acted like they would rather be anywhere else that night than on the football field. I agree that teams that are 1-7 or 0-8 could care less about having that 9th game. Kids these days don't remember when high school football was a 9 game season. For the last 20 years or so the lower classes in this state have only played 8 game regular seasons.
 
16 teams is enough for C1 and C2. You do not need 32 teams. 24 would be too many for C1 and C2 this year.

With this new format the last two weeks of the season were so much more exciting than before because teams know it's win and advance, lose and go home.

Makes the games that much better. That D-T vs Southern Valley game had to have been a hell of a game to be at, and that is because of what was at stake. Same with the West Holt vs LHNE game two weeks ago.
 
They should go back to no playoffs like the 60s and 70s. Let Stu and Ryle Jane and Bob pick state champions.
 
Every game you play affects the seeding for the playoffs. Im guessing those games would have been just as good with a 32 team bracket.
 
Originally posted by srakinch:
Every game you play affects the seeding for the playoffs. Im guessing those games would have been just as good with a 32 team bracket.
If 32 of 48 teams is ok, why not let everybody be in the playoffs. In my opinion, every team IS in the playoffs. You win your district you are in. Waverly -- not in the top 16 in the B standings -- but in the playoffs. District champ.
 
Originally posted by highschoolfootballnut:
Class A should get 8 in then[/B] that is 33% just like C1 and C2 is at 33%
I'd be fine with that, just get rid of the district champion automatic qualifier.

#1 Omaha North
#8 Norfolk

#4 Grand Island
#5 Millard West

#3 Creighton Prep
#6 Lincoln East

#2 Millard North
#7 Bellevue West

Looks good to me.

This post was edited on 10/27 4:23 PM by northeastNebraska
 
Waverly earned the right to play in the playoffs but I can name four team that could beat them who are sitting at home. It is a technicallity. What is wrong with a 32 team playoff???
 
Originally posted by highschoolfootballnut:
It should the same for all classes

Class A 16 out of 24 66% make playoffs
Class B 16 out of 32 50%
Class C1 16 out of 48 33%
Class C2 16 out of 48 33%
Class D1 32 out of 46 69%
Class D2 32 out of 54 59%


CLass B has it about right
Class D-1 and Class A is just stupid
Class C1 and C2 is the hardest in the state to make playoffs


This post was edited on 10/27 3:23 PM by highschoolfootballnut
There's 28 teams in Class A
 
Originally posted by srakinch:
Waverly earned the right to play in the playoffs but I can name four team that could beat them who are sitting at home. It is a technicallity. What is wrong with a 32 team playoff???
So all of the teams in Class B?
 
I agree 32 out of 48 is to many I think the classes need to change

Class A biggest 32 ----- --------------16 playoffs 50%
Class B next 34 ----------------------- 16 playoffs 47%
Class C1 next 45--------------------- 24 playoffs 53%
Class C2 rest 45--------------------- 24 playoffs 53%
Class D1 50 eligible Teams--------24 playoffs 48%
Class D2 rest current 48 teams--24 playoffs 50%

D-1 enrollment raised to 90-- Largest 50 teams that are eligible for playoffs-- 24 in playoffs 48%
D-2 rest of 8-man currently that would be ( with the above rule change of 90 enrollment and 50 teams in class that are playoff eligible) 48 Teams 24 in playoffs 50%


Took me about 5 minutes, you would think the people paid to do this full time might even come up with a better plan but at least try
 
Obviously those of you complaining, YOUR team got left out. 1st) Take care of business during the season and your in. 2nd) Doesn't matter what the state does, your always gonna have people who bitch and moan and complain about the system cause you need someone or thing to blame. This is the best system they've had in years. Hell I remember last time it was 16 teams and 7-1 teams were getting left out. There are positive and negatives to everything, but the only thing you can do is accept it. And if you didn't get in this year. Get your A** or your son's A** in the weight room and get better.
 
Ok uncle Rico......why are 68 teams in march madness. Why should the 9-7 giants make the playoffs. Teams like postseason play. In what world is it ok for a 7-1 Cambridge to check in early??? And teams have to "take care of business" against a state set schedule. Some teams play 8 games, some teams play 9. I take it you are a "casual fan," but whats wrong with a 32 team playoff other than its not the way Nebraska did it 20 years ago when you played???
 
What is a negative for a 32 team bracket. And dont say blowouts, because it happens in the finals at least twice a year.
 
Mr. Rockymountain the school I cheer for did make the playoffs. It's easy to say take care of business in the regular season, but the reality is that in class C-2 there are some districts that are weak and some that are really tough. West Holt for example finished 6-3 and might have gone 8-1 or 9-0 with another teams schedule.
 
Good discussion. I love everybody's take, to be honest. It can go both ways. This is what I would do to make playoffs just a bit better in C-1 to D-2. I'd take 32 teams to a "sub-state" type format and the first round would be just as it is today. We play on Thursday night. So, you have an East 16 and West 16 in each class for sub-state. After the play-in games, you reseed the remaining teams 1-16 with no geography taken into consideration.

So, in D-2, you might have a scenario where Anselmo-Merna is the top-seed for the sub-state out there, but after the play in round and the re-seed they are the 7 seed in the overall bracket. In addtion, we don't start the "home game" rule until this round. So, we'd never have a top-seed in a bracket go on the road in the round of 16 which I hate.
 
Like many of you both of the teams I follow made the playoffs, yet I still would like to see more teams. With 48 teams in a class taking 24 in some format takes 50%. With a state made up schedule and the year to year difference in strength of the districts finishing in the upper half makes the regular season worth something yet doesn't discount the team that grows during the year. In C2 many of the teams have sophomores and some freshman starting. I went to the Battle Creek Crofton game and Crofton had six sophomores starting. At the Cedar Catholic Lutheran High game Cedar had two sophomores starting in their offensive line. These younger kids mature from the start of the season until the end. I like taking the top half of the teams in a small school class for a lot different reasons. But my liking it and a $1.50 will get me a cup of coffee. LOL
 
The 24 team bracket isn't a bad idea. However, the top eight seeds dont want a bye week. The #4 seed doesn't want a week off before hosting the 5 seed or going to the 12 seed.
 
Originally posted by atlanta_ace:

Good discussion. I love everybody's take, to be honest. It can go both ways. This is what I would do to make playoffs just a bit better in C-1 to D-2. I'd take 32 teams to a "sub-state" type format and the first round would be just as it is today. We play on Thursday night. So, you have an East 16 and West 16 in each class for sub-state. After the play-in games, you reseed the remaining teams 1-16 with no geography taken into consideration.

So, in D-2, you might have a scenario where Anselmo-Merna is the top-seed for the sub-state out there, but after the play in round and the re-seed they are the 7 seed in the overall bracket. In addtion, we don't start the "home game" rule until this round. So, we'd never have a top-seed in a bracket go on the road in the round of 16 which I hate.
I like this idea as well. That would be similar to what was going on in the smaller classes back in the 90's. The one benefit of only having 16 this year in c-1 and c-2 is the 1-16 seeding without the east/west split. This benefit would continue with the reseeding after the qualifying round.
 
Originally posted by srakinch:
The 24 team bracket isn't a bad idea. However, the top eight seeds dont want a bye week. The #4 seed doesn't want a week off before hosting the 5 seed or going to the 12 seed.
Spoke with someone at NSAA last night, who asked me about 24 team idea. I said, if I'm a coach and I get a bye I'd hate it. Want to play games. It's why I think 32 teams with a re-seed would be an idea that could be well received. And, you don't even call that first round the playoffs. Just a 'sub-state' or qualifying round.
 
Bump 4 up to class A

Bump next 4 up to class B

Combine all of C1-C2 and take 32 in playoffs

Class D.....do whatever. I don't follow it
 
You absolutely have to have more than 16 in class D, teams that are 7-1 would be left out if you didn't. But 32 may be too many as some have already stated.
 
Bump 4 up in A is a must. Otherwise North Platte , SSC, etc drop when Elkhorn , Elkhorn South, Gretna, and Bennington move up. Not to mention the 50% possibility of 2 new OPS high schools when OPS bond passes.

The only interesting thing about being in Class A is that crazy matchup with a greater Nebraska school like Fremont , Columbus , or GISH in a playoff game.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT