For the older gens or history buffs: was there ever a time in state athletics where the requirements to make the playoffs was much tighter? Like very few teams with losing records, etc? Or has it mostly always been the way it is today?
Playoffs eligibility question
- Thread starter redhill1300
- Start date
Definitely used to be tighter. I can remember when you had to win your conference to make the playoffs. One year Brown beat Concord for the conference championship. Brown finished 7-3 and Concord finished 9-1 and didn’t make the playoffs.
What made them go away from that? In the modern era, it’s almost unwatchable football for the first 2 rounds minimum
Biggest factor now is 8 classifications, having to have the largest and smallest 32 teams (or whatever it is for 1A) in the state means you have to let in a set number of teams for the bracket to make sense (12 teams, top 4 get a bye, etc.) no matter the record
Also teams finishing with great records not making the playoffs like in the above example. If my team finished 9-1 and missed the playoffs I would at least be a little upset about it. Although I still think conference champs should be seeded first then everyone else regardless of RPI
I know there are too many teams making it in. Lot of 1st rd blowouts. And then the 1st bye rounds.
Everyone knew before the season started that the conference champion would be the only team to make the playoffs.
Yes, when they had the 1A and 1AA classifications and so on, you'd see 2-8 type teams make the playoffs since there were so many spots to fill. Then that 2-8 team had to take a long bus ride to their first round opponent to be blown out 55-7. So pretty much a waste of time for all involved. They need to go down to 5 or maybe 6 classifications and only let good teams into the playoffs. Going up to 8A is ridiculous.
