The Playoff Expansion Bylaw PASSED!

[CSLfan]

Stop with the benefits for communities and kids. Just this postseason there was a thread on this board about the lack of attendance for playoff games. You think the community for a 2-7 team is really gonna turn out for another clocking?

Couldn't agree more about 5-4 teams!! I've said for years we should go back to 6 classes.

Cherry picking Halloween is an unfair argument. There were dozens of sellouts this postseason. Games with lines around the block to get in the stadium. The fact that the first game was on Halloween and communities have different obligations on that night again is not a genuine argument. I personally went to a second round game, 2 third round games, a semifinal game with tremendous crowds and huge community support. Not to mention several games I couldn't go to with sell outs.

 

[4Afan]

I'm not sure if you actually work with kids, but to state with such definitiveness that it's ONLY about coaches and ADS worried about administrators is a stretch, if not plain ignorant. As I tried to outline, there is good that will happen for kids - whether you think that is the impetus for the proposal or not.

I also need to ask - is every other sport pointless since every team makes the playoffs? What is the obsession with "earning" playoffs? I don't get it. Two teams would have made it with forfeits. So what? They didn't get to play two games. That sucks. You get, minimum, 36 games of high school football (if you're healthy). Those kids didn't get to play 2 of their 36 games. But now they get to schedule a 37th game and the sport is ruined? Because some old guys with canes think they haven't passed some arbitrary line in the sand of "earning it"?

Lots of posts keep saying "if a team gets clocked" - again, so what? That's happening anyway. It might happen less now in the new Round 2 since some decent 3-6 teams will likely beat the poser 5-4 teams from weaker conferences in the new Round 1. I don't get why this is so horrific.

To boil down the life lessons of football to "you won't learn about how there is disappointment in life if we let you make the playoffs and lose" is a pretty bad take. I can think of lots of ways that football still teaches the life lesson of disappointment - even if more teams qualify for the playoffs. Again, it happens in literally every other sport. This is an arbitrary line in the sand that football has drawn.

Why are you assuming every kid wants to play more games? Football is not the main priority for every kid playing. Also, a 2-7 season can be demoralizing and exhausting so many of these kids and coaches may be looking forward to equipment turn in day more than they would another game resulting in a loss.

I'm all in favor of earning your way into the playoffs in other sports.

 

[ramblinman reborn]

But this new system gives greater access to communities and kids and the only negative people can come up with is "kids these days are soft".

I don't believe that is the only negative people have come up with. Here's my negative: High school football in this state has always been special, in part, because not every team qualified for the playoffs like all the other sports. The more teams qualifying, the less meaningful it becomes to qualify for the playoffs and the less special it becomes overall...at least for me.

I just do not understand why people are so angry at a 2-7 team playing one more game.

Well, if that argument was a good one, then why shouldn't it apply to 0-9 and 1-8 teams as well? Why draw the line at 2-7? Let's just open it up and have every team qualify, right? Is that what you would prefer?

 

[4Afan]

Cherry picking Halloween is an unfair argument. There were dozens of sellouts this postseason. Games with lines around the block to get in the stadium. The fact that the first game was on Halloween and communities have different obligations on that night again is not a genuine argument. I personally went to a second round game, 2 third round games, a semifinal game with tremendous crowds and huge community support. Not to mention several games I couldn't go to with sell outs.

Well Halloween is a Saturday next year so get ready for it again. Yes, the later rounds have increased attendance but that's not going to apply to 2-7 teams. It wasn't just this past year, first round attendance has been down for years and allowing worse teams in isn't going to make those communities magically turn out for playoff games.

 

[RunNorth-South]

Why are you assuming every kid wants to play more games? Football is not the main priority for every kid playing. Also, a 2-7 season can be demoralizing and exhausting so many of these kids and coaches may be looking forward to equipment turn in day more than they would another game resulting in a loss.

I'm all in favor of earning your way into the playoffs in other sports.

Sure, maybe some kids don't want to play more games, but both the good and the bad teams I have coached have always had the kids wanting to play one more game. I think the much more bizarre assumption is that we have tons of kids looking forward to turning in equipment and being done, as if football is a chore and they are playing out of some sort of compliance rather than deriving joy from it. Believe it or not, some kids' only chance to play football is for teams that, overall, aren't very good. Many of them still love football and would love to play one more game.

There's also the consequence I've pointed to before, that it gives more meaning to the week 6/7/8/9 games that sometimes have nothing at stake. A team with two wins has a Hail Mary chance to win a Week 9 game against a conference rival and secure a third win to make the playoffs - that's awesome! A great moment for those kids and the program. I guess I'm choosing to focus on what I see as that much more likely scenario than this hypothetical team all wanting to quit playing football in week 6 and hanging on for who knows what reasons while they count down the days to equipment turn-in.

 

[Quags22]

"deserve to get in" is a completely arbitrary decision. I can think of dozens of schools that would not get in over some CSL North schools that get in. Vernon Hills made the playoffs, they lost to Lakes 49-6. Glenbrook North did not make the playoffs they beat Lakes. Why? Vernon Hills is in the CSL North and GBN is in the CSL South. So I guess that makes Vernon Hills more deserving? That seems like a weird justification. Deerfield, a long time member of the CSL North, beat GBN 24-2. They did not make the playoffs because they are the sacrificial lamb playing schools double and triple their size. What does deserve mean? I think 384 teams gives access to players who are in different situations access to more meaningful games and opportunities to make memories with their teammates and communities.

Just because a few extra teams get shirts doesn't mean this a bad thing. It's high school sports.

I don't see where I said "deserves to get in". Facts matter.

But here is a fact for you: Glenbrook North is 7A. Lakes and Vernon Hills are 5A.

 

[4Afan]

Sure, maybe some kids don't want to play more games, but both the good and the bad teams I have coached have always had the kids wanting to play one more game. I think the much more bizarre assumption is that we have tons of kids looking forward to turning in equipment and being done, as if football is a chore and they are playing out of some sort of compliance rather than deriving joy from it. Believe it or not, some kids' only chance to play football is for teams that, overall, aren't very good. Many of them still love football and would love to play one more game.

There's also the consequence I've pointed to before, that it gives more meaning to the week 6/7/8/9 games that sometimes have nothing at stake. A team with two wins has a Hail Mary chance to win a Week 9 game against a conference rival and secure a third win to make the playoffs - that's awesome! A great moment for those kids and the program. I guess I'm choosing to focus on what I see as that much more likely scenario than this hypothetical team all wanting to quit playing football in week 6 and hanging on for who knows what reasons while they count down the days to equipment turn-in.

One of the biggest promoters of this plan, the Roxana coach, was on a podcast with Edgy earlier this year talking about just this and he mentioned he's coached teams that had rough seasons and at the end they were just looking forward to turning in equipment.

Kids may not view playing more football as a chore, but it's not as fun or as high of a priority as you claim so stop waxing poetic about every aspect of HS football. Some live and die with it, more commonly some kids play because all of their friends do, some feel pressure from parents or family to uphold the family tradition, sone play to stay in shape for other sports they enjoy more.

 

[RunNorth-South]

I don't see where I said "deserves to get in". Facts matter.

But here is a fact for you: Glenbrook North is 7A. Lakes and Vernon Hills are 5A.

You said some "belong" and some don't. It was summarized as "deserves" by me, and then extended by CSL Fan when he replied, likely after seeing my response. Saying "I didn't say that exact word" is a pretty lame counter when I bet either of us would appreciate some more direct replies to the discussion points we've tried to raise.

 

[Quags22]

You are trying to stake a claim on who "belongs" (the word you used) and who doesn't. That is in the same spirit of the word "deserves." I don't think there's much confusion on my part about what you're trying to say.

I am, however, confused by your question. What am I "sacrificing" by saying I'm okay with more teams getting football games? What does that mean?

They are not the same word. Try a dictionary.

And I am saying that are you are willing to bring in substandard teams (2-7) into the playoffs. According to Soucie, there would be 32 of them in this new format, which is 13 percent. That's a huge NO from me.

But you want them in so that the few teams who you deem playoff worthy, but missed for various reasons, can also qualify and even win a game.

Thus, "sacrificing".

 

[RunNorth-South]

One of the biggest promoters of this plan, the Roxana coach, was on a podcast with Edgy earlier this year talking about just this and he mentioned he's coached teams that had rough seasons and at the end they were just looking forward to turning in equipment.

Kids may not view playing more football as a chore, but it's not as fun or as high of a priority as you claim so stop waxing poetic about every aspect of HS football. Some live and die with it, more commonly some kids play because all of their friends do, some feel pressure from parents or family to uphold the family tradition, sone play to stay in shape for other sports they enjoy more.

Obviously some live and die with it, and many participate for other reasons. Maybe that season wouldn't have been as rough if they had something more tangible to play for in the final weeks.

But what I'm hearing overall is that you're saying that:

• Some bad teams are bad and don't want more games
• Some pretty good (or even bad )teams don't get five wins and have kids who do want more games
• Therefore, let's make sure the pretty good (or bad) team does not make the playoffs (and those kids don't get the game they want) because we don't want the kids on the bad team to have to play another game

I guess we have to agree to disagree at that point. Because I don't like that trade-off.

 

[Quags22]

You said some "belong" and some don't. It was summarized as "deserves" by me, and then extended by CSL Fan when he replied, likely after seeing my response. Saying "I didn't say that exact word" is a pretty lame counter when I bet either of us would appreciate some more direct replies to the discussion points we've tried to raise.

It's not lame. You quoted me. Again. Try a dictionary if you don't understand what words mean.

And I did you give a direct response.

Glenbrook North is 7A. Vernon Hills and Lakes are 5A. GBN has 900 more kids in their school than Lakes. GBN won a touchdown.

Again, facts matter.

 

[CSLfan]

I don't see where I said "deserves to get in". Facts matter.

But here is a fact for you: Glenbrook North is 7A. Lakes and Vernon Hills are 5A.

Quags22, "belong in" is synonymous with deserve in this context. To think someone belongs would imply others do not belong. If there is a dichotomy of belonging and not belonging then the teams that people think do belong would by default deserve to belong over teams that do not belong.

Here is another fact, Deerfield has an enrollment of 1397 and Vernon Hills an enrollment of 1387.

Deerfield blows out GBN, who controlled Lakes, who running clocked Vernon Hills. Deerfield and GBN are left out of the playoffs, Lakes and Vernon Hills made the playoffs. Deerfield and GBN had to play Maine South, Glenbrook South, New Trier, and Evanston all with demonstrably greater enrollments. So the old system of "belonging" by just winning five games wasn't a fool proof method either.

I don't believe that is the only negative people have come up with. Here's my negative: High school football in this state has always been special, in part, because not every team qualified for the playoffs like all the other sports. The more teams qualifying, the less meaningful it becomes to qualify for the playoffs and the less special it becomes overall...at least for me.



Well, if that argument was a good one, then why shouldn't it apply to 0-9 and 1-8 teams as well? Why draw the line at 2-7? Let's just open it up and have every team qualify, right? Is that what you would prefer?

I would argue that high school football in particular is special for a lot more reasons than not everyone makes the playoffs. College football did not even have playoffs for 100 years, the season just ended, and yet that is still a special/sacred sport to many. If you ask any coach, they will tell you that high school football is about a heck of a lot more than making the playoffs and that is what makes it special. I think we both agree that just because a team did not make the playoffs, it doesn't make the experience from those kids any less special or meaningful if approached the right way. But just because a few more teams DID make the playoffs, does not also mean anyone else's season was any less meaningful. That is a profoundly weird way of looking at football. If Zion Benton makes the playoffs at 4-5 for the first time in a decade or if Benet makes the playoffs at 3-6 that someone makes the sport less meaningful? To who? Why?

Also, I think the 48 team brackets make sense and that would be my preference. I think it rewards wins in the regular season, it helps with scheduling, it helps with conference stability, and it gives greater access to schools who have issues that go beyond football and commitment and the stuff this board harps on but still have an impact on football outcomes. It gives more kids a playoff experience and a chance to learn continued lessons from football that we all share and love. IF next year the state announced a way that everyone made the playoffs and we did not have 0-9 teams playing against 9-0 teams and the seasons still ended Thanksgiving weekend, I would not care and would not think that the integrity of football is lost. The integrity of football is not so fragile that if a few teams that posters think do not belong make the playoffs, then everything is going to hell. So no, I'm not saying I would prefer that. But I also don't think that would have a dramatic impact on the state of football, football fans, or football players.

 

[4Afan]

Obviously some live and die with it, and many participate for other reasons. Maybe that season wouldn't have been as rough if they had something more tangible to play for in the final weeks.

But what I'm hearing overall is that you're saying that:

• Some bad teams are bad and don't want more games
• Some pretty good (or even bad )teams don't get five wins and have kids who do want more games
• Therefore, let's make sure the pretty good (or bad) team does not make the playoffs (and those kids don't get the game they want) because we don't want the kids on the bad team to have to play another game

I guess we have to agree to disagree at that point. Because I don't like that trade-off.

Let's just speak to the facts we know and what was proposed. At any point in any article or podcast were kids ever mentioned? This is about the adults and making it easier to get into the playoffs and therefore make scheduling 9 games easier now that the fight for 5 is no more.

I read and watched a lot of Soucie this past season and when these proposals popped up he talked about them in detail. He mentioned that the same 15-20 teams reach out to him every year looking for games they can win but that the team can't be too bad because they still want that team to provide them with a decent amount of playoff points so they can get in the playoffs. No mention of the kids anywhere.

You can keep saying it's for the kids all you want, it doesn't make it true.

 

[RunNorth-South]

They are not the same word. Try a dictionary.

And I am saying that are you are willing to bring in substandard teams (2-7) into the playoffs. According to Soucie, there would be 32 of them in this new format, which is 13 percent. That's a huge NO from me.

But you want them in so that the few teams who you deem playoff worthy, but missed for various reasons, can also qualify and even win a game.

Thus, "sacrificing".

I get they aren't the same word. You continue to not make a real point other than pointing out that they aren't the same word. You are absolutely trying to decide who deserves to be in the playoffs. You just did it again by saying that you don't think that 13 percent should be in the playoffs. That's your prerogative, but don't act like we're misrepresenting what you're saying to some extreme degree. All in an effort to claim some perceived high ground on "facts" that doesn't actually mean anything, despite you saying "facts matter" over and over again.

Speaking of semantics, that is quite the use of the word "sacrifice." I am "sacrificing" them (a word with a negative connotation) because I'm okay with them playing one more game? Some of them might even win said game (insert 2-7 CCL team here)...

But, yes, you summarized my stance pretty well. I am indeed okay with some 2-win teams making the playoffs so that other sub .500 teams can qualify and possibly win a playoff game. That seems like a worthwhile trade-off to me. I fail to see an issue with that. As I've pointed out, this is specifically due to the drastically different strengths of schedules.

 

[4Afan]

Quags22, "belong in" is synonymous with deserve in this context. To think someone belongs would imply others do not belong. If there is a dichotomy of belonging and not belonging then the teams that people think do belong would by default deserve to belong over teams that do not belong.

Here is another fact, Deerfield has an enrollment of 1397 and Vernon Hills an enrollment of 1387.

Deerfield blows out GBN, who controlled Lakes, who running clocked Vernon Hills. Deerfield and GBN are left out of the playoffs, Lakes and Vernon Hills made the playoffs. Deerfield and GBN had to play Maine South, Glenbrook South, New Trier, and Evanston all with demonstrably greater enrollments. So the old system of "belonging" by just winning five games wasn't a fool proof method either.


I would argue that high school football in particular is special for a lot more reasons than not everyone makes the playoffs. College football did not even have playoffs for 100 years, the season just ended, and yet that is still a special/sacred sport to many. If you ask any coach, they will tell you that high school football is about a heck of a lot more than making the playoffs and that is what makes it special. I think we both agree that just because a team did not make the playoffs, it doesn't make the experience from those kids any less special or meaningful if approached the right way. But just because a few more teams DID make the playoffs, does not also mean anyone else's season was any less meaningful. That is a profoundly weird way of looking at football. If Zion Benton makes the playoffs at 4-5 for the first time in a decade or if Benet makes the playoffs at 3-6 that someone makes the sport less meaningful? To who? Why?

Also, I think the 48 team brackets make sense and that would be my preference. I think it rewards wins in the regular season, it helps with scheduling, it helps with conference stability, and it gives greater access to schools who have issues that go beyond football and commitment and the stuff this board harps on but still have an impact on football outcomes. It gives more kids a playoff experience and a chance to learn continued lessons from football that we all share and love. IF next year the state announced a way that everyone made the playoffs and we did not have 0-9 teams playing against 9-0 teams and the seasons still ended Thanksgiving weekend, I would not care and would not think that the integrity of football is lost. The integrity of football is not so fragile that if a few teams that posters think do not belong make the playoffs, then everything is going to hell. So no, I'm not saying I would prefer that. But I also don't think that would have a dramatic impact on the state of football, football fans, or football players.

How does it reward wins in the regular season when you barely need any wins to get in? This format completely devalues the regular season.

 

[RunNorth-South]

Let's just speak to the facts we know and what was proposed. At any point in any article or podcast were kids ever mentioned? This is about the adults and making it easier to get into the playoffs and therefore make scheduling 9 games easier now that the fight for 5 is no more.

I read and watched a lot of Soucie this past season and when these proposals popped up he talked about them in detail. He mentioned that the same 15-20 teams reach out to him every year looking for games they can win but that the team can't be too bad because they still want that team to provide them with a decent amount of playoff points so they can get in the playoffs. No mention of the kids anywhere.

You can keep saying it's for the kids all you want, it doesn't make it true.

The world is a little more complex than "this person said it out loud, therefore it is the only truth."

I am not saying that it's exclusively for the kids. I am, however, pointing out what I think are some tangible benefits to the kids. I'm not so naive to think that this isn't in part to help ADs schedule games - but that doesn't mean that one of the consequences isn't also that kids benefit. I've worked in multiple athletic departments and talk to coaches. Just because someone didn't go on a podcast and say why they like the proposal doesn't mean that the things I put forward aren't true. It creates stability in conferences, makes scheduling easier, and provides more meaningful football opportunities for more kids/teams. Those are some of the reasons it passed. That is why it got votes.

How does it reward wins in the regular season when you barely need any wins to get in? This format completely devalues the regular season.

I read it as "more wins = a bye" so a strong regular season is rewarded. Yes, it was technically always rewarded to some degree, but sometimes that reward was playing a 5-4 CCL team. Now, it's an unquestionable reward in that you're a Round 2 playoff team if you have a strong regular season against your schedule.

 

[Doctor_D]

I'll say it again and again. There might be another conference or two that will benefit from this, but the main beneficiary will be the CCL, and THAT is going to drive people insane. Can't wait for a Viator or Niles ND knocking off a public 8-1 team...

 

[Snetsrak61]

Funniest possible outcome is the race for 5 becomes race for 8 (or whatever would generally get a bye).

 

[hingkenry]

I view this as an excellent opportunity to have your JV team in against a 2-7 team for Varsity reps. Give your starters a self-imposed bye week and move on lol. If you think the 2-7 team is a waste of time, your JV should be able to handle them.

 

[cigaros]

You do realize Roxana's proposal didn't even get voted on and the proposal that passed was from Monticello, right?

I do realize that both were looking to expand the playoffs and no one knew about Monticello's proposal before the Roxana proposal. However, I am dogging on Roxana because they also wanted districts.

 

[HuskieFan2020]

Why should a 17 seed get an easier first round game than the 1 seed?
You are also guaranteeing a 17 seed or lower will make the championship game, which doesn't sound like a good idea.

I am just throwing out some possibilities/scenarios. To be fair, seeing a 17 seed or lower make the championship game could create a lot of intrigue.

Furthermore, it's also important to note that maybe having the top 16 play each other could create some more intriguing matchups in the first round, thereby creating higher stakes and making the playoffs a lot more exciting.

 

[HuskieFan2020]

So screw the small schools let's just combine them?

Some may not agree with it but I am just throwing out a scenario. If it did happen, we wouldn't be able to evaluate the overall product until at least 2-3 playoff cycles have already happened.

 

[HuskieFan2020]

I join the crowd that finds this to be unquestionably a good thing. I also am as confused as some others about those who can't articulate anything beyond "this is soft!" and can't see the big picture beyond "back in my day, teams had to EARN their way in."

Sure, "back in the day" teams played their conference schedule, stayed in their conferences, and played some of the teams nearby for their out-of-conference slate. The teams that won more than they lost made the playoffs. But, as has been happening everywhere in sports (and in life) - people started to more deliberately "game" the system to try and get five wins. This ranged from teams jumping conferences to abandon a hopeless football situation, to conferences shuffling their own division alignments to help teams that are traditionally at the bottom of the standings, to teams hunting wins out of conference and refusing to play anyone they don't think they can beat. As someone who has worked in athletic departments at multiple schools, this creates chaos. Now the girls' freshman basketball team has to drive 45 minutes for every away conference basketball game because a school switched conferences to help their football team win more games. It's silly.

I'm not excusing those moves as sensical or good for those football programs. But it is the reality of what has happened. The other downstream consequence is that as these conferences shuffle, some teams that had made the playoffs are no longer qualifying or at risk of not qualifying. Your two annual guaranteed wins fled the conference. Now, even though you EARNED it in the past, you are having trouble finding five wins without your two in-conference cream puffs still around. So you're going to avoid playing anyone who might beat you in weeks 1 and 2. Those games just became critical for you to qualify for the playoffs with five wins (and be seen as worthy in the eyes of the old diehard high school football fans).

It has been much harder for many teams to schedule week 1 and 2 games as a result of the above. This has had some positive impacts as a fan - with annual fun matchups in the first weeks between highly ranked teams like Batavia and LWE and Glenbard West and MC vs ESL, etc. These have happened more frequently in recent years because no one would play these teams anymore. Every win is too important now. (And if you don't get five wins, you haven't earned anything or done it right.)

Some of these teams that have tried to game the system have made it work. They made the playoffs by playing an incredibly weak schedule and finding five wins. I don't really understand the motivation behind doing that just to say "I made the playoffs" and then getting smoked in a first-round away game, but alas, that's what some of these schools have done. And even though some of these teams would lose to the JV team of a 4-5 team in a better conference, they get to make the playoffs.

However, in this new system, any of these weaker 5-4 teams will play a first-round game against that 4-5 team from a stronger conference. And they will lose. And that's okay. They still get to say "we made the playoffs." And the 4-5 team that worked really hard and plays much better football, and has a situation where they are maybe a small fish in a big pond and therefore don't get to 5 wins a lot of years... they get to win a playoff game. And they likely offer a more competitive game in the second round than the 5-4 team would have. Good for fans, good for players. All good things.

I see the hypothetical above from a different poster about a team getting clocked 6 times and making the playoffs... so what? We have some teams that are pretty damn close to that already - where they find five wins against a weak schedule and get clocked four times and then get clocked in the playoffs. I don't think this team EARNED it more than the team whose athletic department has stayed in a tough conference, has a program that does all of the right things, and loses a few close games yet doesn't reach five wins. Again, the latter school is likely a little friskier in the playoffs. I gladly take the tradeoff between some 3-6 teams that "don't deserve" to be in by taking in more teams that are actually better at football and give their kids more meaningful games.

(That's without even getting into the fact that I could extend the hypothetical and put a mid-upper tier 7A public team into the CCL Blue - where they'd likely get clocked 5 or 6 times and yet still probably be a team that could win 2-3 playoff games. The complete discounting of the strength of schedule from the "if you don't get five wins, you don't deserve it" crowd is astounding. There are some really bad 5/6 win teams and some much better 3/4 win teams.)

More meaningful football games for more kids and more communities is a good thing. A team that loses its first five games is currently eliminated from the playoffs. They are practicing for fun and not playing for anything. But in this system, that team can get a key player back from a summer injury (whereas last year he would just choose to not return and focus on basketball season since football has no point after a fifth loss), improve their play, find a few wins in the last few weeks, be playing their best football at the end of the year (everyone's goal), get a win in the playoffs, and make some awesome freaking memories for themselves and their parents and their community. A stark contrast to "playing for pride" in weeks 6-9 in the prior system. You cannot convince me this is a bad thing just because some other "bad" programs might also make the playoffs.

This is high school sports. This is what it's about. More kids playing meaningful football, maybe causing them to fall a little too hard for the sport we love, and then being crazy enough to still be posting about it on a high school football message board 20 years later. Spreading the passion and energy. It's a good thing. I think a lot of good comes from this. I'm really happy for the kids today.

Finally, someone who understands the bigger picture. Some people just have to break this "It was this way when I was growing up mindset." Keep in mind that the athletic directors and principals of IHSA member schools voted on this because they realize how much football has changed at the high school level over the last 20 years. Demographics are shifting and birth rates are going down, and as a result, less and less kids are playing football.

This was done to keep teams competitive and make sure that teams always have a fair chance, which is the route education and athletics in schools are going anyways. It's the "We will do anything to make sure our student athletes have an opportunity to succeed mindset."

 

[4Afan]

Finally, someone who understands the bigger picture. Some people just have to break this "It was this way when I was growing up mindset." Keep in mind that the athletic directors and principals of IHSA member schools voted on this because they realize how much football has changed at the high school level over the last 20 years. Demographics are shifting and birth rates are going down, and as a result, less and less kids are playing football.

This was done to keep teams competitive and make sure that teams always have a fair chance, which is the route education and athletics in schools are going anyways. It's the "We will do anything to make sure our student athletes have an opportunity to succeed mindset."

Right, numbers are declining and have been for years. So the solution is to increase the number of playoff teams while the overall total amount of teams playing 11 man football decreases?

 

[4Afan]

The world is a little more complex than "this person said it out loud, therefore it is the only truth."

I am not saying that it's exclusively for the kids. I am, however, pointing out what I think are some tangible benefits to the kids. I'm not so naive to think that this isn't in part to help ADs schedule games - but that doesn't mean that one of the consequences isn't also that kids benefit. I've worked in multiple athletic departments and talk to coaches. Just because someone didn't go on a podcast and say why they like the proposal doesn't mean that the things I put forward aren't true. It creates stability in conferences, makes scheduling easier, and provides more meaningful football opportunities for more kids/teams. Those are some of the reasons it passed. That is why it got votes.



I read it as "more wins = a bye" so a strong regular season is rewarded. Yes, it was technically always rewarded to some degree, but sometimes that reward was playing a 5-4 CCL team. Now, it's an unquestionable reward in that you're a Round 2 playoff team if you have a strong regular season against your schedule.

I read it as an average team gets 3 wins before getting into the teeth of their schedule, gets their doors blown off in their first 2 conference games but kids, since that's what this is all about to you, and coaches alike could brush it off and spin it that it doesn't matter if they get blown out since they already locked up a playoff spot.

Some teams may want to fight for that bye, but the really good ones won't care and will go into the playoffs at 5-4 or 6-3 and destroy a 2-7 team.

Since it's all about the kids, did you think about how it may effect them if they get clocked in a playoff game? Might be quite embarrassing to them.

 

[johnndoe]

We have come a long way from the late '70s when "my" 8-0 team met another 8-0 from our conference in Week 9 of the regular season. "We" lost in OT at a time when only conference champs made the playoffs. Came home on the bus, turned in the equipment "we" had and moved on with "our" lives with one exception -"our" Hall of Fame Head Coach left his position soon after.

 

[RunNorth-South]

I read it as an average team gets 3 wins before getting into the teeth of their schedule, gets their doors blown off in their first 2 conference games but kids, since that's what this is all about to you, and coaches alike could brush it off and spin it that it doesn't matter if they get blown out since they already locked up a playoff spot.

Some teams may want to fight for that bye, but the really good ones won't care and will go into the playoffs at 5-4 or 6-3 and destroy a 2-7 team.

Since it's all about the kids, did you think about how it may effect them if they get clocked in a playoff game? Might be quite embarrassing to them.

Yes, it could be "embarrassing." Isn't this getting at some of the "life lessons" being discussed in this thread? Sometimes you get your butt kicked... maybe you work harder so it doesn't happen again, or maybe you realize you weren't that good, or maybe you knew you weren't good and it got confirmed again. How is a blowout in the playoffs more embarrassing or different from one in the regular season? Are you insinuating that we should try to prevent blowouts?

Your preface of "since it's all about the kids" doesn't really make much sense here. I've said why good can happen for the kids in the new system. That in no way means that I am trying to protect the feelings of kids who might have a big loss in a playoff game. That is you trying to twist my argument into something I have not stated. Those blowouts will happen (and often do in the current model anyway... since bad teams will find five easy wins). These aren't mutually exclusive consequences. Good can happen for many kids, and some teams get blown out - and even on those teams, some kids might have appreciated having another game. I think it was WildKit fan or a different Evanston poster, just earlier this season, who was adamant in his posts that he and his son and his son's teammates would unquestionably have wanted at least one more game (Evanston was eliminated from the playoffs after week 7). It feels like a very worthwhile trade-off to me. And, again, it may actually lead to a few more competitive games in the new second round since the "top 16" of the "bottom 32" in each class get to play the highest 16 seeds.

 

[KingMJ]

Talk to a few folks today and they mentioned a few possible impacts. The biggest being that they expect a few (though not all) schools to start only scheduling 8 games per year and basically give themselves a bye week.

 

[4Afan]

Yes, it could be "embarrassing." Isn't this getting at some of the "life lessons" being discussed in this thread? Sometimes you get your butt kicked... maybe you work harder so it doesn't happen again, or maybe you realize you weren't that good, or maybe you knew you weren't good and it got confirmed again. How is a blowout in the playoffs more embarrassing or different from one in the regular season? Are you insinuating that we should try to prevent blowouts?

You're literally making my point about why the playoffs should not be expanded. Working harder is a good motivation to make the playoffs the following year. Realizing your team isn't good enough tell you that you shouldn't have been in the playoffs to begin with.

And, again, it may actually lead to a few more competitive games in the new second round since the "top 16" of the "bottom 32" in each class get to play the highest 16 seeds.

How so? The top 16 of the bottom 32 would have been in the current playoffs to begin with. It's the extra, bottom 16 we're talking about.

 

[4Afan]

Talk to a few folks today and they mentioned a few possible impacts. The biggest being that they expect a few (though not all) schools to start only scheduling 8 games per year and basically give themselves a bye week.

Another downfall of this proposal.

 

[IlliniGuy12345]

One aspect of this change that will upend things, is the summer schedule. Since the August dead week is canned, you're just going to have a bunch of (all?) schools push all 20 contact days between the Monday after 4th of July & the start of the regular season. This has effectively created a football season for coaches & players that will run from July - October. I already talked to one coach that said this will be their schedule.

 

[USD24]

Believe The Brook may be open week 2. Will County Bowl?

Pretty sure JCA is still looking for games week 1 and 2.

 

[pjjp]

Pretty sure JCA is still looking for games week 1 and 2.

I’d like to see that too, even though I think the Brook would win handily next year.

 

[RunNorth-South]

You're literally making my point about why the playoffs should not be expanded. Working harder is a good motivation to make the playoffs the following year. Realizing your team isn't good enough tell you that you shouldn't have been in the playoffs to begin with.

How so? The top 16 of the bottom 32 would have been in the current playoffs to begin with. It's the extra, bottom 16 we're talking about.

I mean to say that the "true" top 16 teams would advance. Meaning that in the new model the 5-4 CSL North team is going to lose to the 4-5 West Suburban Silver team and therefore the competitiveness of the round 2 game vs 8-1 Barrington is going to be much better with the WSS team (that currently doesn't make the playoffs) rather than the 5-4 CSL North team (since the 4-5 team is genuinely a better football team that played a much tougher schedule).

And to the first point - I don't think "making the playoffs" is the ultimate carrot you guys are making it out to be. When I played, my team made the playoffs (in the old system), and we won a playoff game before getting hammered in round 2. We realized we weren't who we thought we were after that second game and were motivated to work really hard to improve the next year. Teams do not operate in such simple black-and-white terms as "we made the playoffs so we're good and don't need to work hard" or "we didn't make the playoffs so we need to work harder." Your earlier post also mentioned teams "spinning" blowout regular-season losses as "doesn't matter, we're in the playoffs."

I've been around a lot of football teams in the past decade and a half and that's not how things happen. Programs that are running things in even remotely the right way are always trying to improve. Maybe that means a team is "ignoring" their loss to a LWE type juggernaut in their conference while they're only in the beginning stages of their turnaround/program building. But only in that they know that's not the next step for them. They obviously want to be competitive in every game, but have to start elsewhere first. I'm not saying every coach is the best coach ever, or that there are not lazy coaches, but I have a lot of trouble subscribing to this idea that "because we made the playoffs," teams/coaches will stop trying to improve. That doesn't happen in other sports. I don't know why we are projecting that onto football teams. As if the nature of competition is so inherently different on a football field.

 

[hssports2000]

I'll say it again, this isn't happening. They didn't change the commitment of the season. In fact, a player on a team that doesn't qualify (0-9 to 2-7 w/o enough points) will have an EXTRA week to prepare for their season.

Next year the winter season tryouts begin on November 9th. This is the quarterfinals. If a player is on a team that makes the quarterfinals, I think it is okay that they miss a little time of their winter sport. I'm not sure how expanding the field impacts winter sports in any way. It doesn't. The round of 32 next year is the same as the round of 32 this year and does not impact winter sports. The round of 16 doesn't either. I don't understand why I am seeing this argument. It is completely disingenuous.

The season did in fact get longer. No not on the tail end of the season but on the front end. An extra week has been added to the season and week off has been taken away. Making a season longer is in fact making it harder for good athletes to compete in multiple sports. It is already a very tough thing to do anyway but the longer these seasons get the more of a toll it takes on the players physically and mentally.

 

[Cross Bones]

Pretty sure JCA is still looking for games week 1 and 2.

I called dibs on Wilmington 1st. You guys will have to play LWE or someone like that. Maybe we can have it all at one field, a Will Co Jamboree. Then go to IKEA and/or golf afterwards. A place like that.

I’d like to see that too, even though I think the Brook would win handily next year.

What i believe what USD was saying is that JCA should play Wilmington. Theres no way Raiders and Hillmen are facing off. We have to keep our streak against JCA in tact

 

[kpjasion]

I would usually crank out a 2025 field “If the 384-team Playoffs started today…” right about now. But I’m at work all day. Poor timing. I’m sure someone will knock it out for us.

The Souc already had it in the paper yesterday for the big classes

 

[Colin2299]

I really don't see a whole lot of negatives to this. I know that's unpopular.

Should have more competitive games in the playoffs
Teams will schedule tougher non-con schedules

I know if feels like we're giving everyone a trophy but we're not. Only the best team will still get the 4footer.

We have been moving this way since the 70's. Every 15-20 years the IHSA allows more teams to enter the football playoffs.

Just a matter of time before every team gets into the playoffs.

 

[CSLfan]

The season did in fact get longer. No not on the tail end of the season but on the front end. An extra week has been added to the season and week off has been taken away. Making a season longer is in fact making it harder for good athletes to compete in multiple sports. It is already a very tough thing to do anyway but the longer these seasons get the more of a toll it takes on the players physically and mentally.

No, once again the season did not get longer.

2025 football season, practice begins on August 11th, first game August 29th, state championship November 29th.
2026 football season, practice begins on August 10th, first game August 22nd, state championship November 28th

The dead week was moved and not taken away. Many programs already gave the 4th of July week off AND the dead week in August off. So the change actually won't even change their schedule in any way. There are still 20 summer contact days, use them however and the season still starts the second Monday in August. There was not net change on the football season.

The season did not get longer. I'm not sure how else to explain this. The number of days playing football next year will be the same. They moved up week 1 of the season for games but did not move up week 1 of the start of the season.

 

[Colin2299]

The kids arguement.....

Whatever happened to teaching kids to be tough? To battle through adversity? To be a victor...not a victim?

Reading through these comments is laughable. Another game? Games start a week earlier and it's going to be too hot for the kids?

Texas HS football:

• allows for (3) scrimmages
• 11 week regular season (one bye)
• 6 playoff games
• a spring practice season

a state champion will have played 16 games and (3) scrimmages.

It's a tad hotter in Texas too.


Cmon people.