Friday, October 16, 2009

Moshier: More C-D playoff teams, more ugliness?

Brace yourselves, high school football fans.

That vast, not-so-great divide between Section III's haves and the have-nots is almost certain to get even uglier this weekend. Subtracting a week of the regular season and adding another round of the playoffs for Section III's smallest, Class C and Class D schools (now 16 of the 22 teams in each class qualify) could be a recipe for disaster.

A six-game regular season is bad enough. Now, don't be surprised if Week 7's first-round playoff games include some downright woeful mismatches. Unfortunately, it's the price Section III will have to pay for giving more teams a playoff chance, no matter how slim that playoff chance might be.

For instance (with their names withheld to protect the innocent): What we end up with this weekend is a 1-5 "playoff" team that has been outscored 210-24 (97-0 the last two weeks) playing a 6-0 team ranked No. 5 in the state. That can't be good for either team.

Sure, expanding the Class C and Class D playoff picture from eight to 16 teams gives twice as many a chance to win a Section III title. But how many of the Not-so-Elite 8 really stand a chance to win a championship? And doesn't a seventh week of regular-season games, in essence, give those teams a chance to play their way into the playoff picture, not limp into the tournament without a hope or a prayer?

Let's hope no star players from the Elite 8 are injured this week, in a game that is decided in the first quarter or half. Oh, and let's hope the section puts all 10 of our Class B teams in one league, not split them into two five-team divisions. Four games to decide a league title? That's not nearly enough.


Blogger Tommi250 said...

"Let's hope no star players from the Elite 8 are injured this week, in a game that is decided in the first quarter or half."
Why not "Let's hope NO players get injured."
For that matter why not look at every schools depth chart and size them up with every other school. After doing that predetermine which schools "should" be in the playoffs. Now those that "should" be in the playoffs should only play other "shoulds". That way NO player has the chance of getting injured in games against the truly unworthy.
These kids are out playing a game. Maybe you should have directed your opinions towards the Section and question their decision to make the playoffs bigger. You might not think these kids read these articles but they do. Calling them a 'have not' in a format like the newspaper is wrong. Trust me these kids know whether or not they are good enough to go up against the 'haves'. But isn't that what the saying 'On any given sunday' is all about. This is high school sports not the pros. On this level all kids deserve to play in a big game!

October 22, 2009 5:59 AM  
Blogger Ed McGrogan said...

Ron, good entry about this topic. Reminds me of the Big East's recent decision to invite every basketball team into its conference tournament. Regular season performance has been watered down in sports across the board; with an increased number of playoff entrants, there's less motivation to play well during the regular season and not enough of a reward for those who excel. I wouldn't advocate going the completely opposite direction -- we have enough controversy as it is in Divison I college football -- but the lines need to be drawn and adhered to. The teams who played well deserve it.

Ed McGrogan
Assistant Editor,

October 22, 2009 2:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home