128 5A schools will be in the playoffs starting in '06

[KT2000]

Disclaimer: KT's annual rant on the playoff system...

I've had time to reflect back on this year, and also think about what the future is bringing. Obviously, realignment is the first order of business in February and that'll help move through the early months of off-season quicker.

I'm still having trouble warming up to the idea of two 64 team brackets. 128 schools (out of approx. 240+) will make the playoffs. That's right at or just above HALF of the total amount 5A schools. From a competitive point of view, I think it's a complete joke. Three teams per district should be the maximum. The post-season should only be for top 25-35% in my opinion.

I know they want more kids to play in the post-season, and that's fine. However, when you are taking four from each district it waters it down to the point of not being a real accomplishment to be in the playoffs. I'm not saying kids on teams outside of the top 2-3 of their district should be kicked to the curb, but competitively it makes no sense to allow those teams in the playoffs. What reward are you giving a 4th place team by telling them, "Congrats on making the playoffs. Now, you get to be tossed around like cast away Raggedy Ann dolls for four quarters by teams like Katy or Southlake! Enjoy your stay in Bracketville!"

It lessens the importance of the regular season when one more team gets in. Winning a district championship currently guarantees you almost nothing as far as playoff position with enrollment being the intitial filter. I wish we'd go back to the completely performance based system we had in the 80s. Only two teams per district made it, and there was one bracket.

I think that's the way it should be today because making the playoffs should be a real accomplishment, and so should winning your district. Enrollments are proven meaningless each year in this day and age given the increasing balance of talent across the state for 5A level schools. It's time the powers that be realized that and scrapped this big school/small school non-sense. Obviously, this is a tough state to align given the population but there are proven ways to go about getting a completely performance based system in place.

If money isn't a factor as the UIL consistently states, then why can't we go back to two teams per district format across the board? If you really have the kids in mind then why not impliment a playoff system that not only makes sense from a performance point of view, but also gives the student-athletes the satisfaction of being UNDISPUTED at the end of the year regardless of how they finish? I think it would provide a lot more closure to know you went in one bracket, and were after the same prize everyone else was.

There should be no argument at the end of the year as to who the best team is. That is the purpose of a championship. I think it's insulting to both Trinity and Southlake (and all other D1/D2 champs since 90) they have to live with the fact that there was an entire bracket they didn't get to plow through. I know they'll gladly take the rings they have, and be satisfied with the accomplishments of the season, but the mere fact we have two champions makes no sense at all.

If the UIL and powers that be really have the kids in mind (and not $$$), how about giving them a playoff system that makes sense?

[ktCarl]

I agree with you. What kind of win/loss records will the #4 teams have? I've stated once before that even with 3 teams getting in from each District you get some teams in that don't really deserve to be in a playoff game. My example from the past is in '98 Pearland made the playoffs with only 2 district wins. In fact, their overall record was below .500 that year. What does that say to the kids in that district that went undefeated or only had one loss?

[toonman]

If the UIL keeps a 6 team district; the 4th placed team will still make the play-offs, with what is guaranteed to be a losing record.

[dragonator]

If the UIL keeps a 6 team district; the 4th placed team will still make the play-offs, with what is guaranteed to be a losing record.

Yuk!

[owlfan 1]

Rant away, KT. Maybe, someday, someone will hear...

[KT2000]

I've got a car now, so maybe I can take my happy self up to Austin in February if they'll let me in. :)

[Reaganrattler07]

The thing is the #6 team in one district could probably beat the #1 team of another district

[owlfan 1]

I spoke with a couple of coaches who I know and brought up the Super Bracket proposal - the biggest negative I heard was that no one wants a bye week before the playoffs start. One coach said that it takes at least two weeks following a bye week to get a team playing back at the level they were before the bye week...

[Tut]

Rant away, KT. Maybe, someday, someone will hear...
They hear, but they don't listen.:mad:

[dragonsdaddy]

I spoke with a couple of coaches who I know and brought up the Super Bracket proposal - the biggest negative I heard was that no one wants a bye week before the playoffs start. One coach said that it takes at least two weeks following a bye week to get a team playing back at the level they were before the bye week...
that is a coaching issue. i doubt it would concern the uil in the least, and it is easily overcome.

[KT2000]

The coaches must approve it before the UIL can actually change it. The other side to the bye week argument I've heard is that if gives time to heal up injuries and get completely focused on the playoffs. The bye week only exists for the three teams per Super Bracket, but obviously wouldn't be a problem if we went back to two.

Sure, some sixth place teams could beat district champs in other areas but I don't see the problem with having to play out of your area as one of the two or three best. Just look at NCAA basketball. A lot of teams in the NIT could wipe the floor with many of the lower seeds from lesser known conferences in the Big Dance.

[Tut]

I thought it was ridiculous when it went to three teams, and more absurd with the silly two division system. Can you guess what I think of four?:mad:

[bullrock]

I can't wait until they allow six in. We would have a small, a medium, and a large. That would be a hoot. The next step will be allowing eight in. We would then have a small, medium, large, and Xlarge. I don't think we have enough teams to go any farther.

[BAMF cowboy]

I can't wait until they allow six in. We would have a small, a medium, and a large. That would be a hoot. The next step will be allowing eight in. We would then have a small, medium, large, and Xlarge. I don't think we have enough teams to go any farther.

everyone gets to go to playoffs and feel good about themselves!!

[LoneRocket]

I think we now need to have a super quarter final to ensure only one team makes it out of the region, a true final four. Then we can have one state champion in 5a and 4a.

[dragonfootballfan]

Well with the current system three teams does not make sense. There is inherent inequality with one 32 team bracket and one 64 team bracket. I like 4 teams more than 3 for this simple reason. I am also wondering if both 5A championship games will be televised if they are at different sites. It will be interesting to see what FSN wants to do.

[Tut]

Well with the current system three teams does not make sense. There is inherent inequality with one 32 team bracket and one 64 team bracket. I like 4 teams more than 3 for this simple reason. I am also wondering if both 5A championship games will be televised if they are at different sites. It will be interesting to see what FSN wants to do.
I'm sure FSN will push for them to be at the same site.

[toonman]

I'm sure FSN will push for them to be at the same site.

Both games will probably be back to back in a double header format.

[dragonsdaddy]

Both games will probably be back to back in a double header format.
so far it is still up to the coaches, so i doubt that'll be the rule. . they will separate them by time to facilitate televising both.

[toonman]

so far it is still up to the coaches, so i doubt that'll be the rule. . they will separate them by time to facilitate televising both.

I forgot about that (the coaches agreeing) - just wishful thinking by me for a double header.

[garlandowl08]

What do yall think about a system similar to NCAA basketball? THere's the NCAA tournement with all the glory, but the NIT allows smaller/worse schools get a chance at some glory.

[CLFalcon2006]

If the 4th team had been taken in 24-5A, after Galveston was disqualified, it would be 4-6 Clear Brook. All but 1 of our teams (Pearland) in playoffs will have had losing records.

[insider]

Instead of size - they could do the 'real' champion division (top two) and consolation division (next two). This would keep it at 6 weeks and the top division would be for the rings - the consolation for the experience.

Although, if they were willing to go seven weeks to get a unified champion - they should start in some form of seeded set instead of the pairwise district knockdowns. Would seek to preserve the 'best' teams going long into the playoffs. Something like:

coded as district-rank (e.g. district 3 champion would be 3-1)

round 1 region 1
1-1 vs 2-4 (a)
2-1 vs 3-4 (b)
3-1 vs 4-4 (c)
4-1 vs 5-4 (d)
5-1 vs 6-4 (e)
6-1 vs 7-4 (f)
7-1 vs 8-4 (g)
8-1 vs 1-4 (h)
1-2 vs 3-3 (i)
2-2 vs 4-3 (j)
3-2 vs 5-3 (k)
4-2 vs 6-3 (l)
5-2 vs 7-3 (m)
6-2 vs 8-3 (n)
7-2 vs 1-3 (o)
8-2 vs 2-3 (p)

round 2
a-m (A)
b-n (B)
c-o (C)
d-p (D)
e-i (E)
f-j (F)
g-k (G)
h-l (H)

round 3
A-H (01)
B-G (02)
C-F (03)
D-E (04)

round 4 - region semis
01-04
02-03

round 5 - region winner
winners from 4

[Tut]

What do yall think about a system similar to NCAA basketball? THere's the NCAA tournement with all the glory, but the NIT allows smaller/worse schools get a chance at some glory.

Winners bracket - top 2 per district
Consolation bracket - 3 & 4 of each district

Sounds good to me!

[dragonsdaddy]

how long until the uil takes a page from the 7on7 and puts everyone in the pos, with a championship and a consol bracket? can you imagine the forfeits that would happen when ysletta(1-9) was scheduled to play granbury(2-8) in midland jr high stadium and the pregame ticket sales could be kept in a sock?

[my3sons]

how long until the uil takes a page from the 7on7 and puts everyone in the pos, with a championship and a consol bracket? can you imagine the forfeits that would happen when ysletta(1-9) was scheduled to play granbury(2-8) in midland jr high stadium and the pregame ticket sales could be kept in a sock?

Always a good spin. :D

[pack0808]

The coaches must approve it before the UIL can actually change it. The other side to the bye week argument I've heard is that if gives time to heal up injuries and get completely focused on the playoffs. The bye week only exists for the three teams per Super Bracket, but obviously wouldn't be a problem if we went back to two.

Sure, some sixth place teams could beat district champs in other areas but I don't see the problem with having to play out of your area as one of the two or three best. Just look at NCAA basketball. A lot of teams in the NIT could wipe the floor with many of the lower seeds from lesser known conferences in the Big Dance.


I find the bye excuse amusing. NFL teams kill for that bye and many college teams go over a month without playing after the regular season. Just a lame excuse. :rolleyes: Do not even get me started on this issue. Really irritates me. the coaches are one of the main reasons this crappy system exist.

[KT2000]

Allowing more teams into the post-season creates added job security opportunity for coaches, and I think that had to be a big sell point for the fourth team getting in. Coaches pay bills too, so I can understand it from that point of view.

However, it doesn't change the fact the current system (and the soon to be implimented four teams per) is broken. There should never be two champions and/or two championship brackets for one classification/conference/league/etc.

I'm with the other posters who've said, if we are stuck with this four team thing, take the top two teams from each district and make a championship bracket. Take the 3rd and 4th place finishers and put them into a consolation tournament.

[sgfantoo]

What happens when you have a three way tie for 1st, each with 1 loss as in 12-5a in 04. Did not Euless Trinity have that this year? Life is messy and so are the playoffs. This year if only two had made it, South Garland would have been left out. Maybe that would have benifited Longview.

[gburgtiger]

128 teams is rediculous...what's next? If a team loses in the playoffs give them a second chance? maybe a round robin double or tripple elimination tournament?...That would put the football season ending in march. Great for the fans...not so good for the players.

Maybe we could let all the teams into the playoffs and make it double elimination and play until may. Last team standing gets the ring! Just rediculous

[KT2000]

I just want to reiterate I'm not against rewarding the student-athletes.

However, what kind of reward are you giving a 4th place team by putting them up against a district champion or 2nd place team? For some districts, 4th place may be able to last against competition from a weaker district but I think that's very limited.

[lonny23]

I just want to reiterate I'm not against rewarding the student-athletes.

However, what kind of reward are you giving a 4th place team by putting them up against a district champion or 2nd place team? For some districts, 4th place may be able to last against competition from a weaker district but I think that's very limited.
Some can compete and some can't. I say give them the chance to compete. Several 3rd place teams have played for titles in recent years.

[WOS87]

In regards to the 4th team being added to 5A playoffs, there are a lot of people who disagree with it but when you look at the numbers I don't see the huge "watering down" or "diluting" effect everyone keeps talking about.

There are currently 244 5A teams in Texas. Assuming the UIL sticks with the rumored number of 245 5A teams for 2006 we'll end up with
128 teams making the playoffs in 5A out of 245 = 52.24% of all 5A teams

That's actually less than it was in 3A this past year (3A only has 182 teams)
96 teams making the playoffs in 3A out of 182 = 52.74%

Compared to some other states, even with the added numbers of schools making the playoffs, Texas will still have much fewer schools per capita going to the playoffs. Consider Louisiana, which (please correct me if I'm wrong) has 32 teams from 5 classifications making their State Playoffs. That's 160 teams.
Lousiana population (US Census 2000) - 4,468,976
Houston metropolitan area population (US Census 2000) - 4,669, 571

Is it a leap to say that an equivalent system in Texas would have 160 Houston area teams making the playoffs?? I would estimate the actual number is much less than 100 in actuality.

Or if you take total state population Louisiana has about one team in the playoffs for every 28,000 people.

In 2004 and 2005 Texas had one team per 48,000 people (almost double that of our neighbor)
In 2006 (given the number of 1A districts isn't increased) it would only drop to about one per 43,000

I'm much more against the Texas system of having 2 different State Champs in each classification than allowing more teams in. That's where the diluting factor actually does come in.

[pack0808]

In regards to the 4th team being added to 5A playoffs, there are a lot of people who disagree with it but when you look at the numbers I don't see the huge "watering down" or "diluting" effect everyone keeps talking about.

There are currently 244 5A teams in Texas. Assuming the UIL sticks with the rumored number of 245 5A teams for 2006 we'll end up with
128 teams making the playoffs in 5A out of 245 = 52.24% of all 5A teams

That's actually less than it was in 3A this past year (3A only has 182 teams)
96 teams making the playoffs in 3A out of 182 = 52.74%

Compared to some other states, even with the added numbers of schools making the playoffs, Texas will still have much fewer schools per capita going to the playoffs. Consider Louisiana, which (please correct me if I'm wrong) has 32 teams from 5 classifications making their State Playoffs. That's 160 teams.
Lousiana population (US Census 2000) - 4,468,976
Houston metropolitan area population (US Census 2000) - 4,669, 571

Is it a leap to say that an equivalent system in Texas would have 160 Houston area teams making the playoffs?? I would estimate the actual number is much less than 100 in actuality.

Or if you take total state population Louisiana has about one team in the playoffs for every 28,000 people.

In 2004 and 2005 Texas had one team per 48,000 people (almost double that of our neighbor)
In 2006 (given the number of 1A districts isn't increased) it would only drop to about one per 43,000

I'm much more against the Texas system of having 2 different State Champs in each classification than allowing more teams in. That's where the diluting factor actually does come in.

This guy must be part of the UIL? 4 playoff teams per district is a joke no matter how you look at it.

[Tut]

Compared to some other states, even with the added numbers of schools making the playoffs, Texas will still have much fewer schools per capita going to the playoffs. Consider Louisiana, which (please correct me if I'm wrong) has 32 teams from 5 classifications making their State Playoffs. That's 160 teams.
Lousiana population (US Census 2000) - 4,468,976
Houston metropolitan area population (US Census 2000) - 4,669, 571

Or if you take total state population Louisiana has about one team in the playoffs for every 28,000 people.

I'm much more against the Texas system of having 2 different State Champs in each classification than allowing more teams in. That's where the diluting factor actually does come in.
Please don't compare us to Louisiana!:mad: :(

[TigerHat]

128

Maybe we could let all the teams into the playoffs and make it double elimination and play until may. Last team standing gets the ring! Just rediculous

Or - we could have an actual National Championship Bracket 2 semifinalists from each state with split brackets so that no one plays anyone from their own state until the finals.

Oh wait, the final would have been SLC vs Katy - never mind.

[a&mconsoltiger]

im not liking this at all, the UIL is taking all the fun out of the game

[YuccaRoot]

Only one time can I remember where four teams from one district deserved to go to the playoffs...in the 1974 season, Tyler John Tyer, Longview, Lufkin, and Texarkana Texas High all finished in the Top 10 in the final AP poll:

#3 Tyler John Tyler (9-1; only loss was to Lufkin)
#5 Longview (9-1; only loss was to Tyler John Tyler)
#6 Lufkin (9-1; only loss was to Longview and beat the eventual State Champion, Brazoswood 15-0 in a non-district game)
# 9 Texas High (7-3; only loss was to John Tyler, Longview, and Lufkin. Texas High beat the Arkansas State Champion, Arkansas High, 35-0 in the first game of the season).

In that era, only one team advanced to the playoffs.

[KtBandDad08]

I like the idea of a consolation bracket for 3rd and 4th place teams. Gives everyone an opportunity to compete at a more comparable level so you don't see the 30-40 point spreads put up by the winning teams in the early rounds. Also gives those 3/4 teams who are peaking at the end of the season the opportunity to go farther in the playoffs. Would like to see the D I/ D II combined into this scenerio.

Don't mind adding one more team out of each district to the playoffs.

There are good players on non-district champ teams that would have the opportunity to show their skills to college scouts against a good team.

The playoffs will still be playoffs and the top teams will still compete for the title. I'm not so concerned about diluting the meaning of the championship as I am for the 3/4 ranked teams that have to start their playoff experience against the programs like Katy, Lufkin, SV, SLC, etc. Sports is an extracurricular activity of the public education system. Expanding opportunities to more players is a good thing if we really believe students learn from sports.

Just don't want to extend the seasons to the point that kids get tired and hurt or set-up to fail.

[DiamondJ2]

When we do go to 4 teams, then we could very easily have a one division champion. Start the season in zero week, which would move the season up one week. Then, the championship game would end at the same time as it does now. Or cut the season back one game. Give each district champion home field advantage, at least, in the first playoff game; especially against the number 4 seed from the district. Then set up the playoffs so you do not have to play another team from your district until the 4th game of playoffs. Of course, to win the championshiip you will have to win 7 playoff games, which is virtually another season. Just trying to get it back to one champion for each classification.

[ScottS]

I'm all for 1 champion from each classification. Its just 1 more game. If the UIL is all about $, it would be a $ game.

[toonman]

I'm all for 1 champion from each classification. Its just 1 more game. If the UIL is all about $, it would be a $ game.

The 2 Division Champions has been in operation since 1990. However, if this sytem was not introduced and we stayed with 1 State Champion, this is how I would see the Single Championship winners :-

2005 - Southlake Carroll
2004 - Southlake Carroll
2003 - Galena North Shore
2002 - Southlake Carroll
2001 - Lufkin
2000 - Katy
1999 - Midland Lee
1998 - Midland Lee
1997 - Flower Mound
1996 - Austin Westlake
1995 – San Antonio Roosevelt
1994 - Tyler John Tyler
1993 - Lewisville
1992 - Temple
1991 - Odessa Permian
1990 - Aldine

I looked at the records, results, wins, losses etc of both Champions and came up with this list. (Please note this list is not taking anything away from the other State Champions. This is only to give an opinion and hear other posters comments of where I may a made a misjudgment) – It is also an indication that the football season is over and we need this to have something to discuss.

[lonny23]

The 2 Division Champions has been in operation since 1990. However, if this sytem was not introduced and we stayed with 1 State Champion, this is how I would see the Single Championship winners :-

2005 - Southlake Carroll
2004 - Southlake Carroll
2003 - Galena North Shore
2002 - Southlake Carroll
2001 - Lufkin
2000 - Katy
1999 - Midland Lee
1998 - Midland Lee
1997 - Flower Mound
1996 - Austin Westlake
1995 – San Antonio Roosevelt
1994 - Tyler John Tyler
1993 - Lewisville
1992 - Temple
1991 - Odessa Permian
1990 - Aldine

I looked at the records, results, wins, losses etc of both Champions and came up with this list. (Please note this list is not taking anything away from the other State Champions. This is only to give an opinion and hear other posters comments of where I may a made a misjudgment) – It is also an indication that the football season is over and we need this to have something to discuss.
Here's mine if we have 1 champ in a Superbracket:

2005 - Southlake Carroll over Converse Judson
2004 - Southlake Carroll over Smithson Valley
2003 - Galena Park North Shore over Southlake Carroll
2002 - Southlake Carroll over Converse Judson
2001 - Mesquite over San Antonio Taft
2000 - Katy over Midland Lee
1999 - Garland over Katy
1998 - Midland Lee over Converse Judson
1997 - Flower Mound Marcus over Katy
1996 - Lewisville over Converse Judson
1995 – Converse Judson over Flower Mound Marcus
1994 - Plano over Katy
1993 - Converse Judson over Lewisville
1992 - Converse Judson over Temple
1991 - Odessa Permian over SA Marshall
1990 - Marshall over Converse Judson

Feel free to disagree. I expect some will. No, I didn't forget who beat who in X year.

[pack0808]

Here's mine if we have 1 champ in a Superbracket:

2005 - Southlake Carroll over Converse Judson
2004 - Southlake Carroll over Smithson Valley
2003 - Galena Park North Shore over Southlake Carroll
2002 - Southlake Carroll over Converse Judson
2001 - Mesquite over San Antonio Taft
2000 - Katy over Midland Lee
1999 - Garland over Katy
1998 - Midland Lee over Converse Judson
1997 - Flower Mound Marcus over Katy
1996 - Lewisville over Converse Judson
1995 – Converse Judson over Flower Mound Marcus
1994 - Plano over Katy
1993 - Converse Judson over Lewisville
1992 - Converse Judson over Temple
1991 - Odessa Permian over SA Marshall
1990 - Marshall over Converse Judson

Feel free to disagree. I expect some will. No, I didn't forget who beat who in X year.


I definitely disagree with your 2001 pick. ;)

[lonny23]

I definitely disagree with your 2001 pick. ;)
To me, Mesquite just had that ability to suffocate you. I thought for a little bit about what Lufkin could/would do.

[KT2000]

Just my opinion, but I feel like Lufkin would have spanked Mesquite in 2001. Reggie wore a cape that year. Heck, I'd pick the Westlake team they beat over Mesquite. D1 wasn't very strong that year.

[Drake]

Disclaimer: KT's annual rant on the playoff system...

I've had time to reflect back on this year, and also think about what the future is bringing. Obviously, realignment is the first order of business in February and that'll help move through the early months of off-season quicker.

I'm still having trouble warming up to the idea of two 64 team brackets. 128 schools (out of approx. 240+) will make the playoffs. That's right at or just above HALF of the total amount 5A schools. From a competitive point of view, I think it's a complete joke. Why? NCAA basketball, NHL hockey, NFL football, and even MLB baseball now allows a high percentage of teams in their championship playoffs and it takes nothing away from the eventual champion. Three teams per district should be the maximum. The post-season should only be for top 25-35% in my opinion.

I know they want more kids to play in the post-season, and that's fine. However, when you are taking four from each district it waters it down to the point of not being a real accomplishment to be in the playoffs. Making the playoffs WOULD be an accomplishment, especially in 8 or 9 team districts. Of course, it wouldn't be as glorifying as "District Champ" or "District Runner-up", so there are still accomplishments the stronger teams will shoot for other than just "playoff qualifier". I'm not saying kids on teams outside of the top 2-3 of their district should be kicked to the curb, but competitively it makes no sense to allow those teams in the playoffs. What reward are you giving a 4th place team by telling them, "Congrats on making the playoffs. Now, you get to be tossed around like cast away Raggedy Ann dolls for four quarters by teams like Katy or Southlake! Enjoy your stay in Bracketville!" I'm sure the moderately successful programs appreciate your sincere concern for them but I'm betting most would rather have something to play for the last few weeks of the season and take their chances against with the powerhouses (if they're fortunate enough to make the playoffs) just the same.
It lessens the importance of the regular season when one more team gets in. Winning a district championship currently guarantees you almost nothing as far as playoff position with enrollment being the intitial filter. It doesn't guarantee you which division you get in but it does guarantee you'll play the lowest seed team from the bi-district in your division. I wish we'd go back to the completely performance based system we had in the 80s. Only two teams per district made it, and there was one bracket. There are two brackets because of the wide disparity in attendance figures. I agree that there should be one state champion per class regardless, but I am thinking at some point someone thought it unfair that schools with 4000 kids had to compete with schools with 2000 kids for the same prize.

I think that's the way it should be today because making the playoffs should be a real accomplishment, and so should winning your district. Enrollments are proven meaningless each year in this day and age given the increasing balance of talent across the state for 5A level schools. It's time the powers that be realized that and scrapped this big school/small school non-sense. Obviously, this is a tough state to align given the population but there are proven ways to go about getting a completely performance based system in place. I don't believe a Converse Judson victory in the DIV I final would have tarnished the championship just because they were a third place team, do you? They obviously had one of the better teams in the state. It would have been a shame had they missed the playoffs because they were in one of the toughest districts in the state and FB Marshall got in undefeated because it was aligned in one of the easier. While its true that allowing more teams in per district certainly lessens the importance of winning the district, it is balanced out by making up for the inequities created when trying to create workable districts in such a large, spread out state. Converse Judson is a good example of this.

If money isn't a factor as the UIL consistently states, then why can't we go back to two teams per district format across the board? If you really have the kids in mind then why not impliment a playoff system that not only makes sense from a performance point of view, but also gives the student-athletes the satisfaction of being UNDISPUTED at the end of the year regardless of how they finish? I think it would provide a lot more closure to know you went in one bracket, and were after the same prize everyone else was. I agree on one bracket. Would only take an extra week or the UIL could eliminate byes or one non-district game. If you're going to call it one class (5A for example), there should be one champ. But anyone that believes the UIL that it's not about money is a little green.

There should be no argument at the end of the year as to who the best team is. That is the purpose of a championship. I think it's insulting to both Trinity and Southlake (and all other D1/D2 champs since 90) they have to live with the fact that there was an entire bracket they didn't get to plow through. I know they'll gladly take the rings they have, and be satisfied with the accomplishments of the season, but the mere fact we have two champions makes no sense at all.

If the UIL and powers that be really have the kids in mind (and not $$$), how about giving them a playoff system that makes sense?Just to talk about something other than SLC. :D

[KT2000]

For schools with 2,000 students or more, enrollments numbers are nearly meaningless now due to the increasing balance of talent. That arguement no longer holds water in my opinion and Southlake Carroll/Smithson Valley have really helped drive that point home since they joined class 5A. The Div. 1/2 concept was originally adopted to separate big from small, but the times have changed and it needs to be adjusted accordingly in my opinion.

Maybe it's just the competitor in me, but I feel like the state playoffs should be a more exclusive event. I don't believe that's just because I came up following and participating in a winning program. If my school didn't make the top two or three one year, then I'd be dissapointed but it'd be very motivating also for the future. As far as the tougher districts go, take care of business in the regular season otherwise you don't have an argument in my opinion. 6-4 or 5-5 teams should be considered very much "on the bubble" in my opinion. If you can't put up a winning regular season record, you shouldn't be in a championship playoff. However, with the new format you'll see 3-7 and most likely a few 2-8 teams make it.

Judson was pretty lucky to be in the post-season this year after the wild game against Reagan but made the most of it in the playoffs. Some good teams miss the Big Dance every year in NCAA basketball from power conferences, but don't complain much after the fact because they realize they should have done better in the regular season.

Four teams is just over the top in my opinion. The only way I'd be in support of four teams per is if the top two finishing teams from each district were seeded into a championship bracket and the remaining were seeded into a consolation. The age of the big school domination is over, so we need to get away from using enrollment figures as the initial filter for our brackets.

[Drake]

I agree that some programs like Southlake, who attract and begin farming and developing talent in grade school, have succeeded without gargantuan enrollments, but I don't believe that enrollment has nothing to do with talent levels in general. So, attendance figures need to play a role in classification...

Regardless, how do you propose justifying to some of the Dallas schools that could contend for a championship but would miss the playoffs in 8 or 9 team districts with a one/two team qualifying system when a number of Valley teams, with no real shot at winning it all, gets in every year? Doesn’t it seem fairer to error on the side of letting more teams in and consequently INCLUDING some of those very talented Dallas teams that have a shot. Wouldn’t that lead to more meaningful games at the end of the regular season and generate more revenues (in gate receipts, program sales) for many of the schools? Wouldn’t more money allow the schools to improve upon facilities, buy better equipment, etc.? All in all, it seems to me that the residual effect from 4 team qualification will mean a tried a true champion(s) and even better developing football in the state.

What are the reasons we should only have only one or two teams make it again? Because that’s the way it was in the 80’s? Hmmm… ;)

[KT2000]

The justification behind possibly going back to a two teams per district format would be purely performance based, but I realize other factor$ play a more important role than that these days.

Again, if you can't be at least a top 2 or 3 team in your district I really don't believe you should be able to compete in a championship playoff regardless of how tough your district is. You have to be able to play out of your immediate area as one of the better teams. Tough luck on the draw, but all areas should be able to represent their best in a championship playoff. Every year, I'm sure there are teams who could embarrass district champions from weaker districts. However, you still must be able to play out of your immediate area (district) in my opinion.

On the enrollment point, I haven't seen any substantial proof in the last five or so years that it results in a big enough competitive edge where as much emphasis should be placed on it as we currently have. Bottom line in my opinion, enrollments should only classify a school as 6-man, 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A or 5A. Beyond that, I don't see the point in using them given the landscape of HS football today.

The motivation behind my views on this issue are completely competition/performance based and realize that's definitely not shared by all.

[KT2000]

To further touch on the enrollment...

This is for sub 3,000 enrollment schools who made the third round. Picked that because I consider most pretenders eliminated after two games:

4 of 8 Division 1 (50%)
13 of 16 Division 2 (81%)

[Drake]

On the enrollment point, I haven't seen any substantial proof in the last five or so years that it results in a big enough competitive edge where as much emphasis should be placed on it as we currently have. Bottom line in my opinion, enrollments should only classify a school as 6-man, 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A or 5A. Beyond that, I don't see the point in using them given the landscape of HS football today.Completely agree. If you have to compete with a certain group for the district, why wouldn't you compete with them in the playoffs?

If they had 32 districts with 7 or 8 in each district and 4 qualifiers from each that would give you 7 weeks of playoffs and ONE champion... Having 4 teams just makes it much easier bracketwise, plus having only 7 or 8 in each district gives you room for growth without changing the playoff format for awhile... What I mean is, if more teams are added the districts can just grow (up to 10 each if need be)... This would prevent constant re-alignment.

Like you said, the weak teams will be gone after a few weeks anyway, so what's it matter if that many qualify?

[Drake]

To further touch on the enrollment...

This is for sub 3,000 enrollment schools who made the third round. Picked that because I consider most pretenders eliminated after two games:

4 of 8 Division 1 (50%)
13 of 16 Division 2 (81%)Spinner! STATS are for spinners! I could shred this evidence so easy... :D

[KT2000]

Shred away, no one's stopping you :) . It's not really meant to prove a point. Just FYI.

However, I do stand by what I said before about enrollments not meaning enough to place the emphasis we do on them right now. I think that will continue to be the case especially as long as all of these new schools continue to be built.

[Drake]

Shred away, no one's stopping you :) . It's not really meant to prove a point. Just FYI.

However, I do stand by what I said before about enrollments not meaning enough to place the emphasis we do on them right now.I don't have the data but it clued me in that the stats were probably skewed when you somehow justified not considering teams that lost in the first two rounds for no other reason than your belief they are pretenders! LOL!

Besides, I never said higher enrollment numbers directly lead to higher achievements on the field... All they do is create a larger talent pool. What the community, players and coaching is able to do with that talent is what determines the results... IMHO.

[KT2000]

Well, I think that's a pretty standard "rule of thumb" as far as 32 or 64 team playoffs are concerned. After two rounds in both brackets...only 24 teams are left overall. Top 10%. I think it's safe to assume that you have only the real deals still going at that point. :)

With no data in tow, your argument is futile. ;)

[Drake]

Okay, you said 13 of the final 16 (81%) in DIV II had less than 3000 enrollment. How many of the 48 teams eliminated in rounds 1 and 2 had more than 3000? If its less than 19% then your "statistics" should tell you enrollment IS a factor... No?

I'll admit I don't have the data or the inclination to get it, but if you have it but present only the portion that supports your contention, then you are a SPINNER! :D

[KatyTigerDad0407]

No, I didn't forget who beat who in X year.I will let you get away with that under 1 condition(you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect it a lot). Go back and consider Katy in the year they pulled our boys off the busses; the same thought process has to go into your conclusions if you are going to discount an earned championship.

[RidgePride]

Just my opinion, but I feel like Lufkin would have spanked Mesquite in 2001. Reggie wore a cape that year. Heck, I'd pick the Westlake team they beat over Mesquite. D1 wasn't very strong that year.
I would also Take Trinity over Mesquite that year. They should have beaten Lufkin

[Slim-Rob]

Had this been this year, here are the Div. 4 4th place teams that would have been in:
25-5 East Central - 4-6
26-5 SA Reagan - 6-4
27-5 SA Marshall - 6-4
28-5 CC King - 3-7 (6 team district)
29-5 Laredo Cigarroa - 6-4
30-5 McAllen - 3-7 (6 team district)
31-5 5 way tie for 3rd place. (all 5 were 2-4 in district, 7 team district): Weslaco 6-4, PSJA North 6-4, Edinburg North 4-5, Donna 2-8, Edinburg Economedes 2-7
32-5 Harlingen South or San Benito, both 6-4 and 4-3 in district


I don't think any of these teams would have made it past the first round unless they played each other, but then again Judson was 6-4 and made it to state, so I really don know.

[Slim-Rob]

The 2 Division Champions has been in operation since 1990. However, if this sytem was not introduced and we stayed with 1 State Champion, this is how I would see the Single Championship winners :-

2005 - Southlake Carroll
2004 - Southlake Carroll
2003 - Galena North Shore
2002 - Southlake Carroll
2001 - Lufkin
2000 - Katy
1999 - Midland Lee
1998 - Midland Lee
1997 - Flower Mound
1996 - Austin Westlake
1995 – San Antonio Roosevelt
1994 - Tyler John Tyler
1993 - Lewisville
1992 - Temple
1991 - Odessa Permian
1990 - Aldine

I looked at the records, results, wins, losses etc of both Champions and came up with this list. (Please note this list is not taking anything away from the other State Champions. This is only to give an opinion and hear other posters comments of where I may a made a misjudgment) – It is also an indication that the football season is over and we need this to have something to discuss.

Judson finished 2nd in district only in 1995(out of the years they made it to state), so they would have been in the playoffs if only 1 team went. How can you not even give them 1 of their back to back titles(92-93).

I agree with the 95 Roosevelt though. They won 26-5A in 95 and Judson was 2nd. Judson only loss that year was to Roosevelt.

[WOS87]

Judson... How can you not even give them 1 of their back to back titles(92-93).

I agree with the 95 Roosevelt though. They won 26-5A in 95 and Judson was 2nd. Judson only loss that year was to Roosevelt.

Temple beat Judson 37-21 in 1992 as well as defending 5A Div 2 champ Odessa Permian, with their only loss to defending Div 1 champs Killeen... so I definitely have to go with Temple that year.

1993 - I would give the edge to Judson (13-0-2) 591 pts scored with 116 against in 15 games... only common opponent was Temple who they beat 28-0. Beat district 11 champ Plano 36-13 and tied District 21 Champ Aldine Eisenhower 27-27.

Lewisville (15-0-1) Scored fewer pts (555) and allowed more (208) in 16 games... beat Temple 40-16. Barely got by 3rd place district 11 team Plano East 14-7 and district 21 runnerup Aldine Macarthur 43-37