21 replies to this topic

[LimaJock]

PHDigger, on 05 March 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

While the example of CW and Kenton is a good one for the argument, I still don't believe the loser should get any points. The fact still remains that the winner is the winner and the loser is not the winner. How would anybody be able to classify which team gets these losing points? Remember, most of the games on most teams schedules are forced by the league they are in. They take the gamble on their non-league games. If you want an easy win, schedule an easy team. If you want the challenge by playing a (normally) good team to get BIG points, then schedule one. But remember, you may not win the game either. That's the gamble that makes it good. Not by giving sympathy points.

It makes no sense to be forced to play a school 1 1/2 hours or so away just because schools close are jocking to find the patsy win. Play good competition close to home, Good crowds, better revenue, bragging rights. Save gas. Most importantly better teams are in playoffs.

WOULD BE NO DISCUSSION IF OHSAA WOULD WAKE UP AND OPEN IT UP TO ALL . Might be the first time they have not jumped on more money. Probably have not figured out it would be more.

LJ

[PHDigger]

I agree with what you are saying about teams traveling to play easy teams. But I see it as they are normally penalized for doing it by the way the system works. Ready is a great example. Turn down offers closer and better schools to play Montpelier. Yes they got the big win, but they also got div 6 level 1 points, and very few level 2. It did almost nothing for them to make the playoffs.