Jump to content

Would you be for or against...


For or against the D1 Champ playing the D2 Champ?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. For or against the D1 Champ playing the D2 Champ?

    • For
      40
    • Against
      12


Recommended Posts

I don't know.Seems like that would be defeating the purpose of having the two in the first place.But I would like to see it...what would you call it...High School Superbowl State Champions or just plain undisputed 3A.4A or 5A State Champions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well play it, so that it is indisputed in each classification.  However, there's too many teams that make the playoffs each year and they keep adding more!  IMO there should only be 2 teams from each district - Champ and runner-up....not 3,4 or 5 teams(future)!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the purpose of more playoff teams is to generate money for the UIL. Making the the 2 State Champions from a classification play each other would not be good for business. You are a champ for 1 week and then boom all your glory gone. It will never happen but it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, either way...5A is 5A, 4A is 4A so on and so forth - it's not 5A 1/2 or 4A 1/2!!!!  UIL doesn't need to make $$ off of public schools / athletics!!

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it's a duck - whether it's big or little!  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are going to play for the final championship, what is the point of two divisions?

If you take 64 smaller schools and let then play until they earn a berth in the final and then take 64 larger schools and do the same, what is to say that several of the defeated large schools couldn't have beaten all of the small school teams? Would the final game then be the best two schools or just the best small against the best big, and if so, why? I realize that the best small school might be the best team in the state (and has happened) but what about the others? If someone wants to make the case that the smaller schools are often the better team for that given year, then why break them up into divisions to begin with?

Just add one additional week to the playoffs if that is the ultimate result and stop with the division nonsense. Otherwise, leave it like it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the purpose of more playoff teams is to generate money for the UIL. Making the the 2 State Champions from a classification play each other would not be good for business. You are a champ for 1 week and then boom all your glory gone. It will never happen but it should.

I don't know Bronc, I mean each year there is a Super Bowl Champ and at the same time there is still an NFC Champ and an AFC Champ although admittedly they don't shine as much as the Bowl Champ. Also, if you had that one more game, wouldn't it stand to reason that the UIL would make a little more money from the extra game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the purpose of more playoff teams is to generate money for the UIL. Making the the 2 State Champions from a classification play each other would not be good for business. You are a champ for 1 week and then boom all your glory gone. It will never happen but it should.

I don't know Bronc, I mean each year there is a Super Bowl Champ and at the same time there is still an NFC Champ and an AFC Champ although admittedly they don't shine as much as the Bowl Champ. Also, if you had that one more game, wouldn't it stand to reason that the UIL would make a little more money from the extra game?

But the NFC and AFC are in difference conferences. They aren't divided into what is essentially an upper tier and a lower tier. The UIL already has that in effect with regions. If you win the quarterfinals, you are the regional champ. There are four regional champions in each division each year. You don't play outside of your region until you have won that region or in effect, your conference or area.

You won't see the New York Giants play in one division and the Dallas Cowboys in another. They can never play each other in the Super Bowl as they are i the same conference or region (UIL equivalent).

If it is all about money and an extra game, why not just play the extra game and quit worrying about divisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...