So it looks like TAPPS officials, in their infinite wisdom, are going with the wildcard point system. Why? What was wrong with the old system? I'm sitting here, scratching my head, trying to figure out who thinks the old system is bad and why. Changing everything now only gives an advantage to the small districts while penalizing the large districts. What's up? Maybe someone can help me understand......

Pup- I agree with you, sure the old system was not perfect, but I think it was better than what TAPPS has put forth. I wish there was something we could do about it. If anybody has any solutions I would love to hear them. I vote that we leave things as they were.

I think the one change that should be made to the system is this ... in a four-team or less district, the last place team is ineligible for the playoffs regardless of point total.

Because in a four-team district, those teams have the greatest opportunity to amass points against weaker teams at higher classifications, it is very possible that the fourth place team (which probably did not win a district game) could qualify for the playoffs solely based on their non-district schedule. As Granger mentioned to me at lunch today, it sounds like lots of folks will want to put Darrouzette on their schedule.

Also, some adjustment will have to be made to the point schedule for those schools who play JV teams ... for example, you shouldn't get 5 points for beating a UIL D1 JV team.

If I get a chance in the next couple days, I might try to recreate the playoff picture from 2011 (Division I, since it had five districts last year) and see what differences I'd get in the playoff field using this program. But remember, as people understand that the point schedule is the main determining factor for playoff position for 3rd and 4th place teams, coaches are going to start thinking about weak sisters at the highest level they can feel competitive to maximize wildcard points.

I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I think the idea was that it was felt some weak teams were getting into the playoffs only to get beat 99-0 in the first round and how could we get the best 16 teams in the playoffs.

Problem is, if TAPPS (or any of us) could come up with that answer, we could make millions fron the BCS, NCAA basketball selection committee, and bankrupt every lottery on the globe.

There will always be somebody "on the bubble" who maybe should have gotten in over this team or that team, got lucky and snuck into the playoffs in a weak district, or hey, somebody just made it and gets hammered 99-0 in the first round game.

First round games aren't SUPPOSED to be the most competitive games. 16 doesn't beat 1 in March Madness, and rarely does 15 beat 2. Kentucky and Syracuse don't meet in the "first four" playoffs in Dayton, do they? But maybe for that school that made the playoffs for the first time, just getting an invite to the "big dance" is a reward in itself. Now, a year or two later, they may have an appetite for a couple more trips around the dance floor, but you gotta start somewhere.

But once in awhile one of those ugly ducklings do well ... anybody have Butler in the NCAA finals two years in a row? If so, I hope you put a few bucks on them with your pal the bookie, because you'd be in the 1% we hear so much about now-a-days. I remember about 10 years ago, our girls vb team BARELY made it to the playoffs. Won their last game of district, which put them in the playoff pool. And they kept winning, right up to the state title game when it was 2-2 and we were up 14-13 in the fifth set. Which we won, and went home with the nice shiny trophy.

Sometimes Cinderella goes home in the nice fancy carriage. And as I've said before, I think a bunch of my ancestors lost a lot of loot that night some little Jewish boy took out big ol' Goliath with a lucky shot. But usually, the top teams in the seeding keep playing.

And the best team wins. Regardless of how you seed them or qualify them.

My question is, who didn't make playoffs last year that should have? Someone who stayed home from playoffs that is better than one of the teams who did make it? I can't really find the problem. In Div. 2 that is.

And I'm not against the new system.. I'm neutral, whatever rules are thrown my way, I just adapt. Not much I can do about it! Might as well try to make it work the best we can.

So, does anyone really know WHY TAPPS changed the system? yung'un makes a good point. Was there a team that didn't make the playoffs that felt they should have? Going back and looking at the DII 2011 bracket, only 9 teams didn't make the playoffs, of which, two did not complete their season (HTC and Bellville). Is it one of those 7 remaining teams that complained that they didn't get in? My reply would be, win some games and prove yourself worthy.

Or is it a low seed team having to travel to a #1 seed that is causing all the fuss? Again, work on your program, win some games and take a shot. As a coach and a program, aren't you trying to get better? You made the playoffs, take the challenge and see if you can knock off the #1 seed.

Let's be honest, in any year it's really the top 5-8 teams, as ranked by sixman.com, that have a shot at being in the final four. Out of those, it's usually the top two or three that will be playing at Moody in December. I just don't understand why TAPPS would change now? What was wrong with the old system? Sure no system is perfect, but it worked well and, in the end, the best team wins.

Now here's something TAPPS may not have considered. How will the bracket be drawn up? OK, so the top two seeds make it from each district, that's 10 teams in. Then use the point system to take the next six teams. Good, now you've got your sixteen teams. But how are they going to draw up the bracket? Will it be #1 vs. #16, #2 vs. #15, etc.? Well, how do you determine seeding in the #1-#10 teams? Or what if they stay with the same process of District X #1 seed versus District Y #4 seed. Well, District Y may not have a #4 seed because they didn't "earn" enough points to make the playoffs. Have these things been thought out? If I were a coach I'd have some serious problems with being able to scout effectively prior to the playoffs. Don't most coaches like to know ahead of time who their possible matchups might be?

They way I see it is TAPPS has over reacted to the complaints of a few schools that got their feelings hurt or felt they deserved something. Unless TAPPS can give us a sane answer, that's what I'm going with.

I suggested to Lifegate a committee... why not.... I'll chair it

Are you Methodist? Committees are our answer to everything...............We once appointed a committee to study how effective committees are.....................
I kinda like these definitions:
"A committee is best composed of three people, with one who is always sick and another who is always absent."

"A committee is composed of people who individually can do nothing, who come together to conclude that nothing can be done."

One more: "A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.
Fred Allen

Now, guys, I'm not on the "inside" of these discussions ... and remember, TAPPS was setting up a system NOT ONLY for sixman D1/D2, but for three divisions of crowded field football. If you'll look at the rules, this point system applies for all five playoff scenarios. In the past, I believe a couple of the 11 man Division I teams were qualified through this system.

I don't think there were, at least in six-man, anybody complaining about teams NOT making the playoffs. In fact, I think there was more concern mentioned that some teams didn't belong in the playoffs (and there was one who declined to participate in the playoffs and recieved some sanctions for their actions ... as was another in crowded field).

I think there may be fewer total teams competing in the crowded field playoffs as they went from four divisions to three with larger districts.

But I don't think there's lots of support for a 8 of 12 team playoff field at any level (the latter would require some first round byes). So, it's 16 teams, and four weekends.

My concerns about the point system is two-fold, maybe three-fold: (1) In six-man, there are two districts (4 & 5) who are larger and have fewer opportunities to schedule non-district games AND fewer geographical opportunities to schedule the higher-point value team (UIL D1/D2 and to a lesser extent, TAPPS D1); (2) The idea that now every game becomes a defacto district game concerns me and I wonder at what point it will concern the non-district opponents to the point they would be less likely to schedule TAPPS schools as non-district opponents; and (3) what will happen over time is that you schedule games to win (for the playoff points) and not schedule competitive games.

If you think you may be fighting for that #3 or #4 spot in district, are you going to schedule a non-district game that would be challenging -- sharpening the saw -- against a difficult opponent or are you gonna look for the biggest Little Sisters of the Poor or Crippled Childrens Academy you can find to bank a quick 4 or 5 ponts?

Only if you are certain that you're going to be #1 or #2 will you take that risk. And then only if you're clarvioyant ... or your last name is Shipman, Hudgens, Helton ...

Gives them something to do and something for people to discuss. The best playoff system I have seen was South Carolina's System. I coached there from 2002-2005. Every district from 1A-3A had six teams in the district (more schools have been added since then). The top 4 teams in each district went to the playoffs. This pits #1 seed from one district against #4 from another. The districts changed every two years but not the format. Just my opinion. Take it as you wish.

I think the TAPPS "powers that be" would LOVE to have an even-number of districts, with the same number of teams in each district.

The problem is geogaphy, distance and gas prices.

Let's take Div 2/Dist 1. You've got El Paso Jesus Chapel, Plainview Christian and Lubbock Christ the King and Kingdom Prep. Dist 2 is six teams, Dist 3 is five. Dist 4 has 7 while Dist 5 has 8. To make 5 districts of 6 teams, you'd have to move two into dist 1, one into dist 3, and pull 1 from Dist 4 and 2 from Dist 5.

Easy to be done. Until you start moving bodies. Maybe, just maybe you can talk Freddy into moving into District 1. I know there wouldn't be a lot of complainers over in Dist 4, I bet ya I would be able to get the other six folks to agree to the move (except that for some sadomasotic reason, all of us like the folks in Freddy and seem to be alright with getting beat like rented mules once a year by their boys). But it'd be hard to find a second sucker ... er, a, volunteer, especially if they had to come from Southeast Texas to play all the way in west or north Texas.

Now yeah, I know the way it would happen. You'd move a couple teams from dist 2 into dist 1, some from dist 3 into dist 2 and maybe pull a couple of us from dist 4 and 5 into those northern districts to backfill. But that means a couple folks from northern Houston or San Antonio are going to be playing in Wichita Falls and Dallas, and that's gonna be a hard sell when the gas pumps are moving higher that the Power Ball Lottery after a couple months of no winners.

That's it......

Eleven-man is taking us down.