Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
I have heard this is being serioulsy considered after having been discussed for several years. Strictly from a personal, selfish standpoint it gives officials (and schools) more chances in the post-season. So instead of having 4 tournaments and champions (boys' small and large school, and girls' small and large school), there could be six or eight tournaments, with six or eight possible champions, and more chances as officials to go farther into post-season. So is that a good thing? Honestly, I'm ambivilent. Maybe it gives a school who would've lost in the super-sectionals now a chance to win their class. But I also think it diminishes somewhat the value of the championship if there are more of them. It starts to turn into boxing (without Don King). How many different heavyweight champions are there? And then, who cares?
From an officiating standpoint, yea, I want to do post-season, and eventually, a championship game. But I'm not as excited about it if "everyone's doing it".
|
I do not know about that. It sounds like all they are going to do is change the classification of what you would work not the number of officials. So the same officials will still work the playoffs (speculation by me on what I saw on the PowerPoint) they just would work a different level of the playoffs. It appears they would just shift things around and have the same officials working "deeper" into the playoffs. Now I have no idea what will change, but I do not see it opening that many opportunities.
It seems to me Indiana was hurt when they went to multiple classes and it hurt attendance. It sounds great to great to have more state finals but it might not make as much money as it would if it stayed the same. Having 8-10 thousand people at a Super-Sectional site might go down considerably if they add more classes to the mix. After all the money will affect this discussion.
Peace
Wed Nov 23, 2005, 02:02pm
Threaded Mode
