Boring football season?

From the standpoint of the forum this has been a very boring football season. Looking forward to the playoffs.

On the divisional format some info that would support a four division format.

There have been more blowouts (wins greater than 21) in the past two years than the previous two years that had six divisions. So much for better competition.

Only 40% of the teams make the playoffs. All other sports at least 57% make the playoffs. 4 divisions would allow 57% to make the playoffs.

Maybe other sports should have less playoff teams... 16 of 19 D1 hoops or baseball teams make playoffs. Baseball has the biggest beef because many times the 13-16 seed teams have 1 stud pitcher that can beat 1-4 seed teams, but cannot make it further; whereas, the 1-4 seeds have more depth.

Score differential doesn't mean that much - especially in football. It's not like those 1-score == 1-point sports. 21 points is 3 touchdowns and who's to say one of those was late in an otherwise 13-point game where one team gets intercepted on their way to score changing what could have been a 6 point game to 21.

I'd like to see the current setup run a few more years. I think this setup fixes the arguments over which teams should move up (or down) over the previous setup. Portsmouth seems to be doing fine in D1 and Goffstown isn't getting drowned, but neither is "running" the table in the old setup - they are being challenged. and they are winning. Dover is certainly going through a rough stretch, but that wouldn't have changed in the old format. Keene's had a rough year, but does one bad/good year mean that much in a cyclical sport that is heavily influenced by numbers/depth. Should BG be forced to D1 allowing Exeter to drop down? Should Plymouth stay in D4 or move up to D3? Should St.Thomas be forced to move up? Well we don't have to answer stuff like that any more. I think 3 Divisions works well especially since it was possible for West to drop down which everyone has said should have happened for quite a while.

I do think the playoff format is flawed - didn't realize it initially. Although, unlike scribes to their personal blogs or newspaper writers with their pulpit, I don't believe it's fixed by combining conferences. That localizes the problem and what's the best way to combine? Rather here's another way to look at it...

1. Conference champ is whoever has best record in regular season in their conference - not the winner of a "first round" playoff game. No need to have a conference champ playoff game. If there are 3 teams with same conference record (each beating the other), thus theoretically tied, then use the football rating system to determine champ.

2. First round playoff matchups are set by top 4 records between the two conferences that played each other that year (this is year 2 of a 3 year cycle to play other conferences). Home field is set by their rating - consider D1 SOUTH/WEST matchups this year - would it be fair for Londonderry or Salem to have to travel to Nashua, BG, or Alvirne?

3. Second round is the winners of first two games where home field is determined by their football rating

4. Final is as currently set at neutral location

This fixes this (and last) year's issue of a deserving team missing out - eg, in D1 this year it'd be

SOUTH/WEST: Pinkerton, {WEST CHAMP}, Salem, Londonderry
NORTH/EAST: Bedford, Exeter, Portsmouth, {Concord or Memorial}

{WEST CHAMP} - If BG wins Fri, then BG since they beat everyone in their conference, else 3 way tie with BG, Alvirne, South - who has best football rating determines champ).

Interesting side note on this - the South conference was on the other side of this issue last year if I recall correctly...