AAA Sectional Match-Ups (Winners to State Tournament)

[TheFactsOnly]

Knox Catholic (12-10-2) at Science Hill (16-3-2)

Dobyns Bennett (13-8-3) at Hardin Valley (15-0-5)

Blackman (15-4-2) at Cookeville (10-7-3)

Ooltewah (11-6-1) at Riverdale (12-3-2)

Nash Overton (13-3-4) at Hendersonville (18-2-1)

Wilson Central (11-6-1) at Ravenwood (14-2-1)

White Station (13-3-3) at Jackson North Side (12-3-3)

Bolton (9-5-1) at Houston (15-2-3)

[MoonDogRex]

Who designed this system?

 

Let me get this straight, using two teams as an example:

 

So Ravenwood and Overton won significant games to face each other in a regional final.

 

The two teams they defeated in the regional semi-finals -- Hunters Lane and Brentwood -- have their seasons come to a close. Makes perfect sense. You lose, you go home. It's tournament time.

 

Ravenwood then defeats Overton. Overton's season is over -- not.

 

Overton gets to play again, as does Wilson Central who lost at a similar stage to Hendersonville. Both teams lost decisively, but that's beside the point. Their seasons SHOULD be over, but instead we reward the losing teams with a second chance.

 

Now they simply flip-flop opponents. What is the mindset behind this? Seems you could make the progression of what is already really a state tournament (forget terms like "sectional" and "regional") much more sensible if at any point in the post-season a defeat meant the end of the season.

 

Here's the clincher for this nonsense: Before the last round of games, there were 16 teams still alive in AAA who could claim a state championship. After the last round of games, the SAME 16 teams are still alive and could win a state championship.

 

What is the point?

[manthrust]

Who designed this system?

 

Let me get this straight, using two teams as an example:

 

So Ravenwood and Overton won significant games to face each other in a regional final.

 

The two teams they defeated in the regional semi-finals -- Hunters Lane and Brentwood -- have their seasons come to a close. Makes perfect sense. You lose, you go home. It's tournament time.

 

Ravenwood then defeats Overton. Overton's season is over -- not.

 

Overton gets to play again, as does Wilson Central who lost at a similar stage to Hendersonville. Both teams lost decisively, but that's beside the point. Their seasons SHOULD be over, but instead we reward the losing teams with a second chance.

 

Now they simply flip-flop opponents. What is the mindset behind this? Seems you could make the progression of what is already really a state tournament (forget terms like "sectional" and "regional") much more sensible if at any point in the post-season a defeat meant the end of the season.

 

Here's the clincher for this nonsense: Before the last round of games, there were 16 teams still alive in AAA who could claim a state championship. After the last round of games, the SAME 16 teams are still alive and could win a state championship.

 

What is the point?

 

Exactly, listen to this true story form this year's postseason.. Team A beats Team B decisively in the regular season... the players shake hands after the game and the Team B players have the nerve to say to the winning team - "See you in district championships"... okay well turns out that they were correct and Team B met Team A in the District Finals. Once again, the result was the same, with team A handing team B another lopsided deafeat. However, after the game, the Team B players once again have the nerve to say "See you in the Region Championship, boys".... And as you may guess, team A and Team B made it through the Region-Semis and played for the Region Championship.. The result was still the same, with Team A cruising to yet another victory over Team B... And still, after the game the Team B players shake hands and say "See you at State."

 

Now this seems like a problem.. A team beats another team twice in postseason play, yet the team is still not out and very much has the chance to play their common counterpart for the 4th time of the season in the State Tournament..

[trebs]

I am not saying it is right, but I think the system is setup to allow two teams from the same district make it to the state tournament. The downside is Team A could beat Team B three times during a year, but lose to them in the state championship game.

[trebs]

It looks like manthrust and I had the same idea.

[Gerry Bertier]

My question for those that do not like this system- what if the best two teams in the state are in the same district? Do you not want the best teams playing in the state tournament?

 

This has happened in AA basketball the last couple of seasons with Liberty and Bolivar who were clearly the best teams.

[OldSoccerFan]

Knox Catholic (12-10-2) at Science Hill (16-3-2)

Dobyns Bennett (13-8-3) at Hardin Valley (15-0-5)

Blackman (15-4-2) at Cookeville (10-7-3)

Ooltewah (11-6-1) at Riverdale (12-3-2)

Nash Overton (13-3-4) at Hendersonville (18-2-1)

Wilson Central (11-6-1) at Ravenwood (14-2-1)

White Station (13-3-3) at Jackson North Side (12-3-3)

Bolton (9-5-1) at Houston (15-2-3)

 

Projected winners in BOLD

[Canesoverhere]

My question for those that do not like this system- what if the best two teams in the state are in the same district? Do you not want the best teams playing in the state tournament?

 

This has happened in AA basketball the last couple of seasons with Liberty and Bolivar who were clearly the best teams.

 

Hey Hey HEY! Quit throwing logic into this discussion!

 

Maybe we should adopt some of basketball and play each other 7 times in a row...

[Lincoln19]

I can see both sides of the argument here. However, what if the two best teams in the state are in the same district? This arguably happened in 2003 and 2007 - both State Championship games were Farragut vs Bearden (played each other 4 times both years). The first year TSSAA added the "sub-state" (or "sectional") game was 2003. And Farragut beat Bearden 3-1 in the state championship game (playing for the 4th time that year). So, given the fact that two teams from the same district played each other in the state championship game DURING THE FIRST YEAR THAT THEY IMPLEMENTED THIS RULE, I find it difficult to argue against it.

[AlcoaDad]

I can see both sides of the argument here. However, what if the two best teams in the state are in the same district? This arguably happened in 2003 and 2007 - both State Championship games were Farragut vs Bearden (played each other 4 times both years). The first year TSSAA added the "sub-state" (or "sectional") game was 2003. And Farragut beat Bearden 3-1 in the state championship game (playing for the 4th time that year). So, given the fact that two teams from the same district played each other in the state championship game DURING THE FIRST YEAR THAT THEY IMPLEMENTED THIS RULE, I find it difficult to argue against it.

 

 

While it is not AAA, a few years ago in A-AA Alcoa and CAK met in the State Final. It does make the system look like it has merit.

 

AlcoaDad

 

[BigG]

While it is not AAA, a few years ago in A-AA Alcoa and CAK met in the State Final. It does make the system look like it has merit.

 

AlcoaDad

 

AND CAK vs. Catholic twice!

 

Some districts are so strong, this allows those strong teams to advance.

 

Hardin Valley plays tomorrow at 4:00 at HV, I believe (at least that is what I heard this afternoon). Anyone know if that is accurate?

[BigG]

Just got a text that said Hendersonville lost!

 

Anyone know for sure?

 

P.S. CoachT scoreboard has them losing to John Overton 0-3. Don't know much about that school...

Edited May 22, 2011 by BigG