football only conferences

[cardsbeatwriter]

There has been a lot of talk about conference realignment the past few weeks. As a football board we tend to look at things from a football only point of view and throw out ideas that make little to no sense for the other sports. Maybe that is exactly how we need to approach it.

I like the conference arraignment, helps with scheduling a great deal, but still allows you to control your level of competition to some degree.

I am not a fan of the model of Texas and Oklahoma where the district teams play in season. Again, I like the idea of having more control of the schedule.

So maybe football only conferences are the answer?

 

[Hurts Donut]

I like the Texas model. It's the king of HS football and it's worked there for a long time.

Down with conferences for the sake of having conferences. It still gives you 3 games a year to schedule whomever you want. IMO it gives WC more freedom because they could schedule out of conference for 3 games whoever and wherever as opposed to the current format starting next year WC will play one out of conference game? Boring

 

[O line wins games]

I like having conferences, partially because of the chance to earn all-conference awards and even more so because it guarantees you play your conference rivals every year, but I also like out of conference play because you can chance level of competition.

Athletic Directors love big conferences though, because they are easier to schedule.

 

[Counter All Day]

Playing out of conference games sounds fun to us screw balls in the stands but imagine how hard it is for someone like JRod to find someone to play his Cardinals. Jeff City wants no more. Rockhurst wants no more. Har-Ber had enough. Bentonville only wants when they think they're gonna be good. Jenks or Union? Why would they even consider it? There's ZERO upside for them. WC is lucky that Pitt's coach & JRod are friends.

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

I like the Texas model. It's the king of HS football and it's worked there for a long time.

Down with conferences for the sake of having conferences. It still gives you 3 games a year to schedule whomever you want. IMO it gives WC more freedom because they could schedule out of conference for 3 games whoever and wherever as opposed to the current format starting next year WC will play one out of conference game? Boring

Webb City used to have the freedom to schedule as many as 5-6 games out of conference but I don't know that an AD would call that freedom. I think it is good to be able to play 1-2 non-conference games against whoever you can find. It makes for some interesting match-ups. It is not so good when you are trying to find 5 non-conference games and you are stuck with a bye week.

 

[O line wins games]

For teams like Webb, it's good, but teams like Knob Noster or Orrick recently, it gives bad teams that won't win a conference game a chance to schedule games that they have a chance to win

 

[Hurts Donut]

I like having conferences, partially because of the chance to earn all-conference awards and even more so because it guarantees you play your conference rivals every year, but I also like out of conference play because you can chance level of competition.

Athletic Directors love big conferences though, because they are easier to schedule.

It would not be hard for anyone to find games if they knew years in advance that they were looking for games in weeks 1-3 every year and then district play begins week 4 and goes through game 10.