AURORA — With a new outlay for the next two seasons in the works, The Denver Post polled 29 of the current 49 Class 5A coaches.
The waterfall proposal, shot down two years ago, suddenly is relevant. It would basically seed all big-school teams in order to provide an equal number of teams in new leagues.
WATCH:
It also would address breaking up the Centennial and Jefferson County leagues, which have all but owned big-school play for decades, and possibly come with a 16-team bracket instead of 32, and contain a 10-game regular season instead of nine.
Sticking points in the proposal that will be voted on later in the school year include passing on traditional rivalries, suddenly deciding to travel and having all big-school teams in one league for football, then in other leagues for virtually every other sport.
Several big-school coaches were asked to comment on possibly changing the playoff bracket and leagues:
Jay Madden, Pomona: “With the waterfall, I’m 16. With leagues the way they are now, I’m 32.”
Monte Thelen, Cherokee Trail: “Take out these long distance trips. That’s what we take out of the waterfall. If those (outlying) schools come back, will that merit some change of the waterfall in two years? I find it very interesting. With the waterfall, I can see 16 (postseason teams) in a 10-game schedule. But I still support the 32-team playoff.
Mike Schmitt, Eaglecrest: “I always err on the side of getting more kids state-playoff stuff. I like more of a three-tier concept — pre-league, league and playoffs.”
John Schultz, Grandview: “I am a 32-team guy. I really, strongly, support that. I enjoy the league (Centennial) we’re in, I enjoy the competition, the challenge of it.”
Wayne Voorhees, Legacy: “I’m a 24-team playoff guy. I think 32 is too many, 16’s too few.”
Zach Morris, Bear Creek: “I see the benefits of 16, but I like the 32 because more teams get opportunities to make things happen. As long as waterfall goes down, I think 16 can be OK.”
SUBSCRIBE:
Ric Cash, Mountain Vista: “Sixteen. I think those will be the ones who earned it. Sitting at 16-to-20, I get it, I’ve been there before. But, typically, others aren’t in a place to compete for a state championship.”
Mike Campbell, Arapahoe: “For positioning, I’m all in, I’m all about the 32-team playoff. When we were good, I was 16. But when we’re not, 16 scares you. “
Bret McGatlin, Chatfield: “There has been a big argument, because in our league it’s always tough. I’m OK with the new alignment, especially if they waterfall it.”
Seth Replogle, Overland: “I think if they go to 16, I’m good with it. And if they do, they’ll have to break up Jeffco and Centennial. Our last-place team is better than some other leagues’ champions.”
Tom McCartney, Fairview: “Great question. I’m definitely a proponent of 32. I was when I was in the Centennial because I knew how great the league was. But I understand why it’s going the direction it’s going. I enjoyed the 32 but with fewer teams and searching for opponents, I get why they’re doing this.”
Todd Casebier, Fruita Monument: 100 percent 16. Before, I was at Montrose and Palisade, and this is the first time I’ve ever been a part of a 32-team deal, It gets too watered down.”
Andy Lowry, Columbine: “I’ve always been a 32-team guy. And one of the reasons is (former Overland coach) Tony Manfredi and I looked at the playoff perspective. It wasn’t for the playoffs; it was to help with scheduling. It got to be a nightmare with Creek, Pomona, Ralston … and we were in the same predicament. There were never any top teams available (to play in nonleague.) You just couldn’t do it. The 32-team opened up the whole scheduling system. It wasn’t about the playoffs; it was for scheduling.”
Robert Doyle, Legend: “I think if they go to the waterfall proposal, it would make it better. Here’s the thing — when we did 32-team scheduling, leagues had teams getting into the playoffs that weren’t as good as the other teams. I understand. But I’m struggling with the waterfall a bit.”
Gene Hill, Douglas County: “I like going back to 16 teams. It puts more emphasis on the regular season. I get the point of 32 teams, but there are still some kinks to work out. I like playing different teams, but I also want to keep natural rivalries.”
Justin Hoffman, Rangeview: “I like the waterfall. I was in favor of first round, yes. I like the 32, but at the same time I like how competitive the 16 is. Then again, you have the 32 and don’t miss a couple of teams that will still get in.”
Mark Robinson, Highlands Ranch: “The reason I like 32 is I was a 4A coach when 5A coaches explained it to me. It rewarded coaches who weren’t cowards to take on the better teams and still make it.”
Brian Tinker, Fossil Ridge: “I think it’s 16. That makes it more competitive. Oklahoma only had eight when I was at Jenks. It needs to be a big deal to get into the playoffs.”
Kevin Donnalley, Mountain Range: “I’ve been struggling a little bit. The 16-team is one I like. This whole waterfall and RPI stuff, I’m still trying to process what that means. It will take away rivalries. It will have a negative impact in that regard.”
Todd Riccio, Prairie View: ” Well, I mean, I like the 16-team idea and stuff, it’s good and will kind of weed it out. But they always keep talking about balancing the leagues. That’s just the way Colorado is.”
Shane Ward, Gateway: “I’m an old-fashioned dude. Sixteen. You have to earn your way in. I understand the 32, but the playoffs are a whole different season, if you ask me.”
Jeff Braun, Lakewood: “I’m OK with whole waterfall thing, but if it’s 16, both us and Columbine wouldn’t have gotten in (last year). And we both won a playoff game.”:
Dustin Pfeiffer, Castle View: “To be honest, neither. I like the 24-team idea. Get those first eight a bye, then No. 9 through 24 bang it out. They would be pretty good games.”
Brian Lamb, Rock Canyon: “If we were better, I’d be a 16-team guy. But we’re not there yet. You want the best teams there. I know we have teams with good records and they’re not playing the best competition. That will eliminate some of it. But I don’t know if the 32 overall wasn’t that bad.”
Kerry Denison, Westminster: “I don’t mind the 16, What I like is, the 32-team thing comes with just the fact that taking these teams 17 through 21 could very well pull upsets. And I don’t like the new waterfall thing, the way it’s structured.”
Robbie Owens, Grand Junction: “I’m on the football committee. I enjoyed the 32. It does give you something to build the program on. But I’m going to 4A, where I’m OK with 16. It’s where you’re at in the pecking order more than anything.”
Mark Brook, Rocky Mountain: “As you get to next year, I think the ideal number with only 42 teams in the 5A playoffs … 16 makes sense. The tough thing is, is the waterfall the answer?”
Frank Ybarra, Horizon: “In the past I was 16, I don’t like how they’ll do the waterfall. It seems like the higher-ups think everyone in their league deserves to be in the playoffs. I like 32 if it means not doing the waterfall.”
Joe Johnson, ThunderRidge: “You know, I don’t really care … but I also think the waterfall isn’t going to pass as easily as everyone thinks it will.”
Neil H. Devlin: ndevlin@denverpost.com or
