Sometimes we run into problems that are just not fixable, no matter how much we want to do something about it. Conversely, the saying goes, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it”.

What do we do, however, when we know something is broken and there is an obvious solution? It seems to me that we should fix things that do not work rather than continue to observe and do nothing.

Such is the case, for me, with the playoff system employed by the CIF Sac-Joaquin Section when it comes to football. Whether it needs to be tweaked or reworked completely, it definitely needs fixing.

One year ago, the Division II playoffs left out two 8-2 teams from the Sierra Foothill League (Roseville and Rocklin) because the system was preset to take just two SFL teams even though the league was dominant outside of the league schedule.

Four years ago, Oakmont shared the Pioneer Valley League title with Bear River and Colfax but the Vikings were left out of the tournament after losing a three-way coin toss because it was the PVL’s year to have just two playoff teams.

In this year’s field, the opening round took place last Friday night with a pair of 5-5 teams facing each other while a 10-0 team faced an opponent with a 9-1 mark. Shouldn’t there be some sort of seeding process that would ensure the best chance of getting the top two teams in the section final?

Taking this year’s field, maybe we bring Ponderosa in as a third team from the Sierra Valley Conference, especially since the Bruins were part of a tri-championship in that league. Did Rosemont really need to go to Roseville and get ripped by 50 points just because we have a system in place that guarantees the Metro Conference three teams this year?

Imagine the field with Grant as the top seed, Roseville as the No. 2 seed based on its head to head win over Granite Bay, and the Grizzlies as a No. 3 or No. 4 seed. We certainly would not have seen a Granite Bay vs. Grant quarterfinal.

For the Grizzlies, a missed two-point conversion left them one-point short against Roseville and the one-point margin in that game sends Granite Bay on the road to top-ranked Grant to open the playoffs. Ouch!

The cynic in me has to point out that the Woodcreek vs, Granite Bay game that ended the season was one in which the loser fared much better in the pre-determined playoff draw. Win and go to Grant to open the postseason or lose and go on the road at 5-5 Oak Ridge.

It cannot be that hard for Pete Saco and company to find a better solution. It’s not like this is the BCS.

Speaking of which, if I might wander to the college system for a moment, there is a system that is really messed up. It is not so much the lack of a real championship game that bothers me, but the fact that the so-called BCS conferences that have managed to freeze out the rest of the leagues from the big-money bowls.

Can any sincere fan of college football find me a single team in the ACC or the Big East that could beat any of the top three in the Mountain West Conference this season? Yet, Utah had to go undefeated to even be considered for a BCS big-money bowl with TCU and BYU relegated to the “insert sponsor here” pre-New Year’s Day bowls, while the ACC and Big East (along with Notre Dame if it can stumble onto nine or ten wins some year) are guaranteed spots in the high profile bowls.

Here’s a news flash on the college front – the BCS is broken, so fix it.

My final rant on fixing what’s broken is a topic that I have struggled with all week long. To read much of what has been written about the incident with the eligibility of the Placer High School football player, I would think that the young man had been kept from playing football this whole time.

To the best of my knowledge, that is not exactly true. This is a situation that has gone wrong on so many fronts and my great fear is that we have now brought the courts into play on determining who makes the playoffs. Seems to be a slippery slope.

As I understand it, the whole Placer High situation would have been avoided had its athletic director filed the proper paperwork in the first place. I believe that once he did fix that problem, the player was ruled eligible to play and participated in the rest of the season.

The forfeited games in question were three that happened before the paperwork problem was fixed. Regardless of whether or not this particular rule was up to code, I am certain this was not the first time the same paperwork was required and it seems that many schools did not have problems getting it done correctly.

Was the section office too harsh in its original determination? Perhaps. Should they have fixed it on appeal? Certainly. Should the school have filed the correct paperwork in the first place? Definitely.

So many people did the wrong thing here, but it started with a human being who did not file the correct paperwork and a proper application of a rule that appears to need fixing. I do not think anyone was setting out to torment a young man who has had enough issues to deal with in his life.

We should fix what is broken and move on, but do we really need to be running off to court and having judges issuing injunctions to stop high school football games? I am not sure where I come down on that, although I do know that I am not a big fan of litigation as the answer to every one of life’s problems.

We lose an election, we run to court. We lose an appeal, we run to court. The courts have their place in keeping us on track, but it has also been proven over time that they do not always provide the best solution.

Hopefully we can fix this issue and move on, and avoid having this running to court thing get out of hand. If we see something is broken and a solution is available, can’t we please just work together and fix it.