Does Size Really Matter?

Am I the only one totally lost in this thread?

I totally misjudged what the thread was going to be about and even wondered why it wasn't in GD.

Then algebra equations break out.

Crap. I'm lost.

Originally Posted by Clyde

Am I the only one totally lost in this thread?

I totally misjudged what the thread was going to be about and even wondered why it wasn't in GD.

Then algebra equations break out.

Crap. I'm lost.

I was kind of expecting an Enzyte commercial.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Success breeds success!

A small school like Beechwood can have a big-time football program which will attract a higher percentage of football athletes than a small school with little or no football tradition. The perception of your school within the community is largely based upon your athletic successes, and serves to attract the best players to the best programs.

Good youth programs in the community also help, and can only benefit the schoools who become the beneficiaries of the talented players who graduate from those programs.

In this day and age of optimizing your opportunities to play in a championship program, the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer.

The Highlands and Beechwoods of the worlds sustain themselves not only on their traditions, but also on contined success as a result of hard-work, hours and hours in the weight room, premiere coaching, and an army of support. In other words, by doing right things right from the bottom up.

All of the students in the world won't produce championships by sheer numbers, if none of the above is in place.

Size can matter, but certainly doesn’t have to. Too many examples of very good small schools and not so good large schools.

Just like in education, money means a lot.
Some of the more affluent communities/schools often do pretty well.

Originally Posted by Ram

Some of us started a discussion in one of the game threads about the size of a school mattering. I didn't want to threadjack, so here is the thread.

Some will say that I don't know what I am talking about, and that is OK, but I don't think there is necessarily a definite advantage to a school that has more students over a school that has fewer students.

I read it all the time on here, and I just can't agree with it. People say, "That school should win, because they are bigger.", or "This is an upset, because that school is smaller and should not win".

Now, someone is going to throw Trinity and St. Xavier out as examples, and, all though they are big schools, that is not the reason for their success. If it was, Henderson County and Paul Dunbar would be world killers.

Take Highlands for example, they are a 3A school by enrollment, but have won back to back State Championships in 5A. If the size argument was true, that could not happen. Now, someone is going to say that Highlands is not a typical 3A school. True, but still, without the proper numbers, they should not win in 5A if the size argument was true.

Beechwood, can and has beaten bigger schools, that could not happen if the size argument was true.

It has been explained to me on here that if you have more numbers to draw from, you will find more quality players. I don't buy into that either. I think the more quality players you have to choose from, the more special players you will find. But not the previous. Take for example, if you have a school with 2,000 students, and they only have 20 very good athletes, and you have a school with 500 students, and they have 20 very good athletes, who wins? 20 good athletes are 20 good athletes, no matter what the enrollment of the school is.

I think the size argument is just an excuse. Pure and simple.

Now, I am not saying that a little school that struggles to complete can win a 6A State Championship, and I am not saying this, or any argument is all inclusive. But, I am saying there are 1A schools that can beat some, not all, but some 6A schools, and there are some 2A schools that can beat some 5A schools. And that is because those programs are well ran, and thrive, it really has little to do with the number of enrollment.

Is it safe to assume then that you'd be a proponent of cutting football classifications in half, or even elminating them altogether?

Originally Posted by Plato

If size doesn't matter, why have classes?

Exactly, and why did we have to add even more classes two years ago.

Bravo! You the Man!

Size does matter. And here is the easy way to see that it does. Take your top 10 programs in 1A and compare them to the top 10 in 6A. Then think about the #1's playing each other, the #2's playing each other and so on down the line. Is there one team ranked in 1A that would beat their counterpart in 6A? I don't think so. Maybe 1 out of 10 times in a couple of instances? You could do that comparison class by class. The results would get closer as the classes get closer. But the bigger schools are going to win the majority of those games. So yes, size matters.

Now a good program in a lower level can beat lesser programs in higher levels. That is obvious as we see it on a regular basis. But size does matter. The bigger the pool of players to pull from, the greater likelihood of putting together a better team. You still need the coaches and buy in from the kids but if I were a good coach I would take my chances at a bigger school over a smaller school year in and year out in the vast majority of comparisons.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but when you look at what I posted above and think about it, what is the problem with 6 classes? More opportunities for success for more schools. Everyone clamors for more teams to be included in the NCAA basketball tournament every year and then we complain because so many teams get into the playoffs in high school football. I think we fans are being selfish in asking for fewer classes because we want to know who is better, or who is THE #1 team in the state. If we want to debate this, we should start another thread but I wanted to put that thought out there for those above who were starting down the path to debate 6 class football.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Success breeds success!

A small school like Beechwood can have a big-time football program which will attract a higher percentage of football athletes than a small school with little or no football tradition. The perception of your school within the community is largely based upon your athletic successes, and serves to attract the best players to the best programs.

Good youth programs in the community also help, and can only benefit the schoools who become the beneficiaries of the talented players who graduate from those programs.

In this day and age of optimizing your opportunities to play in a championship program, the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer.

The Highlands and Beechwoods of the worlds sustain themselves not only on their traditions, but also on contined success as a result of hard-work, hours and hours in the weight room, premiere coaching, and an army of support. In other words, by doing right things right from the bottom up.

All of the students in the world won't produce championships by sheer numbers, if none of the above is in place.

Mustang gets it. If you don't understand his post, you probably don't get it. Good job Mustang.

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

Size does matter. And here is the easy way to see that it does. Take your top 10 programs in 1A and compare them to the top 10 in 6A. Then think about the #1's playing each other, the #2's playing each other and so on down the line. Is there one team ranked in 1A that would beat their counterpart in 6A? I don't think so. Maybe 1 out of 10 times in a couple of instances? You could do that comparison class by class. The results would get closer as the classes get closer. But the bigger schools are going to win the majority of those games. So yes, size matters.

Now a good program in a lower level can beat lesser programs in higher levels. That is obvious as we see it on a regular basis. But size does matter. The bigger the pool of players to pull from, the greater likelihood of putting together a better team. You still need the coaches and buy in from the kids but if I were a good coach I would take my chances at a bigger school over a smaller school year in and year out in the vast majority of comparisons.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but when you look at what I posted above and think about it, what is the problem with 6 classes? More opportunities for success for more schools. Everyone clamors for more teams to be included in the NCAA basketball tournament every year and then we complain because so many teams get into the playoffs in high school football. I think we fans are being selfish in asking for fewer classes because we want to know who is better, or who is THE #1 team in the state. If we want to debate this, we should start another thread but I wanted to put that thought out there for those above who were starting down the path to debate 6 class football.

While Mustang did lay out the argument that size doesn't matter better than anyone else on the thread, I still agree more with the Voice Of Reason. I think he laid out the argument that size does matter about as well as it can be stated. Size does matter when comparing the top of each class. Like he said, the top programs in 1A might beat a bad 6A team on occasion, but match them up against the top of 6A and they will get destroyed. So if the coaching and support is equal, size definitely matters.

I thought this was a "family-friendly" site!

Size of the school matters in the game of Football and Baseball, where there are more players on the field than 5. Basketball is a different story. Easy to find 5-8 good B-ball players compared to 9-11 players for other sports.

Originally Posted by Ram

Mustang gets it. If you don't understand his post, you probably don't get it. Good job Mustang.

What part of my earlier post is invalid? Or does it simply not fit your argument?

Originally Posted by Average Joe's Gym

What part of my earlier post is invalid? Or does it simply not fit your argument?

Your points are valid. None of the arguments in this thread are true for every school, in every situation. I know that. I'm just speaking in general terms. I don't think Beechwood, Frankfort, Raceland, or Russell are going to beat Trinity. That is not what I am saying. I am saying it takes a good program: good coaches, good off season, good fan support, good school support and a good support staff to sustain a program, no matter what size it is. And if a program has that, they will become a program that can compete with schools that are a lot bigger. I think it is more about the program, then it is about the size. I don't think Trinity is Trinity because of their size, I think they could drop enrollment dramatically and still be a football force in 6A. I would go as far as to say if they were 4A by enrollment, they would still be a perennial power in 6A, just like Highlands is 3A by enrollment and a perennial power in 5A. It's not their school enrollment, it is their program.

Originally Posted by Plato

If size doesn't matter, why have classes?

Just remember,when we talk about the size of the school,we are talking about total enrollment,boys and girls. Now look at all the bigger schools with all boys,it would seem that they would have a HUGE advantage over any other co-ed school,with more BOYS to choose from.

Size does matter, 6A teams SHOULD dominate 1A teams, they have a larger base from which to draw players should be able to platoon and keep players fresh, and have a larger alumni and booster base from which to raise money. However, as with everything in life there are variables the most important being the guy running the ship, if he can get those athletes out for football and knows the game they will beat most smaller schols, if he doesn't have a clue and the staff can't coach they will lose. Football is special in that 11 players working together with great leadership can fell a giant despite their size or enrollment.

By the way there is a reason all the 6A teams you have mentioned can't beat smaller schools - the HC, period.

The whole class argument is another topic completely, but I am not for one class, and I am not for six classes either. But, that is another ball of wax.

You would also have to factor in open enrollment for the small schools.. Without it, no way does the smaller schools compete as well.... Not the biggest factor, but it has to be part of the equation.

Originally Posted by Jim Schue

Size of school does increase the odds that there will be more good athletes to choose from. But if they aren't coached well or the support structure isn't in place, it won't matter a hill of beans.

Originally Posted by Ram

I just don't see it. We are talking about statistics. And statistics are not all inclusive. Like you said, they have to have a good program. I think the quality of the program is more important then the enrollment numbers. And that is what I am getting at.

Algebra equation:
Team 1 (big enrollment X poor program) = Team 2 (smaller enrollment X quality program)

Which team wins?

You should have quoted my entire post to include the qualifier that came after the first sentence -- which you essentially agreed with later on in the thread when Mustang elaborated upon it.

Originally Posted by Ram

Your points are valid. None of the arguments in this thread are true for every school, in every situation. I know that. I'm just speaking in general terms. I don't think Beechwood, Frankfort, Raceland, or Russell are going to beat Trinity. That is not what I am saying. I am saying it takes a good program: good coaches, good off season, good fan support, good school support and a good support staff to sustain a program, no matter what size it is. And if a program has that, they will become a program that can compete with schools that are a lot bigger. I think it is more about the program, then it is about the size. I don't think Trinity is Trinity because of their size, I think they could drop enrollment dramatically and still be a football force in 6A. I would go as far as to say if they were 4A by enrollment, they would still be a perennial power in 6A, just like Highlands is 3A by enrollment and a perennial power in 5A. It's not their school enrollment, it is their program.

Highlands is the exception, not the rule.

Can a smaller school play above their size? The answer is yes.

Can a large school play below their size? The answer to that is also yes.

Will a larger school beat a smaller school more often? Again the answer is yes.