Until someone challenges KHSAA on the likely unconstitutional setup of football classes this will not likely happen.

Can you elaborate?

Can you elaborate?

 

Hope I do not bore with this but this is how I read the situation.

 

KHSAA is a function of the KBE, KBE is a function of the legislature, the legislature is bound to uphold and apply only constitutionally valid laws and policies.

 

One of the key constitutional features is that a persons under similar situations must be treated the same under the law (or in this case - the rules of KHSAA). i.e. equal protection. So laws and KHSAA policies (as a subset of the constitutionally bound legislature) must apply equal protection and not be arbitrary or capacious.

 

Thus, is a kid in who goes to a 1A school or a 6A school in terms of football classes 'differently situated' that one that goes to a 2A through 5A school? The answer would seem to be no. They go to school, they play on a football team, they have an opportunity to make the playoffs. These are similarly situated circumstances. So kids in 2A through 5A should be treated the same as kids under 1A and 6A right?

 

But they are not. Kids in 1A or 6A not only have an opportunity to make the playoffs - they WILL make the playoffs. Their chance of making the playoffs is 100%. Through the arbitrary and capricious rule of KHSAA kids in some districts in 2A through 5A will have only a 66% chance (those with 6 teams) and only an 80% to make the playoffs in others (5 teams). So a kid in a 1A or 6A class school seems to get an unequal benefit (assuming games played in a season is a factor) than one in the other classes. Unequal treatment under the rules for similarly situation persons (players).

 

Personally, I believe the 'super district' in 6A and the 6A playoff rotation are also potentially constitutionally problematic. They are just arbitrary rules that have no objective reason.

 

It would take a court challenge to address this. The schools will not bite the KHSAA hand. And individuals are unlikely to attack it. So it will not likely get challenged. But it seems that the current limit on districts in 1A and 6A, the 6A rotation and the 6A 'super district' rules are almost certainly arbitrary and capricious and thus, possibly unconstitutional.

Hope I do not bore with this but this is how I read the situation.

 

KHSAA is a function of the KBE, KBE is a function of the legislature, the legislature is bound to uphold and apply only constitutionally valid laws and policies.

 

One of the key constitutional features is that a persons under similar situations must be treated the same under the law (or in this case - the rules of KHSAA). i.e. equal protection. So laws and KHSAA policies (as a subset of the constitutionally bound legislature) must apply equal protection and not be arbitrary or capacious.

 

Thus, is a kid in who goes to a 1A school or a 6A school in terms of football classes 'differently situated' that one that goes to a 2A through 5A school? The answer would seem to be no. They go to school, they play on a football team, they have an opportunity to make the playoffs. These are similarly situated circumstances. So kids in 2A through 5A should be treated the same as kids under 1A and 6A right?

 

But they are not. Kids in 1A or 6A not only have an opportunity to make the playoffs - they WILL make the playoffs. Their chance of making the playoffs is 100%. Through the arbitrary and capricious rule of KHSAA kids in some districts in 2A through 5A will have only a 66% chance (those with 6 teams) and only an 80% to make the playoffs in others (5 teams). So a kid in a 1A or 6A class school seems to get an unequal benefit (assuming games played in a season is a factor) than one in the other classes. Unequal treatment under the rules for similarly situation persons (players).

 

Personally, I believe the 'super district' in 6A and the 6A playoff rotation are also potentially constitutionally problematic. They are just arbitrary rules that have no objective reason.

 

It would take a court challenge to address this. The schools will not bite the KHSAA hand. And individuals are unlikely to attack it. So it will not likely get challenged. But it seems that the current limit on districts in 1A and 6A, the 6A rotation and the 6A 'super district' rules are almost certainly arbitrary and capricious and thus, possibly unconstitutional.

 

Potential class-action suit, or is that oversimplifying things?

 

If only two or three teams from each district qualify for the playoffs, does that constitute "equal benefits"? I would think so (if your team is good enough, you qualify), but a legal scholar I am not.

Potential class-action suit, or is that oversimplifying things?

 

If only two or three teams from each district qualify for the playoffs, does that constitute "equal benefits"? I would think so (if your team is good enough, you qualify), but a legal scholar I am not.

 

Theoretically. But the 'harm' is definitely hard to measure and establishing 'standing' may be difficult. So its doubtful specific legal action could occur. But it seems pretty clear that the most recent adjustments to the classes are 'arbitrary' when viewed from the perspective of the student-athlete and they create an unequal treatment.

 

Looking around at other states its hard to find where classes are not equal in split. Or where there is a special rotation for one class.

 

If anything I would expect the KBE or more likely the legislature to realize the situation and have it addressed.

Very interesting take BGC. I'd be very intrigued to see this play out in court even though I don't think it ever would.

Hope I do not bore with this but this is how I read the situation.

 

KHSAA is a function of the KBE, KBE is a function of the legislature, the legislature is bound to uphold and apply only constitutionally valid laws and policies……………….

 

Not a bore at all, actually quite interesting.

 

I initially thought, when I asked, that you would comment on enrollment and how it is calculated, but this is an interesting concept. So, your thought is: some teams being guaranteed a playoff experience, while other teams are not guaranteed such an experience is unconstitutional. Is there any case law that supports that belief? Has this been litigated in any other state?

 

As for the 6A Super-District and the Rotation of the play-off format, I feel that is a definite problem. I don't have much complaint toward the KHSAA, but this is one area that I feel they got wrong. By making this class the only class that the the playoffs rotate, I think the KHSAA is basically saying they have a problem they can't solve so "we will get it right every other year". They are obviously trying to make some schools happier by giving them an opportunity to get to the Championship game every other year. My concern is why? Yes, one team is normally going to win that class, but that is not unique to that class. In the current alignment, there are several classes that have had the same result.

Not a bore at all, actually quite interesting.

 

I initially thought, when I asked, that you would comment on enrollment and how it is calculated, but this is an interesting concept. So, your thought is: some teams being guaranteed a playoff experience, while other teams are not guaranteed such an experience is unconstitutional. Is there any case law that supports that belief? Has this been litigated in any other state?

 

As for the 6A Super-District and the Rotation of the play-off format, I feel that is a definite problem. I don't have much complaint toward the KHSAA, but this is one area that I feel they got wrong. By making this class the only class that the the playoffs rotate, I think the KHSAA is basically saying they have a problem they can't solve so "we will get it right every other year". They are obviously trying to make some schools happier by giving them an opportunity to get to the Championship game every other year. My concern is why? Yes, one team is normally going to win that class, but that is not unique to that class. In the current alignment, there are several classes that have had the same result.

 

We are very much in synch on this.

 

The understanding of KHSAA as entity created by the KBE that is an entity created by the Kentucky State Legislature is one that I found and understood from when Proposition 2 was making its way through the system. Prop 2 is what got me personally more involved with High School sports at a deeper level and caused me to find this particular forum.

 

So KHSAA is bound to do things in a constitutional manner, just as KBE is and just as the legislature is. Just as the legislature can not create laws that are 'arbitrary and capricious', it would seem to apply that the KHSAA can not create rules that are 'arbitrary and capricious'.

 

I was OK with the 6 classes and how the enrollments were calculated. I never thought the 6A playoff rotations was acceptable. The reason for doing it is obvious - spread the 'unfixable' pain supposedly created by the 'super district members'.

 

But when 1A and 6A were constrained to 4 teams per district and only 32 teams in each class while 2A-5A districts grew to 5 or 6 teams I always thought that was 'arbitrary and capricious'. We all know the reason behind this - there is a reason these actions were taken. To quell the noise from small 6A schools and small 1A schools by moving small 6As to 5A and large 1As to 2A. While there is logic - its subjective logic. It is not objective logic and laws and rules require objective logic to be applied.

 

Here are some links to cases where KHSAA and the constitution were in play:

 

Document 19 :: Evans et al v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association :: 3:2009cv00953 :: Kentucky Western District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

 

Document 11 :: Dunn et al v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association et al :: 5:2010cv00241 :: Kentucky Eastern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

 

Document 10 :: Roberts v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association :: 7:2011cv00019 :: Kentucky Eastern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

 

 

I have had dealings with state agencies where they claim since they were given the right to set policy in law it gives them the right to set almost any ANY policy without regard to constitutional validity. Administrator will read it as almost king-like control. But that is not the case, policies must still reflect lawful and constitutional approach. The 3 elements we are discussing seem to all fail the 'equal treatment' provisions of state and federal constitutions.

Hope I do not bore with this but this is how I read the situation.

 

KHSAA is a function of the KBE, KBE is a function of the legislature, the legislature is bound to uphold and apply only constitutionally valid laws and policies.

 

One of the key constitutional features is that a persons under similar situations must be treated the same under the law (or in this case - the rules of KHSAA). i.e. equal protection. So laws and KHSAA policies (as a subset of the constitutionally bound legislature) must apply equal protection and not be arbitrary or capacious.

 

Thus, is a kid in who goes to a 1A school or a 6A school in terms of football classes 'differently situated' that one that goes to a 2A through 5A school? The answer would seem to be no. They go to school, they play on a football team, they have an opportunity to make the playoffs. These are similarly situated circumstances. So kids in 2A through 5A should be treated the same as kids under 1A and 6A right?

 

But they are not. Kids in 1A or 6A not only have an opportunity to make the playoffs - they WILL make the playoffs. Their chance of making the playoffs is 100%. Through the arbitrary and capricious rule of KHSAA kids in some districts in 2A through 5A will have only a 66% chance (those with 6 teams) and only an 80% to make the playoffs in others (5 teams). So a kid in a 1A or 6A class school seems to get an unequal benefit (assuming games played in a season is a factor) than one in the other classes. Unequal treatment under the rules for similarly situation persons (players).

 

Personally, I believe the 'super district' in 6A and the 6A playoff rotation are also potentially constitutionally problematic. They are just arbitrary rules that have no objective reason.

 

It would take a court challenge to address this. The schools will not bite the KHSAA hand. And individuals are unlikely to attack it. So it will not likely get challenged. But it seems that the current limit on districts in 1A and 6A, the 6A rotation and the 6A 'super district' rules are almost certainly arbitrary and capricious and thus, possibly unconstitutional.

 

Perhaps; then again, historically the upper level courts have almost bent over backwards to allow state athletic associations to manage sports without judicial intervention. If the KHSAA has the barest of reasons to set up the classes and playoffs they way they have, I can't see an upper level court declaring the system arbitrary or capricious. Lordy, if the courts start getting into that stuff, just wait for the suit to be filed for a school limiting the number of players on the basketball team but not limiting the number of kids on the football team.

Perhaps; then again, historically the upper level courts have almost bent over backwards to allow state athletic associations to manage sports without judicial intervention. If the KHSAA has the barest of reasons to set up the classes and playoffs they way they have, I can't see an upper level court declaring the system arbitrary or capricious. Lordy, if the courts start getting into that stuff, just wait for the suit to be filed for a school limiting the number of players on the basketball team but not limiting the number of kids on the football team.

I am somewhat surprised that you take that stance. I know you were a proponent of litigation to supersede KHSAA rulings at they apply to player eligibility. Shouldn't the members of the KHSAA have access to the same resolve when they feel they are infringed upon by KHSAA class and play off structure?

We are very much in synch on this………………..

 

…………...The 3 elements we are discussing seem to all fail the 'equal treatment' provisions of state and federal constitutions.

"Equal Treatment" would have been what I would have thought was being violated. Of course, many here are more familiar with case law then me, so, I have to go with their knowledge and experience. I like your argument for the size of 1A and 6A, but I have always been more focused on the structure and rotation of 6A. It just seems obviously different and the reason is transparent.

 

I agree with you on the reason for the reduction of 6A and 1A to 32 teams, it, of course, made the smaller 6A and smaller 1A teams happier, but really did not change the result. Yes, they make the playoffs, but they are still likely to exit in the first or second round. Yes, an improvement of their situation, but less of a change then what many would have expected, I would think. My argument for "not much change" is: there is not much difference between 1A and 2A, and likewise, there is not much difference between 5A and 6A. NCC moving up to 2A did not change the fact they are a top 5 team in "their" class, they were in 1A and they are now in 2A. The size difference argument is null in these situations, a small 2A team or a large 1A team has little difference.

 

But, I agree, even if the advantage is negotiable, the advantage is still present and the situation was improved for some, and not for others.

I am somewhat surprised that you take that stance. I know you were a proponent of litigation to supersede KHSAA rulings at they apply to player eligibility. Shouldn't the members of the KHSAA have access to the same resolve when they feel they are infringed upon by KHSAA class and play off structure?

 

I was and am a proponent that the rulings of the judicial system supersede the final actions of any administrative agency of the state and that no state agent or agency should ever threaten to sanction a school for complying with a ruling of the judiciary in the hope that such school will instead comply with the decision of the state agent or agency. Huge difference from the bolded. If a court would issue an injunction that the current classification and playoff system was unconstitutional, and the KHSAA told their members to ignore that injunction or else risk sanctions from the KHSAA, I'd again be throwing a hissy fit on here.

I was and am a proponent that the rulings of the judicial system supersede the final actions of any administrative agency of the state and that no state agent or agency should ever threaten to sanction a school for complying with a ruling of the judiciary in the hope that such school will instead comply with the decision of the state agent or agency. Huge difference from the bolded. If a court would issue an injunction that the current classification and playoff system was unconstitutional, and the KHSAA told their members to ignore that injunction or else risk sanctions from the KHSAA, I'd again be throwing a hissy fit on here.

Fair enough. I would just think that you would want the rulings of the KHSAA to be tested by court if there is a question of their legality.

 

Just for arguments sake, do you think that the comments of "equal treatment" of Bluegrasscard could apply?

Some districts in my opinion aren't on the same "playing field" and their vote really can't be compared the same. For instance, 5A district 56, of which Anderson Co is a part of, has 6 teams in it. They are one of the few districts where two teams will not make the playoffs regardless. Even if they (or any other of the teams in that district) would prefer a 2 or even 3 team per district format, it's hard for them to vote that way because they have 2 more teams than most every other district so their frame of reference if very different.

I'll never be in favor of the possibility of an 0-10 team making the playoffs.

I'll never be in favor of the possibility of an 0-10 team making the playoffs.

 

More teams in a district and they dont.