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

 

That is true. The question I have for those who want to re-align to a 4 class system. Where are the numbers you would cut off for the classes? Right now there is already close to double in size from the lowest male enrollment at the bottom of 6A to the Trinity and St X's. If you make it a 4 class system it would be even more of a disparage from the bottom of the top class to the top.

That is true. The question I have for those who want to re-align to a 4 class system. Where are the numbers you would cut off for the classes? Right now there is already close to double in size from the lowest male enrollment at the bottom of 6A to the Trinity and St X's. If you make it a 4 class system it would be even more of a disparage from the bottom of the top class to the top.

 

Prior to 1995 (-ish), the KHSAA always used specific enrollment numbers to determine classes. For example, Class A might be 0-400 kids, AA 400-800, etc. Starting in 1995 they simply divided the four classes evenly, meaning every class had the same number of teams, but the difference between biggest and smallest in each class held no correlation. Maybe the KHSAA should again look at using specific numbers to make classes and if that makes some classes larger or smaller, then so be it.

Prior to 1995 (-ish), the KHSAA always used specific enrollment numbers to determine classes. For example, Class A might be 0-400 kids, AA 400-800, etc. Starting in 1995 they simply divided the four classes evenly, meaning every class had the same number of teams, but the difference between biggest and smallest in each class held no correlation. Maybe the KHSAA should again look at using specific numbers to make classes and if that makes some classes larger or smaller, then so be it.

 

I don't necessarily think all the classes need to have the same number of teams, as long as the difference between classes isn't so staggering that it seems unfair to the larger classes. Say for example 4A had 150 teams, and 1A only had 40. Those in 4A would feel at a disadvantage with having so many more teams to compete with for a title.

FWIW, in 1990 the KHSAA used the following numbers for their classes. I'm pretty sure these were entire enrollments, not just boys.

 

1A: 0-400 (51 teams)

2A: 401-610 (56 teams)

3A: 611-899 (47 teams)

4A: 900-up (48 teams)

 

Also, keep in mind all Louisville teams played 4A at this time. Two 1A schools chose not to play in district and thus weren't included. So it was fairly balanced, with the middle classes having a little tougher traverse than the largest and smallest.

 

My question is, what would be the appropriate enrollment number to place on each class? Could you put a number on six classes, or would the classes be too small to begin with?

FWIW, in 1990 the KHSAA used the following numbers for their classes. I'm pretty sure these were entire enrollments, not just boys.

 

1A: 0-400 (51 teams)

2A: 401-610 (56 teams)

3A: 611-899 (47 teams)

4A: 900-up (48 teams)

 

These are balanced enough to where it wouldn't matter that they weren't the same number, IMO. Maybe do 900-1199 as 4A, and 1200+ as 5A. There's just no sense in having six classes in KY.

These are balanced enough to where it wouldn't matter that they weren't the same number, IMO. Maybe do 900-1199 as 4A, and 1200+ as 5A. There's just no sense in having six classes in KY.

 

I'm guessing any numbers in the future would be "boys only." Only six schools have more than 1,000 boys. On the 1A side, 33 schools have fewer than 200 boys, which would seem to be a decent cutoff point.

I don't necessarily think all the classes need to have the same number of teams, as long as the difference between classes isn't so staggering that it seems unfair to the larger classes. Say for example 4A had 150 teams, and 1A only had 40. Those in 4A would feel at a disadvantage with having so many more teams to compete with for a title.

 

I agree. I've always thought it would be fairly easy to have 5 classes. Take bottom 40 1A, 5 teams per district. Top 40 5A, 5 per district. That would leave 45-50 teams for 2A, 3A-4A with 5 -6 teams per district. I understand it would cause a traveling problems for a few district but it would at least make you have to win a game to make playoffs.

FWIW, in 1990 the KHSAA used the following numbers for their classes. I'm pretty sure these were entire enrollments, not just boys.

 

1A: 0-400 (51 teams)

2A: 401-610 (56 teams)

3A: 611-899 (47 teams)

4A: 900-up (48 teams)

 

Also, keep in mind all Louisville teams played 4A at this time. Two 1A schools chose not to play in district and thus weren't included. So it was fairly balanced, with the middle classes having a little tougher traverse than the largest and smallest.

 

My question is, what would be the appropriate enrollment number to place on each class? Could you put a number on six classes, or would the classes be too small to begin with?

 

An FYI, the last alignment to use that type of system was in the 1997 & 1998 alignments. 1999 began the equal division among all classes. The breakdown in the last alignment was:

 

1A: 0-575 (50 teams)

2A: 575-860 (54 teams)

3A: 861-1225 (60 teams)

4A: 1226+ (46 teams)

 

If those numbers were applied now, there would be 65 teams in 1A, 55 in 2A, 55 in 3A, and 46 in 4A.

An FYI, the last alignment to use that type of system was in the 1997 & 1998 alignments. 1999 began the equal division among all classes. The breakdown in the last alignment was:

 

1A: 0-575 (50 teams)

2A: 575-860 (54 teams)

3A: 861-1225 (60 teams)

4A: 1226+ (46 teams)

 

If those numbers were applied now, there would be 67 teams in 1A, 54 in 2A, 54 in 3A, and 46 in 4A.

 

Thanks. I knew it was more recent, but couldn't find the numbers. If you were to do it today, DF, assuming six classes remain, how would you set the class parameters?

Thanks. I knew it was more recent, but couldn't find the numbers. If you were to do it today, DF, assuming six classes remain, how would you set the class parameters?

 

If I was doing it the same way they did it back then (using male enrollment only instead)?

 

1A: 0-220 (37 teams)

2A: 221-320 (41 teams)

3A: 321-420 (37 teams)

4A: 420-530 (35 teams)

5A: 531-699 (36 teams)

6A: 700+ (35 teams)

 

I'd just as soon they divided it quasi-evenly with more teams low to allow some flexibility in some playing up.

 

1A: 38 teams

2A: 38 teams

3A: 38 teams

4A: 36 teams

5A: 36 teams

6A: 35 teams

That's what I meant by having six classes enrollment numbers don't matter that much. The need for enough teams to have reasonable class sizes eliminates the advantage of dividing by enrollment.

Why does it really matter if a class has more teams than other classes?

 

The enrollment numbers should be the deciding factors not how many are in each class.

 

No way should a class have a school in it that has double the male enrollment than another school in the same class.

If I was doing it the same way they did it back then (using male enrollment only instead)?

 

1A: 0-220 (37 teams)

2A: 221-320 (41 teams)

3A: 321-420 (37 teams)

4A: 420-530 (35 teams)

5A: 531-699 (36 teams)

6A: 700+ (35 teams)

 

I'd just as soon they divided it quasi-evenly with more teams low to allow some flexibility in some playing up.

 

1A: 38 teams

2A: 38 teams

3A: 38 teams

4A: 36 teams

5A: 36 teams

6A: 35 teams

So what is fair about a school with 535 male students competing against a school with 1600 male students?

Basically what I'm saying dragon is you have no more than 250 student difference in every single class until 6A where there is over 1000 student difference. Not very balanced if you ask me nor very fair.

So what is fair about a school with 535 male students competing against a school with 1600 male students?

 

You recognize no such school exists in the state, yes? There are none with even 1500. Not to mention in what I posted it wouldn't be a school with 535 in the same class with your mythical school, they'd be in 5A a class below.