First and foremost, you need all the playoffs to finish the same weekend to maintain a unified finals weekend (and you'd need to unless you want to rent a neutral venue out for a single day the week before). If you don't have 32 teams and you drop to say 16 (as I suggested in the post you replied to) that means the 6A schools are playing a week longer in the regular season - a week in which they can't play any other team in Kentucky outside of their class. Also now your eight districts would have only two teams in each. You could mandate they play their district partner, but then they'd play two straight weeks under your proposal. That means finding an out of state opponent to play the first or second week of November or gassing up the bus for in some cases a long trip to another 6A school. Or taking a bye week the week before the playoffs if that's your cup of tea. You could have four districts of four teams apiece, but you note travel, which becomes a greater concern the less teams you have in a class. Ryle and Simon Kenton would be in a district together as the only NKY teams and the smallest in the class. If either dropped but not the other, huge travel increase. Same for McCracken County and Henderson County in the west, though neither are likely ever to fall down from the highest class even under a 16 team system. If you didn't drop as far as 16 teams, you're not really diminishing your enrollment disparity very much. If you dropped beyond 16 teams, now you're cutting the playoffs even further and continuing the scheduling problems.

 

And again, I can't emphasize this enough, a 16 team class still does not solve the extremely large disparity. It reduces it by roughly 150. It still will be 500 males from the 16th largest school to the largest. Still way larger disparity than any other class possible. If you arbitrarily chopped off X & Trinity, it still would be 353 to Scott County (adding in GRC and Madison Central to take their place). Still larger than any other class possible.

 

I really feel like you're telling me what you think is fair, I'm telling you what is reality. It is not possible to get the gap down even as far as 300 - there'd be 6 teams in the class.

How many districts are there now in each class?

How many districts are there now in each class?

 

There are 8 districts in every class with at least 4 teams per (with exceptions in 6A). This equals out to five weeks of playoffs.

There are 8 districts in every class with at least 4 teams per (with exceptions in 6A). This equals out to five weeks of playoffs.

That's easy then. You have district playoffs like I said with top 4 teams in each district. 1 seed plays 4 seed and 2 seed play 3 seed week 1 of playoffs.

 

Winner from each game plays for district championship week 2.

 

Week 3 you have 4 district champions in one region and 4 in another. Each region has 2 games that week.

 

Week 4 the 2 winners in each region plays eachother for regional championship.

 

Week 5 both regional champions in each class play for state title of their class.

 

 

This would also build even more rivalries within each district plus the fact that for 2 weeks in the postseason you wouldn't have teams driving all over the state to play their games, they would all be playing within their own district with the higher seed hosting home games.

That's easy then. You have district playoffs like I said with top 4 teams in each district. 1 seed plays 4 seed and 2 seed play 3 seed week 1 of playoffs.

 

Winner from each game plays for district championship week 2.

 

Week 3 you have 4 district champions in one region and 4 in another. Each region has 2 games that week.

 

Week 4 the 2 winners in each region plays eachother for regional championship.

 

Week 5 both regional champions in each class play for state title of their class.

 

You just laid out essentially the same playoff system that they have now, only changing the names around and confining the first two rounds to districts as they did back in 2006 & 2007 (which was widely and roundly despised). Of course it's easy logistically. It also requires 32 teams to accomplish. Eight districts X four teams in each = 32 teams. Your question was "why there HAS to be 32 teams in a class?" If you want a lower difference between the largest and smallest teams in 6A, then you have to have less than 32 teams to accomplish that.

 

Of course, one possible solution to the problem of a 16 team 6A is to reduce the amount of playoff teams in other classes to two a district, thereby shortening their playoffs by a week as well.....

You just laid out essentially the same playoff system that they have now, only changing the names around and confining the first two rounds to districts as they did back in 2006 & 2007 (which was widely and roundly despised). Of course it's easy logistically. It also requires 32 teams to accomplish. Eight districts X four teams in each = 32 teams. Your question was "why there HAS to be 32 teams in a class?" If you want a lower difference between the largest and smallest teams in 6A, then you have to have less than 32 teams to accomplish that.

I'm just tossing out ideas, this was one that is based on your 32 team class. I wonder why it was widely despised back then or was it despised for the same lame reasons the current playoffs are despised by some who think 4 teams is too much for each district?

 

Another reason I like the district playoffs is you won't have fictional district champions. Last year alone there was a 3 way tie for 1st in Coopers district between South Oldham, Conner and Cooper. This would eliminate that and crown an actual district champion.

I'm just tossing out ideas, this was one that is based on your 32 team class. I wonder why it was widely despised back then or was it despised for the same lame reasons the current playoffs are despised by some who think 4 teams is too much for each district?

 

A lot of people didn't like the intra-district games the first week because it guaranteed you would play an opponent you had already played, and in some cases it was an opponent you had literally just played. Several teams played a team two weeks in a row. Some played two out of three weeks. You could alter some of that with the scheduling grid, but in general, that was why. It was a worse problem with less classes because you usually had 6 district games, necessitating at least some of them to be played close to the playoffs.

 

You really don't have to sell me on ideas on how to make a 32 team playoff work. The chairs can be rearranged but it's a tried and true formula. That's business as usual currently and it fits right in with the proposal that I initially made that you objected to. Some teams would miss the playoffs in the one I mentioned, but at the end of the day, if there's 32 teams, that's a minor adjustment for me since that is exactly how it is now. But it doesn't address your objection, because nothing really can, at least not logically.

A lot of people didn't like the intra-district games the first week because it guaranteed you would play an opponent you had already played, and in some cases it was an opponent you had literally just played. Several teams played a team two weeks in a row. Some played two out of three weeks. You could alter some of that with the scheduling grid, but in general, that was why. It was a worse problem with less classes because you usually had 6 district games, necessitating at least some of them to be played close to the playoffs.

 

You really don't have to sell me on ideas on how to make a 32 team playoff work. The chairs can be rearranged but it's a tried and true formula. That's business as usual currently and it fits right in with the proposal that I initially made that you objected to. Some teams would miss the playoffs in the one I mentioned, but at the end of the day, if there's 32 teams, that's a minor adjustment for me since that is exactly how it is now. But it doesn't address your objection, because nothing really can, at least not logically.

The only thing I objected to was the disparity in class 6A among the enrollment numbers. I never said there shouldn't be 6 classes.

 

As far as playing the same team possibly 2 weeks in a row, the NFL doesn't have a problem with that. Also as you said that could be taken care of pretty easy by simply starting district play week 3 of the season and schedule out of district games to finish off the season. That would also allow teams to schedule teams they would think would best prepare them for the playoffs.

The only thing I objected to was the disparity in class 6A among the enrollment numbers. I never said there shouldn't be 6 classes.

 

As far as playing the same team possibly 2 weeks in a row, the NFL doesn't have a problem with that. Also as you said that could be taken care of pretty easy by simply starting district play week 3 of the season and schedule out of district games to finish off the season. That would also allow teams to schedule teams they would think would best prepare them for the playoffs.

 

Seriously man, you gotta help me out here because I feel like you're just not getting what I'm telling you. You objected to the disparity in enrollment numbers. For there to be the same amount of weeks in the playoffs as other classes there has to be 32 teams in the class. At most I could see you giving district winners a bye and dropping it to 24 teams in the class - maintaining a five week playoff. The 32nd largest school is Muhlenberg County, and they have 650 less males than St. X. I can't change that fact. If it were 24 teams, then it would be Daviess County, and they have 608 less males than St. X. If it were 16 teams, you have all the logistical problems that I laid out. That gets you to Simon Kenton, and they have 499 less males than St. X. To put that into perspective, there is about the same difference in males between #1 & #16 as there are between #16 and #124. So of course there will be a huge disparity. There is no changing this.

 

So which is it? Keep 32 teams in the top class and accept that some things cannot be changed - that there will be a huge disparity? Or achieve a slightly less sizable disparity (but still HUGE) and throw everything out of whack to boot?

Seriously man, you gotta help me out here because I feel like you're just not getting what I'm telling you. You objected to the disparity in enrollment numbers. For there to be the same amount of weeks in the playoffs as other classes there has to be 32 teams in the class. At most I could see you giving district winners a bye and dropping it to 24 teams in the class - maintaining a five week playoff. The 32nd largest school is Muhlenberg County, and they have 650 less males than St. X. I can't change that fact. If it were 24 teams, then it would be Daviess County, and they have 608 less males than St. X. If it were 16 teams, you have all the logistical problems that I laid out. That gets you to Simon Kenton, and they have 499 less males than St. X. To put that into perspective, there is about the same difference in males between #1 & #16 as there are between #16 and #124. So of course there will be a huge disparity. There is no changing this.

 

So which is it? Keep 32 teams in the top class and accept that some things cannot be changed - that there will be a huge disparity? Or achieve a slightly less sizable disparity (but still HUGE) and throw everything out of whack to boot?

My solution would be to keep it as is, and do the district playoff thingy.

 

Personally, the only problem I truly have is with people who think 4 teams per district is too many simply because of blowouts in week 1. I would side with them if the fact was that was the only round with blowouts, but it's not. Every round has blowouts. That is what I have a problem with. The other thing is more personnel, I like the district playoff thing due to the distance some games are, we drove something over 1500 miles last post season and that didn't make much sense to me when you could make it much more regionized

Keep it as is except take top 2 teams out of district. Have class 1A-6A titles Thanksgiving weekend then the following weekend have DIV I II III championships with 1A vs 2A. 3A vs 4A and 5A vs 6A.

My solution would be to keep it as is, and do the district playoff thingy.

 

Personally, the only problem I truly have is with people who think 4 teams per district is too many simply because of blowouts in week 1. I would side with them if the fact was that was the only round with blowouts, but it's not. Every round has blowouts. That is what I have a problem with. The other thing is more personnel, I like the district playoff thing due to the distance some games are, we drove something over 1500 miles last post season and that didn't make much sense to me when you could make it much more regionized

 

I personally didn't have a huge problem with the intra-district playoff system when they had it, though I will admit that as a Warren Central fan, it does not appeal to me having to play Bowling Green in the second round every single year. At least now it can be delayed a week.

 

I think a great many have the problem with the round 1 blowouts, but what is really an affront to some is the idea of a winless team making the playoffs. Or really that there are so many more teams that are completely in over their head. They don't bring fans to the games, and yes, it costs money. Yes, there are blowouts in other rounds, but the further you go into the playoffs, the less likely that fans will just say "screw it" and not come. But round 1, many do. Even if you remove the travel aspect, you're still taking a bath on the gate oftentimes.

So now that we've finally hashed all that out, to answer the original question posed to me way up the way, I'd revise it to:

 

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: 420-539 (37 teams)

5A: 540-720 (37 teams)

6A: 721+ (32 teams)

 

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

 

1A: 39 teams

2A: 39 teams

3A: 39 teams

4A: 36 teams

5A: 36 teams

6A: 32 teams

Keep it as is except take top 2 teams out of district. Have class 1A-6A titles Thanksgiving weekend then the following weekend have DIV I II III championships with 1A vs 2A. 3A vs 4A and 5A vs 6A.

 

Doesn't work with just taking top 2 teams. Too easy to have ties in districts. Just like last year, Cooper had the best record of all teams in its district with a record of 9-1, the next closest was a record of 8-2 yet Cooper was a 3 seed in the playoffs.

 

Your way would keep the state runner up out of the playoffs completely.

So now that we've finally hashed all that out, to answer the original question posed to me way up the way, I'd revise it to:

 

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: 420-539 (37 teams)

5A: 540-720 (37 teams)

6A: 721+ (32 teams)

 

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

 

1A: 39 teams

2A: 39 teams

3A: 39 teams

4A: 36 teams

5A: 36 teams

6A: 32 teams

 

That's doable as long as district playoffs are reinstated

Doesn't work with just taking top 2 teams. Too easy to have ties in districts. Just like last year, Cooper had the best record of all teams in its district with a record of 9-1, the next closest was a record of 8-2 yet Cooper was a 3 seed in the playoffs.

 

Your way would keep the state runner up out of the playoffs completely.

 

It would work. Every system will leave someone out unless you let all in. If you don't want to come in 3rd in a 3 way tie then don't lose.

There is NO reasonable format that will not work and there is NO format that will not have flaws and please everyone.