Russellville advanced farther in the playoffs the four years they played up in Class 3A and played schools closer to them in their district than they have the three years they have been in Class 1A with three district games 100 + miles away.

I think they should allow teams to play up that want to play up because they've built there programs up to an elite level. People talking about Highlands moving down to 3a would not be good for there program. They shouldn't be penalized with weaker competition should they want to challenge themselves against bigger schools. On the other hand, teams wanting to move up to get away from a certain team or teams shouldn't be allowed to move up. The geographic situation should continue to be allowed.

I really can't see you in favor of this, that would mean there would be some classes that will have even more bad teams make the playoffs, possibly several 0-10 teams make the playoffs and I know how you feel about that already.

 

Kinda look at it this way. For some of the top programs, I'd rather them have the option to move up. So if I'm looking at it from a HHS perspective, I want to see them be more challenged in their route to state. Starting in district play and all the way to the end. If they don't win it, then sobeit. At least they knew they were competing at the highest level they could. I never want to see them lose, but I think there is a sense of accomplishment if you compete at the highest level that your program can sustain, even if you come up short. You look back and say we challenged ourselves every year.

 

As for moving up, if top teams move up, then the standard and records of the teams making the playoffs would actually go up. If you removed HHS and Cov Cath from 4A up here, then Holmes and someone else become the standard and they wouldn't have to play Cov Cath an HHS every year, eliminating two losses. So their record of a good Holmes team goes from 6-4 to 8-2. (just making all that up. But now maybe Harrison Co and Pendelton have two less losses too. That's really a tough district to use as an example because of the difference in level of play from top to bottom, but you get what I'm trying to say. The problem is I don't think many teams are going to move up, you you're right in the fact that another teams would say, take HHS spot and that team would have snuck in on the bottom. But then again, I don't think that would be much more of an issue than it is today because again, I don't see too many teams "volunteering" to move up.

 

Oh, and by the way...if we only took two or three teams to the playoffs, that goes away anyway!

 

I'm all about earning and challenging. I live by the motto of the view is great from the highest mountain.

What teams over the past 5-6 years would have been better served "playing up" ?

 

A few I can think of:

 

Johnson Central (4A)- I think they would have had a 3-4 State Runner-Up's in 5A... including this year

 

Covington Catholic(4A)- Same as Above

 

Beechwood (1A)- Judging by their past games vs. NewCath and NewCath's run in 2A.. would we be discussing a change at the top if Beechwood didnt have the Mayfield obstacle and a couple 2A Trophies?

 

Bell County (3A)- Bell was consistently battling with LexCath and Boyle before moving down...now they can't get past the Regional Round. Would the Bobcats have a couple Semi-Finals in their old District? If they were put in the West like they are in 3A would they have some Runner-Ups?

No matter how many in a class only 4 per district making the playoffs

 

Until enough move up and don't move down to make enough districts. I just cant see how it can happen in 6 classes if everyone who wants to bump up, bumps up and few bump down. Just playing devils advocate, but I can see how it COULD be a mess. When we had 4 classes, outside of only a handful, nobody wanted to bump up...with 6 classes, I could see how a team like Frankfort for example would benefit from bumping up to escape Mayfeild (not that they need to, just popped in my head). Or Caldwell bumping up to 3A because they could have an easier path in 3A? Just saying.

With 6 classes it is nearly impossible to allow teams to move up for a non-geographical reason. It will lead to less than 4 teams in districts and if 4 teams make it from each district that messes up the playoffs. It can also create increased travel.

 

Then also add in the headache of some school playing independent and not in a district and I can see why there would be a ban on moving up.

With 6 classes it is nearly impossible to allow teams to move up for a non-geographical reason. It will lead to less than 4 teams in districts and if 4 teams make it from each district that messes up the playoffs. It can also create increased travel.

 

Then also add in the headache of some school playing independent and not in a district and I can see why there would be a ban on moving up.

 

Tennessee has 8 classes...and you can move up. I haven't noticed those problems here...even when we had a similar playoff system from yours. Very few would choose to move up.

With 6 classes it is nearly impossible to allow teams to move up for a non-geographical reason. It will lead to less than 4 teams in districts and if 4 teams make it from each district that messes up the playoffs. It can also create increased travel.

 

Then also add in the headache of some school playing independent and not in a district and I can see why there would be a ban on moving up.

 

With the current alignment, with basically the same number of teams in each class except 1A and 6A, then the district sizes becomes a concern if you allow movement.

 

I think if they allow any teams to move up, then the same number of teams should move down to even it out. For example, if Russell is 2A by numbers, but they want to play up in 3A, then they would need a current 3A team to agree to move down. Like LN stated before, the smallest 3a team should get that option, and if they decline, then the next smallest, and so forth.

 

Also, that move up should not be allowed if it creates undue travel burden on the other teams affected, for example the new district mates of the team who moves up.

 

All that can be complicated, which makes sense as to why they don't allow anyone to play up currently except in cases of extreme travel hardship. However if they wanted to allow the practice, it wouldn't be impossible to implement.

With the current alignment, with basically the same number of teams in each class except 1A and 6A, then the district sizes becomes a concern if you allow movement.

 

I think if they allow any teams to move up, then the same number of teams should move down to even it out. For example, if Russell is 2A by numbers, but they want to play up in 3A, then they would need a current 3A team to agree to move down. Like LN stated before, the smallest 3a team should get that option, and if they decline, then the next smallest, and so forth.

 

Also, that move up should not be allowed if it creates undue travel burden on the other teams affected, for example the new district mates of the team who moves up.

 

All that can be complicated, which makes sense as to why they don't allow anyone to play up currently except in cases of extreme travel hardship. However if they wanted to allow the practice, it wouldn't be impossible to implement.

Is this not a validation that Kentucky does not have enough teams to support the Six Class System?

 

The system, as is, creates travel burdens, there are districts where teams have to travel a great distance to play district games. Yes, I understand this happened in some areas prior, but it is more wide spread now.

 

Using your example, Russell, if they were left in 2A, where they are by enrollment, all their district games would have been greater then two hours away. Should there ever be a district in the state where a two similar sized schools are greater then two hours away?

 

Should we ever be concerned if one team moves up that it leaves too few teams in a class? Should the number of teams in a class ever be so low that one team leaving leaves a class with playoff alignment problems?

They did but it was soley based on geographic reasons. They're simply weren't teams close enough for them to play in the class they would of had to play in.

 

This is not true. They would have been 4A with CovCath, Highlands and Holmes.

Is this not a validation that Kentucky does not have enough teams to support the Six Class System?

 

The system, as is, creates travel burdens, there are districts where teams have to travel a great distance to play district games. Yes, I understand this happened in some areas prior, but it is more wide spread now.

 

Using your example, Russell, if they were left in 2A, where they are by enrollment, all their district games would have been greater then two hours away. Should there ever be a district in the state where a two similar sized schools are greater then two hours away?

 

Should we ever be concerned if one team moves up that it leaves too few teams in a class? Should the number of teams in a class ever be so low that one team leaving leaves a class with playoff alignment problems?

 

Yes and no. Depends on where you are. Here is what I mean. If you are a metro area, 6 classes is just fine, you travel as far as you choose. If you are rural you travel farther...with that said, when it was 4 classes you had those same issues, maybe not as many, but it was certainly still an issue. That won't change, and with states who have more county schools than townships/cities you will always have that problem. You and I both know why 6 classes came about, it was like magic. Distract the private/public issue with smoke and mirrors!! Publics voted em out, and this was the resolution the KHSAA had to come up with when legislature denied the passed proposal. Just saying.

If you let teams play up, should some teams be able to play down also. Not all big schools are good and could do better in a lower class, for example a bad 6A school may do decent in a 5A class or a bad 3A school playing a 2A sched.

This is not true. They would have been 4A with CovCath, Highlands and Holmes.

Actually I thought they were 5a then but no 5a teams in the area close enough to make it worth while so they played up to 6A

If you let teams play up, should some teams be able to play down also. Not all big schools are good and could do better in a lower class, for example a bad 6A school may do decent in a 5A class or a bad 3A school playing a 2A sched.

 

Not sure the intent of letting teams move around would be to allow them to "do better". It would be for a few teams that would like to challenge themselves more. Not provide them a better chance to win or escape a dominant team in their division.

 

For example, I feel that if HHS were to be moved down to 3A in the next realignment, they would probably not want to do that...and not because of the travel. Could they move down and dominate 3A even more than they could 4A...sure. But what do they really accomplish out of that. I would hope that they would appeal and try to stay up and continue to challenge themsleves. Heck, I'd like to see them move to 5A! I think that would be a perfect spot for them to challenge themselves every year. Some may say, why not 6A. Well you have to remember that HHS has been on a great run, but if you're going to commit to a long-term deal, you have to remember that HHS is not a very big school. As they have many years of great classes come through, they also have has some droughts along the way. And even when they are strong, 5A provides plenty of challenges for them. You can't just look at one spurt and judge a program on a very small portion of their history. Keep in mind, a move to 5A at the next realignment would be a move up in 2 classes for them.

 

I really don't think there would be many wanting to move up. 2-4 at the most. All these other issues would most likely be a non-issue.

Yes and no. Depends on where you are. Here is what I mean. If you are a metro area, 6 classes is just fine, you travel as far as you choose. If you are rural you travel farther...with that said, when it was 4 classes you had those same issues, maybe not as many, but it was certainly still an issue. That won't change, and with states who have more county schools than townships/cities you will always have that problem. You and I both know why 6 classes came about, it was like magic. Distract the private/public issue with smoke and mirrors!! Publics voted em out, and this was the resolution the KHSAA had to come up with when legislature denied the passed proposal. Just saying.

I was thinking just the opposite on the rural versus urban thought. How many 3A schools in NKY? How many are in Louisville? How many are in Lexington? The fact of the matter is, most urban areas are playing in 4 or 5 classes. If not, then why was Highlands and Covington Catholic playing up in the last alignment?

 

How many classes are represented well in Louisville? How many classes are well represented in Lexington?