An alternative Class situation

[RowdyRedRam]

Here is how I would like to see the classes set up in Kentucky. Let me warn you that this is a fairly radical idea that I don’t see ever coming to pass, but merely what I would like to see.

 

There will be 4 classes.

 

Champions- Top 32 teams with 4 districts of 8 teams apiece

Top- The next best 64 teams with 8 districts of 8 teams apiece

Middle-The next 64 teams with 8 districts of 8 teams apiece

Build- The remaining teams (currently around 61) with 8 districts of 6 to 8 teams apiece

 

All districts would be set up yearly and purely based on geography.

 

Teams earn the ability to play up or play down a class.

 

The eight teams that make the quarter finals of the tournament will move up to the next class the next season. The eight teams with the worst records will move down a class the next season. Worst records will be determined by a mathematical system that will only include games played against teams in you own district.

 

The first three games of the schedule are open dates where schools can schedule any team they like, with NO impact on their district status. For example these games would be the opportunity to schedule rivalry games that may be obstructed by class changes, or out of state games, or others. You would be allowed to play games against divisional opponents that don’t count as well, that may mean you play a team twice, but that would be the schools choice.

 

In each class team would finish out the remaining 7 games by playing your district opponents. The district games will determine what teams go to the playoffs. The top four teams in each district would advance to the playoffs. In the Champions class there are is one less playoff game due to the reduced number of districts.

 

What I like about this set up is that it provides the most competitive games, the most exciting match ups, a real state champion, as well as rewarding teams improvement. It prevents St X from playing Iroquois or denying Danville and other small schools the ability to show how good they are. It allows developing programs to develop and rebuilding programs to rebuild. The biggest hurdle would be where you initially place the teams, although after about two seasons I feel like most every team will be where they belong.

 

What do you think?

[westsider]

Classes are based on enrollment, not success in a given time period.

[RowdyRedRam]

Classes are based on enrollment, not success in a given time period.

I'm aware of that, however I don't think that is the "best" (notice I'm not using the word fair, because achievng fair is impossible) way of dividing the schools, therefore am providing what I think would be a more interesting and exciting set up for football.

 

Regardless of that, would you find this setup more exciting?

[westsider]

There is this fallacy that some smaller programs (you used Danville as an example) want to "prove" something to the big boys. That's what the regular season is for.

 

All any program wants is a fair chance to compete for a state title against schools of similar size. Any scenario that sets up the possibility of Danville being in the same class as Trinity or St. Xavier isn't a good one.

[RowdyRedRam]

There is this fallacy that some smaller programs (you used Danville as an example) want to "prove" something to the big boys. That's what the regular season is for.

 

All any program wants is a fair chance to compete for a state title against schools of similar size. Any scenario that sets up the possibility of Danville being in the same class as Trinity or St. Xavier isn't a good one.

There is no question in my mind that the team Danville fielded in 2003 would have been a top 10 4A team. Why wouldn't they want to play with thier peers on the field? Is it more exciting to run through inferior competition? Maybe it is a fallacy but I simply can't understand that they wouldn't want to play the best.

[westsider]

There is no question in my mind that the team Danville fielded in 2003 would have been a top 10 4A team.

Maybe, maybe not ... they did lose to Boyle County by three touchdowns and nearly needed divine intervention to get by Holy Cross in the playoffs.

Why wouldn't they want to play with thier peers on the field?

They did ... in Class A.

Is it more exciting to run through inferior competition?

If they're that dominant, something tells me they're not exactly troubled by it.

Maybe it is a fallacy but I simply can't understand that they wouldn't want to play the best.

Danville already plays a top-flight schedule nearly every year ... during the regular season.

[RowdyRedRam]

I can't view thier district competiton as peers when they averaged 56.6 to 6.4 against them. The ONLY thing those teams have in common are student base, which although quantifiable and significant is not proving to provide parity between them.

[westsider]

For one thing, Danville's district is now pretty weak. Nevertheless, why should they be penalized for being so dominant? If the Admirals get bumped up to 2A in the next classification, it won't have such an easy road.

 

Bottom line ... any system that puts them in the same class as 4A-size schools, who have much greater numbers to choose from and usually have enough athletes to two-platoon, is not putting Danville against their "peers."

[TheRebel]

The idea of the class system is to give schools of similar size the chance to compete against one another. To throw Danville in with Trinity and St. X is to punish them for being an extremely talented school for their enrollment.

[RowdyRedRam]

The idea of the class system is to give schools of similar size the chance to compete against one another. To throw Danville in with Trinity and St. X is to punish them for being an extremely talented school for their enrollment.

Break it down to what it truly is about. The class system tries to create parity, however it only uses a single variable to achieve that parity.

 

Now think about what makes a team good. The size of the school IS a factor, but not the only factor. Coaching, football interest, facilities, quality of athletes and many other factors go in to what makes one team good and one team bad.

 

My reason for creating this system is that it is rediculous to try to acheive parity though classes, because parity doesn't nor ever will exist. Forget fair, life ain't fair. So instead of fairness lets look at quality and divide teams up on that basis.

 

We all know that it would be a bigger achievement for Danville to win the Champion Class than St X, no one would argue that. However to call it a punishment to get the oppritunity to "play the best" is completely uncompetitive, and down right sissy I might add.

 

On other side of the token, don't you think the road to the championship becomes more difficult for St X and Trinity if they face the very best teams throughout the playoffs?

 

What is a more difficult playoff route Simon Kenton, Fern Creek, Boone Co, Henry Clay, and St X or Lexington Cath, Highlands, Warren Central, and St X? I think one is significantly easier than the other.

 

Is the system fair? No, and no system will be.

But now ask yourself if it would be more interesting, exciting, fun, and competitive?

[westsider]

However to call it a punishment to get the oppritunity to "play the best" is completely uncompetitive, and down right sissy I might add.

That's easy to say when your school is one of the biggest in the state. Try cutting Manual's enrollment by two-thirds, then take on Trinity and St. Xavier ... that's what you would ask Danville to do by competing in the same class as those two.

 

Walk in those shoes for a year or two, and somehow I wouldn't think you would consider it "sissy" to ask for some relief ...

[RowdyRedRam]

That's easy to say when your school is one of the biggest in the state. Try cutting Manual's enrollment by two-thirds, then take on Trinity and St. Xavier ... that's what you would ask Danville to do by competing in the same class as those two.

 

Walk in those shoes for a year or two, and somehow I wouldn't think you would consider it "sissy" to ask for some relief ...

When I last played against St X I was one of only 4 seniors who played, so we weren't exactly loaded with depth, and lost by a field goal. I only say that to describe that I know what it is like to be undermanned.

But to go along with that, what if you did cut Manual's enrollement 2/3 and all the football players were still at the school. Would the fact that Manual now had 500 kids mean anything to the quality of football? No, it wouldn't. Numbers are only one of many variables that effect how good a team is. When Danville is far superior to thier current district foes in coaching, facilities, tradition, and talent, how does the single similarity in numbers justify them being in the same class?

In another post people are going around in circles trying to make the numbers more fair, when that could only be fair if every team in every class had the exact same number of students. That can't happen and if numbers are the issue how does having two or three more students justify a going to a higher class?

 

Also remember that in the system, Danville only has to compete against St X and Trinity if they achieve that level. And if they achieve that level of quality, what would be the point of them playing with lesser competition? If they couldn't compete in the Champions class then they would go down a class after a year. So in no way are they being punished.

 

I seriously doubt that if I went into the lockerroom of any Class A champion and told them that they had a shot at the 4A champion that the players would turn it down.

[westsider]

When I last played against St X I was one of only 4 seniors who played, so we weren't exactly loaded with depth, and lost by a field goal. I only say that to describe that I know what it is like to be undermanned.

If Manual had just four seniors, there was a problem ...

But to go along with that, what if you did cut Manual's enrollement 2/3 and all the football players were still at the school. Would the fact that Manual now had 500 kids mean anything to the quality of football?

Well, of course, any big school could stay competitive if they could pick and choose which students to keep and which ones to jettison ... what the heck does that prove?

When Danville is far superior to thier current district foes in coaching, facilities, tradition, and talent, how does the single similarity in numbers justify them being in the same class?

Because they're drawing from roughly the same size of student population as their competition ... why penalize Danville for building a tradition of success?

I seriously doubt that if I went into the lockerroom of any Class A champion and told them that they had a shot at the 4A champion that the players would turn it down.

Tell them they have to beat the 4A to get the state championship trophy ... and prepare to get an earful.

 

Cut the rhetoric and be realistic.

[OldRaider22]

Here is how I would like to see the classes set up in Kentucky. Let me warn you that this is a fairly radical idea that I don’t see ever coming to pass, but merely what I would like to see.

 

There will be 4 classes.

 

Champions- Top 32 teams with 4 districts of 8 teams apiece

Top- The next best 64 teams with 8 districts of 8 teams apiece

Middle-The next 64 teams with 8 districts of 8 teams apiece

Build- The remaining teams (currently around 61) with 8 districts of 6 to 8 teams apiece

 

All districts would be set up yearly and purely based on geography.

 

Teams earn the ability to play up or play down a class.

 

The eight teams that make the quarter finals of the tournament will move up to the next class the next season. The eight teams with the worst records will move down a class the next season. Worst records will be determined by a mathematical system that will only include games played against teams in you own district.

 

The first three games of the schedule are open dates where schools can schedule any team they like, with NO impact on their district status. For example these games would be the opportunity to schedule rivalry games that may be obstructed by class changes, or out of state games, or others. You would be allowed to play games against divisional opponents that don’t count as well, that may mean you play a team twice, but that would be the schools choice.

 

In each class team would finish out the remaining 7 games by playing your district opponents. The district games will determine what teams go to the playoffs. The top four teams in each district would advance to the playoffs. In the Champions class there are is one less playoff game due to the reduced number of districts.

 

What I like about this set up is that it provides the most competitive games, the most exciting match ups, a real state champion, as well as rewarding teams improvement. It prevents St X from playing Iroquois or denying Danville and other small schools the ability to show how good they are. It allows developing programs to develop and rebuilding programs to rebuild. The biggest hurdle would be where you initially place the teams, although after about two seasons I feel like most every team will be where they belong.

 

What do you think?

Sounds like an interesting idea, but it does seem to have one fallacy in its design. In H.S. football, talent comes and goes through graduation. So a team that had a fantastic year, and subsequently graduated the majority of that fantastic team, would be placed in a higher class? Simply doesn't make sense. Danville is a fantastic program, for their size, but they would hardly be able to compete at the 4A level on a consistent basis....as mentioned before by westsider. So, supposing that they do have a great team that manages to make a run up and through the 3A playoffs. Then those players graduate, and you tell the kids they have to move up? And another, darker aspect to this formula. Not that ANYONE would do this, but since its win or get fired for a coach in this day and age, suppose a coach has a talented class coming up through a feeder system. Maybe he plays the younger guys a little more, gets dropped down a few classes in the process, and because of all the experience these kids have had playing, they go on to win one of the smaller championships. Honestly, in my opinion this has all become just too much big business. Maybe one day it will go back to being about kids having fun, and less about winning, and win at all costs. But I doubt it.

[RowdyRedRam]

Well, of course, any big school could stay competitive if they could pick and choose which students to keep and which ones to jettison ... what the heck does that prove?

It proves that the talent on the field is more important then the population it was picked from, and that population base doesn't create parity.

 

I'm still disturbed by the notion that playing up is a punishment. The trophy they play for today proves they are the best among the 50 so odd smallest schools, in the other system they can prove where they stand among all the schools, and prove that they are better than 200 schools many of whom have more advantages. The trophy is just a peice of hardware that represents the accomplishment, if they accomplish more but receive less does that mean their season was less successful? I don't look at it that way.