I believe Danville played ST. X in 1988 and lost by1 point.

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?

I think think you bring up the best arguement against it and I agree that schools have runs of good classes from time to time. However from my experiance you will rarely see a school make the jump from 2-8 to 15-0 due to a strong class. I think 90% of strong classes have a 2 year run.

 

Lets say a school had a outstanding set of athletes that won a championship and then all graduated the following year. Odds are they won't be very successful in either class so what is the difference in losing in one class compared to losing in the other class. And if they are completely unsuccessful in the higher class they will move down the following year. However on the otherside if they are building thier program it is a great stepping stone.

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.

That talent on the field still comes from within the halls of the school, and it's ridiculously unfair to ask Danville, or any other school of similar size, to compete for a football state title with the biggest schools in the state.

 

Who said there is parity? There is never true parity. What matters is fairness, and a class system based on enrollment is by far the fairest way to divide the teams. That is why every state does it that way.

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.

If Danville wants to prove where they stand among the state's elite, they will play people like Boyle County, Highlands and others ... wait, they already do, during the regular season.

 

Mayfield plays Hopkinsville, Paducah Tilghman and various out-of-state powers over the years. Beechwood plays Covington Catholic. The teams that want to "prove where they stand among all the schools" already do so.

I think think you bring up the best arguement against it and I agree that schools have runs of good classes from time to time. However from my experiance you will rarely see a school make the jump from 2-8 to 15-0 due to a strong class. I think 90% of strong classes have a 2 year run.

 

Lets say a school had a outstanding set of athletes that won a championship and then all graduated the following year. Odds are they won't be very successful in either class so what is the difference in losing in one class compared to losing in the other class. And if they are completely unsuccessful in the higher class they will move down the following year. However on the otherside if they are building thier program it is a great stepping stone.

I agree with your point about most strong classes having a 2 year run. And that makes my point for me really. Supposing a team, I'll just throw out Dixie Heights, has a strong class coming up through their system. They make a nice run in the playoffs their junior year, winning a few games before bowing out. Poised and ready to go for a strong senior campaign, they are bumped up a class? Doesn't make sense. Not that they wouldn't be competitive, but it doesn't seem like all that great a reward for making a solid run in the playoffs the previous year. And I guess that is my point in all this, that it isn't necessarily about seeing who is the "best" team. It's about the kids, giving them a goal to work towards, and rewarding them for their accomplishment. While getting your head stomped in for a year by schools twice your size might seem like a reward to you, I doubt many children would see it that way. I agree with westsider, if you want to gauge yourself against a quality opponent, do it with your open dates for scheduling. That way, you can at least set up when you will play tough opponents to correspond to when you might have a strong class of juniors or seniors coming up.

 

And one more thing, population base does create parity, if everyone has the same rules. Now, if some schools are playing "talent on the field" from Indiana, and out of the county, well obviously the results might be a little skewed. Its simple math, the laws of probability suggest that the bigger population you have to draw from, the greater your odds of finding 22 good football players. Now, that doesn't mean that there can't be short run deviations from the overall odds, but in the long run, it all evens out. Notice that most state championships, especially those in the higher classes, have been won by schools from densely populated areas. There can be no equitable solution to this problem until the rules that each school plays by are addressed. Define boundaries for ALL schools (and no all of Louisville can't be your boundary :lol: ) then we'll see some real parity. Another pertinent suggestion might be to set minimums and maximums for enrollment for participation in interscholastic sports.

I think scheduling would be difficult in this system. Having different teams in your district every year may cause traveling problems. How do you decide who is the home team in every game? This type of moving up and down in class is practiced by club sports leagues. ie; soccer and softball. These are teams that usually have the same personel season to season, so it makes sense move them according to record. I don't think this is a good idea for high school teams where your team changes year-year.