Ive been reading everyone's comments about expansion, spilts, etc.

 

If there are serious concerns about diluting competition over more classes, we are doing so because of what seems to be basically 3 or 4 schools - is that correct?

 

There doesnt seem to be even close to a perfect answer??

If there were a split how many schools does that seriously remove from competition? I dont favor it but if you believe a change in classes is that momumental, don't you need to look at the alternative as well?

 

Just asking - no need for anyone to get snippy

 

Woody Jr

I agree that 6 classes is better then a private/public split, but I think that doing nothing is the right choice because no matter how you change the system there is always going to be someone saying it is not fair. There is no perfect solution and what we have now is as good as it gets IMO. But just out of curiosity, how many other states have seperate private and public champions and also what is the normal class size for states about the same size as Kentucky?

I think Tennessee does!

I find it interesting that the idea of cutting Kentucky's relatively small number of football-playing schools into even smaller divisions (thereby ending up with two 16 team divisions) is apparently much more palatable than the public/private split idea where there would presumably be the current 4-division structure among the publics and a private division with approximately 16 teams. I mean, who's kidding who? In either case you're going to have a division dominated by X and T (based on enrollment disparities and other advantages stemming from their all-boy status and the ability to readily draw from a large multi-county metropolitan area). If a public/private split occurs, X and T dominate a 16 team division, with the occasional title snatched by Lexington Catholic or possibly Covington Catholic. If a 6 class alignment is developed, X and T dominate, with an occasional Male or possibly Manual winning. Either way, the end result will not be much different.

No, it makes the season too long and we don't want to crowd basketball.

 

There's basketball in KY now?:confused:

I find it interesting that the idea of cutting Kentucky's relatively small number of football-playing schools into even smaller divisions (thereby ending up with two 16 team divisions) is apparently much more palatable than the public/private split idea where there would presumably be the current 4-division structure among the publics and a private division with approximately 16 teams. I mean, who's kidding who? In either case you're going to have a division dominated by X and T (based on enrollment disparities and other advantages stemming from their all-boy status and the ability to readily draw from a large multi-county metropolitan area). If a public/private split occurs, X and T dominate a 16 team division, with the occasional title snatched by Lexington Catholic or possibly Covington Catholic. If a 6 class alignment is developed, X and T dominate, with an occasional Male or possibly Manual winning. Either way, the end result will not be much different.

 

Thats basically what I was asking about. You still have X T dominating their class (which is smaller , hence even LESS likely to avoid them in playoffs).

I'm not for a split, but I dont automatically lean towards carving up our whole system just to keep from losing a few teams from the majority.

 

I understand the #'s issue at the 1A level BUT really, how much bigger is Beechwood(compared to say Paintsville/Pikeville) who plays with the big boys year in and year out? Is it that pertinent an issue that we need a 16 team 1A division? We just lost Harrodsbug and to look at education realistically, more consolidations are just a question of when? - not if IMO.

 

In the superclass, (which seems to make "some" more sense) will the other teams in there be satisfied and more importantly, will this help "their" programs - thats how we should view this I feel. How is a superclass going to make things any different for the teams put in there with them? Isnt it simply a rearranging the deck chairs type stategy?

 

Re; the public/private issue and related factors: I had previously mentioned the idea of a criteria / point system for avoiding a split and possibly using the addition of 1 more class for some flexibility on the top end. If you designate the various factors which are of importance in addressing a level? playing field, such as say; open borders, financial aid, enrollment, all male(etc), # of student/athletes transfering into a school per each grade(9.10.11.12)/per year(s) and any other number of factors chosen by a panel/board/comittee? Then assign a point value to each factor and if a school accumulates a certain point level they would be bumped into a higher classification. Even regular publics would be held accountable by counting students who transfer in to play sports, same sex schools would have the 1.5?? multiplier, and Im sure others could critique this and add more nuanced points than stated here.

[my thoughts on this share an idea with how the NCAA developed a point system on graduation rates - where if you fall below a certain point level you lose scholarships, etc. My idea is simply adding points on a scale]

 

This would eliminate a split based purely on numbers and allow us to factor in everything that people say truely effects competition. Obviously not everyone will agree on all the factors and possible values assigned to them, but then the people making the rules now are not too popular and at least we would be acknowledging the various things that can create imbalances "out in the open" with some semblance of accountability rather than leaving people questioning the what/why/how behind the scenes.

 

No one ever responded to my point last year but I'm hoping some folks can take this and give some good feedback and/or maybe use to create an even better idea.

 

The more I think about a straight numbers splitup of either kind (public/private OR 5/6 classes with just 16 teams in a class) the less I think this is helping at all. So if you move T X up & out, whose to say another teams doesnt just fill the vacumm and dominate the new class just as much as they did? What is the argument going to be? Sheer numbers are not the way to do this IMO. there are too many examples of smaller number schools consistantly being a major power in a class regardless of the hot button issues argued about on BGP, etc. (Beechwood & Highlands just off the top of my head)

 

Thought-fully, or partially anyway;)

 

Woody Jr

Let me say first, I don't want a change of any kind. I've kinda been trying to lay it out for argument sake. But I do think there will be a change, regardless of what I want. So I hope that they go with the super 16 idea, as it will impact the classes the least IMO. Your right, no matter what, your not going to please everyone. I wouldn't even try. I think an upper and lower 16 team class least effects the rest while adressing the issues in both those brackets. I am much more sympathetic to the 4A problem than the 1A one, but I can see both sides. I don't want a split, because it ain't just about T and X who will win anyhere they are placed, it's about CCH, NCC, Holy Cross covington, Holy Cross Louisville, Lex Cath, Bishop Brossart, Fort Campbell and so on.