I think 6 classes is great for football. People can complain about too many teams making the playoffs, or certain teams not fitting their criteria of being good enough for the post season. But I would rather include too many teams with some not being very good, than limiting the teams and having some good teams miss out because they're in a great district.

 

 

As for me, I don't much care for basketball. I've been to the state tournament a few times, and everybody there was just losing their minds. I mean, I guess that's just because Kentucky is a basketball state. Would I be upset if they even did a 2 class system for basketball and had a Sweet 16 two weekends in a row. I might actually watch those games.

But as far as football classes go, I think the KHSSA should really look at reform. I believe the classes should be divided based not on school size, but rather sports participation rate. I know in my area Grant Co. is a 5A school for football and Owen Co. is 2A I believe. Grant Co. and Owen Co. have roughly the same amount of kids playing football, but yet Grant Co is in a district with Cov-Cath, Dixie and Highlands. I'm sure there are issues like this elsewhere in the state too.

 

Count me as NOT a fan of this suggestion. If the school has the numbers to be aligned for A class, but the kids don't come out/participate and they have a lot less kids than most others in A class, then that school/coaches need to figure out what the problem is and find a solution.

 

To add to that, using Grant Co as an example, lets say a young energetic coach comes in one year, connects with the kids and they go from 35 kids on the roster the year before to 78 kids this coaches first year. You would account for that how exactly? And how about bigger schools keeping their rosters down to purposefully play in a smaller classification. Nope, I can see all kinds of potential problems if done by a "participation rate". And maybe those problems could be overcome, but even if so I still wouldn't be a fan of this setup.

The extra games are not bringing in much money. The khsaa does not make anything much unless Trinity and X play in finals.

Its all about the money. The KHSAA will profit between 1.2 to 1.5 million per year off the sweet sixteen. All the other sports combined wont bring in 50K to 100k. (probably lose money). Football is probably the only sport other than girls basketball that adds any money to the khsaa wallet. Still the 6A system for football was actually a compromise concocted by the khsaa after khsaa school membership voted to separate public and private schools. That and the possibility that ST X and Trinity could possibly play each other in certain calendar years (and bring money in to khsaa wallet) are why we have a 6 class system.

 

So, it sounds like politics and money. Sounds pretty much like what everything else in this country is centered around.

 

I guess if you throw out the politics/other things & $$, it might be fair to break them down into 3 groups/classes like track & cross country do - small schools. medium sized & large. Then you could align your districts/regions accordingly. Be required to play everyone in your district (football) & region (other sports) and then let the top teams advance to the playoffs.

The extra games are not bringing in much money. The khsaa does not make anything much unless Trinity and X play in finals.

That is what I assumed. Even then, people over estimate how many people actually show for those teams.

I had a referee tell me that KHSAA says its about "participation" for the 6 classes. I'm with you on the 4 classes, you make an interesting point about a "super class". It is very diluted as its sits right now.

 

He couldn't be more either. Its all about participation so little Johnny can say he played football and made the playoffs. 4 class system, IMO, was much better because there weren't as many "weak" #4 seeds in the playoffs.

Count me as NOT a fan of this suggestion. If the school has the numbers to be aligned for A class, but the kids don't come out/participate and they have a lot less kids than most others in A class, then that school/coaches need to figure out what the problem is and find a solution.

 

To add to that, using Grant Co as an example, lets say a young energetic coach comes in one year, connects with the kids and they go from 35 kids on the roster the year before to 78 kids this coaches first year. You would account for that how exactly? And how about bigger schools keeping their rosters down to purposefully play in a smaller classification. Nope, I can see all kinds of potential problems if done by a "participation rate". And maybe those problems could be overcome, but even if so I still wouldn't be a fan of this setup.

To each his own, but what if the problem is there is simply not enough athletes in a county or a school district? How would a coach fix that problem. Urban Meyer could come to those high schools and couldn't turn it around because none of the kids would even know who he is because football doesn't matter to those who don't play it. I don't believe doing it based on participation rate would have any affect on any of the perennial contenders i.e Highlands. But where it would have an affect would be the big schools like Grant County. Who has almost as many kids in their whole program as Highlands has on their Freshman team. So wouldn't it be the best for a program to play based on their participation rate, so they are playing teams on their own level? Maybe if they play teams on their own level they would have a chance to establish a winning culture and then maybe kids would start to want to play football. Then if more kids play they can move back up a class. I think a change like this would affect only a few schools, but would affect them in a big way. As to your claim about big schools keeping numbers down, I don't know what to say to that honestly. I don't understand what kind of coach would want to cut a bunch of kids just to be able to beat up on smaller teams. I highly doubt there would be an issue with that.

Kentucky and the KHSAA does the tournament system better than everybody else from a fans standpoint. No question about that.

 

As far as talent, in comparison to numbers anyway of football, I'd say it's about even; if not an edge to football.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Kentucky produces the best basketball players, I'm just saying the system in place for high school basketball in this state is what makes it so great.

To each his own, but what if the problem is there is simply not enough athletes in a county or a school district? How would a coach fix that problem.

 

Then I guess that schools lot in life won't include having a good football program. The KHSAA's job/mission is to make the playing ground fair...not make every school even. If they (any school) don't have the talent to compete, then they just don't have it and I guess they can be a lot of others schools homecoming opponent. That may be blunt, but that's how life works sometimes.

Then I guess that schools lot in life won't include having a good football program. The KHSAA's job/mission is to make the playing ground fair...not make every school even. If they (any school) don't have the talent to compete, then they just don't have it and I guess they can be a lot of others schools homecoming opponent. That may be blunt, but that's how life works sometimes.

I don't fault you for feeling that way, but what would it hurt by going to participation rate? It would negatively affect 0 schools, and have the opportunity to uplift a few. What would be the harm?

And to add to that...outside of district games a school can chose to schedule anyone they want. So if Grant Co (or anyone else) has 2A talent/numbers, they can schedule all the 2A schools they want to outside of their 5A district. Or they could go independent and play whoever they wanted. Won't get them into the playoffs but might help them win and build the program.

To me bigger schools have an advantage in football not because they have better athletes, but because they have more depth. Whereas the smaller schools might have players playing both sides of the ball and the big schools can sub players in and out. Thats why I think only football should have classes. In basketball I think depth is less important. Yeah it helps a little to have a better talent pool to choose from, but really its about having 5 guys that are better that are better than your 5 guys. But as far as football classes go, I think the KHSSA should really look at reform. I believe the classes should be divided based not on school size, but rather sports participation rate. I know in my area Grant Co. is a 5A school for football and Owen Co. is 2A I believe. Grant Co. and Owen Co. have roughly the same amount of kids playing football, but yet Grant Co is in a district with Cov

 

if it would go off of roster number teams would be in different classes every year... it would be mayhem. number of boys at the school should be what it is... I still think the 4a system was where it was at.

if it would go off of roster number teams would be in different classes every year... it would be mayhem. number of boys at the school should be what it is... I still think the 4a system was where it was at.

re- evaluate every 4 years or whatever number you want. I think a participation rate system would be easier too with 4 classes because there would be little fluctuation.

I don't fault you for feeling that way, but what would it hurt by going to participation rate? It would negatively affect 0 schools, and have the opportunity to uplift a few. What would be the harm?

 

To me it's not about who it effects or doesn't. There comes a point in time where a line has to be drawn, and if you are on one side of the line that's where you play, if on the other that's where you play. In football, using average number of boys in the high school classes at each respective school for classification purposes does a good enough job. It doesn't need to go any further. You have to think of the intangibles to. Maybe, just maybe the reason some schools who have a lot more kids participating is because a coach and his staff work tirelessly getting kids involved in the program, and work endlessly keeping those kids there once they get in. Maybe other schools don't work at it that hard, and their numbers reflect that. So in essence a "participation" style classification wouldn't pay off near as much for the hard work a coaching staff might have done in that situation.

 

So, lets say a Small 2A public school has a great coaching staff, they work harder than anyone getting kids involved, and they have 75 kids dressing. That throws them up to 6A because they have great "participation". Is it now fair to them that they have to play Scott Co, or Trinity, or Simon Kenton, or McCracken County simply because they have more kids? Now, mind you, since they are a small school even though they have a lot of kids, they don't necessarily have a lot of talent. Where they could compete well in their normal class (2A), they get absolutely murdered in 6A. Is this a good thing?

We can debate the "real" reason but the stated reason centered simply around more teams getting the chance to win titles.