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?

Like I said to each his own. Neither way is perfect, but I just feel participation rate for classes would be more effective.

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

 

Which takes us back to the original question/comment - why is football different than the rest of the sports for the KHSAA?

Which takes us back to the original question/comment - why is football different than the rest of the sports for the KHSAA?

 

Because if it were one class then a 6A team or Highlands or maybe a Bowling Green or Boyle Co would win every year. When it was 4 classes the same 3 or 4 teams were playing in the Finals year after year in each class. So if you go to 6 classes at least a couple of other teams would be playing in the Finals or at least advancing deeper in the playoffs.

 

And you may ask well do other sports have the same problem of the same 3 or 4 teams winning every year? That would be a "Yes" in some sports like Volleyball but coaches, fans, admins, parents, etc. do not raise a big enough stink to get it changed.

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-Cath, Dixie and Highlands. I'm sure there are issues like this elsewhere in the state too.

 

I don't disagree, but then what about soccer. A lot more kids on the field and a lot of running. Would it be an advantage for soccer? Or even baseball/softball. You play 9, but it'd be great to have a lot more pitchers and ouch runners than the other team. Depth helps in all sports. I agree that Bball is the one that takes the least depth. If you can find 7-8 really good players, you can win a state. But a lot of the other sports will give you advantages with depth as well. I'm not saying I'm agreeing one way or the other. Just saying that going from football to basketball if two different extremes when you're talking about depth needed.

Based on participation would be the biggest mess in history. Makes no sense. Coaches would cut "dead weight" to lower their numbers to play smaller teams with a group of studs. A team could have 100 kids one year after winning a state championship and 75 the next year after all the jersey grabbers figure out how hard it actually is. I also do not feel depth is the biggest factor in how successful teams are. Doesn't hurt, but is not the biggest factor by far.

I don't disagree, but then what about soccer. A lot more kids on the field and a lot of running. Would it be an advantage for soccer? Or even baseball/softball. You play 9, but it'd be great to have a lot more pitchers and ouch runners than the other team. Depth helps in all sports. I agree that Bball is the one that takes the least depth. If you can find 7-8 really good players, you can win a state. But a lot of the other sports will give you advantages with depth as well. I'm not saying I'm agreeing one way or the other. Just saying that going from football to basketball if two different extremes when you're talking about depth needed.

I'm not doubting that other sports besides football need depth. Excuse me if I'm wrong because I'm not super familiar with the rules of soccer at the High School level, but in the pros once you come out, you cannot come back in once you are taken out so a coach will leave their best players in for more of the time unlike football where you can sub play by play. But with baseball, I don't think depth matters as much as you would think it does. You have to fill the 8 positions besides pitcher and barring injury, those 8 can play every out of every game the whole season. Then if you have 1 dominant pitcher, you can win state in Kentucky. I know Simon Kenton isn't the best example because they are a big school, but they went all the way to the state finals 2 years ago basically riding the back of 1 pitcher.

Based on participation would be the biggest mess in history. Makes no sense. Coaches would cut "dead weight" to lower their numbers to play smaller teams with a group of studs. A team could have 100 kids one year after winning a state championship and 75 the next year after all the jersey grabbers figure out how hard it actually is. I also do not feel depth is the biggest factor in how successful teams are. Doesn't hurt, but is not the biggest factor by far.

 

 

Again, I asked this earlier, why would a coach willingly cut players just to go play lesser competition. That doesn't sound logical to me. That to me is like a varsity team basketball team getting their confidence built up by scrimmaging the JV team in practice. If coaches are truly willing to do that, then yes I agree participation rate would not be the best determinant for classes, but I just find it hard to believe someone could justify that to themselves.

Again, I asked this earlier, why would a coach willingly cut players just to go play lesser competition. That doesn't sound logical to me. That to me is like a varsity team basketball team getting their confidence built up by scrimmaging the JV team in practice. If coaches are truly willing to do that, then yes I agree participation rate would not be the best determinant for classes, but I just find it hard to believe someone could justify that to themselves.

 

If I was the HC at a place like Trinity, I'd take my starters and a handful of key backups, compete in 1A, and never lose. The whole idea of "lesser competition" only matters if you're going to eventually face some really good teams. If everyone in your class is average, and you're filled with superstars, a challenge means nothing.

 

Your assumptions are based on your own, personal honor code of having all the kids who want to play, and still maintaining some sort of balance because clearly no coach would try to job the system.

 

Basing it on population is the only way to have any sort of balance. Because everybody is working with the same general numbers. Sometimes you have a good year or two, sometimes you have a bad 20 years. Every coach in high school, head or assistant, knows this is the life of every public school. Areas hit by an economic downturn or something can expect to see a drop in numbers and a drop in quality. Ask Fort. Campbell about changing situations in a school district.

Which takes us back to the original question/comment - why is football different than the rest of the sports for the KHSAA?

 

In my opinion (whatever that is worth), it's because of the popularity of football combined with how programs are more important than individual players.

 

In basketball having five very talented players can win you state or at least take you deep into the playoffs. In football, the team numbers are just so much bigger that five very talented players can't win games by themselves. You need dedicated, somewhat talented kids in the other slots.

 

Soccer and baseball don't need as many players as football but they are subject to the team size effect also. However, neither of those sports get the same amount of attention as football. Everyone wants to having a winning football team, and there is more pressure on the administration to produce results.

 

That pressure combined with the numbers requirement created the higher number of classes.

 

Personally, I'd like to see a compromise between the old and new systems and try a 5 class scheme.

I went to school in Pendleton Co, a basketball school.... I lived in Grant county for a while, another basketball school...As far as football goes, there is no football tradition in these school systems.....You can't regulate tradition. Success feeds success....JMO

to your point about rules... high school soccer is just like football, players can be sub in play by play ... Baseball ... yes the 8 fielders will play every game and almost every inning in a season but to say 1 pitcher is going to win you a state title is crazy... once the post season starts games are played on back to back day usually or every other day... 1 pitcher can NOT pitch on back to back days as there are limits in place for that... per KHSAA

B) Pitching Limitations

1) For purposes of this rule, delivery of a minimum of one (1) pitch

constitutes having pitched in one inning.

2) A pitcher may pitch in a maximum of nine (9) innings in one

(1) day, but not more than fi fteen (15) innings in any seven (7)

day period.

3) If a pitcher pitches in three (3) innings to fi ve (5) innings, in

one (1) day, that pitcher shall have one (1) calendar day of

rest beginning with the day following the fi rst day a pitch is

thrown.

4) If a pitcher pitches in six (6) innings, that pitcher shall have two

(2) calendar days of rest beginning with the day following the

fi rst day a pitch is thrown.

5) If a pitcher pitches in seven (7) or more innings in one day, that

pitcher shall have three (3) calendar days of rest beginning with

the day following the fi rst day a pitch is thrown.

6) This limitation affects regular season and postseason play

 

So yes Baseball depth of pitching does come into play and alot of smaller schools may have that 1 stud pitcher but it drops off pretty quickly after that... i would be fine with 2 or 3 classes for baseball

to your point about rules... high school soccer is just like football, players can be sub in play by play ... Baseball ... yes the 8 fielders will play every game and almost every inning in a season but to say 1 pitcher is going to win you a state title is crazy... once the post season starts games are played on back to back day usually or every other day... 1 pitcher can NOT pitch on back to back days as there are limits in place for that... per KHSAA

B) Pitching Limitations

1) For purposes of this rule, delivery of a minimum of one (1) pitch

constitutes having pitched in one inning.

2) A pitcher may pitch in a maximum of nine (9) innings in one

(1) day, but not more than fi fteen (15) innings in any seven (7)

day period.

3) If a pitcher pitches in three (3) innings to fi ve (5) innings, in

one (1) day, that pitcher shall have one (1) calendar day of

rest beginning with the day following the fi rst day a pitch is

thrown.

4) If a pitcher pitches in six (6) innings, that pitcher shall have two

(2) calendar days of rest beginning with the day following the

fi rst day a pitch is thrown.

5) If a pitcher pitches in seven (7) or more innings in one day, that

pitcher shall have three (3) calendar days of rest beginning with

the day following the fi rst day a pitch is thrown.

6) This limitation affects regular season and postseason play

 

So yes Baseball depth of pitching does come into play and alot of smaller schools may have that 1 stud pitcher but it drops off pretty quickly after that... i would be fine with 2 or 3 classes for baseball

 

Not to mention available pinch hitters and defensive subs when needed. Sounds stretched, but when a team has the ability to pull kids off their bench for offensive or defensive substitutions in key situations or make pitching changes late in the game in with kids that would be starting for half the other teams in state, that's a clear advantage.